Mininum Wage Protest
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2013 05:10 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(05-12-2013 05:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 03:18 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  What is not decent are wages not keeping up with the cost of living.

YES!!! And do you think this is a serious enough problem that it warrants asking 'why'? Please, engage in a useful debate. Chas seems to be running from my questions, I would like to find some liberal who is willing to challenge his assumptions.

See, you hit the nail on the head. When the cost of living goes up, and wages do not keep up, you have poverty. And it's well understood by economists that wages do not rise as fast as the cost of living, so the faster the cost of living rises, the bigger the gap and the poorer the people.

But here's the question: Why is the cost of living going up?

Remember, in the 1950's and 60's, the cost of living in the US did NOT go up. The price of food, housing, etc. remained constant. And, naturally, when the cost of living remained flat, the poor got better and better as wages continued to rise, and the cost of living did not, and inequality shrunk. And there's a perfect correlation that the moment the cost of living started rising in the 1970's, the poor started getting poorer again and inequality reversed course. Why did the cost of living to raise in the 1970's?

Also, remember there was only one country that all through the 70's, 80's, and 90's had no cost of living increases--Switzerland. The price of a house in 1990 was the same as in 1970. And, unlike most of the world, the poor in Switzerland kept getting better and better, so that by 2000 they were the only country that had completely eliminated poverty, and had virtually no unemployment. Why didn't the cost of living increase in Switzerland?

Also, look throughout history. Every time the cost of living went up dramatically, inequality rose accordingly. There's a strong correlation between cost of living increases and poverty. So what should we do to prevent cost of living increases, so that as poor people's wages continue to rise, they will catch up and not be so poor?

oh man. oh man. You have a very poor grasp of macroeconomics and economic indicators, my friend. Let me explain, in very simple terms, what are the aspects of economic activity that serve as barometers of the business cycle. You seem to be looking at only one portion of the business cycle as a bad, or negative thing. You realize that growth generally cannot follow a linear upward path, correct? It fluctuates and cycles.

The business cycle is broken down into 4 stages:

1) Expansion
2) peak
3) contraction
4) trough

Expansion is characterized by an increase in business activities, increasing sales, manufacturing, and wages. The economy can only expand for so long, when it reaches its upper limit, its the Peak. Then there is a decline from the peak. Economists call the mild, short term contractions recessions. Longer, more severe are depressions. When the business activity stops declining and levels off, thats the trough.

Expansions are characterized by:
increased consumer demand for goods and services;
increased industrial production
rising stock prices;
rising property values; and
increase in GDP

Downturns are characterized by:
Rising numbers of bankruptcies and bond defaults
higher consumer debt
falling stock prices
rising inventories and
a decrease in GDP


Now, there are leading indicators (such as money supply or M2, building permits, average workweek in manufacturing, new orders for consumer goods, stock prices and consumer borrowing, among other things). These changes product economic improvement. In your schpeel above, you are talking about increasing wages to stimulate the economy. The problem with that is that "Personal income", i.e., wages, are a Coinciding indicator, not a leading indicator.


A coinciding indicator, like wages, only confirms where the economy is.

So all this crap about the 1950s and 1960s had very little to do with fiscal or monetary policy, rather, it was just a part of the cycle, specifically, it was the trough.

Since you seem to know very little about economics, perhaps you should leave it to those a little bit more familiar with it, hmmm?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
08-12-2013, 05:24 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(04-12-2013 06:42 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  This is more 1% bullshit libertarian Ayn Rand garbage.

WE the the tax payers are subsidizing these corporate bullies low wages. If these assholes want more people off the government dime the best way to do that is to increase wages. PERIOD!

You realize that by raising wages in order to get people off the government does not mean you won't be subsidizing those same people. Lemme explain. First, and foremost, the majority of the business economy is made up of small to mid-sized business. 100-500 employees…The Walmarts, Targets, and big retail giants are actually the MINORITY of business.

Sally is on welfare, but she works at a service job earning minimum wage.
Sally's employer is forced to raise her minimum wage by double
Sally is no longer eligible for welfare. All good? Not exactly
Sally's employer, to compensate for the loss of net income, raises prices
Now, the consumer, who is also the taxpayer, is effectively subsidizing the amount she would have had on welfare.

