EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 987
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9270 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
The 'mystery', as you call it in a probably self-enlightening moment of irony, it's not a mystery and it was actually a potential solution. Amogst other things, Madrid took control of payments for Catalan civil servants’ at the beginning of the crisis.They knew it could have been a potential card. It's one of those things that work only if everyone does it. Imagine a shooter inside a cinema: if the 200 people in the audience jumped at him, some would die but he would be immediately stopped. But people prefer to run because of course, who wants to be the one who dies? It's the same thing. Everyone would do it but they are scared of being the ones to get punished hard. | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On November 03 2017 06:59 TheDwf wrote: ?? Sending cops to beat grandmas a day of election and now having political prisoners, that's what you call doing the best he could ? Hahaha "having political prisoners"... Filthy authoritarian right-wing !!! On November 03 2017 07:06 Big J wrote: The ones that can control whether they want to pay taxes or not are those who control most of the money, means of production and work either self-employed or employed in a position where they have a certain control over their own contract conditions. This sounds pretty much like a historical definition of the bourgeois to me. Thanks, so the situation is pretty much the same as in Austria and therefore the mystery why they don't do a tax protest should be solved. There are businesses(or bourgeois... lol) that support the independance. So they can stop paying taxes. btw Putting huge corporations and micro-enterprises in one giant pot is kind of extreme. Don't you think ? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 03 2017 06:59 TheDwf wrote: ?? Sending cops to beat grandmas a day of election and now having political prisoners, that's what you call doing the best he could ? The image of a "cop beating up a grandma" might seem very martial, but the state actually has the duty to carry out the law, so if someone secedes or holds an illegal referendum, they are forcing the intervention. No authority can or should wave this away because it is politically inconvenient. That is putting the logic of the state of law on its head. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
But you are right, that also small business owners can try to avoid tax payments. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion with SoSexy. I guess the describtion in the second post where I explicitely exclude small business owners (qualifier: who control most of the money and means of production) is a deviation from the originial post. | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On November 03 2017 08:33 Big J wrote: I didn't talk about enterprises at all. I also don't ask my table about its interior design preferences, so why would I ask a line written in a company register whether it wants to pay taxes? But you are right, that also small business owners can try to avoid tax payments. Maybe that is what is causing the confusion with SoSexy. I guess the describtion in the second post where I explicitely exclude small business owners (qualifier: who control most of the money and means of production) is a deviation from the originial post. So you were talking only about personal taxes and not corporate taxes ? Because, stricktly speaking, the subject accountable for paying corporate taxes is the enterprise and not the owner. Same with VAT, duties, excise etc. payed by the corporate entities. In many cases the owners are not really involved with the management and in 100% of the cases they don't pay these taxes from their personal pockets. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 03 2017 09:12 Pr0wler wrote: So you were talking only about personal taxes and not corporate taxes ? Because, stricktly speaking, the subject accountable to pay corporate taxes is the enterprise and not the owner. Same with VAT, duties, excise etc. payed by the coprporate entities. In many cases the owners are not really involved with the management and in 100% of the cases they don't pay these taxes from their personal pockets. No, I'm just pointing out that I was talking about people, not enterprises. It's bad enough that you are legally right about the responsibilities often being with the firms and not the owners/controllers (whatever that means; how something that is a purely imaginary and therefore an ideological object can take a responsibility is beyond every straight thinking person). And it really, really hurts my brains if you tell me that the owner doesn't pay from his pocket, although he is the owner of the firm and thus the owner of what the firm "owns" (and again such a wrong concept; something that isn't free can't own things). But legal esoterics aside, in the real world only people make decisions. I guess you can read from the past sentences why I take issue when you answer me talking about people (burgeoise) with imaginary objects like cooperates and