Bitcoin Forum

The power to tax is the power to destroy. I think income tax and property tax are just wrong. What do you think?

Roads, police, fire services?

I think people can get accustomed to a certain amount of enslavement. Even slaves are somewehat accustomed to their situation. It's only when you go from one situation to a really escalated  or different situation that people seem to have problems. They don't realize how offensive an income tax is because they have always had to pay one. They don't question it.

heh we are getting hit with tax on the earning side... and on the spending side. And inbetween (saving side aka inflation) . Then we get hit with taxes on the step after the spending side also known as the ownership side. Government is like an organism... it seeks to eat and devour and grow bigger and clutch at everything it can so that it can survive and get bigger and devour more.  Government and freedom are inversely proportional... the more government you have the less freedom you have. Taxes and government are directly proportional so the more taxes you have the more government you have. Therefore the more taxes you have the less freedom you ultimately have.

Even if you did need those things those are state issues.... yet the federal part of the government takes the most

ROOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

The masses at some level correctly realize that without some intervention wealth progressively concentrates in a few hands at the top of the pyramid/food chain/bankers of the world.
Without some form of redistribution this concentration results in all economic/political power concentrated in a few hands (another type of slavery at least for the average joe).
One could argue we are pretty close to this already. Income tax's are tolerated/supported by the populace because they are seen as needed redistribution.

Nuclear Bombs, Military Industrial Complex, Secret Police, Surveillance, establishment of dictatorships in other countries

Yes, I do believe it's wrong, the good government achieves all it does through the stealing of other peoples wealth ( which is wrong in itself ) but it is completely outweighed by the amount of atrocities government commits across the world.

Its a sub conscious defense mechanism against the rage and helplessness that they would feel if they comprehended in a visceral way how much of their birthright has been stolen from them. Were it not for the wealth destroyed by government the least skilled workers would probably be making over 100 grand a year. Mcdonalds employees would likely be able to afford to drive lower end ferraries if they worked a lot of hours and sacrificed other lugusuries. Or alternatively if you preferred than you could chose to be poor and scrape by with all the food you need, a decent computer, a 1 room apartment on a 6 hour work week. Or perhaps you could work your butt off and become successful in real career and retire at 27. Once you comprehend just how much has been stolen from you over such a long time period, its hard for the human mind to come to terms with it, so our subconscious shields us from that pain.

I think taxes are great, as long as they're spent on things that benefit the people and not on the war machine and laundering money to corporations. I'd happily even pay more tax for more schools more hospitals, free education and other free services etc. The tax brackets also need to be fair and I don't agree with punishing the rich with ridiculous taxes either.

How would we build them? If they got rid of income tax we'd just end up paying the difference on ridiculously expensive tax-inflated items.

.... That doesn't make any sense? Tax-inflated items? If you didn't have taxes you wouldn't pay any extra tax on that sort of thing you'd just pay for the items by themselves.

I meant getting rid of income taxes as the user I quoted above suggested.

Oh well, I'm talking about getting rid of all taxes :P

What system do you propose for paying for schools, roads, hospitals, emergency services etc?

Either local government where people voluntarily give their money ( Like state government or Local Council depending on which country you're in ) the trick is not forcing it on anyone and then also people can just get together and hire a crew to build it or you could do corporate sponsorship, since advertising is already used a lot on roads why not use that revenue to support the building of them? There are of course more direct methods like toll roads and frankly if you're going to bitch about that sort of thing then you're a cheap skate because I'd rather pay for it on a voluntary basis than be forced to pay for it or go to jail.

The trick is not forcing anyone to pay for it, you do that and you'll have a lot less resentment about building infrastructure and free healthcare, you might even have people going out of their way to support it like with a charity, oh yeah as long as it's run properly I have nothing against charities either, just so many of them are corrupt now and take a large cut of what's donated to them. It's only natural that when you threaten people with violence if they resist that people start hating the idea of giving money to the people threatening them.

Take Sean's Outpost as a living example of what can be done in a voluntary society as well people are quite happy to give that charity Bitcoin and yet according to your logic, if there were no taxes nobody would build any roads, yet why is somebody who isn't automatically being paid for it just taking Bitcoins and going around helping out homeless people?

Oh and do I have to point out the internet as a world wide source of learning? These days even with a pretty cheap internet connection that doesn't work very well you can do a damn lot of searching if you want to try learning something.

If you don't 'force' people to pay for services then most people probably wont as there's plenty of cheapskates. Everybody should chip in for services everybody uses. There is not enough willing people to make mass charities work, and we couldn't rely on them to be rolled out for everyday services. I'd rather put my faith in fair taxes as opposed to this system. Are you really suggesting you'd want corporations to be in charge as opposed to Governments? At least the money from goverment owned companies goes back to the people (or should do in theory).

And would you trust a brain surgeon who got his education or qualifications from an internet based establishment? Whilst I agree you don't need school or qualifications to be intelligent or successful and can learn most of what you need yourself or from the internet, there are some arenas where 'proper' schooling/education is required.

Love how you use 'force' in quotations, what you don't consider taxation force? :) What makes you think government is so much more reliable? Oh wait! They've fucked everything up through massive overspending and poor organisation, don't get me started about how some of our roads here in the UK are still being 'worked on' despite the work being going on for several years and then there's the fact you have these huge hospitals which keep people waiting for hours while not even bothering to do basic triage to find out which patients need seeing to first because there aren't enough staff to care for them.

I also love the way you tried to insinuate I wanted corporations to rule over everything, did I say that? No, but your attitude definitely is that of a corporation because you're saying essentially if I sit on somebody's land or drink somebody else's water from a lake therefore I must pay for it OR ELSE.

Keep on preaching, basic mathematics and common sense will always win out in the end.

You're being incredibly naive if you think that just because this government is a bunch of corrupt fucks and failing on many levels that one cannot be implemented that doesn't serve its people better. All we need to do is put a system or government in place that will serve its people and not those of private interests. And yes, in some areas roads might be bad and hospital services lacking, but stop spending money on wars and bailing out bankers and put this money into things that need it. What happens when these charities you want start fucking stuff up and become corrupt or build shoddy roads or schools? Who will hold them accountable? What do you suggest as an alternative to the healthcare system? Sell it off to corporations so only people who can afford health care get it? Let's see how many charity hospitals there is if we go with your system. There'll be people dying in the streets, not in hospital corridors (and it's not that bad yet is it? Yeah, you might have to wait a few hours to get that cut stitched up, but if its an emergency you'll get treated). Let's put our taxes to good use and put more money into these services and they will improve.

And it's not exactly force, is it? You're not forced to do anything or pay any taxes if you don't want, yet you can still use all the services it provides all paid for by the taxpayer. Don't work and don't pay taxes if you don't want, or if you're smart enough you can work and get away with it. Maybe be a conscientious tax objector or avoider.

And I didn't insinuate you 'wanted corporations to rule over everything', did I say that?. But you suggested this as an option, which would be much much worse. You don't trust the governments, but you'd trust a corporation who's only goal is to shit on people and turn profit?

And can you explain and elaborate more on what you mean by common sense and basic mathematics will always win?

And now you've gone for the scare tactics by saying people will die in the streets despite me offering plenty of alternatives that will help people, also, if you honestly don't know what I mean by mathematics and common sense will always win you really are a lost cause.


Yes you are, when you don't pay taxes you go to jail, that's a complete lie:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100019166/plumber-jailed-for-tax-evasion-as-hmrc-receipts-rise/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528

http://news.sky.com/story/1074638/wesley-snipes-freed-from-jail-after-tax-evasion

http://uk.eonline.com/news/437162/lauryn-hill-begins-prison-sentence-for-tax-evasion

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45367884-2bd8-11e1-98bc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2q08KfPYs

http://cpj.org/2013/10/vietnamese-blogger-jailed-on-tax-evasion-charges.php

What you call 'Not paying taxes' governments all call 'tax evasion' and you get arrested and put in jail for it no matter how badly you want to spin this, you're the one who is frankly naive. Also, I actually said corporate sponsorship, I didn't say corporations should run everything, that said, if they do it on a voluntary basis and run it efficiently I have no problem with that unlike you.

No, I don't know what you mean. People don't have common sense, do they? I don't think you do either if you think we can live in this tax-free utopia where charities and corporations dish out services for free and out of the goodness of their hearts and everything is better because there's no evil governments. You used scare tactics by complaining that the government has failed because you have to wait a few hours in A+E to get seen and some roads are a bit shoddy. Things would be much much worse than pot holes in the roads if we turned this over to somebody else. My solution is to put more money into this; yours is to  stop paying for it and seemingly hand it over to somebody else and hope they sort the mess out whilst they continue giving it to us for free.

And I know people go to jail for not paying taxes, but you're being silly now and completely missing my points. You're also completely mistaken about what I said. I'm not paying any taxes and I'm not in jail. Some of my friends work and they don't pay any taxes and they're not in jail. And if you don't want to pay taxes; you can. Nobody is forcing you to pay income tax at all. You could also illegally avoid them if you want; just don't get caught. And if you don't want to pay any income taxes and are so against them, just move to a different country that offers this option. Tell me, which ones are those again?


Why would they do it on a voluntary basis? And I wouldn't  have a problem with that option; of course it'd be great it happened, but that's not gonna happen, is it? And what's wrong with the government running it as long as they run it 'efficiently'? So you're ok letting it into the outside hands of a corporation, but governments are a big no-no because they don't run it efficiently? Well neither will corporations and then it's out of our control because they can do almost what they like.

And you still avoided most of my other points. Tell me, what system would you put in place then if you were in charge?

People can pay the service provider/producer. Same way you pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. It's called trade.

And what happens if you can't afford any of these things? You grow up without an education, are homeless and starving and left without any prospects or future, and eventually you'll die when you have a minor injury that's left untreated.

How do you pay the police? They come investigate a crime then bill you for it?

I believe it is possible for those things to be built/offered without government involvement.

It's just that historical evidence shows that doesn't work worth a damn for many things.

It's not impossible, but it's unlikely to ever succeed or become fully efficient.

Let's find out. People are making your argument not about decentralised government, but about bitcoin. "It'll never work" they say. But we know it already does (at a "small" scale...)

And think about this: what if you like the idea of of local, people-run government right now? Where can you go to get it? Look, and you'll see that there isn't anywhere. There's alot of people out there that want the opportunity to choose to go all local. But basically every corner of the earth is "owned" by a government, and none of those governments are happy to give these people what they want. And this is democracy? Where the people rule? The US is supposed to be based on the local government "by the people, for the people" model. And look where they are now.

You might say the people voted for what they got. But if you asked people after the fact, they'll tell you they "didn't think it was going to be like this". So, you can say you're against cutting health and education spending, and in favour of stopping all spending on wars and corporate subsidies. But what power have you really got to make that happen? The power to vote for a new face who promises you "no more of the same", only to end up giving you more of the same after their time is up. The excuse is usually some variation of "real life got in the way". These professional politicians do the minimum to help the people they can get away with, then use everything else for themselves and their business interests. And that pattern is showing no signs of ending, and the scale of what the politicians get away with is starting to go beyond disgusting.

Bitcoin is just one way to take power back from the government. Bittorrent is a similar way of taking content distribution back from the corporate media. The internet itself was a way of giving anyone a platform to broadcast to the world. But they're not giving up without a fight, as you may have noticed. Internet freedom is under threat, I don't need to say anything to convince you of that. The crafty stealing from the public's pockets is a serious threat to the public, right in the middle of an economic recession, which the politicians and their banker buddies allowed to happen so they could get, that's right, more power and more money.

So you can carry on paying these protection rackets to let them "look after everyone" if you like, not going to try and stop you. But there's alot of people out there that have had enough, and want out.

I'd love for this to happen and am one of those people who's had enough and want out of the current system. I'd love and hope that Bitcoin or cryptos become the dominating currencies. I'd love for people to elect politicians or people that genuinely care about what's good for the people and aren't in the pockets of corporations, or even for the people to just take charge of their own lives and that of others for the better of humanity; but people and the general public are generally fucking idiots and don't know what's good for then. They don't know or understand how fiat money or banks work and the war machine. They get on with their shitty little lives and do nothing. Yeah, some people might be armchair anarchists and are angry at paying taxes, but what are they going to do about it? Nothing except moan at the government whilst offering no real solutions other than to get rid of them. Bitcoin should be being used by everyone, but it wont. Why? Ask the people on the street and you'll find out. Ignorance, fear and apathy (probably three of the greatest human diseases).

Well, some don't earn enough to pay much, if any, in income tax so they aren't really bothered by it.  In fact, they are the ones that tend to be on the receiving end of the income redistribution.

If everyone was required to pay their "fair share" and we all had the same flat tax on our income, the idea of an income tax would probably be done away with in favor of a flat sales tax.

Indeed. Imagine you want to buy a house. First you lose around 40% of you earnings on income tax and other nonsense. Then you pay VAT on the house. There is a chance that you have to regularly pay real estate tax. If you want to give the house away there is another tax. If you die your heirs also get to pay inheritance tax.

Income tax should go as the government doesn't need to know how much you're making, but I understand property tax to maintain roads and organize basic emergency services. If income tax pays for schools, that's another reason for it to go. Public schools have failed everywhere.

Public schools have failed everywhere? Really...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381420.0

I actually had some success using this approach.
It's closer to crowdfunding/voting than taxes. But it should cover the needs for hospitals and roads, and shut down nukes (at least, if people are sensitive enough).

I don't know, I guess entrepreneurs will solve these problems. Are you suggesting that institutionalised violence is the only way? We can't help the poor without theft?

No, I'm not suggesting that's the only way. What are you suggesting exactly? Why do taxes always have to be 'theft'? Why not consider them 'donations'? Don't want to 'donate'? Don't pay the taxes (or 'donations') or move to somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you. If you want to play the game then you have to play by the rules, unless you can change the rules. This just seems like people want services but are too cheap to pay for them or are operating under the assumption that you are forced to pay for them when you're not. And if you are willing to pay for these services then you just essentially want to call taxes by something else or the government by something else. And what do you suggest as an alternative plan? Tell me how you would make this work? Why do people assume that just passing on the responsibility to someone else will solve all the problems as long as these people do not call themselves politicians or the government? And do you expect these 'entrepreneurs' you speak of to work for free or do we pay them? These entrepreneurs will essentially become synonymous with government / politicians anyway, then we'll've gone full circle. What happens if you don't pay these entrepreneurs for services rendered? Will they send the bailiffs round? Will they press charges and send you to prison ('institutionalised violence'?) when you can't pay or even worse make you a debt slave? You haven't offered a viable alternative here at all.

while there is monetary governments there will be taxes. Because there is no other way. Maybe we need some other type of system. Maybe with out money.
Maybe something like resource based system or something else.

Hilarious :D

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/44772140.jpg

Don't forget war!

The plan is to pass the responsibility onto me. And you. Everyone.

First we get a money system that doesn't rip us off all day until we die (bitcoin, CHECK)

Then we've got more time on our hands to organise locally. We take a stake in our communities by making the decisions ourselves, not voting for someone who does that for us.

We organise all the local services we need ourselves. Contract a company to collect waste (like your local government do now). Contract a company to maintain the local roads. Contract a company to look after water and sewage. Get all people in the area to pay into a fund to get it done (easier when the value of money is no longer evaporating into bankers pockets on a daily basis). Use a bitcoin wallet with multi-signature, where it only gets spent when a minimum number of people will sign it off.

Choose staff for the local schools, police and hospitals yourself. Even if you're only choosing the managerial staff, at least then you've got more oversight and more input than you do now.

And all the people that are doing all this organising will get to know each other. They'll get to know strengths and weaknesses, biases and ???. Then you'll know what's going on in your community, and where all the money went. You have no hope of anything like that from your local government now. And even the local government people get paid a tidy salary, this is such a waste when the only reason to have them there is that the sconomic system is tilted to keep everyone else too busy with their own day job.