You pay either way, my friend. In addition, because of the rising prices in goods and services, it puts pressure on boosting quartly profits. Those who work harder to do that, get more salary. Now the pay gap is the same, just with different numbers.

By forcing wage increases, it also increases inflation, which reduces your buying power.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Guess I must have superhuman powers to be able to go to the dictionary.

Hey, guy. Remember how trite superficial dictionary definitions aren't sufficient for sophisticated discussion?

Because news flash: trite and superificial dictionary definitions aren't sufficient for sophisticated discussion.

Although...

I've always wondered what 'knowledge' is. Let's see what the ol' dictionary says:
Quote:knowledge (knowl·edge [nol-ij]). Noun.
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

Well, blow me down. I bet that just rustled the jimmies of all the epistemologists out there. Show's over, guys! Pack it in and go home, folks, because frankksj knows how to use a dictionary - as we all know, the be all and end all of possible meaning and interpretation!

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Matter: the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed

That's not physically coherent. As I just said. Are photons matter? Are other field bosons?

Think hard, now.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Got that. Physical object. Like a handcuff, a bullet, etc. A “lien” is not a physical object. Yes, to those of us who know to use a dictionary, it is easy to define.

By which logic no law is physical.

(sorry - "logic")

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You cannot define contact. Go ahead and try, though. I could use a laugh.

Brace yourself for another dazzling display of superhuman talent:

Contact: the act or state of touching; a touching or meeting, as of two things or people.

Define touching.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, physical object (bullet, handcuff, etc.), touches you, that's physical contact. Seriously, somebody should punch you in the face, then when you tell the DA you've been assaulted, he should just say the definition of “physical contact” is too vague.

There are, in fact, legal definitions of such words in their respective jurisdictions.

You have provided no such definition. Just fyi.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course it can. My statement in your own words is:

“Switzerland never uses physically force to collect taxes.”

... which isn't true. Funny, that.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's impossible to prove a negative.

State policy is presumably well-defined. We may discount violations of state policy as extraordinary.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I cannot prove that Switzerland never used physical force to collect taxes, because I'm not omnipotent. When I make the claim, and you insist it's a lie, the only way to resolve it is for you to name one instance when Switzerland did use physical force to collect taxes. Since you cannot come up with even one name or one instance, my claim remains valid. The burden of proof is on you. I'm still waiting for the name of one person who Switzerland used physical force against to collect taxes. Waiting, waiting.....

Wow. You really aren't good at this, are you? You make a claim, you substantiate it. Your claim is not equivalent to a null hypothesis, and thus cannot be assumed. Please, learn to logic.

(protip: tax fraud is criminal under Swiss law, with all the consequences that entails)

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:22 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What happens if you refuse to comply with the terms of the lien?
(spoiler warning: there are consequences)

Well, you tell me. What happens? Can you give me one example to where physical force was used? Has anybody been put in jail for it? One name, please.

That's not how this works, you poor fool. You've not answered the question.

(funny how the same people who love to accuse others of not answering questions, even when they do, run the unfortunate tendency of not answering questions)

How are the provisions of the lien enforced?
(presupposing, of course, that they are enforced, which they must be in order not to be meaningless)

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But you don't even know what social contract theory is. Look it up

Yes. I mentioned it without knowing what it is. Because that makes sense.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Right there in black and white. It involves VOLUNTARY consent. So I am using social contract theory correctly, because I respect the voluntary nature. You're just so intent on justifying your insatiable need to use violence that you're using the term without even understanding what it means.

You... don't much care for engaging with external reality, do you?

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Well, let's see Cjlr whether yet again I know what you think even before you do...

You've lurched from nonsensical straw man to nonsensical straw man without so much as making reality's acquaintance. But why slow down now?

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's a few more questions to run from:

Q: What do you propose happens to me if I refuse to surrender the fruits of my labor, say I perform some work, get paid, and refuse to hand over to the government the portion it claims for itself (ie the tax)?

Depends on the jurisdiction.

As a general rule, laws entail consequences for breaking them.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: What if I'm living in Hong Kong and secretly engage in business which I do not disclose to the IRS?

Hey, champ. The topic at hand was Switzerland.

