Income taxes

[Bono]

Your income is apportioned to you by the State, so it is a bit silly to object in principle to taxation - 'its my money' and all that garbage.

Don't just say it. Prove it.

[Bono]

I'd have no problem paying 70%+ of my income assuming that it is spent on worthwhile services.

Generally I find the anti-tax religion to be the most simplistic and idealistic on the planet and its believers to generally be the most worthless people to society.

Don't just say it, prove it. Why are they worthless to society? Why are they simplistic and idealistic? What is worth to society? And what is wrong with simplicity, or idealism for that matter?

[Bono]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Once again here is the prove that show that John K. Galbraith was right all along when he said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Don't just say it. Prove it. Do you have any proof that that is the sole motivation of the whole right-wing and conservative movement? Is that any thing other than ad hominem drivel?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, the fact that the left considers everyone on the right stupid is showing. I am more than aware that there are restrictive societal morals. I just don't see this as a bad thing, and most libertarians don't either. Regardless of what you think, what most libertarians defend is spontaneous order, not chaos. Thus, the non aggression hallmark.

[Bono]

That sounds like an awful lot of work just to get out of paying income taxes.

I see in my future two paths.  One I will pay $100,000 a year in taxes and in the other I don't.

Even if you can save just $5,000 a year in taxes, over say 30 years the present value at say, investment return of 5% p.a. and inflation of 2% p.a. yields $405,000.  That is inflation adjusted, present value today.  Do you think 100 hours of time on this subject is too much?  It translates into about $4,000/hour.

If I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes, I'd be making so much money that I wouldn't care one bit that I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes.  Heck, I'd be satisfied to make $100,000 a year.

Gabu, but you are not the marginal case. Okay, I get it, you're not ambitious. Why do you want to make all people live like you?

[Bono]

Gabu, but you are not the marginal case. Okay, I get it, you're not ambitious. Why do you want to make all people live like you?

I wouldn't say I'm not ambitious in any sense.  I'd like to leave some sort of mark before I die, as would most people.  It's just that it's not money that I particularly value that highly in life.  And when did I say I wanted to make everyone live like me?  I'm fairly sure that people can still live the high life even with the existence of taxes.

The thing that I don't really understand is why people who oppose the existence of taxes seem to be perfectly fine making use of things made possible by taxes, such as the public school system, roads, the police and firefighters, medical services, etc.  If they're going to make the argument that supporting the existence of taxes implies that you should volunteer a large chunk of your income to the government, I think it's perfectly fair turn it around and say that not supporting the existence of public services - made possible through taxes - implies that you should volunteer not to make use of any of them.

Because, Gabu, even if we are opposed to taxes, we pay them and thus have a right to use those services--and in some cases don't have any other choice since the tax burden makes private alternatives inaccessible, or the government even grants a monopoly to the tax supported. I support the lowering of taxes and the termination of many of those services, but if I am paying for them I have a right to use them.
For instance, in Canada, if someone opposes Medicare and the income tax, do you suggest they stop using Medicare even though it's a monopoly and just die?

As for living the "high life", I don't want to live the "high life". I simply want to retire as early as I can and live in a golden mediocrity. That's all my ambition, but outrageous taxes make it that much harder to save for retirement.

[Bono]

There are plenty of things that the government spends money on that help the economy by $2 to $8 or more per dollar spent.

Broken window fallacy.