Pope To Condemn Tax Havens

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The only other thing I have said that certainly got backs up was that managerial authority is completely unjustified. This is not to say that I am ignoring that in most workplaces to get by and progress you do end up in managerial roles, that managers work as hard as anyone else and sometimes harder, or that managers are bad people. But I do not believe management is necessary to run a workplace and I certainly do not think anyone should have authority over another in the workplace.

 

Unless of course its you who have [percieved in your own small mind only] intellectual superiority over EVERYONE through an education paid for by their tax money.

 

I like the word hypocrite and I'm going to use it again you are a total [pseudo] intellectual snob and a hypocrite to boot.

 

In my small mind, you talk as if such a view is only mine and reflects some form of arrogance. It is arrogance for the manager to assume that he has the right to have authority over other people. The manager should be replaced by decision making by the workers in a democracy, along the lines of a syndicate. It isn't a novel or untried idea but is a damn sight better than having someone tell you what you can and cannot do most of your working day without any adequate justification.

 

And I don't see how you think I believe I am superior to everyone, but then you don't do much explaining unfortunately, kinda lazy.

 

LDV you still seem incapable of answering a question

I did answer you.

 

Now as for your views sayong nobody has the right to own property, why the hell should I not spend money I have earned on what I want

 

I don't see the point you are trying to make Jimbms. The fact of you owning property and spending money on what you want are not the same. Can you please explain again.

 

I'm all in favour of an anarchist system and the dissolution of all institutions of authority, just so long as they give me enough time to build up a decent arms cache and develop a private army capable of imposing my will on all the saps dancing around in the commune.

 

You communist.

[hboy]

In my small mind, you talk as if such a view is only mine and reflects some form of arrogance. It is arrogance for the manager to assume that he has the right to have authority over other people. The manager should be replaced by decision making by the workers in a democracy, along the lines of a syndicate. It isn't a novel or untried idea but is a damn sight better than having someone tell you what you can and cannot do most of your working day without any adequate justification.

 

That sounds quite concilatory really. You're full of shit and your posts come across as arrogant, disjointed, and supercilious. Its pleasing that you can sit in some shit hole like Salford on some mediocre course and still think that you're better than everybody else. Maybe sometime in the future when you have some life experience you'll work out just how deluded you actually are.

[Chinahand]

But I do not believe management is necessary to run a workplace and I certainly do not think anyone should have authority over another in the workplace. [/b]

 

LDV - I presume you think the conductor oppresses the lead violinist and the other members of the orchestra!

 

Do you understand the need for people to be coordinated? Just think of the length of the supply chain to get the pair of shoes you are wearing to you - that takes coordination and management - management of resources, people's efforts - you just see things through the lense of authority and oppression - rather than cooperation and coordination. And everyone is enslaved. What a negative view of the world you have.

[fatshaft]

I would refer my learned friends to that great work of reference insofar as the Catholic Church and its finances are concerned:

 

Godfather III (the one where Michael gets religion)

I can;t recall what you're referring to, but let's just say, that the Vatican City is in the top ten countries in the world, as fa as money laundering is concerned. As has been said, people in glass houses.

[manxy]

I've been catching up on the past threads, but I must have missed something as I thought the topic was about the Pope condemns tax havens and not LDV?

No-one said anything about my links though, so i presume that they were ok and were relevant?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In my small mind, you talk as if such a view is only mine and reflects some form of arrogance. It is arrogance for the manager to assume that he has the right to have authority over other people. The manager should be replaced by decision making by the workers in a democracy, along the lines of a syndicate. It isn't a novel or untried idea but is a damn sight better than having someone tell you what you can and cannot do most of your working day without any adequate justification.

 

That sounds quite concilatory really. You're full of shit and your posts come across as arrogant, disjointed, and supercilious. Its pleasing that you can sit in some shit hole like Salford on some mediocre course and still think that you're better than everybody else. Maybe sometime in the future when you have some life experience you'll work out just how deluded you actually are.

