US Companies Only Pay 1/3 Corporate Tax Rate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.

22

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

LOL. The queen of providing nothing but utter crap is demanding someone source their position.

Posting a link from TRNN is even below citing a wiki page for source material.

What a clueless dolt.

23

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

LOL. The queen of providing nothing but utter crap is demanding someone source their position.

Posting a link from TRNN is even below citing a wiki page for source material.

What a clueless dolt.
[/quote]

I was wondering where your stupid ass was…

On effective corporate taxation: The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates ⋆ Reclaim Democracy!

24

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I was wondering where your stupid ass was…

On effective corporate taxation: The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates ⋆ Reclaim Democracy!
[/quote]

I didn’t read the article, but what kind of authority is that site talking about in its heading, “RECLAIM DEMOCRACY! Restoring Citizen Authority Over Corporations”?

25

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I was wondering where your stupid ass was…

On effective corporate taxation: The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates ⋆ Reclaim Democracy!
[/quote]

I didn’t read the article, but what kind of authority is that site talking about in its heading, “RECLAIM DEMOCRACY! Restoring Citizen Authority Over Corporations”?
[/quote]

looking to balance out the power of those in control with evidence.

26

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I was wondering where your stupid ass was…

On effective corporate taxation: The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates ⋆ Reclaim Democracy!
[/quote]

Your source - and kudos for not using your standard propaganda site - uses the term “statutory 35% tax rate”.

This is just not true. There is no statutory corporate tax rate. It is a progressive tax rate. In fact - from 1993 to 2002, there were no fewer than 8 different corporate tax brackets.

This is a link to a PDF from the IRS. You know - the guys who actually collect the taxes imposed by congress? Yeah - those guys.

I would invite you, or anyone to find a 90% tax bracket listed in any year between 1902 and 2002.

27

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

28

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Wonder who pays those middle class families…[/quote]

what’s your point ?

29

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

i am a clueless dolt.
[/quote]

you finally say something I agree with . just had to search in your words

30

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

i am a clueless dolt.
[/quote]

you finally say something I agree with . just had to search in your words
[/quote]

This coming from a complete idiot who thinks food animals should be allowed to live full, happy, carefree lives before being knocked in the head and turned into hamburger meat.

I’ll consider the source, and count myself fortunate that you and I agree on nothing.

31

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

i am a clueless dolt.
[/quote]

you finally say something I agree with . just had to search in your words
[/quote]

I’ll consider the source, and count myself fortunate that you and I agree on nothing.
[/quote]

holy shit we agree again

32

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.

33

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

Good post. The whole statist philosophy is childish. Making laws against actions, things, etc. without a victim is childish. When someone argues for that kind of thing, all I hear are the answers given by an 8 year old who is asked what he would do if he was king for a day. Actually, the belief that people have no right to their property is worse than childish, it’s evil.

34

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates

35

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates
[/quote]

Conversely, why can’t those foaming at the mouth for wealth redistribution leave this country and move to one where they can do nothing and be taken care of from cradle-to-grave?

Who should be the one to leave?

Tangentially, people who can are leaving the US in droves. So much so that the Fed is now freezing bank accounts of expatriates.

36

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates
[/quote]

Money is taken from citizens by violence(or at least the threat of it).

If people want services, then they have to pay for them. We agree here.

The impetus to leave this country should be on those who want to change it.

Neither infrastructure nor services require the forcible taking of money. That’s a fallacy.

37

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates
[/quote]

Money is taken from citizens by violence(or at least the threat of it).

If people want services, then they have to pay for them. We agree here.

The impetus to leave this country should be on those who want to change it.

Neither infrastructure nor services require the forcible taking of money. That’s a fallacy.[/quote]

You almost sound like an anarchist. Not that there should be no rules, but the notion that rational people can come to the agreements required to advance society without the millstone of government placed around everyone’s neck.

38

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

Personal friends father started his realty firm in 1949, firm was worth 37 million in 1957 and paid about 11% effective tax rate nominal above 85% the whole time.

39

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

Personal friends father started his realty firm in 1949, firm was worth 37 million in 1957 and paid about 11% effective tax rate nominal above 85% the whole time.[/quote]

Nominal rate you refer to was at the personal level. Discussion is about corporate tax rate which has never been above 53%.

40

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
You almost sound like an anarchist. Not that there should be no rules, but the notion that rational people can come to the agreements required to advance society without the millstone of government placed around everyone’s neck.
[/quote]

I probably am, but I have no faith anarchy would work(too many people are willing to cede any semblance of individual sovereignty in order to feel safe, and would bow down to the first person or group that promised them something-I think we need something to pacify them). So I guess I’m an anarchist in principle, but a minarchist in practice(as long as someone’s around to tell them they’re okay, they won’t panic too much).