And think about that, these people are professionals, literally dedicated to looking after running local amenities, and this is the best they can do? On their more than decent salaries? Come on. I think we (literally, WE) can do better.

Wouldn't that be just another form of government with direct democracy? And would everyone really have the time to go in-depth to all forms of services they need? And isn't getting people to pay in fund still taxation?

Garbage service, TV, fire departments, food, clothing, electricity.

your government uses your tax money to buy your cloths for you?

It is that. I'm trying to demonstrate that what we do right now isn't so rigid. And what system we could change to if we went self-governing tomorrow.

But it's perfectly possible for people to break out of that system, if they can look after their own services. If they can go 100% independent, then why would the rest of the locality care? Local government now doesn't want to become irrelevant, the politicians lose their jobs if so. But the people contributing to running their own community would take it as a sign that the day would come when they could forget their new (unpaid) role. So, I'm trying to illustrate a transition period, because it's no good telling people who can't get past the current system on an imaginitive level that we'll all become 100% self determined straight away, it's just too unrealistic no matter the scenario.

Its ok if the government doesn't "waste" the taxes..

Yes. There may be exceptions in Switzerland or South Korea, but in most countries, schools are terrible, mixing good kids with bad ones, and not teaching them what they need to learn to become responsible adults, but what national politicians or unions have chosen for them. At worst, that means turning them into puppets, and at best good citizens, but in all cases into people who would be totally unable to live outside the safe legal, and rigid environment of their home country.

That has to be a (bad) joke.

It's for good causes; without tax, nothing could ever get done.  Tax is a necessary evil when tax money is used for evil.  If I have to pay my taxes, so do you: what's fair is fair.  If you don't pay your taxes, X will suffer Y.  People who don't pay their taxes are selfish.

Something along those lines; it doesn't have to be logical to be a popular belief; as long as you fear it enough, you can believe in anything.

Yes, because clothes are a fundamental part of the economy. If people do not have clothes, nobody will go to work, people could get hypothermia and that puts a burden on the health care which is paid for by taxes. Nobody would go out and spend money which would destroy the retail industries.

Basically clothes are needed for an economy to exist.

Whenever someone gets the crazy idea of getting rid of taxes the first thing to come up is "what about the clothes?". Because only government can provide clothes. Imagine if corporations were in charge of clothes. We would all be at their mercy. A company could buy all of the clothes stores around you and refuse to let you buy from them, then you would be stuck at home, naked. What if people cannot afford clothes for work? How would they be able to go out and get a job with no clothes in the first place?

If you think clothes should be privatized you obviously hate the poor and the children and want them to be naked. Which also makes you a pedophile, you sick bastard.

If you do not like taxes then you are a pedophile.

Hahahahha.

I'd really love it if some of these anti-government people could offer a working solution. I'd love to try it. I don't think they think things though half of the time.

I wouldn't. Taxes are needed because we live in partly capitalist society. It's not all bad, but it's not all good either. I know that it's very likely that I won't be at the top. So I don't want to end up like those outsourced workers... Many forms of taxation are needed to provide the services.

So, I'm selfish and believe income tax is better for me and majority than no tax... Because, it's clear what real options of people has historically been.

I think these people who want to do away with taxes and government are being selfish too. Would people really pay for stuff if they could get it for free or weren’t forced to pay it? If my landlord came to me and said "I've seen the error of my ways and don't want to be a greedy capitalist pig any more; just pay when you want and what you feel is a fair price" my desire to pay him the current going rate if any at all may start to evaporate. I'm sure this sentiment would infect a lot of other people too. Same goes for healthcare and other services. Most people wouldn't chip in for this if there was no commitment to do so.

Lucky for you, we are forced.

Would jews really go to the gas ovens if they weren't forced?

Ridiculous comparison. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay taxes.

What does happen when you don't pay taxes?

You don't get thrown in a gas chamber that's for sure.

You're changing the discussion.  Elwar didn't say that people who don't pay taxes are thrown in a gas chamber.  He was pointing out that people do things they wouldn't otherwise do--like enter a gas chamber or pay taxes--because they are forced to against their will.

I think you will find he changed the discussion, but I'll reiterate: Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to pay taxes.

And I'll ask again.  What does happen when you don't pay taxes?  Notice I'm not asking what DOESN'T happen.  There are literally an unlimited number of things that don't happen.  My question is what DOES happen?

You want to know what does happen when you don't pay taxes?

I already know what happens when you don't pay taxes.  I want to see if you know.

There are literally an unlimited number of things that may or may not happen. That would depend on personal circumstances and situations/scenarios.

I believe that some part of what I've earned over the course of my life is due to the government being there to protect property rights and safety.  Also some of the money I've made is due to circumstances beyond the control of some poor, sick people etc.  So I don't have a problem giving something to help the less fortunate.  However a line does need to be drawn somewhere.

Let's try this from another approach:






If you're still having trouble figuring out what happens when you don't pay taxes, I kindly ask that you step out of candy land and try once more.

I said nobody is forcing you to pay taxes and they're not regardless of the definitions you provide. If you don't want to pay taxes you can either A) Not work, b) Earn under the tax threshold, C) Move to somewhere that doesn't require taxes) D) or don't get caught not paying taxes.

Items A), B), and C) aren't valid examples because generally there is no tax imposed on you in these situations and therefore no tax is due.  Item D) implies that a tax is due but isn't being imposed on you because the would be imposer doesn't realize that a tax is due.  What about when a tax is due and is being imposed on you?  What happens if you simply refuse to pay it?

Then yours isn't a valid example either. Name me one place that sends out the police to lock you up for not paying the taxes you don't owe? If you owe a tax then you owe a tax. Nobody is forcing you into a position where you owe any taxes in the first place. You make that decision yourself.

And D) Then it's not being forced or enforced is it?

People has been brainwashed with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00u6qUelp6c
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00u6qUelp6c)
No tax is good!

I wasn't providing an example.  I was asking a question.  The question is about taxes that are owed and being imposed on you.  The question has nothing to do with taxes that aren't owed, because a tax that isn't owed, isn't a tax.  (If someone sends me a bill that says I don't owe them anything, then it isn't really a bill.)  Those first three examples you provide are ways of avoiding taxes, which is not the same as refusing to pay taxes that are owed and being imposed on you.  In this situation, if you refuse to pay, people with guns will eventually be sent out to lock you up.

I don't know what usually happens in the USA, but here your bank account would suddenly be empty.
Refusing to pay is probably not the same as tax evasion.

because you make funds for your govermant to build but lately it's just to fund them so they can steal more, altough it was a good idea :D

You're (trying) to give me examples of where I'm wrong even though you are wrong and are not getting this at all. Not everyone lives in the US so not all police are going to come after you with guns and arrest you for either crimes you have or haven’t committed, but here's a fact: It is not a mandatory requirement nor is anybody forced to pay taxes. So why would any taxes be owed in the first place if it's not mandatory that anybody pays them? No police will come after you if you get yourself into a situation where you don't need to pay taxes. If you get yourself into a situation where you need or should be paying taxes, then yes, you might have a problem, but nobody forced you into either of those situations - You choose that yourself. You can avoid paying any taxes at all in several ways legally and without the threat of force because you owe nothing to anyone, and I've given you examples of how do to do this legally, yet you still don't get it because you're stubbornly operating under this belief that governments are forcing you to pay any taxes at all. If you do not understand this then you do not understand it and there's no point trying to continue your argument. If somebody owes someone money then they owe them money and that person or entity may then use force to get it back, but nobody forced them to loan the money or get into a situation where they owed any money in the first place, and nobody is forcing you or anybody else to get into a situation where you have to pay or owe taxes. You can choose to pay taxes or you can choose not to get into a situation where they are required, so there is no threat of force nor are you being forced to pay them if you do not wish because you owe nothing and have chosen to not pay tax. No crime has been committed so there will be no police with guns coming to arrest you, so you are not forced to pay tax.

tl;dr You don't have to pay tax.

Calm down! ;D

Taxes are the best way we could come up today to "share" the burden of services such as roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, firemen, space exploration, etc.
And it was initially good thinking.

Problem is that it's been extended to "weapons development, extensive spying, government think tanks, government families income source", etc. All this being progressively imposed to tax payers without any easy retaliation.

This time is over soon. Cheer up. :)

This is what happens when you don't pay tax, in the U.K. in 2014.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539214/Woman-living-TENT-seven-year-row-council-tax-bill-thought-exempt-paying.html

I think all tax are wrong. But what can we do?  ???

Crowdfund.

In the US the first question is how long it would take the authorities to figure out you haven't been paying taxes. I feel like I hear stories all the time about people getting away with not paying taxes for ages. But then people make a big deal about it usually and draw attention to themselves which forces the authorities' hand.

Don't fight in courts if you can't pay the legal fees, is my learning from that case...

In the USA, they'll empty your bank account and you'll end up in a prison cell, like Irwin Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff).

In the US this is no longer true. You are taxed just for being alive.

The US Supreme court has deemed ObamaCare a tax.

But the OP question was "why do people think income tax is ok?".

Not, "why do people think not being taxed if you work within certain criteria are ok?".

As for your suggestion, I have chosen not to pay the income tax using both the "make less than the minimum" and "leave the country" options.

But that does not answer the question of why being forced to give up money just because you and your employer/customer have come to a mutually agreed upon exchange of goods/services is ok.

The answer you probably have on the tip of your tongue is that it is not ok to force someone to do something against their will.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to confuse you, but you kept answering a question that I wasn't asking.  I was just clarifying a simple, straight-forward question.  I was asking about not paying taxes when a tax obligation has been incurred and the taxer is aware that you have incurred a tax obligation.  Of course you can avoid incurring a tax obligation, or take measures to prevent the taxer from realizing that a tax obligation has been incurred, but that isn't the same as refusing to pay a tax.

I am calm and agree with all the above.


We already do crowdfund; it's called paying taxes.


It's very easy to get away with it. Most people probably diddle their taxes in some way or another. The vast majority of people don't get caught, but when you do they'll make a fuss about it. They don't even have the resources to go after everyone, so they pick the big blatant targets and go after stupid celebrities to get free media propaganda hits so you scare yourself into believing you must pay them. If you're smart or want to get away with not paying or avoiding taxes whether illegally or legally you can and people do.


You didn't confuse me, but nice try. And why were you asking such a ridiculously stupid question? That's like saying the government is forcing you to not commit murder, yet they are because they'll come and arrest you with guns when you’ve committed the crime of murder. Idiotic proposition.

Crowdfunding is voluntary.


I understand that you probably feel that force is the best solution, you are solidly among the majority in that thought, but it does not have to be that way.

Paying taxes is voluntary as I've already explained above. Somebody else in another thread recently explained why this voluntary crowd-funding wont work, and I can't be arsed explaining why, but paying taxes is already 'voluntary crowd-funding' any way. Nobody is forcing you to pay anything, but if they got rid of taxes, there'd be many many people choosing not to pay them and everyone would suffer as result.

And it's not slavery because you're not being forced to work or pay tax, and the fact that you think you are being enslaved by this is offensive to the victims of actual slavery. Get over yourself with this big bad government rhetoric. You're probably just another cheapskate who doesn’t pay or want to pay any taxes yet is fine taking all the services they provide for free.

Paying taxes is certainly not voluntary. Just because slaves could run away or kill themselves to not be slaves does not mean that slavery was voluntary.

You are on the wrong side of history choosing force over freedom. Just as slavery was perfectly acceptable and justified lest everyone suffer as a result.

No, I do not want to pay taxes. Under threat of kidnapping I pay my taxes. I do not ask for services, I constantly vote against spending. I no longer live in the US yet I still must follow the US tax code.

It is voluntary. Have you read my above arguments?

I suppose your boss is a slave master, and makes you get up early in the morning and forces you to work for him, right? You don't have a choice, right? You do have a choice. A slave does not.

And if you pay taxes then you are supporting them and making yourself their Bitch. Stop paying their wages then. If you choose to play their game by their rules in their system then you cannot complain because you voluntarily chose to play and can quit the game any time you wish, you just choose not to.

Being raped is voluntary. To avoid rape, you either:

a) never leave your house;
b) make sure the rapists don't spot you.

See how ridiculous your argument is now?

Rape is not voluntary. Your argument is absolutely ridiculous, not mine.

I was drawing an analogy between your argument and the one I made up above. I'm not actually claiming that rape is voluntary...

Hate to resort to ad-hominems, but please, educate yourself.

And the analogy is not a valid one.

What do I need to educate myself on exactly?

OK, I'll explain this in detail.

You claim tax is voluntary because it can be avoided - or logically speaking - if something can be avoided, it is voluntary. Let's call this proposition P.

Rape can be avoided by staying in your house your whole life. So by logical inference on P, rape is voluntary. Let's call this result Q.

We both agree that Q is absurd. Therefore, assuming the other premises are sound, P must be false.

In summary, the basis of your argument (P) is false, so your argument is invalid. Tax is involuntary.



I genuinely hope this helps. If not, I'd suggest some reading on the rules of logic.

You are still very confused.  I wasn't making a proposition.  I was asking a simple question in response to your proposition.  Only an idiot would struggle with such a simple question.

That's not my logic and yours is not relevant to this regardless of how you want to spin it.

And rape cannot be avoided by staying in your house. You can be raped from within the house, or somebody can break in, but this is irrelevant because being raped and paying or not paying taxes are completely different. I don't know why we're even comparing rape and slavery to wilfully paying or not paying taxes /being in un/employment.


Only an idiot would ask such a stupid question, but I guess you like trolling, right? Your original question was What does happen when you don't pay taxes? and I answered that several times in almost every possible permutation. I even answered the stupid question of what happens when you don't pay taxes that you owe, but that's obvious, just like saying what will happen when you murder somebody.

Ahhh, the complexities of the social contract.  :-\

Please stop with the idea that income tax is voluntary.
It's correct to say that you don't pay tax if you live in the streets spending your days begging and farting, but for normal people living a normal working life, there's no choice.

There's always a choice. You can live a comfortable and worry-free existence without paying taxes and have a roof over your head. And I don't know what you mean by 'normal'? The brainwashed materialistic naive masses who think that it has to be this way and that you must conform as there's no other option normal?

Are you just trying to pump your post count to get the ad reward or are you serious?  Even the most ardent statists will tell you that taxation is not voluntary; it's not supposed to be, and that's how they like it.  You're either very confused or really need to keep posting nonsense for your sig.

Another, completely opposite approach, would be to forget about taxes, and just pay for what you use + related projects tied to it (which you voted for).

For example:

You enjoy using the airport close to your home, you pay to maintain it each time you use it. But you also pay for a second related layer that all other users (including you) have decided to tie (by BTC-voting) to airport taxes. Such as space exploration, transport innovation, etc.

You are reassured by this excellent hospital in your vinicity, everytime you need to use it, you pay to maintain it, and also pay for related stuff (which you voted for), such as doctors in hostile zones, free medecines for poor people, etc.

You fancy that nice highway to get to your job quickly? You pay when you use it, and it covers both the price to maintain it, and also maintain/create new roads in the countryside, because you decided to vote for that related project.

I'm just thinking aloud, don't mind me. ;D

Ah, the old you're only posting because of your sig approach. Petty. I would argue this all day regardless of a sig deal and regardless of what you may or may not think.

Taxation is voluntary. You're confused if you think you have no other option than to pay it. I suppose if you play a game of Monopoly you're forced to go to jail and pay fines, right? Yes, if you play the game, but nobody is forcing you, you can quit any time, nor do you even have to start playing the game in the first place, but if you want to keep arguing with me and 'pumping up my postcount' so be it. What's your reason for posting nonsense?