 

...because some random group of experience will almost certainly open my eyes up and let me understand how the world works. I very much doubt that. If for example we are talking about the workplace, what does the workplace have to demonstrate to me that will make me alter my view? People who argue that others need life experience in order in an attempt to poo poo their arguments seem to be actually saying that such experience will lead to resignation and acceptance of the status quo.

 

LDV - I presume you think the conductor oppresses the lead violinist and the other members of the orchestra!

 

Do you understand the need for people to be coordinated? Just think of the length of the supply chain to get the pair of shoes you are wearing to you - that takes coordination and management - management of resources, people's efforts - you just see things through the lense of authority and oppression - rather than cooperation and coordination. And everyone is enslaved. What a negative view of the world you have.

 

No, the conductor does not oppress the violinist. The conductor does as you say, he coordinates. And he is needed because in that specific form of cooperation, in order to make such music there needs to be unity that could on come from one or a few people and they need pointers from this position. This position of the conductor is justified by the necessity of his role.

 

For the manager in a worplace it is entirely different. In the workplace the manner does coordinate and does aim to bring harmony, but there is certainly not anything necessary about it. Rather than have one manager in an office overseeing a group of 20 people, have those 20 people make the big decisions themselves by vote and allow the smaller deicisons to be made by the individual workers or groups of workers as they see fit as the day goes along. And also re-structure the workplace democratically.

The workers coordinate and manage themselves. In doing so, rather than performing their duties because of the consequences that would be incurred if they do not, there is a new incentive to work because now the workers have control over themselves and their work.

 

I see things very much through the lense of authority and oppression because I do not believe anyone should be able to take control over my life. Why should anyone have control over my life, make decisions for me, and have my welfare in their hands? It is all a matter of how one places priorities. If you are not bothered in the least about having control over your life then my anarchist ideas are anathema and are to be rejected. If you care then you have to look at what control you are under and assess the reasons for such control. But yes, I think there are massive problems in the world today that need to change.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I've been catching up on the past threads, but I must have missed something as I thought the topic was about the Pope condemns tax havens and not LDV?

No-one said anything about my links though, so i presume that they were ok and were relevant?

 

Because I think there is an almost national trend to skirt the issue and spend more time talking about apparent hypocrisies to anyone who even broaches the subject of tax havens POSSIBLY contributing to problems in the world. I wish there was someone actually willing to defend the tax havens because I am sure there are a lot of aspects of them that I do not understand, such as is it possible to eradicate competitive taxation across the world?

[jimbms]

Now as for your views saying nobody has the right to own property, why the hell should I not spend money I have earned on what I want

 

I don't see the point you are trying to make Jimbms. The fact of you owning property and spending money on what you want are not the same. Can you please explain again.

Quite simple I earned my money I opt to spend part of it on property therefore I have spent it on what I want. See a simple explanation in a couple of lines, try it sometime.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Quite simple I earned my money I opt to spend part of it on property therefore I have spent it on what I want. See a simple explanation in a couple of lines, try it sometime.

 

I disagree with the idea of paying workers wages and don't think money is necessary, but what compensation you do get from doing your work you should be completely entitled to spent it as you wish, i.e. not have to pay taxes. But I am arguing against the continued existence of property.

[VinnieK]

I disagree with the idea of paying workers wages and don't think money is necessary, but what compensation you do get from doing your work you should be completely entitled to spent it as you wish, i.e. not have to pay taxes. But I am arguing against the continued existence of property.

 

I'm curious as to how you envisage this society working, in precise terms. Money after all is merely an abstraction of barter and trade, whereby we exchange our goods and services for those that we in turn need in order to survive. We will still require services and goods that are produced by others, so how is this exchange mediated in your vision of an anarchist society? Will the individual be given free reign to trade in whatever manner they wish, will such exchanges be regulated, or will there be some massive state apparatus put in place, following the communist model, that claims all goods and services as its own and distributes them as and when it sees fit? In fact, who enforces the anarchist system, if not some quasi-legitimate authority that exists only to impose the system in place on people who may or may not want it?

