Rich people tax avoidance = £38Billion. Poor people Benefit fraud = £1.1Billion
x | 10.04.2012 09:33 | Analysis | Public sector cuts
x
A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.
x | 10.04.2012 09:33 | Analysis | Public sector cuts
x
www.indymedia.org
Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video
Africa
Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela
Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney
South Asia
india
United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester
West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine
Topics
biotech
Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Facts ?
10.04.2012 11:31
Journo
non comment to non article!
10.04.2012 11:43
anarchist
re: non comment to non article!
10.04.2012 16:06
anon
Keep the state - just improve it
10.04.2012 19:07
I think there is nothing wrong with the State fundamentally, just needs improving.
it is obviously required
states friend
logic fail
10.04.2012 23:36
The state is a monopoly of the initiation of force or violence. I believe that monopolies are unfair privileges and detrimental to our freedom and well being. I also believe that violence or the initiation of use of force is fundamentally wrong. You should have learned at primary school that you don't use force to get what you want. You ask, you negotiate, but you don't push, kick, punch, or employ police officers to take toys of other children.
So the state is fundamentally evil. The state is the sole problem of all economic social ills, because it controls the whole economy with violence. To try to fix any problem caused by a monopoly on violence with a monopoly on violence will fail. It's like a drunk saying "I JUST NEED ONE MORE DRINK TO SOBER ME UP!"
anarchist
Perhaps more to the point?
11.04.2012 12:14
Of course, the laws are written to the benefit of those with the social power to control the society. Notice I did not say "the rich" because it isn't clear which comes first, chicken or the egg. In other words, WHY are the rich rich? Why do we (the rest of us) believe that this wealth is theirs? Let's not be so quick to unquestionably accept the material deterministic theories applying to things that aren't really material like social relations and belief systems.
Hint -- try reading the arguments of the "individualist anarchists" for analysis of property, what is it and where does it come from. You don't have to accept their extreme anti-collectivism (just a personal preference) to benefit form their analysis.
MDN
This obsession with eating the rich...
11.04.2012 17:56
I should like to subscribe to dustbin services but not to bombing the middle east. I'd like to subscribe to health care but not to nuclear bombs. If we don't abolish tax altogether, no one will ever have that choice.
Rather than contribute to murder in Afghanistan I'd rather never receive any health care ever again. I'd prefer to die the first time I get ill, rather than contribute to killing others. And I'm not a pacifist, I believe in self defence.
The only chance that we will ever have is to stop using force and allow individual free choice in stead. And that means "free market".
That doesn't mean no communism, but it dose mean that every individual must have the free choice to opt in to, or opt out off an commune by mutuel consent of all concerned. A free market in communism.
We will never be able to stop societies going to war, until we stop finding excuses to to "legitimise" violence ourselves, including force taxation, when whenever we deem it to be for social good. Wrong is wrong, even if it is for the right reasons.
This obsession with eating the rich is eating us away and destroying us! It's stoping us looking a fundamental morality.
anarchist
reality check
11.04.2012 20:10
Errrr.... - it is lawful! There are no laws to state that tax is unlawful.
By "unlawful" you probably mean "something i don't agree with"
If it was voluntary it would be called a "subscription to public services" and not "tax", and you would have the option to not subscribe to those services, but still have your natural rights to breath fresh air, travel freely and interact and trade freely with others.
Rather than contribute to murder in Afghanistan I'd rather never receive any health care ever again. I'd prefer to die the first time I get ill, rather than contribute to killing others. And I'm not a pacifist, I believe in self defence.
>> I should like to subscribe to dustbin services but not to bombing the middle east. I'd like to subscribe to health care but not to nuclear bombs. If we don't abolish tax altogether, no one will ever have that choice.
Fair enough. But it would be very, very easy to dodge many taxes. Eg. I could not subscribe to street lighting, but it would be impossible for me to not use it. Furthermore, who would police 60+ million people to ensure that they are only using the services they are paying for. Eg. dustbin collection.... it would be awful beaurocratic. Another one is national defence costs, people could not contribute to this, but still enjoy the benefits. Others are law and order -> people don't rob your property because of the law (chance of getting caught and punishment). Without contributing tax to a 'not being robbed' scheme, but you would still be enjoying those benefits.
> The only chance that we will ever have is to stop using force and allow individual free choice in stead. And that means "free market". That doesn't mean no communism, but it dose mean that every individual must have the free choice to opt in to, or opt out off an commune by mutuel consent of all concerned. A free market in communism.
Unfortunately, a lot of people will completely opt out and piss all their money up the wall at the pub. Then they will "oh...... its winter, i need food." and hold their hand out (or rob someone)
We will never be able to stop societies going to war, until we stop finding excuses to to "legitimise" violence ourselves, including force taxation, when whenever we deem it to be for social good. Wrong is wrong, even if it is for the right reasons.
This obsession with eating the rich is eating us away and destroying us! It's stoping us looking a fundamental morality.
the real world
pier pressure my friend
11.04.2012 23:42
The second reason is because if we break the law of our community we could be ostracised.
Like who gives a fuck about being prosecuted if your friends are behind you?
anarhist
The blood of our kingdom.
14.04.2012 02:00
"The law" and policing of the law is for the most part a modern invention of the power elite.
For the vast bulk of our history, community self policing has been the natural order. Over the bulk of the country it still is. If you live outside the cities you will understand just what little influence and power the elite actually possess. In the UK and most of the rest of the world, it is the city-dwellers who provide the fuel for elitism.
Endlessly tormenting debate about the politics of the elite and their bigoted 'law giving' just legitimises them and invites its clowns to defend them.
These comments so far are very disempowering if engaged with.
Wedlock.