If you choose to allow yourself to be 'raped' willingly then it's not rape. You're not forced to use Bitcoin. Why don't you create a coin that is free to use for all and see how many miners help you out then?

It's not voluntary. You buy something in the shop - you pay tax. You get your salary - you pay tax automatically. There's no option of not paying tax. Quitting the game = suicide? :)

Not starting the game = ? Self-abortion from inside the womb?



I've always had similar thinking. I do not want my tax money to be spent on X Y an Z. We should have an online system, where people could distribute their tax money, at least 50% of that tax money. And the government should be LOBBYING YOU to distribute money to their liking.

Buying the TV is voluntary. You're not forced to buy one. And if you want a TV buy a secondhand one. Either don't earn any money or chose a job that pays under the tax threshold or move to place with no income taxes. You're not taxed as child from the womb. Quitting the game is not suicide. Quit the rat-race and playing their game by their rules. You willingly choose to live this life and you can choose to get out of it without suicide, but of course, people want to live in their comfy houses in-front of their big TVs whilst pretending to be anarchists and moaning at the government, yet they willingly pay their wages. Up to you what you do. You are not forced. You willingly give this money up. You can willingly and legally refuse to pay it as well. You can't have it both ways unless you want to break the law, but that is also your choice.

It's funny for me to listen about big tv's :) as I'm quite poor. Also that bit about "tax treshhold". The only tax threshold we have is under 0 EUR, lol.

As a kid, child, after your birth - you already have to purchase an ID/Passport. Which costs money. Which is taxed. You cannot be fed with simply water or air. Again - taxed. An etc.

You cannot avoid buying things without breaking the law. Therefore - you cannot avoid tax. And even if you're living on welfare or something, you still pay the tax. And other people pay tax so that you could pay yours. There's no country without a tax. You can skip on some taxes by being a "world citizen" (which is almost impossible to become) or changing your country every X months.

Try to renounce your citizenship, whichever country you may live in. It's impossible. They got you by the balls/vulva from your birth. Google "value of life" for some info on why we are a bunch of slaves, basically.

You're being incredibly naive and close-minded. You're just assuming it's impossible and it's not. Tell me, does a child purchase a passport or do his parents purchase it? You're not even forced to pay for a passport in this country but I don't know about yours. Maybe that child grows up in a travelling community or hippie tax-resisting commune anyway. And arguing about children is ridiculous. We're talking about adults here who can make an informed decision to not pay taxes and they can. You are not forced, but maybe you feel like you are, but you can give up paying tax at any time. Move to a country where there is 0 tax if you refuse to pay or live off the earth which is your choice. Many hardcore anti-establishment types do this. Next you'll be telling me you cannot be truly vegan or anarchist. If you want live in a tent and eat wild /foraged food and make your own clothes you can, but I get it, you want a relatively comfy life so you pay your little bit of taxes, but if you want out there are several options available for you.

If you insist that you're not simply trolling, then please provide an example of "true 0% tax" country, so I can pack my suitcases.

In what way would I be trolling? I hope you're not trolling. Do some research. I don't know if there's many countries that will lock you up for avoiding any taxes unless you get yourself into a situation where they are owed. Go wherever you want and eat the grass and live under the stars and you can pay no taxes and you truly will be free (but I'd check the local laws first just to be safe). You might not be comfortable sometimes but I can assure you no police with guns will be after you unless you start doing illegal shit. But my guess is you'd rather stay at home infront of the comfort of your computer and modestly-sized TV and keep paying to play The Game, right?

OK, let's say I do that.

Now some friends of mine also decide they want to be free, and come join me under the stars.

Now some friends of friends get in on the act. We specialise - some build houses, some catch game, some forage for fruit. We start trading with each other, using rare stones as tokens of value.

We have children, and others join, our population grows.

And what point do you think the government would butt in and start demanding taxes? When would freedom become tyranny?

Taxes suck :/

Would they suck if they provided all the services you want or need and weren’t spent of needless wars and laundered to big business? How they're currently corruptly spent sucks, but we as a people need to change the game. It can be done but not so easily because most people are idiots who don't care nor do they want to be disturbed from their Saturday morning breakfast shows and soaps, so they just pay their taxes and get on with it.

Guybrush is right. If you don't want to pay taxes, you can become a homeless anarchist. To avoid VAT on food, eat out of bins, or non-endangered animals like pigeons. Or earthworms.

If you don't want your money taxed, just don't have any money! They can't tax your clothes, or your straggly beard. Well, at least not in this century. Why didn't we think of this before! Guybrush is the anarchist philosopher of the new age!

Yeah, there is much for improvement.

Then you will anger the vegan anarchists. And you don't need to be homeless.

Public, shared services cost money
Income tax helps fund it

Property taxes.... I think homeless is the only viable option.

Not at all.

Not really - income tax punishes inovative and hard-working people. It's unjust, as it takes more from the ones who earn more, so it promotes equality and people are not the same. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are lazy and some aren't. Treating all people in the same way is a communist crap.

Now let me ask you where does your VAT go if you pay it? And excise tax? Health insurance? Property tax? Customs tax? Road tax? If this is not enough to fund services?

Furthermore, we additionaly pay for most services like energy, sewage, water, security, education.

What do you mean "not really"? What he said is true. And there's an answer to your issues. Make taxes fairer. Maybe introduce a flat tax or only VAT. I don't agree with penalising the rich or punishing the poor. Everybody chips in a fair around and what they can afford and everyone benefits. Would you not mind paying taxes if you had great services and healthcare / education?

What do you mean "not at all?" What he said is true...


I'd rather keep the all money I earn and pay for great services that I choose - services that I need, or services that benefit others.

Key word here is choose.

Because it distracts from the fact that the truly rich aren't getting taxed on theirs.

In the US, capital gains taxes are based on income tax rate. So, if you have no earned income then your capital gains rate is zero.

It's likely this was why Mitt Romney would not disclose more of his finances from the years when he wasn't Governor of MA and his wife was ill. It would have exposed that he made millions but paid no taxes because he didn't get a W-2 or 1099.

To assume that taxation is the only solution to the problem is akin to shutting your mind off to looking for other possible solutions.

Too many people spouting that taxes are a necessary evil and not enough saying "isn't there a better way?" I challenge everyone to think outside the box.

I don't think people said it was the only way, but what's the better way, Mr Think Outside The Box?  ;D

I think you have to gradually wean off the system of taxation. America has existed longer without the 16th Amendment than with it.

People think you need taxes for roads. Not income taxes as there is a tax on fuel already. However, I would go so far as to say that businesses have a vested interest in making sure there is good access to their locations so those businesses who build and maintain access will thrive. Just look at any major mall and you will often see roads that are maintained by the mall. Home builders create the roads in their subdivisions, voluntary HOAs can maintain those roads and some do.

Police. Many people don't need them if they were to take it upon themselves to procure the means of defending their lives and property from criminals. Investigations into crimes can be conducted by insurance companies, private investigators, etc.

Prisons. Wouldn't need 90% of them if we weren't locking people up for plants. Anyone convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc., could be executed in rapid fashion instead of being warehoused for years.

Fire. In many areas, people pay to be protected by a fire department. They get a bill for it. I suspect that if there were no government-operated fire departments, private fire departments would fill the void. People can either pay them directly or take out an insurance policy on their home. Since many lenders require insurance, the vast majority of mortgaged properties would be covered against loss. Those insurance companies may opt to pay for fire protection.

and so on, and so on....

You have to take small parts of supposed government responsibilities and return it to the private market for a solution. Then you drop the tax by the associated amount of savings. Eventually, you eliminate tax altogether on citizens. Import taxes can continue to exist because companies in other nations voluntarily ship goods for imports.

 ::) at the bolded, but most of what you said is laughable. I can tell you now, most people wont have enough money to pay for insurance for medical and fire and to pay the police etc when they need them. You'd need to hire accountants just to pay for all this crap. Or, you could just pay a fair amount of tax every month and all this is already covered. You people seem to want to destroy something completely and rebuild it because there are small flaws in it. You don't mind paying for all this stuff individually to corporations, but to pay it to the government is diabolical?

Indeed, people couldn't afford it now, because they are being robbed blind by taxation and receive effectively nothing in return, unless you count civil rights violations.

Just because I don't have an acceptable answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

You ever hear of the phrase "devil's advocate"?

It's where you argue in favor of a position you are against. To do this well, you have to find supporting research, etc. My debate teacher in school made us pick a side of an argument and then he would switch it.

Let's see you try. I'm switching your argument from pro-tax to anti-tax. Can you do it?

I'll bite! :)

My vision of a world without tax consists of loose confederations of co-operatives. Some of these co-operatives would be responsible for whole urban centres (cities, etc.). Some would be much more local: neighborhoods, blocks of flats, school districts. Direct democracy would select and vote on every issue. Everybody who voted for some kind of action (such as "we need to build a new highway connecting us to town B) would then be obliged to pay for a share to get the work done (a crowdfunding system). People would also choose which contractor got to build the roads using a voting system.

In my view, manufacturing and farming will be decentralised again, as everything devolves into smaller political entities. Technology will offset the loss of efficiency-of-scale: 3D printing, hydroponics, renewables.

Cryptocurrencies and the Internet will be essential tools for organising and running the co-operatives.

I don't think this political system is viable in a world of huge standing armies and globalization. It will get eaten alive, but it's a nice thought.

They don't have taxes here :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle.

You could try that I suppose.








Indeed - some are fortunate and priviliged and some are not.

Some get to send their kids to Eton at £30,000 per annum, and some don't. Such people it is that are usually the ones to baulk at income tax - as their children don't actually need a state education thankyou very much. Neither do they use the NHS, public transport etc etc.

Yes, we agree that having no wealth is a good way to protect yourself from wealth confiscation. Just like being dead protects you from murder.

Yes, agreed.

But then wealth confiscation isn't really a problem for 3.5 billion members of the human race it would seem - the 85 richest individuals on the planet have as much wealth as one half of the worlds population put together - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world) - (one hell of a problem for those 85 lucky bastards though eh ? - most of whom will be from the USA btw ? ?  ;D)

Just as a matter of interest, how do people here believe that BTC will either improve or exacerbate this situation ?

I'm assuming of course that:-

       a) you view this inequality as a problem in the first place  

  and      b) you believe BTC will have any influence one way or the other.

Most people won't have any wealth anyway when they're expected to pay for everything like roads, police, hospitals, schooling and their garbage being collected so it won't matter, so you might as well be living in a jungle because that's what it'll turn into.

Who do you think pays for these services now? By the look of our governments' balance sheets, it's future generations.

A free market could deliver those services cheaper and more efficiently, and we'd all be better off.



I believe it will help in the long run, as we break our dependence on the financial oligopoly.

I don't believe it would, either more cheaply or efficiently. What happens to the people who can't afford all the services I mentioned above?

No, I don't believe it would either.

I could cite a thousand reasons why - but I'll just mention School meals in the UK.

"If there was ever a ‘golden age’ of school meals, it began with the 1944 Education Act, which made it compulsory for local authorities to provide school meals, free of charge to poorer children and at no more than the cost of the raw ingredients to the rest. The aim, as declared in a government circular in 1955, was a lunch ‘suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day’. Free school milk was also provided from 1946 to all schoolchildren."

Certainly, when I was growing up in the seventies, I have to say that the school meals were superb - provided and subsidised by the Local Education Authority (ultimately by the taxpayer of course) - and if you played for the school sports teams (football in my case) you got to drink as much milk as you could manage after a match  :D

"In 1980, Margaret Thatcher - now prime minister - started to run down the school-meals service. Nutritional standards were scrapped and local authorities were now only obliged to provide meals to poorer children. Free school milk was abolished altogether. Competitive tendering meant that many school meals were ‘contracted out’ from local authorities to private contractors and the number of children eligible for free meals was further reduced by the Social Security Act 1986."

Thatcher, it should be noted, was a big fan of Hayek apparently (though I couldn't say wether the respect was mutual or not)

End result of competitive tendering was that nourishing meals that provided all a child needed as a main meal of the day were superseded by a "bums on seats" ethos - and this :- http://www.burgerbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/Jack_All-AmericanJackCombo.jpg

You're arguing against economics there bro... Are you saying that central planning is more efficient in general? Or is there something special about those services which means a free market can't deliver?


Which is the key point. We can debate quality, but these meals were never free. Just like the NHS isn't free today. Somebody is paying, even if it isn't you.

As an aside, I also think competitive tendering is a farce and doesn't constitute a free market. The government buying services on our behalf is no better than them providing it - the consumer must have choice.



Well you'd think food and clothes would be their first priority, but nobody is asking the government to nationalise these services...

These people would need to rely on charity, as they do now, but that charity would be voluntary rather than coercive.

How so, bro? I find it ironic that the only people who usually peddle this big bad government / taxes are bad have little-to-no understanding of economics or the cost of the services they provide. They are more efficient, yes. I also don't know how you expect people to afford or have the time to pay for all these services that they may or may not use.


And when there isn't enough charity these people just what exactly? They die... freeze/starve/bleed to death etc. And you can buy clothes with your state benefits. You can't buy them with nothing. Charities currently struggle to feed and clothe the poor as it is, never mind once all their benefits have been taken away and there's hundreds of thousands more out on the streets and freezing and starving and bleeding all over the place.

Show me a respected economic theory that states a command economy is more efficient than a free market. Better yet, show me a real world example.

As for how people will pay - well, not paying a quarter of their wage in tax would be a start...


And what will happen to these people when the state realises its inevitable bankruptcy?

The poor pay little-to-nothing in taxes and that's who will get shafted the most here, but even the people who pay minimal tax would be bankrupt and completely destitute if they had to start paying for the roads and the bins and healthcare and medication and police etc. Good luck finding charities to help people who have nothing especially with no state to support them.

Well, I suppose the meals (under tender) would be cheaper - thats largely because the meals are crap :'(   Turkey Twizzlers anyone  :-[

   And if you were just looking at the cost of providing the service then the private firm has clear advantages - not least because the staff they employ are low paid zero hours contract workers with no sick pay, pension, holidays or any other rights of employment.
   The dinner ladies that were previously employed by the local authority were respected contributors to the school and given full employment rights - as a result they were (at least from memory) happy and productive in their work. Yes, the cost would have been greater to the taxpayer than the service provided by the private frim. But how on earth could it compete ? - it reminds me of a psychopathic girlfriend I used to have the misfortune to know - she always had the advantage over me - why ? - because she cared less, and the power in a relationship always resides with those that care less.
        Likewise with the private catering firm - it cares less - its raison d'etre is not the provision of nutritious meals to the nations children (though it might say this in its Articles of Association) but profit.


Now we have a nation of employees on terrible terms of employment and with job insecurity - and I'm not just talking about caterers. The sad part is that a lot of them accept the crap that the schools now provide at meal times - why ? - because its cheap and they can't afford any better. Sad but true.
   Now whats the cost, to the nation as a whole, of the competitive tendering ?

   All this just so that Thatcher could reduce the rate of tax for those earning over £100k a year  ???

    
    Economics is a social science isn't it - its concerned with the welfare of human beings and how best to maintain that welfare given limited resources ? Or is it about allocating and distributing scarce resources most cost efficiently via the free market - thereby faciltating the obscene situation where 85 people own as much as 3.5 billion of the worlds population (who don't have 2 bits to scratch their arse with between them) ?

     I don't mind paying income tax at all per se - and neither do I object to Government where it might try to represent the interests of the 3.5 billion - instead of the 85 that it does currently.
  

Really? Ever heard of VAT, fuel duty, road tax, council tax? Not to mention the other taxes that ultimately get passed on through prices?

Taxes ultimately affect everyone, but they're justified to people like you by the second-rate services they pay for - services that have 'no free-market alternatives', so they tell us. All after deductions for the state's wars, debt, aid to friendly dictators, bank bailouts, and bureaucracy.

