Stock Market Crash

[SARGE]

Even though I became the brunt of jokes from family and co-workers, over a year ago I pulled my 401k out of the stock market and stuck it in bonds, sensing the current state of affairs. I had a return of 12% while everyone else lost their arses. I just won't gamble anymore with my future retirement; 5-12 % is better than a minus 40%. Yahoo goes from a value of 150 billion to what I hear is 7 billion. Bad times a brewing. My company gives me stock options on 150 shares. I don't want 'em.

[Kubie]

My 401k took a hit today. Gonna ride it out. I see things getting better in the not too distant future.
Carl

[Byte 2.0]

The Stock Markets are in Sad shape. Wish I wasn't in them at all now. I guess my money is tried up for the next 20 years.

I know one guy that brought into one stock, now it would cost him more to sell it, then it is worth.

[bob]

/-Quote-////I had a return of 12% ////

12% on bonds?

Not bad. Milkin would be proud.

[SARGE]

Bob, that was the report my company sent me. I admit I did a double-take myself. Company has 6 directions to invest your contributions and offers a 1, 5, and 10 year history of how each perform. Naturally bonds run low, barely keeping up with inflation. 12% is what they reported for 2000, so THEY can answer for it. My own $ seem to be accurate as theirs.

There are bonds, then there are BONDS. Milken got caught :D

[LawyerRon]

Hey Sarge,
Don't rub it in.

[bob]

Yes. The scam is that you must invest in risk. My 401 offers bonds and the money invested over 10 years beat all but the income fund.

Follow the money. Who won. It was not the day traders.
Not the 401K people. The funds were raped.
Hot topic...Best at forumclick - missed you SARGE

[mairving]

I look at all this and wonder about the effect of gas/energy prices on our economy. When gas is cheap, we are rolling. When it is expensive, things slow down. They are already talking about the change in disposable income for people on the west coast because of energy prices. Mine was about $150 less last month because of my futility bill.

It is now a good time to buy stock though. Bargains galore await.

[SARGE]

There is some comfort in buying while low if company has a history of good $. Lucent, on the surface, should be a steal right now, but... Too many newbies throwing money in market and getting the jitters, making it rough for us all.

[Xayd]

Agreed Sarge, there are companies in this mess that should be around forever, like Sun, Lucent, Cisco, etc. I'd consider these a steal myself, and seeing as everything's on a downward turn, it'd be a great time to buy in.

But on the crashes, it was bound to happen. Most of these dot coms had no chance of ever turning a profit. Hell, I work for one that has been surviving on loans and stock sales for 10 years. Did they think they could borrow their way into prosperity?

The thing that got me was NetZero sponsoring the NBA playoffs last year. You don't become a major sponsor of the championship of the second biggest sporting event in the world by giving stuff away for free. It's up there with a local YMCA sponsoring the Super Bowl instead of a little league team. That and Napster's website listing job openings that sport six and seven figure salaries for vice presidents of business development and vice presidents of operations. Hell, that's like a Warez site hiring executives, where's the beef?

Xayd

[Statica]

One man's crash is another's boom!

My trading account has seen a flurry of activity over the past week or so. Its basically going to be a "V" or a "W" economic trend, and I know a lot of ppl have lost a lot of dough but I find it a very good sign. Overinflated and unrealistic prices of a lot of firms will finally get grounded in reality. Again investor confidence doesnt seem to have been shattered, there is just a lot of caution, which is always a good sign!

[troysvihl]

good job sarge. smart move. i did the pretty much the same thing.

frankly, i'm happy to see some rationality come back to the market to end all this talk of a "new economy." economic rules don't change. (plus it's fun to see day traders finally realize that what they have been doing is just blindly getting lucky.) Many people have forgotten the rule that if something is easy to do, you probably can't make much money from it.

there is acctually a whole school of investment theory on doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing. when you start to hear people saying how great things are, and this is the "new economy" and this is how things are going to be from now one, that's the time to dump the stocks. Duriong a downturn, when you hear people saying that we should just get used to this slower growth, b/c that's how things are going to be from now on, then that's the time to buy.

anyway, that's pretty much the jist of it, and some people swear by it. however, YMMV.



