(V): I'm assuming you mean it is immoral for big businesses to take advantage of legal deductions, or other legal means by which someone may pay less or even nothing in taxes... okay, you didn't say legal deductions, but that is what some people today are calling loopholes. They are not the same things.

I think we both know that when you say the word "immoral", it's the same as acknowledging the 'legality' of legitimate deductions. Legal deductions are... (drum roll please)... tum ta da da tum ta daaa... LEGAL, and are purposefully placed in tax codes to be used... legally. As in, not against the law. Was Starbucks breaking any of your tax laws? I don't think so, which is why I believe you are saying taking advantage of your tax code is 'immoral'... because you can't say it's 'illegal'.

I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite.

Anyway. loopholes are unintended "holes" found in the language of tax laws that allow some folks to be able to avoid paying taxes on money intended to be taxed. That's the difference. If you are calling legal deductions or any other legal means a company uses to avoid paying taxes "loopholes", then you are clearly mistaken. By the way, if you are so indignant over big business avoiding taxation, maybe you should think about boycotting Google. Are you aware of how much money they are currently sheltering in offshore island accounts? I could tell you, but why not do a google search and see for yourself?

... or maybe try using some other search engine, just to be sure you are able find that information.

*<(:op

Iamon lyme: irrelevant.

"I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite."

Assumption.. like most of your post.

Most people expect some form of tax avoidance, as long as firms don't get too greedy.

You do agree greed is wrong?

HSBC has confirmed it is to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case.

A US Senate investigation said the UK-based bank had been a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations". Money laundering is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime so that the money cannot be linked to the wrongdoing. HSBC admitted having poor money laundering controls and apologised.

"We accept responsibility for our past mistakes," said HSBC group chief executive Stuart Gulliver in a statement. "We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again." The bank said it had spent $290m on improving its systems to prevent money laundering and clawed back some bonuses paid to senior executives in the past.

It also said it expected to reach an agreement with the UK's Financial Services Authority shortly. Last month it announced it had set aside $1.5bn to cover the costs of any settlement or fines.

The news followed the announcement of a similar but much smaller settlement with UK-based Standard Chartered bank, which will pay $300m in fines for violating US sanctions.

(V): "You do agree greed is wrong?"

Yes, I agree greed is wrong, but I'm probably saying it's wrong for a different reason than you are. The reason I think greed is wrong is because in the long run it ends up losing what it hopes to gain, plus some.

Last year your country passed what has been described as a "millionaires tax". It's essentially the same kind of tax that Obama is pushing for in my country. But in only one year your new tax has backfired, and now your government will be taking in less money from your millionaire class than it did a year ago. On top of that there will be less money invested in your economy and fewer jobs will be created... whenever the wealthy are actively ingaged in business the result is always new jobs and more people who will be paying taxes.

Governmental greed has resulted in taking in less of a percentage from millionaires than they were getting a year ago. Greed hasn't gotten your governement more in revenue, it has created an environment where it will be getting less than it did before raising taxes on your wealthiest citizens.

Draconian measures can only work if you go all the way with it... make it illegal for millionaires and billionaires to retire or move away. Under the threat of fines and imprisonment your government should make it illegal for your millionaires to do anything differently. Hold a gun to the head of the goose that lays your golden eggs, that's what any despot who has absolute power would do. Half way measures simply do not work, and I gaurentee those millionaires won't cough up the extra dough if you don't make them do it by force and by threats.

Governmental greed (along with an amazingly stupid short sightedness) has caused your millionaire class to go from 16,000 millionaires down to 6 thousand in only one year. I'm talking about millionaires who have either left your country or have retired, and you can't tax someone who either no longer lives there or who is no longer generating new (taxable) income. The same thing happened in France (70% tax rate on millionaires) and many of their millionaires moved to a neighboring country... I learned this morning that many of them have taken up residence only 800 yards from the French border. That is truly hilarious... they wanted to move away, but not too far away. They still like France, and want to be near to it, but not actually be beholden to it in any significant way. It's like they are saying 'I love you my darling, but don't get too close'... LOL

The number of millionaires in Asia has overtaken North America for the first time in a sign of wealth shifting across the globe due to the economic downturn, according to a new report.