People should just pay for the services they choose - it works well.

We probably need to focus on the cost of government, not government taxation itself since we are now 100 years into this failed experiment.

If we could self-govern, we would have been doing so through the millenia. That being said, the cost of government has far exceeded the benefit in the United States and probably everywhere else. I will go out further on the limb and state that the value of my citizenship is depreciating as government gets bigger and more intrusive while continuing to fight endless wars.

Fathom that productive entrepreneurs must seek permission from regulators who produce virtually nothing.

It would have been a better system if production was not taxed at all and tax only consumption, but then Congress would really have to live within their means, something they have not been able to demonstrate.

We have been; the majority of everyday life decisions, short-term and long-term, is born from rational self-interest.  To imply we cannot self-govern is to imply we can make no decision of our own; if this is true, that none can self-govern, then we should not pretend that a government of elected officials who also cannot self-govern can manage to find the capacity to govern others, a far more difficult task, nor should we pretend that they make our every decision for us, for if they did, what need do we have for democracy?

I agree with all of that - but is management of any type unnecessary then (and under any circumstance), in your opinion ?

I know that William Blake said that if a fool were to persist in their foolishness they would become wise - but on that I'd have to disagree with him  ;).
  If my kids start playing with matches whilst in my garage right next to a tank of petrol I'm not going to stand by and watch.

 And what if my rational self interest should clash with that of someone elses rational self interest ? Who is to arbitrate ? What if my everyday life decisions are demarcated by illness - or by old age, or by any other form of under privilege/disadvantage ? Who then will intervene when the man whose everyday life decisions aren't so constrained as my own takes from me all I have and hold dear ?

No! You are trying to prove your point, and everybody's against you, so it's up to you to do the research.
I think you don't know much about the subject, but fortunately for you, I do. I know a place, a country, where there is no income tax, nor any capital gains tax, but you couldn't move there, and neither can I. Can you tell me why? If you know what you're talking about, you should have the answer.

In my belief, I don't think government should need to act as a parent to its child citizens; naturally if your children did something life-threatening, you'd stop them, but if the parents are so incapable that they need the guidance of government, they aren't fit to have children to begin with.  The relationship doesn't follow; if we truly do live in a society where the majority of people have the mental capacity of children who play with matches by petrol, and such a society where the people elected into office are these children, elected by the children, we still have the issues of the blind leading the blind; it follows, then, that you are no better off with or without government guidance, as your general population will be just as stupid as it was before (except in this case, they're stupid enough to let themselves be ruled and rallied into state-socialism or something akin.)

Anyway, if your rational self-interest (just as an example, as I'm sure you're a nice guy in reality ;D) is a detriment of another person's rational self-interest, that person isn't going to want to know you anymore; if the person was a grocer, for example, now you have to find another grocery store since you treated him poorly, and this is assuming he's the only one who cares about your action (which of course, life doesn't occur in a vacuum, so your consequence will actually be much more severe than this example will provide.)  If you continue to act in such a manner to everyone you know, nobody will want to know you anymore; eventually, after so much of this now irrational self-interest (since you're effectively cutting yourself off from the labor of other people, which is ultimately detrimental to your ability to participate in civilization), you become a threat to the general populace.  Society, then, becomes a distant concept to you, the mountain-man who had to live in the wild because nobody wanted to be around you.

Now: if you decide to then force your irrational self-interest on other people, as they no longer want to know you, then one of two proceeding actions will follow:

1. You become a ruler, provided you could amass the funds and manpower to do so
2. You become a prisoner for threatening the lives of innocent people

I think people are smart, however; they know what's good for them, we all know what's good for us, and the best relationship we could ever have with another human being is a cooperative-competitive one, as it is the most productive whilst being the path of least resistance; the most detrimental relationship, I think, is one acquired through violence, a coercive monopoly (i.e. uncooperative and non-competitive, or otherwise known as government services), as the people you're now assuming control over completely lose the will to live, and become incredibly under-productive, not to mention the sheer amount of energy required to keep them in your control (that is, in this case, ensuring taxation remains in effect to pay for the interest on debts which is then used to pay for these things.)  Nobody will view the serial killer as good if the state isn't around to punish them; we all agree that death is at the top of our lists as things we don't want to happen to us, this doesn't change.  And if you're too weak or ill to work, then it should be obvious that you will stop working, and hopefully you led a good life where people, friends or family or co-workers, will want to help you through it, or help you pass if that's the case.

Or are you referring to private police as protection in old age?  I hear Detroit's got something like this now with the failure of local government (assuming Somalia as well but I haven't studied them yet); what's more, they're actually peaceful police, if you can imagine.  It appears to me that the idea of the state owning certain businesses because the private sector doesn't want them is a myth; my understanding of business is, if people want something, they will be willing to pay for it, and it seems everyone wants to be protected, so it should follow that people would pay for a service of protection i.e. police, and follow that businesses would emerge to compete cooperatively for business.  As stated, people know what's good for them; they know what they want, it's just that they're fooled into thinking this or that is impossible or required for society to remain intact and such, irrational beliefs instilled in people before they could truly reason i.e. in primary school, or through religion, or through spankings and other such punishment.

Yes - I realised pretty quickly that my "child in garage with matches" analogy might be taken this way. Perhaps my point might have been better made by asking, for example, wether you believe that a manager of a football team is needed in order for the success of the team ? Would you agree that a manager (a good manager that is) may be in a position (physically, intellectually, by virtue of experience etc) to direct the team in a way that the team might better achieve success - not least because the manager may have a vision that individual players in themselves may not have ?   Or do you think the individual players should be left to completely direct their own play/decisions and strategies ?

    Surely the important thing is that the manager be responsible,be capable, shows a duty of care, and is accountable for his actions (they are transparent) to the team he manages ? Of course, the manager can be none of these things if his interest lay elsewhere than in the betterment of the collective/team he has been granted responsibilty for managing - if, for example, he has his own interests at heart, or he is compromised by financial incentives from outside his club.

  I agree with a lot of what you say - but what I can't figure out about a lot of the anarchist/libertarian types on this forum (from the States ??) is how the private ownership of the natural wealth of a nation seems not to be seen as the overwhelmingly corrupt influence that it undoubtedly is on society - not least because that wealth distribution is so heavily skewed in favour of a very small minority.
 [it should not be forgot also that the US has the lowest rates of social mobility of any western advanced industrialised nation - meaning that if you were born without wealth, power and opportunity in the US you have less chance of seeing and/or achieving them on the basis of your own merit than anywhere else in the western world]

   I mean, if I were reading posts about employee managed businesses (such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Colliery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Colliery)) or land reform proposals (such as this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/17/eigg-housing-crisis-britain-answer (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/17/eigg-housing-crisis-britain-answer)) then I might be a little more amenable to the general flow.

  Sadly, for some, BTC seems to be something tantamount to a potential smash and grab.



   Yes, that sounds great - but how does this cooperative-competitive relationship actually manifest itself in the real world ?

 I might be odd - and its certainly not the American way (which is fine because I am British) - but the competition in my life has always been with myself. That is, I've always struggled/challenged and competed with myself in order to achieve - in some things I have been sucessful, whilst in others I have failed - such is life.
  However, in my relations with others I have always tried to co-operate as I have found this to be the most mutually beneficial and productive way forward.

  Hey, I may well, in my life, have been able to make a larger stash of wealth for myself if I had been a little more competitive in my relations to my fellow human beings - but do you know what ? - I'm happy with who I am  ;) ;D

The issue with the football manager example is thus: the football manager doesn't force the football players to take advice from him (i.e., if one of the players truly and utterly doesn't believe in his plays, then he will simply quit, as opposed to being thrown in jail in the example of the citizen not following advice (i.e. law) from the state.)  Though I agree that there will always be leaders in this world, for this implies there are some people who are more intelligent or wise or skillful than others (which I believe to be entirely true), they must remain as leaders to be counted as leaders; once a supposed leader imposes himself onto his subjects, he then becomes a ruler.  Certainly societies will have leaders who recommend courses of actions, but if these people are truly fit for such advice, they will naturally accrue a following, rather than forcing people to follow as is the case now (after all, if it's good advice, it would be voluntary, assuming people have rational self-interest which I believe they do.)  As per my political philosophy: so long as it is voluntary.

Anyhow, on the matter of cooperative-competitive relationships: I have such a relationship with my best friend, he and I are writers.  We share advice on the ways we do things because we want to improve; however, we also compete to show one another that this or that can be done better.  It's a benign relationship at best, certainly not the typical view of competition, and there are certainly more writers in the marketplace than just he and I that we must compete against, but I'm a peaceful fellow myself so that's about all there is from me :P  We can scale this relationship between businesses: two businesses exist in a small area--let's say, within the same suburb--and each sell basics for everyday life, such as bathroom and kitchen supplies, basic groceries, medicine, etc.  They cooperate by agreeing not to impede upon each other's businesses; they won't burn each other's stores down, try to steal each other's customers, and won't make nasty untruthful snarks about the other.  However, they also compete: to gain business, they each must provide something better that the other doesn't, whilst ensuring they offer these as the lowest possible price.  If one tries to charge too much, the other undercuts them and gains business; if the other tries to sell an inferior product, the customers have an alternative to turn to.  If they both attempt it (i.e. price fixing), a third business sprouts up and everyone flocks to them.  They agree to compete and cooperate, just as athletes would in the Olympics; they do not attack each other so that they can get an advantage, they cooperate and compete; just as rival bands would (well, perhaps the milder ones), they do not smash each other's instruments or break the drummer's fingers, they instead compete and cooperate.

We don't always do it tho; you and I cooperate with our talks, but I'm not entirely sure we compete; perhaps if our political ideas differed and we were actively trying to accrue a following into either camp, we'd compete, but I'd rather we got along :)  Anyway, that's not to say that competition can't eventually disappear; if that business mentioned before did such a tremendous job that the other businesses could not compete at all, then that business becomes a monopoly, but of a different sort we're used to: this monopoly offers the greatest service for the lowest prices, and makes it impossible for others to compete, at least in the area (I doubt a corporation can keep this kind of service and price going universally, but that's just my take on it; it'd be wonderful if this were possible but I have my doubts.)

I do agree somewhat with your assertion of Libertarians and Anarchists of America; I don't think people will naturally and voluntarily agree that certain individuals will be able to keep their stake of power over areas of land.  I think, without the use of force, this land will be much more divided and even among people (what good is land if nobody will agree to work on it?--what good is ownership if none agree to your owning it?), and places of work will not necessarily have an owner, but perhaps, as you mentioned, a leader, and people would then take a much more even cut of the profit, thereby squashing the class divide (mostly; that's not to say some people won't strike it rich with their products, i.e. Notch and Minecraft, but in general people will be much wealthier than before.)  

Turns out he was indeed post counter trolling, as he's nowhere to be seen in this topic now. Oh well. I was raking the post count myself, but I was genuinely interested in this particular topic :)

But wouldn't that jungle belong to a government? I can go build myself a house, deep in a woods, but eventually someone will come, accuse me for using his land or chopping his wood, and present me a huge bill.


Would there be huge wars, if there would be no governments at all? I'm thinking - only some local border conflicts.

Why don't you not pay any taxes and just pay for the services you use. Put your money where your mouth and ideals are and report back. Let's see how much money you have left at the end of the month then.

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

By all means, I'd love to - but I also don't want to go to prison for tax evasion.



You've lost me on this altogether... Classic statist FUD.

Really? Who will pay for the poor when they can't afford healthcare of insurance? Will you feed/home/clothe/help them?

And you'll only go to prison if you owe money in taxes. Simple solution: don't owe any taxes. But of course, you want to pay these taxes whilst taking everything they offer and simultaneously denouncing the government and all their 'sub-par' services they offer.

I agree, but we do need services paid for by the tax.  However, having said that, the tax system is very unfair in the UK.

There is income tax, national insurance, then 80% tax fuel duty, cigarette duty, alcohol duty, council tax, VAT,  Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, capital Gains Tax, Flight Taxes, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest rate tax, Business Rates, and many more.  Then there's inflation

After all this, you're left with hardly anything.

Wouldn't it better to fix the system though rather than destroy it completely? I think taxes are great, but only providing they're spent well and properly. That means no needless wars and other such bullshit.

How about allowing a different system? You keep telling people what they do and do not have the right to choose, and you're desperate to prove that no-one should be able to choose anything anything but this one particular model of delivering services to people. That's kind of intolerant really, if you or whoever wanted to be a full-on communist, I wouldn't care, as long as I could choose something else.

Where exactly did I say there's only one system or say anything intolerant? In fact, I said the opposite. People have a right to choose and there are already other choices and people do in fact choose alternatives. It's these 'taxes are bad people' who are making out like they don't have a choice at all because they like to feel persecuted whilst simultaneously paying their masters wages. Ironically they do have a choice, they just don't want to choose.

Income tax with EITC is great in the US so long as you're relatively poor. I can't wait for workplace to send over my W2s. ;D

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, there was no income tax in the US. Just some tariffs, and limited government. There were some states that had no tariffs, either; the state governments paid for their existence by issuing currency at (minimal) interest, and levied no tax of any kind on their citizens.

I'm equally reminded of American's first reactions to the idea of compulsory schooling; they fought against it, understanding that their children were to be indoctrinated by the state. That indoctrination has been so successful that most people don't even know that a bare 100 years ago, there was no income tax.

I have no idea why people think any form of tax is ok, because it's akin to saying that violence is acceptable. I would happily, voluntarily pay for services like hospitals and roads; I do not happily pay at the point of a gun/court.

Some history at http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

So you're happy to pay taxes as long as they're not called taxes?

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/cartoons/2009/11/img/111309.jpg

 ;D.

Isn't there some states that have no income tax?

I'm happy when no-one is pointing a gun/court at my head and demanding I do what they say. Violence is bad, mmmm'kay.

The original poster has left and that's probably a good thing, but for this post, I'll stand by his side, because somehow, it is possible not to pay any income tax. But few people can do it.

We've already seen the hypothesis of living in the streets, but there are also upmarket solutions.

There is no income tax, nor any capital gains tax in Monaco by example. One could move there, the only problem being that property is incredibly expensive as the city-state is so small. A small one bedroom costs more than a million $! If you can afford that, and don't mind living in a small place, then it's fine.

So you've got the choice of being dirt-poor or filthy-rich, but if you're the average person, you'll have to pay plenty of tax.

I'd say exactly the opposite. Your tax money is very high and you get second rate services.
Public healthcare services are poor, and many firms have to hire security agents because in many cities, the police forces have failed to deliver what was expected from them.

It's high for who exactly? And hiring security personal is up to the individual business. The police are not there to keep an eye on the contents of your store 24/7, but if there was any trouble the police would be the first people they call as security guards are essentially powerless.

People often complain that public services are shoddy yet I've never really had any problems with the NHS or police or environmental health services etc etc nor do I know anyone who has. Could they be run more efficiently and better? Of course. If I had any say I'd slash the defence budget and stop frittering money away on wars and put that money back into the system, but regardless of that; if your house burns down or you're in a serious accident you'll get sorted fairly quickly, but yeah, you might have to wait a few hours, but I can guarantee you wont get sorted pretty quick if we got rid of all these public services and you had to rely on community & charity emergency services or you couldn't afford to pay for them. People don't seem to think about the impact their choices have on others, just as long as they can say "I want the right to choose", and people already have that, but they'd just rather hypocritically keep paying their taxes and not cause a fuss.

I'd gladly contribute to charities which I believe make a real difference. And if those charities start fiddling their expenses or embezzling money I'd instantly switch my donations to another one. What's the choice now - wait five years for a vote, and expect that to make a difference?

Seeing as I have an income, I owe money in taxes. Seeing as I need an income to live and sustain a decent standard of living, there's no choice about tax. Tax isn't voluntary.