enterprises. | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On November 03 2017 09:45 Big J wrote: No, I'm just pointing out that I was talking about people, not enterprises. It's bad enough that you are legally right about the responsibilities often being with the firms and not the owners/controllers (whatever that means; how something that is a purely imaginary and therefore an ideological object can take a responsibility is beyond every straight thinking person). And it really, really hurts my brains if you tell me that the owner doesn't pay from his pocket, although he is the owner of the firm and thus the owner of what the firm "owns" (and again such a wrong concept; something that isn't free can't own things). But legal esoterics aside, in the real world only people make decisions. I guess you can read from the past sentences why I take issue when you answer me talking about people (burgeoise) with imaginary objects like cooperates and enterprises. They are not imaginary, ideological or whatever objects. They are collective objects. A company of people. They have structure and sometimes the owner has only controling and not managing functions(For example - board of shareholders) People are making the decisions thats for sure, but often these people are not the owners. Turns out that people figured out at some point that 1) the fact that you own something doesn't mean that you can manage it prorperly and 2) even if you can, it's much better to delegate most of the functions to other people, so that your brain doesn't explode. Also, if you say that the owners pay corporate taxes from their pockets, you have to clearify how businesses owned by more than one person do it. Are they paying equally each time or proportionally ,or maybe taking turns ? I seriously didn't think that the concept of a company is that hard to understand. Distinguishing the owner from the company is really important later when you try to punish that owner for avoiding taxes. I hope you understand that. They are different subjects of law. | ||
|
SMaD
Spain137 Posts
On November 03 2017 08:29 Nyxisto wrote: The image of a "cop beating up a grandma" might seem very martial, but the state actually has the duty to carry out the law, so if someone secedes or holds an illegal referendum, they are forcing the intervention. No authority can or should wave this away because it is politically inconvenient. That is putting the logic of the state of law on its head. Although the state has the duty to apply the law, there are many ways to do it. In this case, you can try sending the police in order to stop an illegal referendum (while beating the shit out of people) and twist laws to imprison its responsibles on unjustified reasons or be smart and try negotiating some sort of agreement at political level to solve some Catalan demands. Also, some media report that the governement is trying to illegalize one of the Catalan independentist parties (CUP). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 03 2017 10:06 Pr0wler wrote: They are not imaginary, ideological or whatever objects. They are collective objects. A company of people. They have structure and sometimes the owner has only controling and not managing functions(For example - board of shareholders) People are making the decisions thats for sure, but often these people are not the owners. Turns out that people figured out at some point that 1) the fact that you own something doesn't mean that you can manage it prorperly and 2) even if you can, it's much better to delegate most of the functions to other people, so that your brain doesn't explode. Also, if you say that the owners pay corporate taxes from their pockets, you have to clearify how businesses owned by more than one person do it. Are they paying equally each time or proportionally ,or maybe taking turns ? I seriously didn't think that the concept of a company is that hard to understand. Distinguishing the owner from the company is really important later when you try to punish that owner for avoiding taxes. I hope you understand that. They are different subjects of law. Yeah, that's nice. You can make your contracts as you like, you can call it what you like, but I would prefer it if the state did stay neutral towards them. Just because me and my friends call ourselves "Beerwarriors" and hang out sometimes doesn't mean that the drinks we have under these circumstances should be treated differently legally (e.g. in terms of taxes). I do understand that our findings in these cases might be of great relevance to society, but still, it's a free world, do as you please, make contracts as please and as long as you are not interfering with other people's freedom then other people or the state as society's representative shouldn't interfere with you, or treat you differently in any way. But I know, that's just my liberal mindset. Why have it easy and logical when you can create these imaginary objects that you enforce laws against so that the people actually acting don't have to carry the responsibilities for their actions. "No sir, I take no responsibility. I was on a very important mission for the Beerwarrior company when this other car crossed the street." "Beerwarrior company you say? Well