In the Asia-Pacific region there are now 3.37 million men and women with more than $1m (£635,000) in the bank, compared with 3.35 million in North America, Capgemini and RBC Wealth Management's latest world wealth report revealed.

But the overall level of wealth in North America is still the highest in the world, with its millionaires, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, controlling $11.4tn, while Asian businessmen control $10.7tn – although wealth levels declined twice as fast in North America as in Asia in 2011.

Millionaires in the US, Japan and Germany still make up more than half the world's richest, but total world wealth levels fell for the first time since the worst of the economic downturn in 2008.

In the UK, which has the fifth highest number of millionaires, membership of the elite club dropped 2.9% from 454,300 to 441,300, while both Germany and France saw increases.

The world's wealthiest have $42tn at their disposal, down 1.7% on 2010, with all regions seeing a fall, except the oil-rich Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/19/world-wealth-report-asia-america-millionaires

Britain's millionaires' row has nearly halved in size due to the slump in property and share prices.

The number of millionaires in the UK has fallen from 489,000 at the peak of the economic boom in 2007 to 242,000, reducing the elite club to 2003 levels. Soaring property prices stoked a boom in the British rich list but the collapse in the housing market has suddenly reduced the net worth of thousands of former property millionaires.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) said a very large number of people had entered the lower echelons of the rich list due to the runaway property market and had dropped straight out again once prices faltered, falling 17.7% in the last year.

"Having just crept over the threshold, most of these people have crept back under it again - many, perhaps, without ever knowing that they had become millionaires for a temporary period," said Douglas McWilliams, the chief executive of CEBR.

Owners of buoyant share portfolios have also seen their asset base deteriorate, with a 70% drop in City bonuses also playing a part in the decline.

The CEBR has scrapped its forecast that the UK would have 760,000 people whose wealth runs into seven figures by 2010. With property prices on the retreat, the CEBR admitted the figure would now be far lower. However, McWilliams said the number of millionaires should rise from 2011 onwards once property prices stage a recovery. "With property prices near to bottoming out, we would expect the number of millionaires to start to rise again in 2011," he said.

Those with robust enough fortunes to remain in the millionaires' club have seen their wealth decline by about a quarter.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/27/uk-millionaires-number-falls

Oh... I get it... someone used the Daily Mail as a source of reliable information.

Baaaaddd idea.

Especially if you don't read the story properly

(V): your numbers seem a bit varied for both posts on millionaires.
1- In the UK, which has the fifth highest number of millionaires, membership of the elite club dropped 2.9% from 454,300 to 441,300,

2-The number of millionaires in the UK has fallen from 489,000 at the peak of the economic boom in 2007 to 242,000, reducing the elite club to 2003 levels.


I'd say 200,000 millionaire spread there.

Bwild: yes..... it's because of dates the articles were written. One is written in June 2012, the other in May 2009.

The clue is in the dates man!!

Timeline...

2003 -- 242,000
2007 -- 489,000 ((economic boom peak))
2009 -- 242,000 ((slump in property and share prices))
2010 -- 454,000
2011 -- 431,000 ((Global slump of 1.7%))

So our slump in millionaires was 1.2% higher than the Global average.
Asia has overtaken the USA in biggest number of millionaires.
Total world wealth levels have fallen for the first time since the big fall in 2008.
If property prices rise in the UK, the millionaires club will increase.

(V): theres no real dates there...you might have mentioned it.

Bwild: lol I'll aim to be less of a head screwer next time

(V): I think you may be taking the term "millionaires tax" a bit too literally. I seriously doubt the figures you are showing represent only the millionaires who generate enough income to be affected by the tax.

I suspect anyone could be included in those stats by simply being worth one million dollars, if they were to sell off all of their land and equipment and anything else they own... so technically speaking, those stats could include farmers who earn less in yearly income than an accountant earning, say, a paltry 200,000 a year.

