Talking Tax and Fixing the Cracks in the System
Actually property (as in land, resources, etc) is theft.
It belongs to all of us. If you want exclusive access, you should have to rent it from the rest of us.
The question to ask libertarians is "how should we live?".
Given there must be rules and some kind of structure to society, do you want it architected by government (somewhat representative, accountable), or by the blind, greedy and uncaring free market?
It belongs to all of us. If you want exclusive access, you should have to rent it from the rest of us.
The question to ask libertarians is "how should we live?".
Given there must be rules and some kind of structure to society, do you want it architected by government (somewhat representative, accountable), or by the blind, greedy and uncaring free market?
See Wikipedia about the non-aggression principle.electron wrote:The question to ask libertarians is "how should we live?".
Bless
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
H. L. Mencken
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
I was invited to this discussion. But for SMEs the reality of dealing with this is still so different to what these people will tell you, attending is a waste of time. Perhaps it will change in time, but for us nothing has changed since these 'new laws'. We still pay our taxes in the same old informal way, just like everyone else. It would be about as useful as going to a seminar and studying the new traffic law.Miguelito wrote:There have been a lot of changes in the tax system as of late, and it is a transformative time. Laws are not only becoming fine tuned, but payment systems which do not allow for the giving of 'tea money' to look the other way are being implemented. Also, if a tax collector is able to get you with a legitimate fine, then I believe that collector is entitled to 45% of the fine, drastically increasingly the incentive to enforce the laws.
If you're interested further in this subject, you should attend EuroCham's Tax Forum tomorrow, 21 Sept, at the Intercon, which will discuss: Changes in tax regime; patent tax; tax registration; key issues for SMEs; VAT; Withholding Tax; audits and disputes; and the new Double Tax Agreement with Singapore.
More info here.
TheGrimReaper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:45 pmSlavedog, you do not belong on this forum as you talk too much sense.
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?Alexandra wrote:
Because all property is theft.
Massive stalker
ancaps generally aren't able to get past the idea that all property is a form of theft and typically believe that if one is able to there should be no limit to the amount of things one can privately own. (not sure if alexandra falls in this boat or not).electron wrote:Actually property (as in land, resources, etc) is theft.
It belongs to all of us. If you want exclusive access, you should have to rent it from the rest of us.
The question to ask libertarians is "how should we live?".
Given there must be rules and some kind of structure to society, do you want it architected by government (somewhat representative, accountable), or by the blind, greedy and uncaring free market?
Whats worse is they have frequently been very wishy-washy on issues such as if people should be able to own large rivers, lakes, underground aquifers, etc. which can get very complicated. Bear in mind, I am in no way saying the state does a good job at managing these entities, but I would trust it much less for a private company or individual to be managing these resources strictly for profit.
It also tends to hang on to this notion of altruism within people , which i don't agree with. We see similar comments from the giant corporations all the time. Logging companies act shocked when people criticize them for clear-cutting, claiming they care about the Forrest more than anyone because they need more trees to be grown so they can cut them down. Shell claims to care deeply about the environment because they rely on it to produce their energy, etc. etc. A garment factory boss claims he would never abuse his employees because then it would make them unhappy and they would work slowly. Luckily these bullshit claims are easy to see through.
Once companies and the individuals who are board members/shareholders of that company are able to amass a large amount of wealth, they will simply move on to another area where they can generate profit.
Keep in mind google started as a simple internet search engine, years later they are on the cutting edge of psychotic robotic military weapons. General Electric started as a power company and diversified into the health care industry, pharmaceuticals, and "life sciences".
There is no altruism in people when they choose to worship wealth, whether it be monetary or resource based.
I never comment on political things on the forum and I do agree with Alexandra that the state should be out of existence but replacing with some ayn randian utopia is a fucking nightmare.
Thanks.
The Soviets tried that tired old Marx vision of the withering of the state. It resulted in millions of dead human beings. Same as China and DPRK.gerdguy wrote:electron wrote:I never comment on political things on the forum and I do agree with Alexandra that the state should be out of existence but replacing with some ayn randian utopia is a fucking nightmare.
Thanks.
I do agree with your view of the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul types. No practical solutions, just circular logic.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
Do you think it's physically impossible to pay doctors, nurses and lawyers via other means than tax money? Who suggested anybody works for free?
The difference is that you can replace a private service provider at own personal will. You can't wake up one day and choose to remove government authority from your life.
Supply and demand does not depend on governments.
Again, I wonder who suggested anybody should work for free.
I would be very happy to sign a form which allows me to live my life free of public sector. I am in a situation where I am forced to pay taxes to a country I don't live in and can't possibly use any of these so called benefits. Where do I sign?