It reminds me of a story (probably an urban myth) about a wife of a stock broker that heard about the crash of 1929, and she figured they were now poor. She dissmissed all the servants that day, and started getting ready to move out of their highly leveraged house. Well, when the husband got home that night he asked her what she was doing, and she told him she was preparing for the worst. She asked, "when do we have to move out?" He replied, "Never. I made more money today than the rest of my life combined." It seemed that during the previous week, he felt that people were to optomistic. Not only had he liquidated his holdings, but he acctually sold tons of stock short.

[SARGE]

Heard some stats tonight. In 1973 10 percent of Americans were in the market; today it's 50 percent, due I'm sure to the 401k's. Also, I figure since the market became so accessible and popular, more folks wanted in on the action, not expecting the current conditions. Heck, you can invest online now, the instant gratification thingy. Now the downturn has brought disappointment and some panic among the newbies. Outside the 401k, I'd take $5000 and invest in 3 biggies who will be around when the dust settles. I need to check the figures, but I believe Lucent was at $70 and now $17. They aren't headed for extinction so a big chunk would go there. The other 2 I'm thinking about...

[kraken]

Sarge

Your comment on Lucent hit the mark, it would be worth gambling a little on them as they have the best internal 56K modem chipset on the market (6% CPU overhead on a pentium 225 MMX (overclocked)). While the world is going ADSL there is a lot of room in the 56K market. PCs for Kids uses the netcomm (lucent chipset) modem exclusively for its systems (pentium 90 16MB RAM). I have connected tonight at 52000 Kbps and last night it was 53333Kbps using a lucent chipset internal moden (netcomm). The installation is a breeze and of the 401K it would be worth investing 30K in lucent (my opinion). Lucent has a solid product IMHO.

I have no idea what the 401K's are but I take it to be thousands(people with).

Seen the Aussie dollar lately (groan) bloody Howard.


[Edited by kraken on 03-15-2001 at 09:21 AM]

[SARGE]

401k is a tax deferred retirement plan offered by employers. Say you save $200 a month, deducted from paycheck. This is deducted from earnings before income tax on that paycheck. In my case, the employer also contributes 80% of whatever I put in. I can designate my portion to go into several types of investments, from bonds, guaranteed interest, global equities, diversified portfolios, company stock, or divide it up into all. The company's contribution goes strictly into their stock.

On Lucent:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010314/2542.html

[Kubie]

Kraken, to follow up on Sarge's post, you can't touch the money until you are 59 1/2 or you pay steep penalties. The idea is to help you build a retirement fund. When you do withdraw the money, taxes are charged at your income level at retirement. So you should pay less taxes because retirement income is normally less then your working years. It really is a very good way to stack up money for the later years. The 401k I have now from a former employer matched my contribution dollar for dollar and was fully vested every 30 days. Needless to say, I put every dollar allowed into the fund. It sure is gonna pay off in 29 more months. :D
Carl

[kraken]

Sarge

Same crap as our superannuation.

It seemed reasonable that 401K meant 400,000+ deniros.
Pension plans are ruled by those who earn big fees. It also saves the gov't billions. I hope your decendants have it as well??

[troysvihl]

sarge, next time you liquidate your investments, make a quick trip to the carribean and put your money in a bank down there. then purchase your next round of investments through that account. you'll be able to avoid any short or long term capital gains tax. and that will bumb up your real investment earnings to levels you didn't think possible.

[SARGE]

gracias

[bob]

Don't expect Bush to pardon you if you get caught. ;)

[troysvihl]

the odds of getting caught cheating on taxes are pretty small nowdays. I read the stats a few weaks ago, and audits are down something like 95% and seizers are down over 99.9%, etc.

Although I will qualify that suggestion: Make sure you choose a bank that has been around a long time. (at least 50 years in the Carribean or at least 80 years in Switzerland) If you try to look up banks on the net, they will almost always claim to not offer their services to Americans. It's a different story when you are at their branch in their respective countries. They have to print that in order to comply with US banking laws, which dissalow advertising by any banks that are not part of the FDIC program. (Don't use any bank that doesn't make this claim, b/c they probably aren't legit. Also, don't deposit with any banks that don't want to deal with you face-to-face. Just look for all the common sense stuff that should makes you warry.)