I was not talking about everyone and anyone who might be worth one million dollars... I was obviously talking about those who generate income high enough to be affected by the so called "millionaires tax"... obviously I was wrong about that being obvious.

I'm also not talking about the fabulously wealthy who are simply living on their wealth and are not actively ingaged in business(s) that generate enough (yearly) income to be affected by the new tax. That too I thought was obvious, but once again you have proven me wrong.

So anyway, congratulations on once again proving me wrong through the inimitable power of narrow minded nick pickery.

Iamon lyme: Awwwww I thought I'd return the favour. ... All things being equal.

... again, the figures are ... taken out of context. I've tried to give you the opportunity to recheck your stated figures and the validity of such......

But no.... you have to believe your "power of narrow minded nick pickery."

READ>>>>>>>

"A gaping hole in this argument is that by the HMRC’s own admission, a great deal of this drop was accounted for by (the non-PAYE paying) super-rich bringing forward their income (‘forestalling’) and declaring it in 2009/2010 tax year instead, ahead of the pre-announced 50p tax rise. The key point is, by its nature forestalling can only happen once – those who did so could not have kept doing it in the years after; they would have had to have paid up. The 2010/2011 yield was thus artificially deflated; totally anomalous, and unreliable as a baseline. There may have been other more permanent forms of evasion in the mix, but the only way of knowing this – and the true effectiveness of the 50p tax – for sure would have been to wait for 2011/2012 returns. Which is presumably by Osborne avoided doing just that (given there was good evidence it raised a significant sum of money).

And so to last week’s numbers. They too take 2010 figures, on the number of people declaring an income above £ 1 million, compare it to 2009 and note a drop – leaving the Telegraph and Mail to argue without evidence that they have all moved abroad. But just as with the tax yield, these figures are highly distorted and unreliable, given we know many top rate payers moved their income for 2010 forward to 2009 (this is especially likely to be the case with millionaires, as few would be on PAYE)."

Live by the Daily Mail.. DiE by the Daily Mail.

I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?

(V): I'll make this simple. When I talk about a "millionaires tax" I'm referring to your top earners ... ((( EARNERS )))

The key word here is 'earners'.

Not havers or holders... ' earners '

Not all of your top money owners are top money earners. Money you own that has already been taxed is not again taxed year after year... unless you've put it all into real estate, then you do need to pay a regular property tax for as long as you own your home(s) or other properties.


But just for the fun of it, imagine you had 8 million dollars just sitting in the bank year after year, and it's earning you a secure 2% interest which you've decided is enough for you to live on. I don't know about you, but I would be VERY happy with that kind of arraignement. Anyway, technically speaking you COULD be called a millionaire, and thus be included in that 200,000 to 400,000 list of millionaires living in the UK. However, you would NOT fall into the same catagory and listed as someone earning 2 or 3 million dollars or more per year. It's those EARNED dollars (for each year) that would be subject to taxation, and NOT the 8 million dollar (dollars, pounds, whatever) nest egg sitting securely in your bank... only the interest on that 8 million would be subject to taxation. Assuming of course you've already payed taxes on a larger sum of money, thus leaving you with 8 million for you to set down into a bank and never spend.

It's only a 'what if' scenario (darn it!) but you could call me a millonaire if I had 8 mil sitting in the bank year after year... even so, I could not afford to live the sterotypical life of a one or two percenter "millionaire" without eventually depleting most or all of that money.

(V): "I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?"

No, but I could agree that some people that other people have characterized as being lunitics might have forgotten to take their medication(s) or non-traditional medicinal herbs. Or maybe an acupunture needle was accidentally pushed all the way in? Who knows?

By the way... seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?

Iamon lyme: So in other words.. taxable income.

I covered that in my last post to you.

I know the difference having worked in several accounting posts, studied economics at school, business studies.

"No, but I could agree that...."

The Daily Mail is unreliable..

"seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?"

Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy.

(V): "Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy."

Oh good grief, it was a trick question. "How many people can you find on a list of 6,000 people?"