Bless.
To each of your points, in order.
1. Of course you can privately pay for any of those services. I prefer to obtain those services with insurance and tax payments. Or finance the lawyer fees (then again, I don't disobey the law or give anyone a reason to sue me). And by implication, you suggest public services, that you absolutely depend upon in your daily life, whether you accept that or not, are not needed and that the people who provide those services should not be compensated. Oh, I note that you did not refer to my reference to police. Should that be privatized too. Pure folly. And I believe that people that cannot pay for medical services, and need them, should receive the treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.
2. Of course you can hire anyone you want. Go get a few personal bodyguards, I'm sure you would find that to be much more pleasing in your construct, but not your bank account. As for the second sentence, to be frank, that would result in the chaos those faux cowboys over at the Malheur wildlife refuge this year in my home state of Oregon. None of my friends in that neck of the desert liked it at all. Dissolving the government would result in a survival of the best-armed.
3. Of course supply and demand play a a central role in any economy, whether pure capitalism, mixed, or any other economic system. Including a libertarian pipe-dream. I am baffled at what point you are driving at.
4. You did, by implication.
5. There is no form. Just stop paying taxes, let us know how that works out for you.
Since you are so opposed to the provision of public services, never drive, get a port-a-potty (those pesky sewer districts are so annoying) and throw the excrement over in the the neighbors yard, and dig a well.
Taxes and lawyers are the price we pay to live in a civilized world.
End of rant. If I seemed offensive, I apologize. But your construct, well, I'm sure I said enough.
David
PS: Knock it off with that bless stuff, there is no benevolent man in the sky with a plan for any of us.
Hope the rest of your day is great, you are civil and I appreciate that.
The difference is that you can replace a private service provider at own personal will. You can't wake up one day and choose to remove government authority from your life.
Supply and demand does not depend on governments.
Again, I wonder who suggested anybody should work for free.
I would be very happy to sign a form which allows me to live my life free of public sector. I am in a situation where I am forced to pay taxes to a country I don't live in and can't possibly use any of these so called benefits. Where do I sign?
Bless.
To each of your points, in order.
1. Of course you can privately pay for any of those services. I prefer to obtain those services with insurance and tax payments. Or finance the lawyer fees (then again, I don't disobey the law or give anyone a reason to sue me). And by implication, you suggest public services, that you absolutely depend upon in your daily life, whether you accept that or not, are not needed and that the people who provide those services should not be compensated. Oh, I note that you did not refer to my reference to police. Should that be privatized too. Pure folly. And I believe that people that cannot pay for medical services, and need them, should receive the treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.
2. Of course you can hire anyone you want. Go get a few personal bodyguards, I'm sure you would find that to be much more pleasing in your construct, but not your bank account. As for the second sentence, to be frank, that would result in the chaos those faux cowboys over at the Malheur wildlife refuge this year in my home state of Oregon. None of my friends in that neck of the desert liked it at all. Dissolving the government would result in a survival of the best-armed.
3. Of course supply and demand play a a central role in any economy, whether pure capitalism, mixed, or any other economic system. Including a libertarian pipe-dream. I am baffled at what point you are driving at.
4. You did, by implication.
5. There is no form. Just stop paying taxes, let us know how that works out for you.
Since you are so opposed to the provision of public services, never drive, get a port-a-potty (those pesky sewer districts are so annoying) and throw the excrement over in the the neighbors yard, and dig a well.
Taxes and lawyers are the price we pay to live in a civilized world.
End of rant. If I seemed offensive, I apologize. But your construct, well, I'm sure I said enough.
David
PS: Knock it off with that bless stuff, there is no benevolent man in the sky with a plan for any of us.
Hope the rest of your day is great, you are civil and I appreciate that.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
You're spot on about the failure of marxism. I suppose I should have said I "wish" the state would be out of existence. Given the way the world has developed it would become an extremely hard, possibly nearly impossible, thing to now happen. I don't claim to have all the solutions, but I'm also not responsible for creating thousands of years of subjugation and social control. So I think it's a bit unreasonable to think a person or even a group of people could craft some blue print of the world that could save everyone from the horrible society has developed.David L wrote:The Soviets tried that tired old Marx vision of the withering of the state. It resulted in millions of dead human beings. Same as China and DPRK.gerdguy wrote:electron wrote:I never comment on political things on the forum and I do agree with Alexandra that the state should be out of existence but replacing with some ayn randian utopia is a fucking nightmare.
Thanks.
I do agree with your view of the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul types. No practical solutions, just circular logic.