The middle-class majority.

Poor you.

Is working not voluntary either? Were you forced into a high-paying job by someone? It continually baffles me how people seem to think that they don't have a choice. You choose to work and choose to pay taxes on the money you earn, you just like to have a whine about it sat in front of your iMacs and iPhones whilst shaking your first angrily at all that tax you was (not) "forced" to pay on them.

You could vote with your taxes. Stop paying their wages, but of course people don't want to do this as they don't want the possible discomfort because you want your cushy little life and lots of money and nice things. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Have you ever taken a look at people who try to be productive and work, and also try to not pay taxes? The force quickly becomes evident.

EDIT: Of course, I'm speaking of within countries where they steal your labor and call it an "income tax."

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Can you elaborate?

I don't have the right to access public services in the country I'm currently staying, so I can't speak for myself, but I hear the locals complain a lot, and there has to be a reason. Back to myself, since I'm much less "protected" by a nation above my shoulders, I have to be much more cautious. Now, let's imagine a world where everybody would live in a foreign country, without access to the safety net they have in their own country. I say it would be a better place.

The reason that I think that income tax is okay is that my government uses it to do useful things for everyone.  One example is funding the public transportation system which we all benefit from (both riders and non-riders benefit; non-riders benefit from reduced traffic on the roads).  There are many other examples of useful things which can be done with taxes.

We can argue anything is okay if it has benefits; perhaps the holocaust benefited someone who needed a Jew dead.  Naturally, we view the holocaust as a bad thing, because we apply the concepts of ethics.  I personally believe ethics should come standard to any society, otherwise it only collapses in the end; without a clear vision of what's acceptable behavior and what isn't, we get stuck with dichotomies such as, "It's okay for these people to steal and kidnap, but not okay for those people", and law so convoluted that not even lawyers understand it completely, so overdone that the average Joe commits at least one crime daily.  Naturally, anyone who wants to steal and kidnap legally flocks to the first group, and anyone who believes in a virtuous society gets stuck at the wrong end of the gun; it punishes the good and rewards the bad, and I'm certain you would agree that this is not the kind of behavior we should respond positively to, especially not when we have our own laws against theft that do not apply to this special group.

You are arguing that theft is moral if it leads to positive outcomes; this is an impossible position to hold without the belief that not everyone deserves equal rights, with yourself being one of those people who requires less rights than others, which is the most troubling aspect of such a belief; surely you seek the same rights as everyone else, don't we all?  If some people can steal, why can't we all?  Rather, I would prefer it if we all had this right to protect ourselves from thieves, as opposed to the right of robbing everyone, as the former seems sustainable.

Even if the stolen money is used for good deeds, are you not capable of paying for these good deeds voluntarily?  Are there unknown forces of this world which prevents people from paying for the transportation that only the group with special rights can conquer?  It seems unlikely to me.

I think you're argument against my rationale is that while I may think that tax money may be spent on useful things for everyone, another may disagree, and therefore we have to decide who is correct.  Do I understand you?

Nazi Germany collapsed because it took a bite bigger than it could chew, not because of it's unethical ways.
America is unethical - they are doing ok. Emirates are very unethical - also ok. Etc, etc, etc...

On a side note: "holocaust" benefited every other jew on the planet. Mostly it enabled the bitching and moaning, or rather the "right to bitch and moan".

Take a step back and read this again.

You're saying it's fine to steal from someone just because they've decided to work and better their life. Is that a morally defensible position?

Again, what's the alternative? To live, you either earn an income, or you take from others. You seem to be advocating the latter.

Nope. You can work and not pay any income or council tax or move to a place that doesn't require these things if you're so offended and outraged by state "theft". And it's not stealing if you willingly give up something. You choose to do that. You can't have it both ways. Or you could, but I guess you're not willing to do that or find ways around it without making some sacrifices, so you just continue paying your masters wages whilst doing nothing but complaining about it on the internet.

For the umpteenth time, I do not willingly pay tax. I pay tax because I don't want to:

a) Go to prison;
b) Leave my friends and family;
c) Live off the work of others.

You can call those 'choices' if you want - same way as if you were mugged at knifepoint in the street, you might 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Doesn't make it voluntary, does it?

For the umpteenth time: You choose to live your life this way, so that doesn't make it involuntary, does it? What does your friends or family have to do with this? You chose to stay with them. Choices you all made.

And d) Earn under the tax threshold, but you don't want to play the game this way, so you willingly choose to pay the taxes on the money that you owe. You can't get a free ride this way I'm afraid.

Go back to my mugging at knifepoint example. You 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Is that voluntary?

As for the tax threshold: do you expect someone to be able to live on £9k/year without relying on handouts from others? You're clutching at straws here.

Of course you can live on it. I've lived on much less than that before. I've also known people who have lived on less than what I have with no state benefits whatsoever.

And your mugging example is irrelevant. What you're doing is walking up to a "mugger" and giving him your wallet. I think it's you who's clutching at straws here, especially since you can't comprehend between theft and giving people money.

So you're saying by earning over £9k, I'm voluntarily handing myself over to a mugger. In other words, everybody above the lowest common denominator should be mugged. Is that your idea of a just society?

Evidently it is, so we might just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'll keep pushing for freedom from tyranny, and you keep searching for that benevolent government to fix the world's ills.

You're choosing to play someone else’s game by their rules. If you do so willingly you cannot complain when you have to pay their fines or go straight to jail. My idea of a just society is where everybody pays a fair amount and all of society benefits.

And there wouldn't be an all powerful government if people didn’t keep paying their wages. I'd rather put people into power who care about people over profit, and just because something isn't working as well as it could be doesn't mean to say we have to destroy the system and let the poorest among us feel the full weight of that come crashing down upon them.

hilariousandco - you're talking past everyone and not getting the point

take five minutes to watch this bitcoin presentation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=J8JuTMFuXuU#t=2198), the way this guy explains it is amongst the best I've heard.

I don't know if hilariousandco is just playing devil's advocate or if he's a serial liar:


But I don't think there's much point debating someone who is obviously not being intellectually honest.

Five minutes to watch a video that is 65 minutes long? And what point am I not getting?


I wasn't being serious about that, but how is that being 'intellectually dishonest' or where are my other serial lies? I also don't get how that invalidates my argument here.

Why do people think income tax is ok?

I think the question should really be Why do people think paying VAT is OK ?

Value Added Tax hits everyone the same, wether you are a billionaire or struggling to make ends meet. Its not related to your ability to pay (in the same way that the old Poll Tax that Thatcher introduced wasn't) and so, to me, is an unjust and inefficient way to tax.

My solution ?

Get rid of VAT and increase the income tax on the 1% highlighted in the recent Oxfam report  to make up for the loss in revenues ;D

The report states:

Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

practicaldreamer should be able to live under his tax-the-1% model, if he chooses

hilariousandco should be able to live under his dependency based model, if he chooses

Everyone else should be free to choose which one to join.


The difference seems to be intolerance of anything else: I (and others) are advocating letting people choose which overall system they want. Others are saying "you can't choose that version, because of this reason". Why can't people choose, and then see which way works?

The reason being, those models would fall apart without someone at the end of the gun; advocates of taxation must advocate secular involuntary association, otherwise the 1%ers would leave to another society where they wouldn't be taxed, and the people who were being depended on would leave to another society where they wouldn't be; this leaves both the initial nations in shambles.  The idea of taxation mandates there being no alternative; if you allow people the freedom of choice, how could you legally take from them?  They would simply deny you the right; taxation becomes unenforceable under the principle of voluntary association.

Well, because although they might be involuntary for the 1%, they aren't for those of us who believe that the 1% have acquired that wealth via less than just means or merely via exploiting wage labour. We are the 99% ;)

  Isn't that what BTC is all about ? Isn't that what democracy is all about ? ???

   Why don't we find a different name for "tax" that might let the libertarians among us believe that its something they'd thought up - and not a Government.  Why don't we call it a voluntary community based tariff - or something similar ? It would still be totally essential and requisite to the just and equitable organic survival of the community - but at least this way some people wouldn't feel as though they were pouring money down the drain. They would be able to (in the words of that great American William James) "make felicitous and easy what in any case is necessary".

    Great philosophy emanating from across the pond - pragmatism. Voluntary community based tariff - I like it  ;D

How do you feel about that ?

I think becoming a thief and liar because you were stolen from and lied to makes you the same as the men you are against.

Hold on - so if I was stolen from and lied to, and then take back that which was initially stolen from me via (the aforementioned) lies and duplicity - then I too am a liar and a thief ??

Doesn't sound quite right to me  ???

To me the word is - justice

I don't know how this video is relevant or why I needed to watch it when it's all stuff I already knew, but lol at that guy claiming to be Satoshi  ;D.

Yes, if you lie and steal, you are a thief and liar.  You enable the cycle to continue by admitting that theft and lies are acceptable; eventually you must put your foot down and proclaim that you've had enough, otherwise you're no better than the people who stole and lied to get their way.

Besides, your system is impossible; if you live in a society with a rich 1%, the only way they got there was through government force.  Do you truly believe the rich, who game politics to begin with, are going to agree to simply giving their money away?  You forget the fact that you're advocating an "orts off the table" system, where you're okay with the rich getting rich from the use of coercion, as long as you get a cut from the stolen goods.  This is a very unique definition of justice, I think.

Mike - at this point I'd be happy if you could agree to them simply giving their money away !!

I understand why they don't want the tax - but I can't quite get my head around why you don't.

Hey - they haven't got you on the payroll have they ?  ;)

Yes - its almost getting to be like Spartacus isn't it - "No, I'm Spartacus" ;D

I believe I've made my case clear: I'm not a thief, and I will not stoop to their levels.  I'm not advocating against the rich being taxed, I'm advocating against involuntary association.  If the rich can't use force to get their way, they can't be rich through illegitimate means.  Thus, the only rich people of this planet are those who are most valuable to us; I don't want these people taxed, as they are not thieves.

Your system just permeates the current system, where thieves are on the top of the world and continue to exploit as they see fit, except you get to live off other people via stolen money.  Aside from being completely dependent on the state (can you say fascism?), do you see the ethical problem?

10 whole pages and this book (http://www.freeyourmindaz.com/uploads/1/2/8/3/12830241/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-2011.pdf) has not been posted?

Sums up the debate pretty much. I accept the reality of the day, but theoretically it cannot be defended when taken to the logical max.

Well, I did say let's try it all, and then see which works and which people choose  :D

I guess that's what I'm trying to illustrate, that right now there is only one basic model of government in the whole world, and that Venezuela or Singapore are only slightly different from each other if you consider the whole spectrum of possibility. Everyone seems incredibly stuck in believing the 20th century ideas were the best, and there's no room to try anything different.

They don't pay taxes in Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar) )- I suppose the anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org could move there - but then the US already owns Qatar doesn't it ? Or am I thinking of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Oman/Libya/Nigeria/UAE etc etc.

    If you do move there I hope you won't be going there to work [as well as avoid paying taxes through some kind of "libertarian" idealism]

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013)

  Its no place for the needy.

     "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  ??  You must be having a laugh - not in Qatar sir - and not in the USA any longer it would seem. :-[

    What have you become America ?

  

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

If you go to park your car and to be able to legally park there you have to pay for a ticket... have you been forced to pay that money? Has the owner of the parking space robbed you? I'd say that's your choice to park there, or you could find a free place to park.

Hate to break it to the "anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org" but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

I cant believe you guys are seriously still feeding this troll who is obviously trying to bump his post-count. Lol.

I love how people call users with differing opinions trolls, especially ironic when they themselves offer nothing to the discussion.

Of course someone that owns a parking lot should be free to charge whatever he wants for access to his property and anyone who is not willing to pay his asking price should be free to park elsewhere and should not be forced to pay.  If the person looking for a place to park chooses to pay, then he has not been robbed.  They have both entered an agreement voluntarily.

But that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.  A more relevant question would be:  Should a thug with a badge be able to go to the owner of the parking lot and put a gun to his head and demand that he hand over half of the parking fee income that he earns?

Why do you keep bringing up the same irrelevant questions I've answered time and time again. If my analogy isn't relevant to what's being discussed in this thread then neither is the you don't chose to get mugged/raped/murdered ones which is what I was referencing here. And there are many choices to park. You can find somewhere for free, you can pay a council space, or a lot. You can choose. You have not been forced to. Does a man with a gun come round and say you have to pay me no matter what even if you don't have a car or want to park anywhere? No. You can also try park for free illegally if you want and try get away with it, but if you get caught you have to pay a fine, but that's your choice and you were aware of the rules so in fact this is a perfect analogy for this situation and far more apt than the mugged/raped/murdered ones you lot keep brining up.

And if a person owns a lot or a space, he has chosen to own that an operate a business under the rules of the system. So he has not been forced to do anything; he chose to play by the rules and pay into this system, and so do you people. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, don't own a parking space or a lot or go where there are no taxes for this kind of thing. How is anyone being forced to do anything when they willing give it up and agree to play by the rules set out?

And I wish people would stop bringing up this gun to your head thing. Not everybody lives in America.

In your example there is a voluntary agreement between two individuals.  However, income taxes involve a third party that is not part of the agreement.  Neither of the two individuals have asked the thug with the badge to interfere or otherwise involve himself in the transaction.  He forces them to include him.  No one is forcing the two individuals to do business.  They are free not to do business, but just because two individuals voluntarily choose to do business does not give a third person the right to demand that he be included.  He doesn't ask them to include him, he insists that he be included and reminds them that if they don't then there will be consequences.


Yes, it's these "rules of the system" that we are discussing.  It's these "rules of the system" that need to be changed.  It's these "rules of the system" that make it okay to steal if the thieves refer to it as "income tax".  It's these "rules of the system" that makes it okay to steal as long as you have a badge.  The "rules of the system" are corrupt because the people that make those rules are corrupt.  The first step in changing the "rules of the system" is pointing out how immoral the rules and the rulemakers are.


The USA isn't the only place in the world where those individuals that enforce the "rules of the system" are allowed to carry guns and use those guns to enforce the "rules of the system".

Gun to your head, knife to your throat, noose to your neck, club to your skull, fire to your body, any aggressive coercive force.

So to nail this down. Anti-tax guys, with the parking lot analogy:

Do you not agree being able to move to Qatar or Monaco means you do not have to pay taxes?

We're in a global economy with very free movement. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the USA.

The USA still forces you to pay taxes if you leave, or you will life the rest of your life in exile.

There is absolutely no "free movement" about that.

The majority of the super rich already opt-out. If you think that it is most such people who are subsidizing the poor (rather than exploiting them,) then I have a bridge to sell you. Anyone who thinks most such people should subsidize the poor rather than simply stop exploiting them, is just revealing the true nature of their character; and no, that nature is NOT "I'm generous and moral and believe in a peaceful society."



Well, that about says it all then, doesn't it? If you don't believe there are absolute human rights, regardless of their origin, then you will simply NEVER AGREE with those who do, and frankly, we will fight you and your inconsistent opinions as long as we are able.

As an aside, I've always wondered why people who say they believe rights aren't absolute don't all just go into politics, acquire money and power, and do whatever they heck they want and "die happy" rather than wasting their time on internet forums. It's all just arbitrary, right?  ::)



Institutionalize theft may have benefits to some, but it's ridiculous to try to sell (to the people being stolen from no less) the idea that it's a "good thing", particularly when the people doing the stealing are both horribly inept and disgustingly corrupt, to whatever degree.


You are free to hold those opinions if you wish. You shouldn't be surprised when those who see through the absurdity of it, and understand that rights are either inalienable or are being suppressed by some at the whim of others (i.e., immorally) refuse to play by your rules.