As far as the numbers go, between France and the UK, I might have goofed and transposed what I read about France with what I was reading about the UK. It happens... I'm gettin' old and somewhat confused, but not so confused that anyone can convince me passing tax laws that work as disincentives won't cause migrations from one country (or state) to another.

Without even looking I can guess that Europe has similar migration patterns as in the US, with businesses moving their headquarters from one state to another. If a business has no economic reason to move they won't do it. It costs big bucks to do that, so it would take a significant disincentive for causing any big (or even medium size) company to pull up roots and settle in somewhere else.

It's been happening in California, and it's happening here in Oregon. Companys that started here and have been here for many years either went out of business or relocated to other (work friendly) states.

A few years ago a couple of tax measures were passed locally, on top of an already untenable tax burdon, and word on the street here was those two relatively small tax measures would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. Almost immediately after those measures had passed commerce departments in other states began calling and courting some of those businesses. Apparently they knew something our mayor and other city officials didn't know or understand (not to mention the general population, because they voted those messures in). So after the dust starts to settle and businesses started moving out of state, or simply giving up and closing their doors, the mayor called a special meeting of business leaders and asked them what the city of Portland could do to help them... ???

He thought they were bluffing when those same business leaders had told him (before the vote) that they could not stay in business if hit with extra taxes. Apparently they weren't bluffing... they were telling him the way it is.

I am literally mystified by this... why can't politicians get this one simple idea into their heads... the money they want for themselves will not be there if the economy is tied up in needless regulations and bled by too big a tax burdon.

Iamon lyme: It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area.

"and bled by too big a tax burden."

Profits seem ok for many big companies... 'bled' is an exaggeration.

"needless regulations"

What regulations would you call needless? An example.

(V): "It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area."


Are suggesting local tax payers end up covering most or all of the cost of a business moving into their area? That does seem to be what you are suggesting. If an area can benefit from a business relocating to their area, then they might be offered incentives to do so. But when you say "often the case", are you expecting me to interpreted that as meaning "most of the time" or "always"?

I'm sure you can come up with examples of local governing bodies providing tailored made perks and special tax incentives, but that is to be expected. What I said was businesses were being "courted"... not offered a completely free ride with all expenses paid.

No one when courting a business will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts... the fact is they don't need to pay for anything. Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations. And come on, seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?


There are rules that cannot be ignored because they are a part of state or federal law, but everyone knows local governments can pass measures and enact rules that only affect their area. In the case of the area I live in, it has been the extra rules regulations fees and taxes that have been driving businesses away... but the lions share of what businesses are required to do and pay for are completely unnecessary, and only exist to keep money coming into (local) governement coffers, and to insure people can continue to be employed in their government (tax funded) jobs.

It's necessary for local governments to have that ability, to enact rules and charge fees if needed, because the US is not a one size fits all economy. But surprise surprise, even a small local governing entity can become greedy, and always looking for new ways to bring in more money to spend... whether it's needed or not. So anyway, yeah... you are correct, greed does a play a big part in all of this. If you are hungry and can't wait for the goose to lay a golden egg, then cook the goose and eat it... and then you can wait until tomorrow to worry over where your next meal will come from.

Iamon lyme: yes, they are..

"will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts..."

Not all, but enough to make it a point.

"Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations."

It's usually a mix. It's those on the low end who usually suffer as a result. Eg Texas has cut it's education budget.

"seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?"

No I don't. it's a relative term. I accept the need for regulation when it has been proven by cases of businesses cutting corners that are for the most part common sense.

eg ... a 454g pack of sugar must contain at least 454g, maintain good kitchen hygiene.

I try to avoid calling anyone ignorant, and for good reason. It's because whenever I see that word tossed out it's usually done by people who don't know what they are talking about. So even if I know for a fact I'm not being a hypocrite, I usually try to avoid looking like one. But in some cases I believe the moniker fits, and might explain why anyone would try experimenting with socialism.