Hong Kong and the IRS do not pertain to Switzerland.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: If I do either of those things, and refuse to comply despite any and all attempts at 'non-violent persuasion', how should it end? Should I be arrested? And if so, what should happen to me if I resist arrest?

You are now asking what should happen.

Your original claim was with regards to what does happen.

These are not the same thing. You seem to have difficulty with such fundamental distinctions, given the stunning regularity with which you resort to fallacious overgeneralisation.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Go run from those questions, like always.

Merely returning the favour, my delusional chum. You couldn't seem to answer my question as to enforcement of the Swiss tax code. So, you first.

(although what I asked you was, at the very least, relevant)

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest. You seriously don't know how this works?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

How are those provisions enforced? What are the consequences for violating them?

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Nobody is sitting in jail in Switzerland for refusing to pay taxes. Give me one name if you dispute this.

Nobody is sitting in jail in Bashkortostan for refusing to pay taxes. Give me one name if you dispute this.

After all, if you can't provide a name, it can't be true, right?

(more patented "logic", I see)

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Well, let's see what happened the last time we debated physics.

Oh, let's.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I had claimed that we should logic and axioms to understand economics. Some liberals rejected this notion.

Citation needed. That's a thing you just made up and convinced yourself of.

But at least you've got the self-absorbed pretension to refuse to let pesky reality infringe on your convictions. So there's that.

(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I said that Einstein used logic and axioms to understand physics and to learn things that were not revealed by empirical data alone. You said my claim was wrong. But then after arguing back and forth, you DID concede that Einstein used logic and axioms. So, even on the subject of physics, your supposed specialty, you still got smacked down.

Wow. You really don't engage with reality, do you?

Here, for bonus marks, is your verbatim statement:
(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is how Einstein did it. The empirical data appeared to contradict his theory of relativity. But by starting with axioms and thought experiments he was able to find another way to look at the empirical data that was compatible with axioms he knew had to be true.
...
What empirical data did Einstein analyze to conclude that we got it all wrong and time is fluid while the speed of light is constant? Try to answer that.

Protip: that isn't true. It isn't even remotely close to being true. As I pointed out at the time, in no small detail.
(which you then accused me of plagiarising in lieu of attempting to respond - stay classy, my friend!)

Your - ahem - giftedly creative reinterpretation is an inspired piece of performance art indeed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2013, 06:12 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 05:06 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So all this crap about the 1950s and 1960s had very little to do with fiscal or monetary policy, rather, it was just a part of the cycle, specifically, it was the trough.

No, no, no.

It's obviously Obama's fault.

It's axiomatic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 06:22 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.

Interesting concept. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:40 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 06:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 06:22 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't think we have to increase the minimum wage.
There just should be a minimum income. Every person is guaranteed a minimum income that is enough
to survive, but not high enough to live comfortably. Wages at fast food chains would increase, because
otherwise there would not be a financial incentive for anyone to work there.

Interesting concept. Consider


But it wasn't my idea. I got it from "libertarian" Switzerland
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazi....html?_r=0
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:57 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 06:40 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 06:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Interesting concept. Consider


But it wasn't my idea. I got it from "libertarian" Switzerland
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazi....html?_r=0

S'just a revision of an older idea. Bertrand Russel considered it almost a century ago!

There was a test run of the idea in a small Manitoba town in the 70s. It sort of got lost in the shuffle in the changes of government in 1980; the originally planned aftermath studies were never even conducted. Notwithstanding that the effects can't really be appreciated on an acknowledged temporary basis and such a limited area.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-12-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
@Cathym112,

I asked you why, in the US, in the 2 decades before 1971 the poor and middle class continually gained ground, yet during the past 42 years the situation has reversed and all the growth has been concentrated among the rich.

Your response is that growth “fluctuates and cycles”. Fine, but this doesn't explain why the growth since 1971 has only gone to the rich, and the situation was reversed prior to that.

You then say the reason the poor did better in the 1950's and 60's is because “it was just a part of the cycle, specifically, it was the trough.” Okay, so the 1950's and 60's were a “trough”, and as a result, the poor and middle class gained grown and got richer.

Q: Is that characteristic of all troughs?

Q: What do you call the period since 1971?