A government without the ability to use force, i.e. specifically to tax, is a government incapable of allowing businesses monopoly and thus the ability to become rich in the first place; this means, without the government to tax the rich, there wouldn't be any rich, for there is nothing to shield a corporation from unethical behavior and nothing to allow a corporation unfair practice among their small-business competition.  Without this use of force, people would be able to work without the expensive governmental overhead, without the laws which steal from the poor to give to the rich in the first place (which effectively removes the need for you to, again, steal from the rich to give back to the poor who would then be stolen from again thanks to government), meaning they would make more and could work less, which means they could afford food, housing, clothes, health care, education, without the need to steal back the money taken from them.  Instead of taking from the people to take care of the people (with all the government waste in between), the most practical, cost-effective and humanitarian approach is to simply not steal from the people in the first place.

Instead of viewing the poor as a bunch of animals that must be cared for by the rich pet owners, why not take your foot off their throat and let them help themselves?  Why do you agree with the horrendous practices of the rich whilst simultaneously claiming you're trying to help the poor?

Furthermore, I detest your skewed representation of "rights".  A right only functions when the parties involved agree upon them and agree to defend them; the idea that rights are granted by government is akin to saying that nobody has rights but what the masters of a given society allow them to have, which do not count as rights, but only as privileges, as you mother and father would give you when you're young, or, as mentioned, the owner of a pet.  This further points out your view of the poor being animals to be owned, and it's repulsive, and I insist that you live up to your claim to believing in morality because this does not cut it.

Ok.

It's a different system that people are asking for. Not justifications for the proper functioning of the system we all use now.

If no-one pays tax, everyone will have more money.

And when you get rid of all the middlemen that come inbetween the tax collection and the public spending, that means the money used to administer it all can just get spent on community projects directly.

No tax collectors means the money spent on tax collection is available for something else.

No politicians means the money spent on politicians wages is available for something else.

No government administrative staff means the money spent on administrative staff is available for something else.

No elections of public representatives means the money spent on elections is available for something else.

Lie to me, tell me that those things aren't massively expensive and a massive waste of money.


And you can build a really transparent and equitable system to do it all, based on bitcoin-like technology. It's a new paradigm for government, you know, a bit like how bitcoin is a new paradigm for money. Geddit? No? Well never mind then, I expect it'll happen with or without you.

Qatar is a great place for the needy, if they're Qataris. And I doubt there's a single Qatari in need of anything, but the Gulf countries are very special because of their oil. Every Qatari benefits from the huge wealth oil brought, but nobody said the immigrants shall benefit too. They don't, and the Qataris look down on them.

I am some kind of a "libertarian idealist", and I'm the first to recognize that few people can afford to be like me (and live the way I do), but with the information economy, more and more people can afford to have such ideas.

Well said and +1.

 Too many people putting rights before responsibility - they've been sold the parody of the idea of individual "liberty" and sovereignty since they took their first breath, not realising that what they have by now come to view as their God given inalienable rights are actually a luxury that have to be "afforded" and paid for by the communities from which they emanate and to which they belong.
   The individual has been effectively loaned the rights, the freedoms- and without a sufficient eye on the repayments/responsibilties the rights can very easily (and should) be called back in.

    It all seems a long long way from Lincolns Gettysburg address to me  - "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH" ???

You're thinking of income tax. It's not the only tax. That's why it's called "income" tax, and not just "tax". Consumption tax is regressive, as you well know.


Put more money in everyones pockets. Everyone can afford it. I thought you said you understood that bit?

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.  I think the world would be better off if governments left people's income alone.  If stealing/taxing is necessary then, personally, I would prefer that it be done when the money is spent as opposed to when it is earned.  The tax code for the income tax (in the USA at least) is just a political football with too many loopholes for those who are able to buy political influence.  I don't think the USA's income tax can be fixed.  It just needs to be shitcanned altogether.

I'd agree. Income tax is not much different from a high-tech bank robbery. People should earn their livelihood. Out tax money is not meant to feed the losers.

And I with many others believe that it's impossible for everyone to earn their livelihood. That is with current level of population with current level of technology...

Tax reform will never happen because the politicians would lose out. Doesn't matter who you vote for.

That might be true. Population growth may be the biggest challenge the world's facing. Not everybody can own a house, a car, a computer, a smartphone, a large TV and all the things people living in rich countries take for granted. I don't think we will go back to the law of the jungle, but only the fittest will survive, like it has always been. And tax doesn't help by going against nature. What's changing though, is the definition of "the fittest". Brute force is much less important in this time.

Where one guy spends his money another man earns it. But yes, it makes sense in a way - to remove income tax. Rich are paying more taxes already because they spend more :).


Anyway, If I was happy with my country or it's government I really would not mind to pay 50% if I could afford it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Only if I get to make my own government, or if someone  establishes new bitcoin themed country with the prospect of brighter future.

I don't care. I am not going to feed anyone else, other than my family.

Tell me when you can come up with a level of "need" that everyone concurs with, without you shoving a fucking gun in all our faces.

Human rights are not limited to bare survival.

You need to have some kind of tax in order to provide military and enforce laws and pay for just enough welfare so that the little guy can get back on his feet when he's fallen down.

Personally I'd prefer the FairTax, a fixed rate sales tax that still helps out the little guy by giving everyone back all the money they taxes they've paid up to all purchases that could've been made with a poverty level salary.

Why do people think TX fees are ok? 

I think this only serves to illustrate the problem in this thread: people that have been immersed in one culture will not accept that there is more than one model.

Although it seems like you're aware of the contradictions you're living under, too. The trouble is that what we're actually experiencing is a wedding of capitalist and socialist public policy, there are very few purist societies still around. The combination of the two is more often the worst of both worlds, though. Capitalism for the poor, and socialism for the rich. I think the last 5 years has seen the most obscene example; the banking giants played fast and loose with the system that was the total bedrock of our whole way of life, screwed it up irreparably (very gradually over 40 years), then convinced the governments to screw it up even more so that they could keep their unsustainable model going (they didn't notice the unsustainability, despite how good they were at making huge profits, hence the profits were basically fraudulent). Everyone else has to pay for their mistake, and they are right now continuing to make it worse.

The premise of this thread is to want what the old pre-20th century US system was based around. It got gradually hybridised over the years, arguably by neccessity, and arguably by ideology. Not here to argue about the merits of the ideology. I'm just saying that if you really believe in democracy, then you should believe that people should be allowed to choose to live in an ecological treehouse plaza, if that's what they want. Right now, big lines are drawn on maps by influential people, and people end in a very similar situation no matter what country they live in. If those treehouse people wanted their Ewok village, there shouldn't be some other type of purist saying "you can't do that, because". No system is actually perfect, it's just got characteristics that suit the way people think.

So give me a pure capitalist model, and you can live in your socialist place. That's another hallmark of democratic thinking: respecting the decision of people in different societies. Us capitalists will even come take a trip to visit you, it's not like we disapprove or want to deny you your way of life. Just don't try to pretend that one ideology fits all, and pass that off as the objective truth, it's an insult to your own intelligence as well as mine.

Because they are voluntary?

And this is why your assertion that we agree more than disagree is absurd.

No one has a right to steal from others. Period.

If you find a rich man who is exploiting poor people, you could argue that the poor people should be helped through charity, or maybe even that they should just sneak into his place and take food as needed, regardless of any right to. But I somehow doubt bryant is one of the rich bankers destroying the economy for his own personal gain. If he's just minding his own business, earning a legitimate income, then the only way you will ever get people (except for other thieves) to go along with your program is through force. Arbitrary, institutionalized, damn-the-innocent, kick-down-your-door-and-shoot-your-dog-and-lock-you-away-for-decades force.

The utter immorality of this is why we will never agree.



I thought rights weren't absolute?

Who says? Why do people have a right to survive, and where does this come from? Who gets to define "survive?"

Where's the equation for your moral calculus giving Bob's "right to survive" a higher objective valuation than bryant's property rights?

(Bonus question: What makes the divine right of the majority any more legitimate than the divine right of kings?)



What if he needs the money to give his children what he considers a decent education, or an adequate life? I guess that's irrelevant, as long as your definition of a decent education or adequate life is met, right?


Again, nice, cozy rights-stomping opinions there. Don't be surprised when those of us who see right through it fight such sugar-coated wrongdoing every step of the way.

How else can we afford to pay our soldiers to police the globe and fight wars on tyranny and genocide? ???

Well, in a way, it is. It's an agreement between a certain constituency of people. I think part of the solution is to make all countries much smaller, there's a natural upper limit to a workable voting population, and we've long since passed it. Big federations are not more efficient in practice, it just makes the governing class more attractive to people who want to collude with corporate buddies.


Like I said, no system is perfect. You can corrupt a small government system too. That doesn't mean that people should only be allowed to choose your way of solving the problems of communities and societies. And as I say above, influential government can use it's reach for harm or benevolence, and the harm can create an outcome that's no different from what you're saying is wrong with a small government system. Different means, same end. So you can't just point out the problems with one system, and then present something else as an idyll.

Take a look at where you agreed with me, and tell me if that isn't the very richest benefiting most egregiously at the expense of not just the poor, but literally everyone. That balance is even worse than what you're warning against; the top 1-5% taking more than 90% of the wealth, fraudulently. And with the government (that you say protects the interests of all) enabling them to do so. And they gave that assistance both before they wrung everything out of the money stream, and then afterwards too. You really think that a bit of stepwise modification will change that corporate-politic culture of mutual malfeasant backscratching?

Oh really? So you are going to come to my place to steal my money?

I'll be waiting for you, with my shotgun ready.

I don't think its ok. But people are slaves to nation states. For now ....

There are more than a dozen nations with zero income tax rate. And what makes you think that I'm a resident of Qatar?

And there are dozens of countries which do not tax equity dividends and long term capital gains. 99.99% of my yearly income is from these sources.

Yep. True enough. Income tax is a sign of governments wanting to control you. It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of people legally don't pay any income tax whatsoever.

You equate not paying income tax to the government (wasteful) vs "caring for people". The two are not the same. Many people would prefer to choose how to spend their money caring for others directly. rather than having a government choose wastefully how to do so.

Do not assume people paying no income tax do not care for others.

The comments you've made on this thread are revealing.

You are a morally repugnant human being.

I cannot fathom how people can be so utterly selfish.

Where I live, you can claim a decent amount of charitable donations back against your taxes at the end of the year.

There are middle grounds for this stuff, without abolishing taxation entirely.

When people like me see the word tax they go apeshit.

This topic should be about INCOME tax only, I guess that way it would be less prone to flaming.

Rather then imposing tax on people, the gov should make money in other ways. Like running a state company for example. The best use I can think of - is to fine people/companies for different stuff, to improve things.

Let's say you local grocery store throws out spoiled products, which, it could sell if only the price would be more appropriate. But no. Greed led to spoiled products. Which is now fined in our glorious country. Next time the store manager will think twice between setting high prices or maybe will order less stuff. Or goes bankrupt, who cares. Another example - people on your block recycle less stuff, than required by law? Here comes the fine for everyone living on that block. And the government lives off those fines, amongst other sources of income.

Also the government cuts its military expenses by 80%, bureaucracy bullshit by 60%, election-associated stuff by 90% and so on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXv-HCOw0c

Some would say that those who steal are the ones that are morally repugnant.

How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority. And so its not stealing is it ?
  Technically being the will of the majority doesn't necesarily make that will "right", I'll grant you. But then you have to ask - who exactly is the thief here ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over the land - because as we all know, land is the source of all wealth ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over labour ?

I'll grant you that the democratic process is flawed  (thats for another thread perhaps)- but still, it does beg the question doesn't it ? ;)

And you're claiming a flawed process can confer a legitimate mandate? (you're even using the word majority, a majority of which constituency? only the constituency that happens to be a minority of those that the vote affects, i.e. not democratic at all)

If a democratically elected government decides to spy on their citizens' communications or drop bombs on innocent people from drones, does that make it acceptable?  Some, including me, would argue no.

I consider stealing to be taking something from someone by fraud, force, or threat of force.  It's wrong for anyone to do that as far as I'm concerned--individuals, businesses, corporations, governments, etc...

I can't argue with that - and I agree with you.

But like I said before - perhaps its the "democratic" process itself that is at fault here.

I'm not talking about direct participatory democracy here - I'm talking, for example, about a situation whereby a billionaire Australian US citizen can have a massive amount of political clout in the UK via a media empire propagating self serving propoganda.

Of course things are changing -  some of us don't today rely on information gatekeepers in order to form an informed opinion. Information, and the access to it, is being disseminated via the internet. Maybe democracy is more possible today than its ever been.

  But for me personally, because of the electoral system in the UK ( I can't comment on the US electoral system) I am in the position whereby my views are not being reflected or represented by any of the mainstream parties.

   And so I  am increasingly coming around to the view that my only option is to not to use my vote at all - because in voting I am being complicit in my own disenfranchisement.

It is. Democracy is no guarantee against theft, murder or discrimination, but the dictatorship of a majority over a minority.

I haven't voted myself in over a decade.  I think the democratic process becomes a problem when it trumps an individual's rights.  I share Larken Rose's sentiments about that process that he very eloquently explains in this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A

Thats a contradiction in terms surely. You can only have a dictatorship when it is the minority exercising their will over the majority - and they do. How they do that is the interesting question - how the minority manage to subvert democracy and free choice.

The problem here is way broader (and it's why this thread is still alive) than what's described in OP.

First, we need to change "taxes" (stealing) to "crowdfunding" (voluntary).
Then we need to change "income" to "you have the right to live" (no more 1/1000000 ratios in incomes as they exist today).

After that, we need to forget about those strict nation structures, and begin to think out of the box.
Voting for the top of the pyramid is an illusion, totally worthless.
Do never vote for anyone you cannot drink a beer with or scwol at.
Vote for ideas and actions, not for people.

Voting could include what is today considered as taxes.
You fund projects while voting, and this vote spreads out money to other related projects when you vote.

related projects =
the map being maintained by everyone, through a p2p voting system, which would look like music-map

You send a "valued-vote" so that your local hospital can pay its bills? Then your "valued-vote" is also spread (for tiny fractions, depending on the map) to "research for cancer cure", "car accident prevention", "jesus camps eradication", etc.

Bitcoin allows to reverse the "tax", from stealing to donating.
I know that won't happen before I die, but it is sooooo "the only way" that I'm convinced it will happen.

Hmm.... someone has already replied.


Now, go and watch Atlas Shrugged, starring Grant Bowler & Taylor Schilling.  ;D

Straight from the USA's Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I think you'll find the answers to most of your questions in those few lines.  I also make a distinction between rights and entitlements.  You seem to believe in entitlements and I don't.  The first step in altering or abolishing the current system is to discuss it and bring it's failures to light.

its not. its too big

Why do people think income tax is ok? Really interesting thread so far and thought I would weigh in with my 2 satoshis

From what I have gathered from reading so far is that people are opposed to tax for two reasons: a) on the principle that the removal of the income or wealth of an individual against their consent is stealing, or b) that the state is corrupt/inefficient and the money would be better spent in the hands of various types of groups (corporations, charities organisations, community groups etc)

As an alternative some people have advocated voluntary payments - crowd sourcing society, some have argued for non-income based taxes such as wealth taxes or taxing spending, others have argued for no form of collective pooling of resources and relying on a gun, essentially every man for himself.

The crux of this argument for me centers around the question of whether we need a state or not. I would personally argue that at the moment yes we do.

The purpose of a state is essentially to secure the freedom, property and lives of the individuals within it, based on the belief that if left to our own devices (state of nature) we would live in a world of savagery (not necessarily a belief I subscribe to). In order to create and maintain this state we contribute to community via our taxes.