There are several Carribean nations that will grant you citizenship in their country if you deposit a certain amount. (I've heard Belize will do it if you deposit 50k) They will allow you to choose a new name. That way any records mailed to you will not be a traceable.

It's amazing how fast your money will grow when you don't have to pay the 28% long term capital gains tax. (not to mention state income taxes) Not paying 28% is the equivalent of an extra 28% return on investment.

[Edited by troysvihl on 03-22-2001 at 02:59 AM]

[SARGE]

Think of how much one could stash away for the coming revolution.

[troysvihl]

viva la revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[troysvihl]

hey sarge (and anyone else that may be interested), I'm heading to the Bahamas in a couple of weeks. I intend to scope out some banks to determine what kind of money stashing opertunities are available down there. If you're interested, I could post my findings for you when I get back. Just let me know if you (or anyone else) are interested.

[bob]

I am very interested. After the fees you will find a that you must make between 6 and 7 figures per year to get an advantage.

[troysvihl]

do you know that for sure bob or are you just guessing? eitehr way, i'll find out what I can and tell you about it.

[bob]

I know nothing for sure. Most of us that make money do not pay capital gains. We just add it to our total income. I am willing to learn how to keep my money. Hope you can find a way to succeed.

[troysvihl]

>>Most of us that make money do not pay capital gains<<

If you own stocks for longer than a year, you'll pay capital gains. If you own them for less than a year, the gain is ordinary income and is taxed at your normal rate. (which is usually much higher than capital gains.

[bob]

I entered a stock profit in Turbo Tax for 100,000 and 1,000 for owning it less than 1 year and longer. The taxes were higher if I owned it less than 1 year. Could it be that the capital gains are due if owned less than 1 year?

[troysvihl]

No they shouldn't be due for a holding less than a year. Capital gains are applied on two differnt levels, long-term and short-term. If you hold a capital asset longer than one year, any gain will be taxed at the long-term capital tax rate, which I believe is currently 28%. If held less than a year, gain is taxed as short-term gain which winds up being taxed as ordinary income. So if you happen to fall into a tax bracket lower than 28%, you will pay less tax on the gain from the sale of that asset.

(Well whadyaknow, those tax law classes acctually are useful for something besides saving me from spending $40 on H&R Block)

[kraken]

There is always a way to rip off the system.

Just make it work for you.

[troysvihl]

>>There is always a way to rip off the system.<<

keeping a thief from stealing your money isn't "ripping off" the system.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by troysvihl
sarge, next time you liquidate your investments, make a quick trip to the carribean and put your money in a bank down there. then purchase your next round of investments through that account. you'll be able to avoid any short or long term capital gains tax. and that will bumb up your real investment earnings to levels you didn't think possible.

nice idea in theory but the risk is not worth the potential gain...as a US citizen, you are required to advise US Treasury of dollar amounts entering or leaving the country in excess of $10000. That includes: cash, wire transfers, or any negotiable insturments. If you are caught not doing that you risk complete forfiture of those funds, or a long protacted legal battle that very well may cost you more money than you make.

[troysvihl]

mbossman2 - yeah, each person has to decide how much risk they are willing to put up with. But an extra 28% return on my investments would be well worth the risk to me. 28% ON TOP OF a decent return is worth the risk of getting caught to me. especially since the chances of getting caught are extremely small.

[Edited by troysvihl on 04-03-2001 at 09:29 PM]

[troysvihl]

Well, I'm back from the Bahamas and I've checked out the investment situation down there. They have all the same investment opportunities down there, from various mutual funds, index funds, stocks, bonds, etc. The fees are all comparable to those charged in the US and all but three banks that I went to assure me they will not comply with any foreign court subpoenas. Several of the investment brokers have told me the only way US citizens get caught for tax fraud is they stupidly keep all their off-shore records with the rest of their financial papers, so the IRS gets a hold of them when they conduct a search and seizure. So all you have to do is remember to keep those papers in places where the IRS will never find them, and cover your tracks in other ways, like not leaving phone records or making a dozen trips to the Bahamas every year, and you can effectively eliminate your investment tax burden.

[SARGE]

Hmmm, I do have a vacation next week. Weather should be nice this time of year.