There are people who do not know and are unable to guess what the result can be, because they lack knowledge and/or experience. That fits the definition of ignorance, but it's only one explanation for the appeal of socialism and probably the not the main one. The main reason I believe socialism is still a popular idea is our old friend 'greed'. Greed is nastly little critter that ends up biting itself on it's own ass when no else is around, so it's not just a question of morality for the sake of morality... it's an immoral attitude because frankly it just doesn't work out in the long run. It looks appealing, and it appeals to our sense of greed, but beyond that it's useless.

Another possibility is if people are aware of the consequences and still want to give it a go, then they are clearly expecting a different result. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result... like me posting this message, but expecting to see a different kind of response...
*sigh*

And yet another branding of socialism as has been passed on thanks to the cold war. It seems the type of socialism that is practised that is called a commune is forgotten.

Repeating... repeating.. repeating.

Swiss banking giant UBS has agreed to pay $1.5bn (£940m) to US, UK and Swiss regulators for attempting to manipulate the Libor inter-bank lending rate.

It becomes the second major bank to be fined over Libor after Barclays was ordered to pay $450m to UK and US authorities in the summer.

Regulators worldwide are investigating a number of banks for rigging Libor.

Libor tracks the average rate at which the major international banks based in London lend money to each other.

The bank also admitted to manipulating Euribor and Tibor - the equivalent interest rates set by lenders in the eurozone and in Tokyo.

UBS said it had agreed to pay fines to regulators in three different countries:

$1.2bn (£740m) in combined fines to the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
£160m to the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA)
59m Swiss francs (£40m) to the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority

.... where we didn't have to regulate them.

... Well, the world didn't end. Another 'hope and joy' that the world will end and a selected few will survive has yet again proven false.

... Someone will no doubt try again and predict an '''end date''', that some being or beings intends to kill almost all of us.

But that then begs the question.... These people must hate life, yet God said it was good! Sometimes it seems some people can't see the wood because of the trees.

Merry Christmas All.

(V): Oh it ended alright, you're just dreaming

The Col: ... what again!!

I wondered why I found a gold nugget the size and shape of Mr Blobby this morning. It just was soooo strange. lol

(V): Mr Blobby sounds like Darth Vader
politically speaking of course

The Col: Mr Blobby could be said to have a very destructive persona. He would be very bad as any kind of minister.

At least the police wouldn't be able to put words in his mouth as they've been caught doing recently.... It's hard when all he says is "blobby", they won't be able to lie and invent evidence that he's called them "plebs".

I don't those caught in the act recently will be on Santa's list next year!!

The Col: Mr Blobby could be said to have a very destructive persona. He would be very bad as any kind of minister.

At least the police wouldn't be able to put words in his mouth as they've been caught doing recently.... It's hard when all he says is "blobby", they won't be able to lie and invent evidence that he's called them "plebs".

I don't those caught in the act recently will be on Santa's list next year!!

Sorry... posted twice somehow.

A Common Law Christmas to all and a Happy New Year.

May no harm, fraud or loss come to you now or in the New Year.

Everything else ... in the UK anyway, is by consent ie, by contract. Legal... but not law. And that to the legal entity that is your birth certificate, copyrighted by the crown yet not to be used for identification.

Which leads to .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiAZGlImMs


"I am not a number, I am a Free man."

RIP Patrick Mcgoohan

Tea Party logic...

"we won't vote for any tax rises on 2-3% of the population"

"but if you don't vote for them, everyone gets hit by a tax rise on everyone, our economy could collapse, the stock markets are going to lose confidence."

"We don't care, we won't vote for any tax rises".

(V): I hope the people who should, continue to stand their ground. I doubt they will though. I hope they don't allow themselves to be held hostage and give in. They were NOT voted in there to give in.

Giving this government more money is like giving a drug addict more drugs. They will just spend EVEN MORE. Nothing has proven that to be different, EVER. and then require even more tax increases.

Even the tax increases this incompetent president wants, would run the government for less than 2 weeks. The TRUE answers are reducing spending by huge amounts. It's the only logical answer

rod03801: You've not got the point that if they don't work out a compromise that tax rises and spending cuts will happen that could push the USA back into recession.

You don't understand the difference between a controlled change that won't hurt the majority of Americans and also effect global markets, and an uncontrolled change that will! The whole idea it seems was to cut spending and to have a small increase in taxes that will only affect the top 2-3% of earners.