So why do people tolerate income tax? for this reason; to uphold our state and public services. Most people like the fact that we have transport/hospitals/schools/sewage systems/running water/energy etc, and agree that this is something that we should all contribute to becasue a)we all use them and b)they are essential to our survival and prosperity. Some will argue that private companies now supply many of these things such as energy and even schools as well, but you will find that they do so with plenty of help from the state (at least in the UK they do).

So the question then falls: do we need the state? This is where things get interesting. Most if not all modern states have some element of corruption, bureaucracy is rife, there are countless cases across the world and across time where the state monopoly on violence has been abused, and in the west especially it seems that the role of the state has been to uphold the status quo and maintain the wealth and property of the rich.

However the state provides everything from roads to airports, the 'democratic' state to some degree provides a forum to express desires for change, the state does provide security both from internal and external threats, and the state does at least provide a mechanism for millions of people with differing opinions and differing levels of material wealth to debate ideas and issues then act in a unified manner.

It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on whether there is a need for a state (as we know it), if there is a need for a new kind of state, or whether there is no need for a state at all and what would be there in its place (if anything).  

In my opinion, for all the perceived failings of the state it does provide something key; it enables for the continuation and development of modern civilisation. It does so by providing systems to make our lives healthier (healthcare), more convenient (transport), it helps us develop our potential (education) and most importantly provides a system of security (rule of law, courts, police, army etc) which deters individuals from the use of violence or ceorcion, thus enabling the majority of peaceful people to pursue their lives fully.

If the state does not provide this, who or what does?

in thailand, there is no welfare state to talk of. families take care of each other and there are charities. there are alternatives to the "nanny state" where you get taxed to death.

You're clearly making too much taxable income and not having enough children. At least you can feel comfort in knowing you shelled out money to a nice fellow like myself who doesn't gloat at all. I picked my W2 up from the mailbox early this morning and have >$4k coming from the federal & state gov't (finally getting a snowblower for the quarter-mile gravel driveway from Hell). I had no idea my state issued as large of refunds as I'm due. I wasn't even going to bother filing state income taxes, but curiosity got the better of me and over half my local property taxes ended up refunded, which completely blew me away. Filling those little boxes in, I thought I was on a god-damned game show.

Why would they be wrong? They help you and others in times of need, for example if you are sick or lose your job. I don't know about the US, but in most Western European countries there is some social security for that event. I am happy to pay for roads, for welfare, and for health care. I am not so happy paying for industry subsidies and military expenses, but that doesnt make taxes inherently wrong, it just reminds me that the democracy isnt really working the way it should.

A common misheld belief. Historically, the state was the mechanism though which the ruling class exploited the productive class, in order to maintain their lifestyle and satisfy their megalomaniacal ambitions. I would argue this hasn't changed.

To do this, the state and ruling class needs to maintain an air of legitimacy. Historically (and still in some parts of the world) this was done by appealing to religion (defender of the faith, etc), or tradition (dynasties). Nowadays, the state maintains its legitimacy by providing services that allegedly can't be provided any other way.

...or a well established theoretical idea.

Locke's Political Philosophy
First published Wed Nov 9, 2005; substantive revision Thu Jul 29, 2010
John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members. Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov)

I would be interested to know where you gained the information that the invention of the state was for a mechanism through which a ruling class exploits a productive class as you have said..

Yes, but obviously we agree that individual rights aren't exclusively reserved for Americans.


Yes, but I imagine there are also athiests that believe being a human being comes with innate rights.  Rights aren't dependant on another human being to provide them.  Yes, it is wrong to infringe on the rights of others.  Governments may or may not acknowledge or protect them, but they don't provide them.  There is a difference between protecting and providing.


I would argue that it's the minority that needs their rights protected the most.  For example, it was the tyranny of the majority in the southern states that denied the rights of slaves.  The slaves had the the same rights as anyone else, despite the fact that the government at the time refused to acknowledge or protect their rights.  It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to alter the government that allowed that.


Correct, the Declaration of Independence does not bestow any rights on anyone.  It's just a piece of paper that acknowledges that those rights exist.  It's not the piece of paper itself, it's the principles that are being expressed on that piece of paper.  The Constitution, in it's oiginal form, also allowed for slavery, but has since been altered to do away with "involuntary servitude".  Taxation, though obviously not as heinous as slavery, has become the new, modern day version of "involuntary servitude".  I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to a government that protects people's rights, but the majority is now using democracy and taxation as a means to entitlements.



I believe there is a very distinct difference between the two.  This article does a good job of explaining that difference: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rights-versus-entitlements#axzz2rwtPKT2B


I'm not complaining about the taxes I pay.  My taxes are relatively small and I'm actually benefiting from the system as it is now.  I'm just looking at the big picture and arguing that society would be better off if we didn't "rob Peter to pay Paul".

States were established well before John Locke's time, and certainly aren't theoretical. Locke (and others) are free to theorise as to what an 'ideal state' would be, but that doesn't change the reality of what states really are (in your excerpt he's comparing his theory against monarchies, for example).



To answer this, I'd recommend reading "Anatomy of the State" by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/pdf/anatomy.pdf

This is of course, another theory. Theories have to be backed up by evidence to be credible. But if we look at the world today, you'll see that we're lucky to live under a democratic and relatively uncorrupt state. It's not the norm. Therefore I argue that states better reflect Rothbard's theory on the whole, not Locke's.

Read history books.
In the US up to the 60's, the white majority was routinely exercising its will over black people or native Americans.
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

If you like to travel, you may also go to Arab countries. It's happening today without much people noticing, the Muslim majorities are hurting and sometimes killing members of the Christian minorities.

I believe that, as an adult, no one owes me anything (perhaps my parents did when I was a child but not anymore). In my opinion, rights are something we all have and entitlements are something that are taken from one and given to another.  One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.  I concur with the Libertarian Party's principle that says individuals "have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."


Yeah, that's just something we disagree on.  I'm no theologian or religious authority, so I'm not aware of a verse that specifically sets out all of our rights, but I think the Bible alludes to some of them when it says "...though shalt not murder...", "...steal...", "...covet...".   It seems to be saying not to violate the rights of others.

You've said in this thread you'd let the "losers" fend for themselves rather than support them with taxes.

I've given this philosophy a lot of thought in the car in the past couple of days.

I have another question, since you said you wanted to support your family.

Imagine after you died, your son fell on hard times, lost his job, and was having trouble feeding himself. Do you think he should starve? Or should other human beings offer him support until he can get back on his feet again?

(Regarding Atlas Shrugged: No thanks, "The social contract" is more my thing. But you might have guessed that.)

Yes - good points all.

I guess you could argue though that the enslavement of the minority was only truly beneficial to the slave owners (another, albeit much smaller, minority) - for the rest of the working population (the majority) slavery merely had the effect of reducing their own wages and so wasn't beneficial at all. A lot of people in the UK are anti immigration today precisely for this very reason.

   Slavery wasn't the outcome of democracy and the general will of the  people - rather the slave trade took place in spite of it. In much the same way that fractional reserve banking does today for example. It operates in a counter productive way for the average working man.

  Again, the interesting factor for me is how the minority manage to "manufacture consent" in order to maintain their exploitative domination - and in the process make a mockery of democracy. Seems to me that the private ownership (remember the slave owners) of the means of production has a lot to answer for here.

   But yes - I agree with you in principle and stand corrected.

The individualist in me really resonates with this. I try to live by a variant of this principle: "Let other people do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others". But the humanist in me says that we are all part of a community, a society. We aren't just a bunch of homo sapiens who happen to be close enough to trade -- we're interdependent. I really do think there are many problems with our current governments, but I just cannot see how we could live in a civilised state without some governing body to hold it all together: to enforce the social contract.

I should really read up on this stuff more, though. Maybe libertarian/anarchist theories hold more weight than I give them. One thing I think we can all agree on is the status quo needs to change.

+1

The social safety-net people in this thread don't seem to be able to cope with incoming ideas, just outputting their ideas.


I like my way.

You like yours.

I say you can choose yours, if you let me choose mine. Tolerant.

You say my way won't work. And that it's morally wrong. No-one should be allowed to choose this way. Pretty intolerant.


Let's prove it. Not gas about it.

(hint: the societies in the world today with the most libertarian rules don't end up all bad: Switzerland, Singapore, Russia, Hong Kong)

But you live within a society, the choice isn't yours alone. Further, those who would benefit most from some form of social safety-net as you put it, are usually those who have the most difficulty making their needs heard.

You have listed semi-authoritarian societies with established income tax regimes.  Is that really your ideal?

The idea of giving people more responsibility is quite popular, so it's not just me and the others here. Why not empower the socially dependent in society to be able to live in a way with the minimum of help? This is a very common thing you hear from people with physical disabilities; they value the freedom to be able to live as independent a life as they can.
 
I'd like to see the focus being on improving everyone's ability to choose, and giving them free choice. That atmosphere would be more inspiring, more conducive to the kind of freer-thinking that produces innovative ideas.

Choice is the fundamental bedrock of imagination. Restriction and regularising inhibit by nature. Why are some people so against the right to choose?

The problem is not everyone has the same right to choose. The idea of empowering everyone to live as independently as they can is great, but unless you're rich or pretty well off, that's going to backfire. The amount you'd spare by not having an income tax in most cases wouldn't be enough to pay for education, healthcare, and so on.

So, how would you propose those in need actually get the right to choose?

why? the alternative is that no-one is allowed to possess more money than anyone else. I'm not sure anyone advocates that idea these days


Let's put it to the test. The income tax is the biggest part of tax revenue for most governments.


It's not about creating policies targeted at specific groups, it's a case of removing the rules that create excessive barriers to everybody doing what they want to get along in the world.


The amount of rules applying to all types of businesses are over-zealous, and they're used now to enable favouritism more than they are to protect the rights of everybody.

So, create a new culture. Remove the barriers to entry in enterprise. Educate people in a way that sparks their imagination and develops their reasoning skills. Learning factual information is pretty boring without allowing people the chance to use the facts in different contexts. And that's how kids at school learn today, for the overwhelming amount of time (no wonder so many dislike it).

This cultural change should create a virtuous circle, where everyone gradually becomes more capable of paying for themselves. People become empowered to run their own lives (instead of being paid to let their potential to do so deteriorate). Income tax would increase initially, and could be gradually rate-reduced to compensate for the more independent & successful society. This increases the motivation to become a part of the economy, instead of a passive recipient from it.

This is no different to the way culture worked in the very early human societies, the difference being that we have powerful new tools to assist us these days. If you want to create new technological tools that support our current way of life, go ahead. But I think they're as well defined as they'll ever be, and that decentralisation is the direction we're going in from now on.

I'm friends with somebody who is disabled. I met him because we both worked at the same place.

In one sense you are correct: I am 100% sure that he values his ability to make his own way and work as a capable employee of the company.

In another sense I think you do not see how much "dependent members of society" *need* help. He has an apartment that is provided by the government at a reduced rate, with all of the extra accessibility to support his disability (he's in a wheelchair). I am almost certain that without help from the state, even with his decent job's salary he would not be able to afford the apartment.

Without the "safety net" -- which in millions of cases is not a complete safety net, but a helping hand to ensure people have a decent standard of living because DESPITE the fact they can work, they still cannot afford that standard of living -- he would not have this opportunity.

You talk a lot about how we shouldn't be able to impose our beliefs on others. But we have this system in place *right now*. If you had your way, you would *take this away* from my friend. Are you OK with this?

I actually agree with a lot of this. I am all for private enterprise as an enabler. For example I strongly support the site Kiva.org, that lets people finance microloans to small businesses around the world.

I don't however agree with removing income-tax funded government systems. The institutions we have now have been fought for with blood, sweat and tears by generations. (e.g. the welfare state in the UK post WW1). They are valuable and necessary to ensure a fair society.

Until 100% of the bottom 90% get 100% tax refunds, the test will never begin.

If you base your argument around one part of a whole set of changes, then it's going to be imbalanced. Well spotted.  ::)

The people do not think about that because they are disarmed. The short answer: because of fear to end in prison or fear of death. That's why 2nd Amendment exists in America. To protect the people from their own government when it becomes despotic.

Taxes are definitely not wrong, perhaps the discussion should be focused on what the tax money is spent on thought..

lol

Do you know what the income tax is used for? Roads, Police, and Fire Services don't get a penny from the income tax... It must be nice to believe that there's a useful purpose behind it other than feeding an over-encumbered insanely wasteful Federal Government and paying interest to the Federal Reserve for the privilege of using their private currency.

ha ha ha you dummy! just because the republic and the constitution the income tax is iligal doesn't mean your rules don't wand and demand you stupid surf will not pay and deman you pay and you will pay. so stop compaining an pay or else!

It's all about the right balance. Your annoyance should be more on how the money is spent. The powerful people who get breaks.

I don't think they are wrong. I just think in a lot of cases that money is misused and that it could be used a lot better. Without it your country would fail and it wouldn't exist. I like living more in a civilized world than a wild west if you ask me. 

Income tax is good

He asked *why*.
Rephrasing: Why do you think slavery is good for you?
Provide some good reasons to be a slave to your master.

Because he is better than some asshole I would have without him...

I have no desire to go back to serfdom...

I have to disagree. There is nothing good about it, it's just pure communism. Income tax basically says: "you are smart, hard working, prospering person - pay more so we can take your money and redistribute (give it away on things that are important to us). You are a lazy, wife beating, alcoholic - we will give you social benefits, rehabilitation and help you pay taxes, because you are sick and need the society's help.

Yes, I would be very comfortable with this, because I'm not entitled to what your friend has. I've burned my social security card in 1991, and I have no healthcare in the country I'm currently staying. Most people living in rich countries can't imagine it, but billions of men, women and children in Asia and Africa live without healthcare paid for by the government, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is the culture of entitlement that so many have in rich countries. People believing that they belong to a superior species and that there should an even superior entity, the state, which will provide for all their basic needs and well-being. That superior entity, your country, it's an invention, and it doesn't work. It's failing everywhere, without rising deficits in every country.

There are more and more people on benefits and pensioners and less and less people to pay for them, so this whole redistribution system is doomed, and I'm happy not to be a part of it.

Income tax is ok but not if the tax is use to fund wars...

All the wars are funded by tax money.... including the recent American invasion of Iraq.

You know what, I'm out of this thread.

I see now some people have no problem with returning to societies where those unable to fend for themselves are left to die in the streets.

Fortunately I believe these people are in the minority.

Good luck with your infantile libertarian wankfest.

Good luck with your counter-reality wankfest where nobody is privately charitable and all assistance for the needy has to be obtained at gunpoint.

Sorry to correct you, but you don't know the world you're living in. We are the majority.

In India and on most of Africa, there are thousands dying in the streets everyday. According to the U.N. there are 842 million people who do not have enough to eat (http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/). I know many people are just dreamers, and the news only confirm this: the U.S. House just once again raised the debt limit (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/11/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBREA1A18T20140211). I'm proud to say I'm standing on my two feet while you're sitting on hot air.

How exactly does people starving by the millions equate in any way to them agreeing with you?

It's not what I meant. My point is a reaction to the idea that income tax makes the world a nice place where's everybody's safe and happy. This is not the case. There are very heavy taxes in Spain, France, Greece and all those countries have huge and growing debt. And more than one billion people live with less than $2 a day. So I guess it was worth trying the idea of an income tax, but it just doesn't work. It may have been good for a while, but in the long term, it's simply not sustainable, and the world will get back to what it was before income tax was invented. I'm ready for it.

I think you should go live in somalia

I think you should go live in Somalia and spew your statist fallacies from their sitting government's facilities.

Income tax makes the world a nice place where the bankers and politicians are safe and happy

You fail to see that compassion and generosity are completely independent from government and the power to tax.

Anybody is free to help anyone else voluntarily, but they shouldn't expect the right to stick their hand in others' pockets to do it.

Income tax and property tax are immoral.