[troysvihl]

I'm definitely doing it. I have about $130k of student loans that I'm going to pay off first, but after that, I'm going to be making a lot of vacations in the Bahamas and the Carribean.


Look for banks that have been there for a while (>30 years) and won't comply with US subpoenas.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by troysvihl
>>There is always a way to rip off the system.<<

keeping a thief from stealing your money isn't "ripping off" the system.

Ah, but if you refuse to pay money in, how can you even claim to be entitled to any of the benefits?

* You mention student loans -- for a public college perhaps? Tax dollars at work, or you'd haev paid three times as much.

* Those tax dollars pay the police who keep you safe.

* This country allows you more rights than perhaps any other country out there, and our taxes are low compared to many of the others.

Bottom line -- taxes are our duty to the rest of society. People like you mean people like me pay more to compensate for your not putting in your share. In any event, whatever excuses you can make, you are profiting at the direct expense of the rest of the american public. You are leeching off of the system by reaping the benefits of the government, and refusing to do your part to pay in.

If you dislike the system, you're always free to move to another country.

[troysvihl]

>>Ah, but if you refuse to pay money in, how can you even claim to be entitled to any of the benefits?<<

I'll still be paying about 60% of my income in income taxes. I think that's more than enough to pay for all the "benefits." I'm not the "leach" in this system. Taking a person's money against their will is theft, and I don't remember ever being asked.

I can't stop the theft completely, b/c I'll have a normal paycheck from an employer. There's no way for me to hide that. (If there was, I would) So, I'm simply minimizing the amount of theft by eliminating investment income tax.



>>Bottom line -- taxes are our duty to the rest of society.<<

Bull****. Society doesn't collect taxes. The government does. Society is not government.



>>If you dislike the system, you're always free to move to another country.<<

Why should I have to move simply b/c I am trying to avoid having my labor stolen?

[Paul Victorey]

Government is a PART of society. All societies govern themselves, formally or informally. You can;t have one without the other.

And you still reap the benefits of government, and if you DO pay 60% I'd love to figure out how you managed to pay that much in.

They aren't stealing your money. The laws are quite clear, and you are informed that for the privelages of being a citizen, you must pay your fair amount. Those are the rules, like them or hate them, but they're the rules anyway. Simply because you don't WANT to do something doesn't exempt you from having to do it.

Hell, I don't like paying taxes, but I will never cheat the government or anyone else, on a sheer matter of the fact that I have principles, and I refuse to violate them.

Yes, I pay a lot of money to the government, but they also do a lot for me. Their police make most areas of this country quite safe. I have the right to elect my own officials, and have the rights to speak my own mind, believe my own religion, pursue my own career. My life is worth more to me than the money.

So, I pay my money in because:

a) By not moving elsewhere, I choose to live here. As I choose to live here, I must accept BOTH the good and bad consequences. Being a citizen gives you BOTH rights AND responsibilities. Taking the rights as granted and then trying to shirk some share of the responsibilities cheats me and every other taxpayer.

b) I get a lot of real benefit for my money. I can walk the streets without fear of being killed.

c) I refuse to be dishonest or cheat. Integrity means something to me.

d) This country means something to me. It's not just where I keep all my stuff, it's MY country, and I will do my duties, by voting, by paying taxes, by serving on a jury if I am called to. Even if I end up being the last person alive to think this country MEANS something, I'll believe it to the end.

e) Refusing to do my duty because I don't want to is a selfish, spoiled, and immature way of thinking. I do my best not to be selfish, spoiled, or immature, so when I find myself faced with a duty I don't like, I do it.

Surely I can't be the ONLY person to think this way? Am I the last honest person? Am I the last person to believe that there's something good and right and true about our country? Am I the last person who accepts both rights and duties of citizenship??

By remaining a citizen, you OWE the government payment for the services they provide. In the same way that walking out on a restaurant bill, or short changing them, is stealing because you take their service and refuse to pay, such is cheating on your taxes.

However you rationalize things, you're still stealing. It's illegal and immoral, and no amount of making excuses, shifting the blame, or rationalizing alters that fact.

