For my Libertarian friends

ExittheLemming wrote: I thank you and do follow the chain of mutual benefits that you outline as it does make sense. BUT The new credit call centre in Mumbai was stocked with fixtures, fittings and I dare say office supplies from Indian firms (cos they're cheap as chips compared to Australian suppliers) so yes, the ripple through the economy would be beneficial to everyone in India. Perhaps I'm just being thick but assuming my firm's increased profits were spent entirely overseas wouldn't the only benefit for the Australian economy be the ability of richer Indians to spend their wealth in Australia or ultimately for Indian firms to expand their operations TO Australia?

Yes, this is a good point. I do not think it's likely that a firm would abandon their own country completely unless the political climate was such that it became unprofitable to do business there. So if your company keeps making money in India, I suspect atht some of those profits will eventually come back to Australia. Is it a publicly traded company? Presumable there are Australian shareholders who will benefit and are the top executives Australian? If they are making more money, they will likely spend it in Australia, but your point is well taken. At least the poor Indians will be better off though, right? That's got to count for something.

Let's say 50% or more of Americans said "I'm done paying taxes because our government is incompetent and squanders our money." 

What do you say should happen to them?

The IRS will have a field day for sure... 

The T wrote: The IRS will have a field day for sure...  I'm sure if pressure was strong enough in that front, politicians would be quick enough to capitalize and reduce taxes or even eliminate them...  But in the question, they have just voiced their opinion. You failed to add "and they actually stopped paying taxes".  50% of the population would still be paying taxes. The other ones are breaking the law (which we assume hasn't been changed). They'll have to be face the consequences.  Of course if 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes, it will get difficult to actually make it happen...

Yes, stop paying taxes- that's what I'm implying.

My question is "What should the consequences be?"

This is the kind of scenario that I dream of, because the reality is that the federal government couldn't do a damn thing about it. You can't make 150 million people do something they don't want to do. The only reason laws work is that the vast majority of people agree to follow them.

And we're still living in a country where, quite frankly people think the President controls everything... 

The government's involvement in the housing market shows plainly that the government has no business in the health care market.

Epignosis wrote: Let's say 50% or more of Americans said "I'm done paying taxes because our government is incompetent and squanders our money."  What do you say should happen to them?

Does your constitution give your elected representatives the power to levy taxes?

If yes - the 50% nay sayers would have violated their own constitution and thus civil laws?
(I have no idea what punitive or contingency measures you have in place for such an eventuality)

If no - your elected representatives would be voted out of power and there would be one huge sh*it fight as to see who owns whatever public sector assets you might have. Its either anarchy or maybe new political parties would emerge running on a Libertarian ticket to rewrite the constitution against those parties who uphold the existing constitution.

thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: I thank you and do follow the chain of mutual benefits that you outline as it does make sense. BUT The new credit call centre in Mumbai was stocked with fixtures, fittings and I dare say office supplies from Indian firms (cos they're cheap as chips compared to Australian suppliers) so yes, the ripple through the economy would be beneficial to everyone in India. Perhaps I'm just being thick but assuming my firm's increased profits were spent entirely overseas wouldn't the only benefit for the Australian economy be the ability of richer Indians to spend their wealth in Australia or ultimately for Indian firms to expand their operations TO Australia? Yes, this is a good point. I do not think it's likely that a firm would abandon their own country completely unless the political climate was such that it became unprofitable to do business there. So if your company keeps making money in India, I suspect atht some of those profits will eventually come back to Australia. Is it a publicly traded company? Presumable there are Australian shareholders who will benefit and are the top executives Australian? If they are making more money, they will likely spend it in Australia, but your point is well taken. At least the poor Indians will be better off though, right? That's got to count for something.

I have to admit I'm failing to see your line of reasoning here. They relocated their credit department to Mombai then all they've done is transfered a overhead to different country to use cheaper labour and thus reduce the wage-bill. India does not produce anything in this instance, it is still an overhead so the saving to the parent company is in reduced overheads, which on a fixed margin would mean bigger profits if the cost of local redundancy didn't affect the bottom-line (which it does). However, redundancy/out-sourcing is not really done for maximising profits, but for managing cash-flow and to reduce short-term borrowing.

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: The IRS will have a field day for sure...  I'm sure if pressure was strong enough in that front, politicians would be quick enough to capitalize and reduce taxes or even eliminate them...  But in the question, they have just voiced their opinion. You failed to add "and they actually stopped paying taxes".  50% of the population would still be paying taxes. The other ones are breaking the law (which we assume hasn't been changed). They'll have to be face the consequences.  Of course if 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes, it will get difficult to actually make it happen...  Yes, stop paying taxes- that's what I'm implying. My question is "What should the consequences be?" The consequences should be that they face the same legal consequences as anyone normally would who is non-compliant.  Obviously, the reality is that the government doesn't have the resources to deal with that many people doing something like that - I guess it would be interesting to see what the reaction would be. Exactly the same.  Sure, but those penalties couldn't be enforced, just as Pat stated.

thellama73 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: Let's say 50% or more of Americans said "I'm done paying taxes because our government is incompetent and squanders our money."  What do you say should happen to them? Does your constitution give your elected representatives the power to levy taxes? If yes - the 50% nay sayers would have violated their own constitution and thus civil laws? (I have no idea what punitive or contingency measures you have in place for such an eventuality) If no - your elected representatives would be voted out of power and there would be one huge sh*it fight as to see who owns whatever public sector assets you might have. Its either anarchy or maybe new political parties would emerge running on a Libertarian ticket to rewrite the constitution against those parties who uphold the existing constitution. The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to levy taxes on income. I think it should be repealed.