However with the soviets, dprk, crp, As Alexandra has said, absolute power corrupts. I do not think these individuals were interested in the state withering away, rather carving out a niche for themselves where they can have as much power and wealth as possible while maintaining that all of the sacrifices are "for the people". But thats the MO of almost every high level politician worldwide. We can look to our own host country's government as a shining example.
I don't think Alexandra says "bless" because of a religious conviction. She does it because it's her style and possibly because it's some type of convention in Eastern Europe.
- Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 74
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Right behind you
Marxism isn't dead though. It's back - Neo-marxism/cultural marxism. Instead of class being the root cause of inequality, they believe it's now race, gender, sexuality etc. This is where all this SJW madness is coming from.David L wrote: The Soviets tried that tired old Marx vision of the withering of the state. It resulted in millions of dead human beings. Same as China and DPRK.
I do agree with your view of the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul types. No practical solutions, just circular logic.
Ayn Rand is a favorite of the neo-cons. I'm not sure I would frame Ron Paul in that group. He's a Conservative Libertarian, which is probably where I align myself. I think his tax policies seem sensible and he's all about small government.
* I promised myself I wouldn't get "triggered" into a tax discussion but ...
- Miguelito
- Ordinary Schmo
- Reactions: 219
- Posts: 7053
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:19 pm
- Location: Penh's Hill
It's a shame that what could have been an informative and useful thread about taxes in Cambodia went down the shithole with many of the usual suspects arguing drivel amongst themselves.
Slavedog, thank you for a value added post. I can agree that on the surface many SMEs may dismiss any changes in tax, as a lot of it is focused for the large businesses, but I do think there a lot of changes that are taking effect, and will continue to do so. For starters, they've gotten rid of the estimated tax regime. Secondly, although the likelihood that a small business will be audited is extremely low, audits have increased 400% over the past four years (with about 3,200 this year alone). Many are focused on large businesses, but the GDT did mention that they'll go to a street with a lot of SMEs, and audit one to send a message to everyone else in that area.
Change doesn't happen overnight, but change is here. In a year you may be paying your taxes online, for example. Anyways, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with you over how you manage your company's taxes, but that will happen over a beer and not on here I imagine.
It appears Khmer Times was the media sponsor for the event, hence their article. What is funny is that they messed up the quote above: the amount collected is up by about 20%, not 75.6%. It is still impressive though, that with a GDP increase of 7% that tax revenue has increased by 20%.salvajeuno wrote:75.6% is a pretty amazing increase. It sounds like Cambodia's tax code is being fined tuned and will continue to be tweaked for the unforeseeable future. I hope the gov will use some of it's new found income to invest in infrastructure... namely power, roads, and of course a new fiber optic network would be really sweet.Tax collection in the first eight months of the year rose to $1.07 billion, up by about 75.6 percent compared to the same period year, according to data from the general department of taxation.
Slavedog, thank you for a value added post. I can agree that on the surface many SMEs may dismiss any changes in tax, as a lot of it is focused for the large businesses, but I do think there a lot of changes that are taking effect, and will continue to do so. For starters, they've gotten rid of the estimated tax regime. Secondly, although the likelihood that a small business will be audited is extremely low, audits have increased 400% over the past four years (with about 3,200 this year alone). Many are focused on large businesses, but the GDT did mention that they'll go to a street with a lot of SMEs, and audit one to send a message to everyone else in that area.
Change doesn't happen overnight, but change is here. In a year you may be paying your taxes online, for example. Anyways, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with you over how you manage your company's taxes, but that will happen over a beer and not on here I imagine.
Miguelito wrote:It's a shame that what could have been an informative and useful thread about taxes in Cambodia went down the shithole with many of the usual suspects arguing drivel amongst themselves.
Miguelito wrote:Anyways, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with you over how you manage your company's taxes, but that will happen over a beer and not on here I imagine.
In theory yes, in reality that has not happened.Miguelito wrote:For starters, they've gotten rid of the estimated tax regime.
I won't completely disregard these attempts at change, but I'm yet to see anything to convince me that this time will be much different to the previous times.
It's interesting that those who spend there time warning of the changes are those standing to gain from them, e.g. lawyers, accountants and such like. I think I mentioned somewhere on the forum before that there are a few businesses who made the costly step of becoming an ltd company last year based on the fear-mongering advice of these people and are now regretting the additional costs that they now have, especially since most of their competitors don't have those costs.
Happy to.Miguelito wrote:Anyways, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with you over how you manage your company's taxes, but that will happen over a beer and not on here I imagine.
TheGrimReaper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:45 pmSlavedog, you do not belong on this forum as you talk too much sense.