 

I confess, I have a lot of difficulty with anarchism. Dodgy philosophy of history aside, Marxism at least offered an effective criticism of the capitalist model through which useful analysis could be conducted, Anarchism by contrast often appears as little more than a sullen refutation of social models

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm curious as to how you envisage this society working, in precise terms. Money after all is merely an abstraction of barter and trade, whereby we exchange our goods and services for those that we in turn need in order to survive. We will still require services and goods that are produced by others, so how is this exchange mediated in your vision of an anarchist society? Will the individual be given free reign to trade in whatever manner they wish, will such exchanges be regulated, or will there be some massive state apparatus put in place, following the communist model, that claims all goods and services as its own and distributes them as and when it sees fit? In fact, who enforces the anarchist system, if not some quasi-legitimate authority that exists only to impose the system in place on people who may or may not want it

 

I confess, I have a lot of difficulty with anarchism. Dodgy philosophy of history aside, Marxism at least offered an effective criticism of the capitalist model through which useful analysis could be conducted, Anarchism by contrast often appears as little more than a sullen refutation of social models

 

In anarcho-communism the transfer of goods and services takes place in a gift economy. So it definitely would not involve having a massive state apparatus. The economy is supposed to regulate itself in the sense that those who are involved in it (those who produce and distribute) make the decisions.

 

But yes, anarchism really does have weaknesses in terms of its philosophy and scientific analysis which Marxism has, although much is incorporated from Marxist theory.

[VinnieK]

In anarcho-communism the transfer of goods and services takes place in a gift economy. So it definitely would not involve having a massive state apparatus. The economy is supposed to regulate itself in the sense that those who are involved in it (those who produce and distribute) make the decisions.

 

So, in effect, we're talking about a system that includes barter*, whereby the individual producer is free to set 'prices' (defined as the amount and nature of goods or services he or she is willing to accept in return for his or her own). How, if at all, does this differ from an economy where such barter is mediated by money, and how does it avoid the obvious development into an economy based on work? Say for instance I'm a famer, producing a substantial surplus on a regular basis. In this instance I can distribute that surplus in return for others providing regular labour on my farm, with the aim of producing an even greater surplus. Now, you could argue that those labourers can manage their work however they desire, but this is true only in theory. In practice, if someone lets me down, then I'm likely to withhold my own goods and services from them in future, as are others in my position, and by doing so we are defining the terms under which they may exchange their labour for our goods. Essentially we're already on the road to producing a society much like the one in which we live now - once we start establishing big infrastructure or services that the entire community use, the natural impulse is to make its use/construction conditional on a system of taxation being established.

 

I suppose I'm just having difficulty seeing exactly how anarchism differs in any substantial way from a desire to recreate proto-agricultural societies, and how it avoids following the historical precedent set by those societies which ultimateley established laws and regulations with the aim of easing and furthering social coherence and growth, and ultimately money as a way of mediating and introducing flexibility into this "gift economy". It seems more a remnant of 19th century romantic notions of 'the noble savage' than a serious political ideology.

 

*I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of transactions in a "gift economy" will be barter, implicit or explicit. If not for tangible goods or services, then for at least status, loyalty, influence or authority.

 

But yes, anarchism really does have weaknesses in terms of its philosophy and scientific analysis which Marxism has, although much is incorporated from Marxist theory.

 

Only science has scientific analysis, everything else is voodoo, opinion, and wishful thinking

[Chinahand]

Getting back to the topic - I really have difficulty with what the pope has said on so many levels. First there is the hypocracy of the Vatican's tax exempt status so that it doesn't contribute to government social welfare itself. Then there is its deliberate creation of monuments glorifying God, built at great, great expense.

 

The opulence of the Vatican goes to the central issue - if the Pope is so concerned about the rich evading their social responsibility why does the Catholic Church not put all its efforts into helping humanity - is a statue in St Marks worth more than a child dying of poverty in Africa.

 

Further though the Pope's statement is statist in the extreme - Bill Gates has hived off literally billions of dollars into a charitable foundation – tax exempt to do good as Mr Gates (and his trustees) see fit and safe from government’s meddling.

 

Why does the Pope assume that governments will spend the taxes taken from the rich in a socially responsible way? They could use the money to wage war, to oppress the civilian population.