[Edited by Paul Victorey on 04-18-2001 at 01:19 AM]

[Xayd]

Well, all I'll say on this subject is I won't judge people either way.

1) Tax evasion is "technically illegal by generally accepted modern law" (how's that Ron ;)?), but the income tax in itself I see as unconstitutional because it gives the feds power to demand access to private documents. There is such a thing as privacy, or was at one time at least.

2) I respect the janitor that cleans the building I work in, and talk to him daily. I respect the guys who pick up my trash, they work hard and don't make nearly enough money for what they do. With that said, I have <B><I>ZERO</B></I> respect for any person in a position of lower management or above at the US Internal Revenue Service. Does that make me judgmental and hateful? Maybe, but that's the way it's gonna be.

Picture this scenario...

My father has for the last 35 years been in the business of leasing commercial real estate. He buys land and builds buildings, which are rented to store chains for grocery stores and malls and the like. When you figure in interest deductions, depreciation, and business expenses he never owes federal income taxes, no matter how much he makes in cash. As long as interest payments on real estate are a deduction and depreciation is calculated on commercial buildings, he's in the clear tax wise.

Despite those rules, he gets audited and in some instances accused outright of tax fraud about every six years. The IRS doesn't care that he owes no tax, or that he can prove all of his deducations and what not, they only know that someone didn't pay and that makes them a target. Every time they knock on his door it's 30,000 to 50,000 dollars in fees to Attorneys and Accountants to fight with the IRS, and you hope they don't seize your accounts and ruin your business out of spite while they're in the process of trying to screw you over. They don't want you to play by the rules, they don't want you to "comply" with their procedures, they want you to pay, whether you owe or not.

The only way to avoid all of this is to get rid of your credit cards, stop renewing your driver's license, keep accounts in your wife's name, have a long paper trail to make your businesses tough to trace, etc. Is all of this shady and in many cases technically illegal? You bet it is. But guess what, you'd do it too if every six years you got a knock on your door that cost you fifty grand, despite the fact that you owe nothing by law.

If my brother and I had the approximately 70,000 dollars that was wasted in Dad's last two bouts with the IRS, we both would have had college educations and new vehicles paid for, for instance. But, since good ole Uncle Sam likes to steal from his constituents, we both have oil-burners and student loan debt. God bless the land of the free, huh?

Now, I'm sure there are some of you who will jump up to say "hey, he should have been paying all this time like the rest of us, serves him right!". Well, he's never drawn any sort of federal assistance money, and the only public property he makes use of are waterways and roads (he's a boat lover ;)), and those are paid for with gas taxes and boat/vehicle taxes. He'll never get social security because he doesn't pay into it and won't retire at 65. Yes, that's also illegal but why is it that we should pay into a retirement system that we'll get zero return from?

In my personal opinion, if you think tax "fairness" should be judged on how much everyone pays, you should be hit over the skull with a history book. We fought England for less than people tolerate today, yet the people of this country have put the IRS in place of King George.

So, my point in this rant is that if you figure it up a person who works for a company as a salaried employee in the US pays around 50-60 percent of his or her income away in taxes (local, state, and federal) each year. If you want to reduce that by hiding something from the IRS, go for it. If you lose the game don't cry on anyone's shoulder, but legal argument aside you have a moral right to do so in my book.

A thief with a pencil must be different than a thief with a gun to some people I suppose...

Xayd

[troysvihl]

>>Government is a PART of society. All societies govern themselves, formally or informally. You can;t have one without the other.<<


No, government is not part of society. It is a seperate entity entirely. And yes, societies do govern themselves informally. And I believe that you can have one without the other.


>>And you still reap the benefits of government, and if you DO pay 60% I'd love to figure out how you managed to pay that much in.<<

trust me, i will



>>They aren't stealing your money.<<

Of course they're stealing it. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it non-theft. It's against my will, and I have little or no say in it. If I refuse, I go to jail. The difference between that and having a gun put to my head by a thug is trivial.




>>Hell, I don't like paying taxes, but I will never cheat the government or anyone else, on a sheer matter of the fact that I have principles, and I refuse to violate them.<<

Don't assume that I don't have principles. I don't steal from people that don't steal from me. If I'm in a store, and I'm undercharged (happens quite frequently to me for some reason), I routinely correct the mistake.