Are YOU WILLING to pay the extra tax that will come if no deal can be reached? An extra $2,000 - $3,500 per year.. you are happy to pay that?

Such incompetence even is recognised by retiring Republicans....."send a message worldwide that we don't have the capacity to work across political aisles on critical issues"....

If no compromise is reached, it just shows your whole political system is just one big joke. It would be an absolute laughable matter, is were not for the harm that Joe Public will suffer because of some pouting republican members tied to the Tea Party.. and paid by the party's masters to be complete idiots.

(V): It's a fundamental difference. I repeat, these "pouting republican members" were VOTED in with the expectation that they would do this. If mine gives in, she won't be getting my vote next time.

This "controlled change" as you call it, WILL not DO ANY good. There has to be a SEVERE cut in the way our government keeps growing.

I don't expect you to agree. It's not unusual.

rod03801: They were voted in to mess your country up. Well, in that case they are doing a fine job. Is your government really growing.. or the costs the likes of DoD got out of control.

...How long is it going to be until the cost of the bogus war in Iraq gonna be paid off?

I don't expect you to like this... that ain't unusual either. But it is a fact.

(V): I completely disagree. Thankfully you don't have a vote here.

rod03801: Oh, please... everyone who is anyone (or anyone who is everyone) knows that government is not affected or ruled by the same economic principles the rest of us have to deal with. Governement is a magical entity that can spend more than it takes in because, uh, because they are the ones in charge... yeah, that's why. And it's only by sucking up to the ones in charge that any of us can hope for change in our fortunes... like the alternative energy companies, who knew their government funded ventures would eventually fold before too long. Why else would some of them receive parts for manufacture that would go directly into the dumpsters? Did they expect the random forces of magical evolution could take parts intended for human assembly and they would self assemble (by themselves) in those dumpters? And on top of that it should be noted... Uh oh, wait a sec... I'm starting to sound like a conservative again. No wonder I could never make it as a liberal, because as V has already noted (if he can remember back that far) I tend to think too much. Too much thinking leads to too many thoughts, and too many thoughts lead to too many other thoughts... and so on and so forth. After a while too many thoughts can crowd out memories of wild college parties and... Actually, I'd rather forget about all that.


Anywho, never expect a liberal to explain how deficit spending (or anything for that matter) is able to work. You'll almost always get an explanation that has nothing to do with it. For instance, paying off a war or two is a ridiculous argument, because those wars didn't put us into hock for the extra trillions of dollars we will soon be accountable for... since when has any war the US has fought cost more than the currently upcoming taxation that will be levied to pay for excessive spending on non essentials? And they are able to do this (as if by magic) by simply redefining what the word "essential" means.


I haven't spouted off for a few weeks, so I wanted to do something to help usher in the new year. heh heh heh heh heh heh...

By the way, if the world can end just because a Mayan 'calander' reaches the end of its cycle (the end of a very long cycle), then why doesn't the world come to an end every year when our calanders run out?

(V): They don't want taxes raised on anyone. And taxing the wealthiest only runs the government for 8 days. Better to cut spending.

Taxes will go up this year for everyone anyway. The Republicans are sissies. Watch them give on the debt ceiling too. I'm gonna be a libertarian.

This is more a philosophical question but I'm interested in the responses.

Does man have free will or do you believe it's an illusion. Expand on your answer if you want. ;)

rod03801: Nope I have a vote here. Where spending cuts and some tax rises have reduced the UK's deficit. Shameful to you maybe.. but it is working.

Artful Dodger: Or do both. Shame the USA does not have a universal VAT system. Then, non essentials such as a $200,000 car can have a little extra added on that.

Things like food get no VAT added... just luxury items that no-one has to buy unless they want to.

Artful Dodger: A case of I think therefore I am, or I am therefore I think.

Yes man has freewill, just... it's not many a person that can free themselves to exercise such. Many people are taught they do not.