Q: Since we've now been going 42 years without a “trough” and the poor and middle class are getting wiped out, what can we do to bring back another “trough”?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: Mininum Wage Protest
(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Matter: the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed

That's not physically coherent. As I just said. Are photons matter? Are other field bosons?

Previously I wrote that: non-libertarian intellectuals like to switch to mental chess games, like: “Well, what if the police, instead of having guns with bullets, had laser guns? Photons have no mass, therefore it is not physical force, which is the definition of violence. So it's not violent to shoot him with a laser gun?” I love mental games too, so if were in a brain puzzle forum I'd say “Touche! You got me there.” But in a political forum, the goal is for everybody to throw out practical ideas to solve problems, not play games.

Luminon replied: LOL, man, that's even better than the golden toilet argument  Yes, that is definitely an pseudo-intellectual thinking that I see so often. Destroy the definition, destroy the internet opponent. It's like when Willam Lane Craig debates in the public, Christians don't understand him and think he's making real arguments.

Thank you for backing us up on this with the exact same verbatim argument. You sure you liberals aren't collaborating since, as you can see, I've heard this photon argument before. Lest any non-statists are reading, YES, liberals REALLY are so desperate to defend their favorite tool, violence (physical force), that they'll play games like “So I'll blow you up with a photon gun and it's not violence.”

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Hey, guy. Remember how trite superficial dictionary definitions aren't sufficient for sophisticated discussion?
Because news flash: trite and superificial dictionary definitions aren't sufficient for sophisticated discussion.

You've made it clear that you disagree with the definition of words according to the English dictionary. You've shown us you have your own definitions that mean something quite different. The problem is that I don't speak cjlr. When I use words like 'violence', 'matter', 'physical', etc., I AM using them to mean exactly what's in the English dictionaries. How can we ever debate if we're speaking two different language? How am I supposed to know what this same combination of letters means in cjlr? Do you have a cjlr<->English translator?

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Got that. Physical object. Like a handcuff, a bullet, etc. A “lien” is not a physical object. Yes, to those of us who know to use a dictionary, it is easy to define.

By which logic no law is physical.

This isn't complicated. Of course a “law” in and of itself is not a “physical object”. Duh. I never said otherwise. I always asked “how are you going to get people to comply with the law against their will?” Does it involve bullets, tasers, handcuffs, prisons? If so, then enforcement of the law IS physical. At least according to the English dictionary. I'm still not clear what 'physical' means in cjlr.

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Contact: the act or state of touching; a touching or meeting, as of two things or people.

Define touching.

We're getting nowhere because the dictionary definitions are in English. So you ask what “Contact” means in my language, I copy/paste the dictionary definition, namely “touching”, and you again ask what that word means in my language. I could copy/paste the definition of “touching”, but we're just going to keep going round and round. Seriously, we need an English<->cjlr dictionary since all this copying/pasting from the English dictionary is getting us nowhere.


(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I cannot prove that Switzerland never used physical force to collect taxes, because I'm not omnipotent. When I make the claim, and you insist it's a lie, the only way to resolve it is for you to name one instance when Switzerland did use physical force to collect taxes. Since you cannot come up with even one name or one instance, my claim remains valid. The burden of proof is on you. I'm still waiting for the name of one person who Switzerland used physical force against to collect taxes. Waiting, waiting.....

Wow. You really aren't good at this, are you? You make a claim, you substantiate it. Your claim is not equivalent to a null hypothesis, and thus cannot be assumed. Please, learn to logic.

(protip: tax fraud is criminal under Swiss law, with all the consequences that entails)

Enough with this. If you STILL don't understand the what “fraud” means in English, we're getting nowhere. All fraud (falsifying documents), whether it's tax-related or not, is illegal under Swiss law. But that has nothing at all to do with my claim that refusing to pay taxes is not a criminal offense. You still have been unable to come up with even one name of someone experienced “physical contact” for not paying taxes, so I'm sticking by my claim.



Recap:
cjlr: “What happens if you refuse to comply with the terms of the lien?”
Frankksj: “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest.”
You dispute this answer, so I reply:
frankksj: “Well, you tell me. What happens?”
cjlr: “That's not how this works, you poor fool. You've not answered the question.”

Dude this language barrier is insufferable. To someone who reads English, YES, I did answer the question, you just didn't like my answer, so I asked for your answer, and so you call me a fool and tell me to answer the question again.