>>Yes, I pay a lot of money to the government, but they also do a lot for me. Their police make most areas of this country quite safe. I have the right to elect my own officials, and have the rights to speak my own mind, believe my own religion, pursue my own career. My life is worth more to me than the money.<<

It's highly unlikely that your life would be much more in danger without a governmental run police organization.




>>a) By not moving elsewhere, I choose to live here. As I choose to live here, I must accept BOTH the good and bad consequences. Being a citizen gives you BOTH rights AND responsibilities. Taking the rights as granted and then trying to shirk some share of the responsibilities cheats me and every other taxpayer.<<

This arguement is rooted in the philisophical theory of a social contract, which I completely reject. I've never signed any contract, and one of the main requirements of a contract is that BOTH parties first agree. I don't remember being asked anything.


>>b) I get a lot of real benefit for my money. I can walk the streets without fear of being killed.<<

Like I said before, I seriouly doubt that is due to any action of a government-run protection racket. (police)


>>c) I refuse to be dishonest or cheat. Integrity means something to me.<<

Me too. I feel I'm not being dishonest. Unlawfulness and dishonesty are two very seperate things.




>>d) This country means something to me. It's not just where I keep all my stuff, it's MY country, and I will do my duties, by voting, by paying taxes, by serving on a jury if I am called to. Even if I end up being the last person alive to think this country MEANS something, I'll believe it to the end.<<

This country is pretty great, but its importance doesn't even come close to the importance of individual rights. Frankly, the modern US has been so twisted from the original intent that I have little blindless patriotism.



>>e) Refusing to do my duty because I don't want to is a selfish, spoiled, and immature way of thinking. I do my best not to be selfish, spoiled, or immature, so when I find myself faced with a duty I don't like, I do it.<<

I feel the same way. I just disagree on what my duties are. There have been many arguements made (much more elequently that i could possibly make them) by pretty esteemed political philosifers saying that you have a duty NOT to pay taxes. (Just read anything by Von Mises, Anne Ryand, etc.)



>>Surely I can't be the ONLY person to think this way? Am I the last honest person?<<

No, I'm probably one of the most honest people you could deal with. Like I said, morality and lawfullness are two very seperate things.





>>By remaining a citizen, you OWE the government payment for the services they provide. In the same way that walking out on a restaurant bill, or short changing them, is stealing because you take their service and refuse to pay, such is cheating on your taxes.<<

Again, I will be paying much more in taxes than the services I'll receive. Services that I never asked for. If I had my way, I'd provide for all my services privately.



>>However you rationalize things, you're still stealing. It's illegal and immoral, and no amount of making excuses, shifting the blame, or rationalizing alters that fact.<<

Not much of an arguement Paul. Basically, this paragraph says, "You can't disagree with me b/c you're wrong no matter what you say and wether or not it acctually makes sense."



Some comments Xayd:
I feel sorry for your dad, but am glad he won in the end. IRS audits are WAY down over the last couple of years, thanks to the new laws that shift the burden of proof to the IRS rather than the taxpayer. A buddy of mine works for the IRS, and he says that audits are down 95% and confiscations are down over 99%. (I may have those numbers wrong, but it's real high) So hopefully, he won't be bothered in the future.

Oh, and don't worry, I'm not going to cry if I would ever get caught. I've learned long ago, back in grade school, that crying doesn't help anything or anyone. You just redouble your efforst and go on with life.

BTW, building depreciation deductions will only delay tax burdens, not eliminate them. When the building is sold, the taxes will come due.

[mbossman2]

i have to agree with Paul...

There are a lot of people who run around screaming that
"Taxes are unconstitutional"....unfortunately that is not true, as far as I can tell there is no Supreme Court ruling that says so (you're opinion does not count until/unless you are appointed to the Supreme Court).

The comment that "I have little or no input in taxes" is weak. While you, as a single individual, have little sway in a society of 250+ million, you do have the right to organize a group, and if large enough, can vote people in to make the changes that you want. So rather spend all this time and effort to avoid paying taxes, channel this energy into making a positive change.