Certain religious groups, governments, the press, the police and political parties all rely on illusions of no free will to intimidate. Yet here... the common law revolution is teaching people they have more free will than they have been taught we do.

"The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,[1] which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[2] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050."

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money."


"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion.

Over a 50-year period, that comes to $80 billion annually.

"“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan.

Those costs include interest payments on the billions borrowed to fund the war; the cost of maintaining military bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain to defend Iraq or reoccupy the country if the Baghdad government unravels; and the expense of using private security contractors to protect U.S. property in the country and to train Iraqi forces.

Caring for veterans, more than 2 million of them, could alone reach $1 trillion, according to Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in Congressional testimony in July.Although that only represents about 1% of nation’s gross domestic product, it’s more than half of the national budget deficit. It’s also roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency combined each year.

Artful Dodger: "Does man have free will or do you believe it's an illusion."


Wow, I didn't realise how loaded that question could be until you framed it in that way.

I think there could be more than one answer, depending on how broadly you want to define what "free will" means.

Here's one way to look at it... If you wanted to divide the entire universe into only two parts, things that have free will and things that don't, I think an obvious division would be living things vs inanimate matter. Inanimate matter cannot make free will choices, it can only act on and react to its environment in accordance with the physical laws of nature. On the other hand living things can act in ways inanimate matter cannot. For example, a salmon can defy a law of nature when it swims upstream to spawn. No piece of inanimate matter which is able to be pushed by a stream (like a small piece of wood) will naturally move in the opposite direction the water is flowing. So, you COULD say that some internal purpose of the salmon is exercising free will by the act of opposing a natural flow of nature. By this (admittedly broad) definition you could say that all living things are able to exercise free will (to varying degrees) and inanimate matter is not. Men are living things, and so therefore men are able to exercise free will.

Then there's free will as pertaining to beliefs, such as what we choose to believe about the nature of reality, and how much of that is based on personal desire as opposed to natural evidence. Whether consciously or not I think we choose what that ratio will be... it's a free will choice whether we are aware of it or not.

Whenever people talk about free will, the idea of predestination usually shows up in contrast to it. I don't believe there is any real conflict between free will and predestination... predestination is pretty much a given when talking about inanimate matter, but not so obviously a given when talking about living things. But that's only because living things exponentially ramp up the complexity of physical objects... it's one thing to have a pile of tinker toys strewn about on the floor, but quite another to have them assembled into machines with co-dependant and interdependant functioning parts and that are able to achieve a self directed purpose.

Iamon lyme: interesting. I wonder what the atheists think of this question? Theists would probably answer in the affirmative but not all atheists would. Hmmmmm

(V): to what extent do we have free will and in what cases do we not ( if any)?

Artful Dodger: I'm reading The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. It's one of the best sources I've seen for a scientific, philosophical and mathematical approach to questions I personally find interesting. I don't think it gets into free will, but I haven't gotten to the part about consciousness yet... I just looked, it's the second to the last chapter.

The book is not about theism. Theism isn't automatically rejected or ruled out, but I doubt there is anything in there about free will. It's technical enough to be interesting but not so technical to be mind numbingly boring or hard to understand. Anyway, reading this book has me all primed and ready to think about questions like free will... how's that for a happy coincidence?

You're right, the question of free will is probably taken more seriously by thiests than by atheists. A purely materalistic approach to the mind is that it is nothing more than an advanced thinking machine, and so the concept of a "mind" would be an illusion. And if the conscious mind is only an illusion, then any thoughts about free will would also necessarily be an illusion. However, the people who say this are the same people who think you can get something from nothing, or that time is only an illusion. I read an article in Scientific American a few years ago that said time was an illusion. I have no idea what that meant, and after reading it I still didn't know what it meant. Just because time is an abstract (is not a physical thing) it doesn't mean that time does not exist... I'm not even sure if that was supposed to be the point of the article.


I'm trying to quit smoking, so if I seem unusually gabby that's why... and sitting here typing away makes me want to have a cigarette. I type because I want to smoke, and I want to smoke because I type...
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH crap, I'll roll one anyway, just in case I can't hold out... any... longer...