92% of the reason why it sucks to be brazilian
92% of the reason why it sucks to be brazilian
Yes, you're looking at ~92% tax right there. Final price jumped from ~113 dollars (584BRL) to ~220 dollars.
EDIT: A bit of clarification, when buying from abroad there's a flat 60% federal tax if the thing + shipping price surpasses 50 dollars. Then there's a state tax that can vary between 17-25%, which goes on top of the total taxed value. Part of the tax is literally "tax of a tax"
You're viewing a single thread.
Taxation is robbery. I live in Argentina (+100% in taxes) and I have this problem too.
I wouldn't go so far as to say taxation is robbery because it goes straight into libertarian bullshit, lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others' work.
Still, some govts sure make it feel like that. My condolences on you having to deal with Milei now.
Cara, ni entra no perfil dele. Fica defendendo a Milei cada comentário. Uma pena que os argentinos não tem um termo como bolsominion pra os boludos seguidores dele.
Man, don't get into his profile. He keeps defending Milei every comment. It's a shame that the Argentines don't have a term like bolsominion for his big followers.
translated
Mileiites? Mileiadores?
Mileiístas (in spanish).
Yes, I voted him, but to defend myself from the state. I don't think that, in the long-term, he's going to save our current crisis. In fact, I advocate for the complete abolishment of the state through agorism.
lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others’ work.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion. The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other.
Denying this process of voluntary exchange is, implicitly, denying the free will of the tenant and worker.
Blah blah blah... you kind of force people to enter into rent because they can't afford houses and you control the rent however you want.
you kind of force people to enter into rent because they can’t afford houses and you control the rent however you want.
The landlords are providing a service to those who can't afford houses, and the tenants, through economic calculation, determine that it's better to pay for a department rather that saving for a house.
In fact, deficit spending, printing fiat money and manipulating interest rates harm savings and relative prices.
"If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem."
The landlords are the reason people can't afford houses. Housing should not be a market. Otherwise people make housing into commodity and thus oppose new developments. This kind of Nimbyism is why we can actually afford to house people but can't.
Government is not some vague boogeyman that does work in vacuum. Lobbying has ruined any semblance of regulation. Landowners have a conflict of interest in the goal of housing everyone.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion.
You cannot enforce any contracts without some sort of coercitive force. If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person. The only difference compared to the govt is size. You didn't pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here's a fine on top of that.
The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation. There's a reason unions (whether they actually do their job is a different matter, let's avoid that for now) and work regulations exist in civilized places, because otherwise, people will end up as slaves or almost slaves. If you leave it to the market to "self-regulate", you'll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses, lording over their wageslaves (serfs and peasants), who should be grateful they're allowed to work. Not to mention the constant bullshit of "if you work hard enough, you too can become a noble!"
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person.
In this case, the force applied by the landlord is legimitate because the tenant is not performing their contractual obligations over the property of the landlord.
You didn’t pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here’s a fine on top of that.
There is no contract between the government and citizen that legitimize the violence of the state. Any theory of a "social contract" will be unilateral by nature. Actually, the state itself is a threat to the Non-Agression Principle.
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation.
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary. In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
If you leave it to the market to “self-regulate”, you’ll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses
As long as private property is not violated by institutional coercion; as long as the system of prices is not manipulated by any government policy; as long as human action and his natural rights are respected: social cooperation through the division of labor will flourish, as voluntary exchange is the source of economic progress.
Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity, as property is the only way to resolve conflicts by the existence of scarce resources.
The market is a process, not an "equilibrium model". It is not designed, but emerged from human action.
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
The state can not have direct consumer feedback; it can not act economically. Instead, it collects taxes and spends them arbitrarily following interest groups.
"In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities."
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary.
Asymmetries can get to a point that some contracts might as well be involuntary. Not to mention that those that have the power can and will abuse it. To think that a person whose choices are "begging on the streets" or "dealing with all sorts of abuse to ensure food safety and shelter" has any real choice is wishful thinking.
In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
Wrong. Badly written and badly implemented laws can encourage that. Any decent law that forces companies to abide by safety and health standards are protecting workers from injury and possibly the customers from disease. Women getting harassed by horny bosses shouldn't be left to their own devices. Read that part about power asymmetry above. People with power will abuse their power. Laws should exist to ensure that they don't.
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
Wrong. You can have monopolies without any state. There are natural monopolies, like water and sewage, or roads and railways, these latter two to a lesser extent. In a lot of places, there are de facto monopolies of services like electricity or internet connection, the latter even being parodied in a South Park episode. Also, without a state, it is easy for a big enough company to collude with others to ensure local monopolies (oligopoly), or for it to harass or simply buy out any competition. The state is the only thing that can force a monopoly or oligopoly to end.
As much as you complain about government violence and coercion, that's the only thing allowing for any "healthy" capitalistic state to work. If you remove the state, then there's nothing forcing anyone to follow any sort of law. Therefore, stealing is not a crime. Impersonation is not a crime. Bribes will become "personal tax". As soon as a company has to pay a private security force to violently enforce what it wants, like the safety of its own resources, it acts no different from a state. Not to mention that there's the real risk of any company that sells "protection through violence" to decide that they deserve more, bullying everyone for money because, hey, fuck you, I have the guns, whatcha gonna do? Call the police?
Keep in mind that price manipulation is not exclusive to govt's. DeBeers controls the supply of mined diamonds, they set the price. A monopoly.
Anarchism can only realistically work when there's only one person. As soon as there's more than one, some sort of social structure is created. Capitalism depends on a state existing to ensure some sort of obedience to law and, if it doesn't exist, companies will step in, one way or the other, always looking to ensure they maintain their own power, obviously. Which, again, is no different from a feudalistic state.
“In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities.”
Wishful thinking. In a market economy, it's all about profit. If one can profit off cheap, plentiful stuff, they will. If there's more profit to be made ignoring lower density areas, then they can go fuck themselves for not being profitable. "Dangerous" areas can also go fuck themselves for being too poor/dangerous to be profitable.
Rightwingers don't deserve oxygen, and I'll gladly see to it should the chance arise.
Do you believe no one can live outside the authority of the government?
Do you believe in theft and redistribution of wealth to fund their programs?
Do you believe a small oligarchy of politicians can best regulate the economy?
Do you believe a monopoly of fiat currency must be maintained?
Do you believe in using violence and force against those who disagree with you?If yes, I think you should reconsider your position about who "deserve oxygen" and who does not.
Are you illiterate?
And I though 10% was bad