better put that bad guy in chains so it won't run over another person! Justice achieved!" "Thanks sir. The world is a much safer place now! Anyways, I'm off now. I have urgent matters for our Beerfighters company!" "Just remember to not pay any VATs when you act on behalf of it. This Beerfighters thing is of great importance to me and ideology and must be treated in a special way!" | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On November 03 2017 17:16 SMaD wrote: Although the state has the duty to apply the law, there are many ways to do it. In this case, you can try sending the police in order to stop an illegal referendum (while beating the shit out of people) and twist laws to imprison its responsibles on unjustified reasons or be smart and try negotiating some sort of agreement at political level to solve some Catalan demands. This seems quite subjective. From what I've seen they haven't had to twist laws to imprison people, it's been quite clear-cut cases. I don't follow it as closely as you do though so I could be wrong. But also, what are these demands? They haven't reached my papers. Hasn't Puigdemont been quite clear that they accept nothing short of independence? | ||
|
SMaD
Spain137 Posts
On November 03 2017 19:13 Longshank wrote: This seems quite subjective. From what I've seen they haven't had to twist laws to imprison people, it's been quite clear-cut cases. I don't follow it as closely as you do though so I could be wrong. But also, what are these demands? They haven't reached my papers. Hasn't Puigdemont been quite clear that they accept nothing short of independence? It is not as 'clear-cut' as you may think. Paradoxically, note that members of the Parliament (President, etc.) have also been charged for the same crimes as the government but they have not been imprisoned because the judge in their case was different. Also, based on Spanish Constitution, rebellion implies the use of violence which has not been the case all along the Catalan independence process. | ||
|
VelJa
France1109 Posts
& it will cost him his carreer & few years in jail | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 03 2017 08:29 Nyxisto wrote: The image of a "cop beating up a grandma" might seem very martial, but the state actually has the duty to carry out the law, so if someone secedes or holds an illegal referendum, they are forcing the intervention. No authority can or should wave this away because it is politically inconvenient. That is putting the logic of the state of law on its head. No, they could simply ignore the referendum and disregard the results like the "dictator" Maduro did in Venezuela... I find the number of people adamantly repeating "the law is the law" really alarming here. Do you people remember that apartheid, slavery, various racial laws or even killing your wife had she cheated on you used to be legal, and still are in some parts of the world? What about this Saudi blogger who is to receive 1000 whiplashs because he wrote that he was atheist? Are you going to tell me it's OK? In those situations "the law is the law" is such a poor, bland answer—LAWS CAN BE UNFAIR. Legality without legitimacy is not only a recipe for disaster, it's a cheap way to justify and ratify any State violence. What happens in Catalunya is a political problem, and not a mere technical or judicial one. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 03 2017 21:59 Longshank wrote: I don't think that's a fair comparison, the Spanish law is in line with every(?) other nation in the world. Or is there one where provinces or regions can unilaterally declare independence as they see fit? I doubt there is. Laws can be unfair yes, but I have a hard time seeing just what Spanish laws are unfair in this instance. I was referring to the repression during and after the referendum. That being said: (1) The Constitution claims that the unity of the nation is indissoluble. (2) If you ask politely and democratically an independence referendum to see if people really want it or not, the governement can always answer "nope, see (1)". (3) If you organize it unilaterally to exercise your right to self-determination, you get jailed for "sedition" because (1). It's a deadend, the Constitution builds an impossibility regardless of reality. You can see that it's unfair by pushing the numbers with a thought experiment: if 95% of the people in Catalunya wanted the independence, in theory they would still be blocked forever as long as the Spanish government camps and refuses to negotiate anything ("the law is the law"). It's stupid. If Rajoy was any clever, he wouldn't have sent cops on civilians the day of the referendum, he would have said that the referendum has no value but at least opened talks about restoring the autonomy of Catalunya or something. Easy way to defuse the bomb or at least lower the tensions. Instead of that, he went full repression like a brute and summons the holy spirit of the Constitution to justify his catastrophic reactions. But Constitutions are not eternal; they can age and die, and their adequation to modern conditions, or simply the consent of the people, is not guaranteed forever. Here it may be the case, and obviously the answer cannot be "well, your ancestors made a pact in 1978, so this bond is eternal" ... Fetishizing the Constitution is not going to solve the political problem of 4x to 5x% of the population in Catalunya no longer wanting to be part of the Spanish nation. What Rajoy and his kind do not want to see is that the legitimacy of the 1978 order is gone for independentists. And given the number of crisis in Spain those last few years, it's clear that the 1978 regime itself is in crisis on a larger scale. The Catalunya issue would have been the golden opportunity to rebuild a working "national contract". Unfortunately for Spain, they have the generic psychorigid right-winger at the head of the State... | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
Instead the catalan leaders decided to force the illegal referendum by calling it democracy and the attempts of Madrid to keep the rule of law - oppresion. I have to say that I don't agree with the police violence either - it was terrible decision. But, as I have stated before, you can't expect much intelligence from politicians - that for both sides. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11735 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:11 TheDwf wrote: I was referring to the repression during and after the referendum. That being said: (1) The Constitution claims that the unity of the nation is indissoluble. (2) If you ask politely and democratically an independence referendum to see if people really want it or not, the governement can always answer "nope, see (1)". (3) If you organize it unilaterally to exercise your right to self-determination, you get jailed for "sedition" because (1). It's a deadend, the Constitution builds an impossibility regardless of reality. You can see that it's unfair by pushing the numbers with a thought experiment: if 95% of the people in Catalunya wanted the independence, in theory they would still be blocked forever as long as the Spanish government camps and refuses to negotiate anything ("the law is the law"). It's stupid. If Rajoy was any clever, he wouldn't have sent cops on civilians the day of the referendum, he would have said that the referendum has no value but at least opened talks about restoring the autonomy of Catalunya or something. Easy way to defuse the bomb or at least lower the tensions. Instead of that, he went full repression like a brute and summons the holy spirit of the Constitution to justify his catastrophic reactions. But Constitutions are not eternal; they can age and die, and their adequation to modern conditions, or simply the consent of the people, is not guaranteed forever. Here it may be the case, and obviously the answer cannot be "well, your ancestors made a pact in 1978, so this bond is eternal" ... Fetishizing the Constitution is not going to solve the political problem of 4x to 5x% of the population in Catalunya no longer wanting to be part of the Spanish nation. What Rajoy and his kind do not want to see is that the legitimacy of the 1978 order is gone for independentists. And given the number of crisis in Spain those last few years, it's clear that the 1978 regime itself is in crisis on a larger scale. The Catalunya issue would have been the golden opportunity to rebuild a working "national contract". Unfortunately for Spain, they have the generic psychorigid right-winger at the head of the State... I think the basic idea should be that the law comes from the people. Which means that the people should be able to change the law. The people are the basis of the constitution and wield the power to change the constitution in any way they like. Thus, the constitution can never overwrite the peoples ability to change their constitution, because that is the superior law. Any other arrangement is obviously silly. And i totally agree with you here. "The spanish constitution doesn't allow secession" isn't something that ends the argument in the way a lot of people seem to believe. It is in general an argument that removes any need of ethical decision by simply defaulting to "the law is good". This is quite obviously a silly position, as it does not even consider that laws are made by people for a reason. If every law is good by default, how do the people who make laws decide on them? In my opinion, this is a modern version of "the bible says". It moves any ethical judgement from the person to the people making the law. It is a lazy argument, and it shows such an obedience to authority that is not really compatible with being a free person. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
I also don't feel liberal sympathies for the self-determination of the Catalonian people - I think neither the Catalonians nor the Spanish would be more free after independence. At most, you'd have some re-redistribution of income within the Iberian peninsula, with Catalonians better off (if they could pull off a clean exit while staying in the EU) and poor regions in Spain worse off. Sometimes the status quo has an inherent value that is worth preserving. That's why national constitutions are made to be difficult to change. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10137 Posts
It's like asking a pear tree to give you lemons. | ||
| ||