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (funny how the same people who love to accuse others of not answering questions, even when they do, run the unfortunate tendency of not answering questions)

I answered the question.

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's a few more questions to run from:

Q: What do you propose happens to me if I refuse to surrender the fruits of my labor, say I perform some work, get paid, and refuse to hand over to the government the portion it claims for itself (ie the tax)?

Depends on the jurisdiction. As a general rule, laws entail consequences for breaking them.

Oy vey. Language barrier again. I did not ask what the law says, I asked what YOU PROPOSE SHOULD HAPPEN. Totally different concept. At least in English. Maybe in cjlr “What do you propose” is synonymous with “What does the law entail”, but in English, they're unrelated.

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Q: What if I'm living in Hong Kong and secretly engage in business which I do not disclose to the IRS?

Hey, champ. The topic at hand was Switzerland.

Hong Kong and the IRS do not pertain to Switzerland.

Seriously you play that game? Ok: “Q: What if I'm living in Switzerland and secretly engage in business which I do not disclose to the IRS?”

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You are now asking what should happen.
Your original claim was with regards to what does happen.

These are not the same thing. You seem to have difficulty with such fundamental distinctions, given the stunning regularity with which you resort to fallacious overgeneralisation.

Please copy/paste where my claim was 'does' and not 'should'?

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Merely returning the favour, my delusional chum. You couldn't seem to answer my question as to enforcement of the Swiss tax code. So, you first.

Jeez, how many times do I need to answer it? “You don't get title and cannot transfer the property to a buyer or an heir without paying the lien including interest” I guess when you're discussing with fellow liberals you can just keep asking the question over and over again and get different answers every time. It doesn't work like that when debating libertarians. We think through our answers, we research and fact-check first, so no matter how many times you ask the question, my answer will be the same until some evidence to the contrary is presented.

(08-12-2013 05:58 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Nobody is sitting in jail in Switzerland for refusing to pay taxes. Give me one name if you dispute this.

Nobody is sitting in jail in Bashkortostan for refusing to pay taxes. Give me one name if you dispute this.
After all, if you can't provide a name, it can't be true, right?

Ah, but I can. Igor Izmestyev. A senator from Bashkortostan was arrested at the Bishkek  airport on January 16, charged with, among other things, tax evasion.

See, the burden of proof is on the one proving the positive. If I was unable to find the name of one, then I would concede that I don't know the answer, and that you could be right that tax evasion is not a crime in Bashkortostan. By contrast, the way you liberals work is that I've given you links from the Swiss government, Wikipedia, NY Times, NBC, and a google search 2 million links, all confirming that tax evasion is not a crime in Switzerland. You insist that we're all wrong, and you're right. Yet you cannot come up a link to ANY 3rd party source that backs up your claim, and cannot produce one name. Yet, you still maintain you're right.

Regarding physics and Einstein, when others I'm debating reject the use of axioms and logic to shed light on economics, claiming economics is too complex, I frequently responded that if Einstein could use axioms and logic to shed understand something as complex and unintuitive as the theory of relativity, we should be willing to use axioms and logic when discussing economics. I in no way claimed to have studied physics. I was under the impression my statement about Einstein was universally accepted. You're a physicist, and you strongly disagree with the statement. Fine. I'll look for another analogy the next time I hear that economics is too complex to break down with logic. I have no problem at all admitting that I know nothing about physics, and if you're the expert, I defer to you.

Now, consider the reverse. I've lived in and had an office in Switzerland for 12 years. I've owned businesses in Switzerland, both my own and as a shareholder. I've been on the board of a directors. I've hired several attorneys in Switzerland, and have a Swiss accountant. And now the business is operating out of Hong Kong, so I have both Swiss and Hong Kong attorneys. I hired a firm to negotiate the Pauschalbesteuerung (lump sum taxation based on property in lieu of income tax). Yet, when I made uncontroversial claims about Swiss taxation, claims which I backed up with links to the Swiss tax code, you insisted I didn't know what I was talking about, and that you know so much more about Swiss law and taxes than I. I have a feeling that ANY topic I brought up, even if it was something I held 5 PhD's in, you would still claim to know so much more about it than I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: