Comment · Tue, July 24, 2012
Super rich hiding up to $32 trillion offshore, which amounts to roughly the US and Japanese GDP combined. Up to $280bn is lost in tax revenues. Some of the world's biggest banks are involved: HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America, UBS, Credit Suisse
What they were answering
[deleted] · 1 points
They have an obligation to us to use our money properly.
Only insofar as you're in investor. As a customer, they wouldn't have obligations toward you at all, because you could simply choose another product to buy.
But whether you're an investor or customer, the "switching to another product" or "investing your money elsewhere" would amount to finding another country to live in.
I just refuse to invest more than I am legally required to until I agree with what my money is spent on.
Well that's convenient, given that you'll always be able to come up with some complaint.
You said, "when everyone is trying to avoid contributing, then we all end up with less." Meaning, if we contributed more, we would end up with more.
Be honest: You can see the logical problem with you you just said. If not, just think about that for a second.
Uhhm, that would be illegal. If he is collecting disability on something that he does not have, then he is breaking the law. If he does in fact have that disability, is that not what the program is for?
I'm positing that there's either some loophole that makes his actions legal, or at least that it's impossible to enforce the intent of the law. Your question, "is that not what the program is for?" implies that the intention of the law matters, and not simply technical compliance.
Businesses are not getting payments from the government f…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb
But whether you're an investor or customer, the "switching to another product" or "investing your money elsewhere" would amount to finding another country to live in.
Investor and customer really don't work for this analogy, since the investment and participation are compulsory. I do not have a choice but to participate, so I do so within the law. I just minimize the monetary investment on things that I do not agree with, while staying legal. I happily pay property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes because that money goes into specific pools in my state for various programs I support. I minimize the federal tax I owe because I do not agree with the spending, and there is no transparency or accountability for it. If that is immoral to you, I am sorry. It fits perfectly within my morality given the current situation. Moving to another country is not just choosing another supplier of a good. It is completely uprooting your life, and leaving your family behind. That is not an alternative.
Your question, "is that not what the program is for?" implies that the intention of the law matters, and not simply technical compliance.
Intention always matters. That's why when the US government borrows money from the Social Security fund to pay for something else, I get angry. That is not what that was intended for. Most of our spending is not what it was intended for. So where does the line get drawn?
Even if we were to agree that taxes should be lowered from their current rate, there would still be moral (as well as legal) obligations to pay our taxes until the tax code were changed.
And I am paying them within the law. I guess I am just not paying them within your opinion of morality. I just want to have my money spent efficiently on programs that I can agree with or compromise on. That does not mean I always get my way. That means that I can reasonably agree to the spending, and that it's not being used for other things not agreed upon. Until then, I will pay the least amount I can within the law.
Be honest: You can see the logical problem with you you just said. If not, just think about that for a second.
I've thought about it, and no, I do not see what you are referring to. I see the extra money as being wasted. You see the extra as amounting to more for society. I see wars, bailouts for banks, wasted government programs, and fraud.