 

Let me be blunt – I am glad that people are able to evade tax in Zimbabwe.

 

People do have a duty to help others – but just as the Vatican thinks silk pyjamas for the pontiff and Da Vincis for the Cardinals are a worth while trade off so people have a right to plan and organize their financial affairs to do good as they think fit - we should be educating the individual to be responsible, not telling them they are sinful for being tax efficient.

 

I strongly reject the idea that people can’t move their money to a tax efficient location and put it into charitable or educational trusts or invest it in medical or educational companies etc etc. That can also create a social good independent of the state.

 

The idea that governments via taxation have a monopoly on social responsibility is pure bull.

 

I fully agree that people shouldn’t break the law and have a responsibility to pay taxes – but the idea that within this they can’t manage their affairs and make their own decisions with their wealth is just wrong.

 

Wealth should be used to improve society – using wealth to create wealth in its broadest meaning. That can be done by individuals, just as well as governments – actually if you were to ask me individuals are often better at it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

First there is the hypocracy of the Vatican's tax exempt status so that it doesn't contribute to government social welfare itself.

 

I didn't actually know that the Vatican was tax exempt. How the hell can he NOT come across as a hypocrite.

 

Why does the Pope assume that governments will spend the taxes taken from the rich in a socially responsible way? They could use the money to wage war, to oppress the civilian population.

 

I don't think this is a valid point in my opinion because the issue of social injustice in this case makes the assumption that taxes are willingly paid by the rest of society in the belief that they should be spent responsibly.

 

Let me be blunt – I am glad that people are able to evade tax in Zimbabwe.

People do have a duty to help others – but just as the Vatican thinks silk pyjamas for the pontiff and Da Vincis for the Cardinals are a worth while trade off so people have a right to plan and organize their financial affairs to do good as they think fit - we should be educating the individual to be responsible, not telling them they are sinful for being tax efficient.

I strongly reject the idea that people can’t move their money to a tax efficient location and put it into charitable or educational trusts or invest it in medical or educational companies etc etc. That can also create a social good independent of the state.

 

This is where I disagree, but I may be wrong to as I don't know who has to access to what. It is my impression that it is large businesses and wealthy (or well off) people who can make use of this form of tax avoidance. From my understanding not everyone can avoid tax. But am I wrong here?

 

If I am right however then it would seem to me that the Pope (and anyone else) is bang on when you speak of such systems making it possible for people to shirk their social responsibilities. I say this because the amount one should pay in tax (I would assume) is established by one's own government and our world today that is the expected amount to be paid. If some people can avoid that amount or not pay it at all but pay it elsewhere it appears that that person or company is not taking up their responsibilities.

 

And although I would not say that some individuals or even companies place money in charitable trusts or do something that could be called socially beneficial the motives of the vast majority in reducing their tax payments is not so they can have more choice to in how they want to be more socially good, i.e. allowed to do it better than the government. It is simply about saving money and after making such savings I do not believe there would be a resulting recognition of the need be socially good with it.

 

The idea that governments via taxation have a monopoly on social responsibility is pure bull.

 

I fully agree that people shouldn’t break the law and have a responsibility to pay taxes – but the idea that within this they can’t manage their affairs and make their own decisions with their wealth is just wrong.

 

If I am right and only the more well-off can avoid tax then I would assume you condone outright evasion by the rest of the populace if they could not use tax havens or alternatively force their government to accept a lesser amount, that is let the poor manage what little they have without interference from the State?

 

I am only playing devil's advocate on a conventional basis as seeing tax as a social responsibility to be met by all in society, including companies. But if say the Isle of Man, Jersey, Caymans, Virgin Islands stop operating as they do I would be right in thinking that the same people would just find other countries who are the most competitive in their tax rates? So it is competitive tax systems and the ability of people to make use of them that would creat social injustice and not just tax havens.

[KeithMN]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point, tax havens actually benefit everyone whether they are rich or poor.

see http://www.best-tax-havens.com/The-Econimi...Tax-havens.html

Tax Haven counter intuitively actually help us all!!!