BTW, I just did my taxes and my total tax rate (federal and local) is just under 40%, so you need to figure out where you are over paying. Also, you have taken out of the public kitty a large amount of money (your $130K in student loans), be thankful that it was there otherwise you may not have been able to attend the school that you did (remember, they too are drawing federal and state funds to exist, or at least keep the costs low).

Your country, in reality, has aked very little of you (Ask Sarge, what his contribution was, as well as some of his buddies that did not quite make it back), so complaining about something as trite as money is crap.

[Paul Victorey]

No, government is not part of society. It is a seperate entity entirely. And yes, societies do govern themselves informally. And I believe that you can have one without the other.


Informal government is still government. In fact, it's much worse than a formal govt., because the informal rules can change on a whim of the people in power.



Of course they're stealing it. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it non-theft. It's against my will, and I have little or no say in it. If I refuse, I go to jail. The difference between that and having a gun put to my head by a thug is trivial.


You DO have a say in it. You can become a citizen elsewhere if you don't like the responsibilities of an american citizen.


Don't assume that I don't have principles. I don't steal from people that don't steal from me. If I'm in a store, and I'm undercharged (happens quite frequently to me for some reason), I routinely correct the mistake.


So, because someone else does something wrong, you're allowed to sink to their level.


It's highly unlikely that your life would be much more in danger without a governmental run police organization.


Ok, go to the Czech republic. They have police, but the police basically do nothing. And then see how safe you are.

Try looking at what happens when governments collapse -- riots, anarchy and civil wars, killing in the streets, etc. Do you want to live like that?

There are many places you could go (and pay no taxes at all) that are like that.


This arguement is rooted in the philisophical theory of a social contract, which I completely reject. I've never signed any contract, and one of the main requirements of a contract is that BOTH parties first agree. I don't remember being asked anything.


No, because some responsibilities you are simply born into. Sometimes you end up with responsibilities without ever asking for them. Deal with it.


Like I said before, I seriouly doubt that is due to any action of a government-run protection racket. (police)

Like I said, go elsewhere and see how conditions are where the police are impotent or nonexistant.


Me too. I feel I'm not being dishonest. Unlawfulness and dishonesty are two very seperate things.

Taking from the government and then not giving your share IS cheating. You cheat me and every other taxpayer who pays our share.



This country is pretty great, but its importance doesn't even come close to the importance of individual rights. Frankly, the modern US has been so twisted from the original intent that I have little blindless patriotism.

You don't seem to understand. Individual rights confer duties to the whole, as well. Neither can be completely ignored, and neither takes complete precedence over the other. You have rights, but you can never have absolute rights. In the same way that you are bound not to kill someone else (even though you are capable of doing it) your individual desires do not take absolute precedence over the greater good. Neither does the greater good take absolute precedence over your individualism.


I feel the same way. I just disagree on what my duties are. There have been many arguements made (much more elequently that i could possibly make them) by pretty esteemed political philosifers saying that you have a duty NOT to pay taxes. (Just read anything by Von Mises, Anne Ryand, etc.)

Philosophy is great on paper, but has little or no practical value in real life. Some philosophers say our lives are completely controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry, and that we have no real choices. But this doesn't help me choose what to have for breakfast.

Great philosophers have also said we can't really know if the outside world exists, but yet we still must live in that world.


No, I'm probably one of the most honest people you could deal with. Like I said, morality and lawfullness are two very seperate things.

Well, you're not treating american citizens in a very moral way. By not putting in your alotted share of the money into our government, you are directly impacting every one of us. We either have to pay more or get less back. You're not cheating "the government", you're cheating your friends, your family, your neighbors, ALL of us.



Again, I will be paying much more in taxes than the services I'll receive. Services that I never asked for. If I had my way, I'd provide for all my services privately.

Yet you choose to live in a nation like this. there are nations out there where you could try something like this. You know the rules of the nation, you're old enough to leave if you want, so by staying, you give acceptance of the rights and duties of citizenship.



All in all, consider this hypothetical situation:

* I work 80 hours a week for an employer, who makes me do difficult work and pays me a miserable $25,000 a year for my efforts. I think my work is worth $90,000 a year. I am providing them with $90,000 a year worth of labor, and they give me $25,000 and some crummy benefits that I don't really like.

Do I have the right to steal from my employer? After all:

* They steal my labor. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it non-theft. It's against my will, and I have little or no say in it.

* They're stealing from me, so I should steal from them.

* The benefits I get don't really benefit me.

* I pay much more in, in labor, than the benefits that I never asked for or wanted.

[troysvihl]

Paul, I could sit down and go point-by-point again, but I don't think either of us to say anything that could change each other's mind much. We would just wind up repeating the same arguements, and I don't see what that will accomplish. I don't believe that true rights can ever conflict with each other. I believe that anarchy, or the lack of government, would be preferrable to organized government. Let's just say that I pretty much completely disagree with everything you have said.

A few things I would like to comment about are below:


>>Taking from the government and then not giving your share IS cheating. You cheat me and every other taxpayer who pays our share.<<

and

>>Well, you're not treating american citizens in a very moral way. By not putting in your alotted share of the money into our government, you are directly impacting every one of us. We either have to pay more or get less back. You're not cheating "the government", you're cheating your friends, your family, your neighbors, ALL of us.<<

lol. yeah, and I suppose you feel that your neighbor cheats you when a robber decides to pass over his house to steal from yours because that neighbor has taken steps to ensure he isn't robbed and you haven't?



>>Philosophy is great on paper, but has little or no practical value in real life. Some philosophers say our lives are completely controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry, and that we have no real choices. But this doesn't help me choose what to have for breakfast.<<

Philosophy has little or no value in real life? Tell that to our founding fathers. The constitution was almost entirely based on political philosophy. Discounting all philosophy just because you don't care for one or two different strands of it is not a very good idea, IMHO.




>>* I work 80 hours a week for an employer, who makes me do difficult work and pays me a miserable $25,000 a year for my efforts. I think my work is worth $90,000 a year. I am providing them with $90,000 a year worth of labor, and they give me $25,000 and some crummy benefits that I don't really like.

Do I have the right to steal from my employer?<<


Sorry, but your analogy fails on several crucial levels. Your employer has no means of forcing you to work for him, unlike the government which has a monopoly on force. You were also able to choose who to work. No one is able to choose where they live. Also, you don't have to give up any of the property to your employer when you leave his employment, unlike moving to a different country. And no one has a right to a job, but everyone has a right to their property.

[Edited by troysvihl on 04-18-2001 at 02:48 PM]

[Parangles]

The reason why the countries where myself and others have recently left have collapsed and forced us to migrate to America is that it was easy to avoid paying taxes and we did. No income for social services caused us to live in
fortress like houses surrounded with rolls of razor wire and armed guards.( Incompetent governments didn't help either) Having two shots fired at me from 10 feet away made the decision to move here easy.(Probably too high to aim) However I sometimes feel here that the opposite is the case here and that they extract taxes and then go searching around desparately for something to spend them on.

[Xayd]

Originally posted by troysvihl

BTW, building depreciation deductions will only delay tax burdens, not eliminate them. When the building is sold, the taxes will come due.

Yeah, but not if the building is never sold ;). Depreciation scale covers 39 1/2 years if I remember correctly, which leaves him 20 years on the oldest building, and he won't live that long.

Xayd

[troysvihl]

Oh, you may have a point there. As part of the Reagan tax cut, depreciation could be put on an accelerated schedule, so that all the depreciation deductions are taken within a few years. However, I seem to remember something my prof said about that not applying to buildings, in which case you're right about the 39.5 years depreciation schedule. (maybe i'm right, maybe you are, i just can't remember.)

With either depreciation schedule, I believe that his death won't stop the income tax applying to the building. Either his estate will sell the building, and then the tax will come due against the estate. Or, the building will be passed down as inheritance, and the inheritors will have to pay the tax when/if they sell the building.

The traditional tax shelter in buildings that most people are familiar with was abolished in either 1988 or 1992. (don't remember which) I don't quite remember the specifics, but under the old law, people could buy a building with borrowed funds, take tons of deductions off the value of the building to offset taxes in other areas. And then they would just stop making payments on the loans and let the bank forclose on the property. The law was changed to stop this, and I think now the best you can hope for is a tax delayment. (it's still a pretty good deal though, b/c you can invest the tax money while it's delayed and earn tons of investment income)