Taxation in and of itself is a necessity but as a society we need to always evolve to the lesser of any two evils. For example, paying a tax while you use something or buy some types of things is ok as you are getting a benefit in your use of a road for example and in your use of the ecosystem supported by regulation.

I support VAT tax and sales tax 100%, but not WITH income tax and property tax.

Elect me as dictator of the USA for six months and I will fix taxation in the US for the better, it will never get fixed without a dictator.

The notion that a tax is inherently regressive or progressive is a big distorted lie to keep existing systems in power. There is absolutely nothing about any tax that is set in stone, there is no Bible of taxation about how VAT or sales taxes are implemented.

Quit supporting the powers that be by choosing to believe in these lies. Tax credits, Tax-free products, progressive percentages, on and on, the options are endless to provide protections for the poor.

So please stop aiding and abetting the enemy.

Without taxes city and country will not stay alieve in this case.

But to make them lower - why not :) ( and put highr price on something else:P )

Zombie labour?

So the wealthy exploit labour until all the labourers die? It's not a zero-sum game. People have to be kept alive for you to continue violating their human rights. If the government stopped feeding the walking dead, we'd be forced to exercise our rights and LIVE, and the wealthy wouldn't be as so, anymore.

Live on what? And where?

1. Tax exemption for first x amount of purchases based on category, would require tech big deal
2. Create purchase categories like perishables, essentials (clothing), semi durable (fridge), durable (car), stocks, real estate. Each with its own yearly tax exemption for different amounts.
3. for semi durable, durable and real estate, use a graduated tax scale. Million dollar homes are taxed at escalating higher rates as price of home increases.

There would be no problems at all generating enough revenue from this model to pay for EVERYTHING easily. Guess what.... poor pay little, rich will pay a lot and will always pay a lot because what is the point of being rich if you can't spend it.

Here is an example that income tax doesn't work:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/81979/there-has-been-a-record-221-spike-in-americans-renouncing-their-citizenship-here-s-why

http://media2.policymic.com/c40873cead5af58f45c10f5c82e6e7d5.png

You're damn right I do. Learn the difference between positive and negative rights, and you might understand.

I also want the poor to have good healthcare and education. Get that? Socialists seem to think that compassion is dependent on coercion.

I'd love this. No more armies, no more NSA to spy on everything we say and write, no obligation to wear a seat belt if you drive or a helmet if you ride... Freedom. A more dangerous world for sure, but a world for men and not sheep. A world for responsible men and women, and not for puppet citizens sometimes asked to choose between established leaders.

funny...using all the infrastructure and the environment thats built upon taxes to make a quick buck, and then cry about it...this is the entitlement-generation

You sir are living in a bubble. I hope it get's bursted in time for your 15th birthday.
"A world for men and not for sheep". How bout the laws to protect children, who evidently are not 'grown men' yet?
You seem to have some ridiculous freedom obsession, to a degree where you feel robbed of your freedom if you have to use your seatbelt? Grow up.

Because people are weak, fearful, uncertain and doubtful - without the skills we once had for survival. Basic skills like the ability to walk into the wilderness with a pocket knife and not only survive, but thrive. We have been conditioned to require tax based safety nets. We have been conditioned to believe we cannot survive without government and taxation. The overwhelming vast majority of the taxed believe their taxes keep them safer and allow them better jobs, living conditions and lives in general. The key is to keep us ignorant of reality, divided and fearful.

In Africa, I've seen children aged 10 working 12 hours a day. They have no parents (they're dead), no laws and no state to protect them, so the only choice they have is between working or dying. Welcome to my world, which is actually better than most of what Europeans know because it makes more responsible adults. That's the real drama in developed countries: all the tax money is now used to shape people's minds. The governement is responsible for everything, and people are only doing what it says. Drivers fasten their seat belts not to protect them, but to avoid getting a fine.

Now let's guess what will happen when the government crashes down? Greece is leading, and we'll see other countries follow its path. Men will be freed, but those who have never experienced freedom will be lost.

I'd argue that the people who advocate pointing guns at adults in order to force them to wear seatbelts (among other petty tyrannies) are the ones who need to grow up and join civilized society.

That these people can't see how wrong such things are also speaks volumes about how thoroughly modern society has indoctrinated this last generation of youth, to the point where things that would have been seen as unconscionable just when I was a child (hint: not the 18th century) are now defended like it's the Perfect Will of God (tm).

Who think that? I dont think like that...
Present taxes are a robbery. Present taxes must be abolished. You have heard the "White Berets" repeat these two sentences many a time. You might believe that they are but pure propaganda slogans used to strike the imagination!

A businessman who stopped by the "Michael" Office, told us as he left our house: "I am very happy with my visit here. I learnt something that I did not know : that the present taxes are truly a robbery, that they must disappear and can disappear. I did believe that your posters only expressed a slogan. But I now see that it is a truth established on solid arguments."

A young student of the University of Ottawa attended one of our meetings. He declared that he was delighted to finally understand how public works could be financed without taxes by a provincial credit system, and how the withdrawal and issuing of money would be done by a Social Credit financial system.

Present taxes are a robbery. We will repeat this with conviction and obstinacy until they are abolished. For they are the ruin of our families and of society.

The income tax, with its intolerable reports, is a nightmare for all. The property tax and school taxes that constantly increase, that chase the families from their homes, snatch farms and enterprises from the hands of those who built them; the school taxes of the small towns have already chased towards the cities the heirs of the country's founders.

Not me sir - I wear a seatbelt to protect myself.

And if ever one of my children (when they are old enough) are caught driving without a seatbelt I will be hoping and very much expecting that they receive a fine for their stupidity.

Because we finance the goverment that way, the goverment pays for teachers,doctors,roads..

It is a way we live, the only way we could remove it is if we had individual taxes for teachers,doctors,politicans and extra taxes which would be discussed if someone suggested to buld something :)

If all stupidity resulted in a government fine... we'd all be infinitely worse off than letting Darwinism take its natural course.

The only thing you leave out of the equation is the value of life.
If we can't corporate as a species in smaller communities we're
further down on the evolutionary scale than a pack of wolves.

The key word there being cooperate, which is the opposite of forcing those who disagree through threats and coercion.

Somehow Western society seems to have gotten it into their heads that "cooperate" really just means "obey every dictate of public servants."

Good, but not everybody's like you. I wish countries which impose fines on drivers who don't wear their seat belts stop doing that. It would be highly educative for the population to see more people dying.

No, in most countries, income tax doesn't pay for doctors or roads. There are payroll taxes and fuel taxes for this. Income tax pays for the army, for spying on the global population, financing subsidies to the big oil companies, the best restaurants for officials, etc...

Your definition of cooperation is so loose, it becomes impossible to see why slavery is no longer practiced--after all, the slaves and the slave-owners were cooperating, so it can't have been a big deal, right?  If the only difference between a slave and a citizen to you is whether they get struck by their owner on a regular basis, then it comes as no surprise why you accept and advocate the use of violence against your fellow man in the name of "cooperation" and attack anyone who dares ask that you stop. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408048.msg5319276#msg5319276)

Furthermore: why is it that only a man with the mentality of a child will demand that others "grow up"?  There's an extremely unusual phenomenon among much of society in which every negative quality the individual owns is projected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) onto others who clearly do not have them, thus allowing the individual to feel as though his traits are not negative, but normal; this concept even fits with an individual's belief systems, i.e. "Anarchy is chaos and the state is order," when clearly the opposite is true, as the individual cannot accept that his own beliefs are causing chaos in the world; anyone who asserts warfare and democide is justice and order needs to get out of his bubble, as there has never been so much chaos amongst human beings as with the state--lo and behold, you assert this exact same notion to someone else, but unlike me, without any reasoning or evidence as to why, ergo: the only other place you can get these baseless assertions from is within.

You have a propensity to lecture others on your beliefs due to your fatherhood, which has worked well on your children assuming you've stopped them from questioning anything you don't agree with, but works horrendously on anyone you have no power over, i.e. people who don't share your biases.  If you're not here to learn and grow, you're wasting your time: argument is not about winning, which is why you never will.

I don't mind. I mind more on how the money is wasted.

Agree ! It's better not to dispute if income tax is good or bad it's better to think about how the government use this budget income and carry the bag!

Disagree.

How the funds are used isn't the issue. The fact remains that an income tax is immoral, destructive, and unnecessary, and should be abolished.

The endless debate.

Most of the time people don't have any argument. You just say that the other is stupid.

I don't like paying income tax but in my country (France), education and healthcare are free. This is priceless.

On the other hand you Americans are paying taxes for nothing. You get fucked by your government and most of you agree with it. Priceless.

Indeed, as it's only who counts the votes that matters.

Why is income tax immoral? Is it simply because you perceive it that way and hence it is... Or is there an underlying argument that I am missing. Income tax is necessary in quite a lot of countries ie Australia which relies upon it for over 50% of its revenue which without it the government would have significantly less ability to fund projects, education, healthcare etc. So I don't see how it is unnecessary unless your thinking that a government should just instead print money to suffice its needs and in turn cause inflationary pressures.

how would you pay teachers,doctors,road workers, train workers etc.?

With this thing called money, and my hands. I guess you haven't heard of them.

So it's not free after all.

so you have a 100 000 0000$ for every month until you die to pay teachers,doctors,soldiers etc.?

Yes it is true.

But this is what we call democracy :)
Anyway - whoever will win, things are not gonna crush or change to much better just like that.

And income tax is perhaps needed ... they need to earn money somehow ;) they suffer money issues so perhaps without it ... would be to hard for them.

you don't quite understand..

we need income tax because we can't get organised and gather the money to build anything, how would be build schools,hospitals,pools, football fields, anything,anything
who would build roads, stop lights, signs, policeman?
there would be robbery everyhwere without income taxes

Don't vote for them then.


Read the rest of the thread. We've had this argument several times and it goes nowhere, but I'll save you the time: They just say people will gather around to make their own charity co-ops and everything will be rosy cos there's no big bad governments and everybody gets to choose what they spend their money on  ::).

Yes and people are free decide on any contract like work, anyway who needs to eat and so on...

Public schools have failed everywhere? Do we have anyone from Finland here? But I take it you're American... :P it's only natural for public schools to fail if they are intentionally defunded; there is only so much you can do without money unfortunately.

But I see people claim the governments are failing when there's a few potholes in the road or the National Health Service has failed because you have to wait a few hours to get that 1 inch gash on your hand sewn up on a Friday night.

You're right, people love to blow things out of proportion, but in cases where there is a real problem, it would be nice to see people focusing more on why it exists in the first place and not so much on throwing blame around.

It's 2014. People should get this by now.

School and teachers are paid for by local property taxes. Ditto for police.

Medical care is a life expense. You pay it like any other bill. If it's too expensive, cut regulation and get the government out. Catastrophic insurance is a great concept to address this too.

Roads and such are paid for by gas taxes.

Practically every service a citizen expects from government is paid for via other means. Income tax goes to pay the interest on the national debt, meaning the private banks that own the Federal Reserve get your sweat and blood.

Of course, this primarily applies to the USA, but also to some degree to some other countries.

I'll say it again: income tax is unnecessary. Even if you thought everything a government wastes money on is actually necessary, it can be paid for by far less intrusive, less destructive means than taking a super-tithe of people's personal incomes.

At it's root, because theft is immoral.

But beyond that, because even as a form of taxation, it's among the most intrusive, destructive forms, granting governments far too much direct influence over their citizen's lives.

I'd go further and say that  value added tax is more than enough. Especially when it's triple charged. Someone sells(taxed) grain to a factory. Factory sells(taxed) bread to retail store. Retail sells(taxed) bread to people.

If the government would attain from spending on different kinds of bullshit, than simply VAT would be enough.

Quite often, public schools failures are not money related. I'm not American, and I've never been in Finland, but I was in Sweden two weeks ago, and I guess it's quite similar. Swedish schools are highly rated everywhere, but you should not believe that. Sweden is an awful country, and Swedes are awful people. I can't think of a more boring place. Swedish schools don't teach how to be a man, nor how to think freely, they teach children how to become Swedes, and that's a huge difference. They teach what's good and bad according to Swedish rules, and nobody shall ever venture out of those restrictive old-fashioned rules. Questioning authority is not allowed. Somehow, I bet most American schools are better.

Roads, hospitals, police, military, schools, duh.

Gas taxes



Health care is a privately, individually administered life expense. Pay it yourself, or should we go ahead and put food and water on this list too?

(Hint: if your food costs had ballooned like medical costs have over the last 4 decades, you'd probably be curious as to what the problem was, wouldn't you?)



Local property taxes



Corporate taxes



Local property taxes



Yeah, exactly. Nothing close to a solid argument to justify an income tax yet.

It's only been considered an appalling attitude over the last few decades. Giving charity to those who can't afford their needs is great; considering every basic need of every individual an entitlement, and stealing directly from the income of others to pay for those needs is called socialism. It's immoral, inefficient, and unsustainable.

And even if none of that were true, an income tax is still a horrible way to pay for it.

Again: if food prices had gone up like medical costs, I would hope the societal response wouldn't simply be to ignore the cause and to start advocating for public restaurants.



Yes. Rich people can afford to pay more for nicer things; that's life. Even if payment for those things was switched to income taxes, it wouldn't end the disparity (due to private schools and private security forces,) so demanding income redistribution to address the inequity seems a little disingenuous.



I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

Why would you be against corporations, which are granted special privileges by government that individuals don't have access to, paying for military expenditures (as primarily happens in the U.S.?)

Are you saying corporations shouldn't have to bear the burden, or that individuals should also pay out of their personal income, just because?



I have a problem with all taxes.

But if taxes are going to exist, there are far better options than income taxes, regardless of whether regressive or progressive. One would think the intrusiveness alone should cause people to demand a change; but I suppose once people become use to a status quo, it will be defended, regardless of the wrongness of it.

People supported slavery too.

And when they talked about it, they always talked about the benefits...not the use of force against humans.

>Compare taxes to slavery
>Think you're making a point
>Look like a giant douche

The difference between slavery and taxes is that not all people were directly affected by
slavery, it was discrimination towards a specific group of people.

There are other differences.  Taxes finance common goods for all society.  Taxes are paid by those who can afford them - slavery was imposed at random on whoever happened to be captured that day or happened to be born a slave.  Taxes are a minor inconvenience that people bitch about but never do anything to change.  Slavery destroyed lives and  people risked death and torture to escape.  

I could go on.

Rofl, of course there are other differences, I only stated the one that was relevant to the point he was trying to make.

For those wanting to focus specifically on income tax vs. other taxes, and not wanting to get mired down in the idea of more/less/no taxes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=526816.0

Because the slavery it's their dream. They wish to serve someone and receive some cookies for their hard work. :) The most of the people unable to use own freedom properly, it's the reason why democracy won't work ever. Democracy is a myth, even more ridiculous than implementation of communism through the revolution.

Why do I keep getting surprises these are the general opinions of all the keyboard heroes of an internet forum. Sigh.

By the way, there are many ways to resolve tax issue. The most of taxes could be replaced with voluntary investments, for example... Government is able to emit a special obligations for this purposes. It will help to fight corruption, because invested money are much harder to steal.

So using force against humans is only bad when used towards a specific group of people?

If there is no income tax how is it possible to  improve the welfare of society?

There are plenty of people with those answers...but, how would YOU do it?

In the age of information, knowledge is a choice.

I don't know… maybe with taxes? Lol, the system seems to be working fine, apart from some hardcore super liberal anarchists hiding on the internet using their hardcore crypto currency, people don't seem to complain. Mainly Americans who think their taxes are "too high", then the next day they go on complaining about health care being "too expensive". Can't make everyone happy! :):)

At the very least... other taxes.

EDIT: Again, if you live in a Western society, you might be surprised at how little of your income tax actually goes toward "improving the welfare of society."

In my opinion roads, police, fire services couldn't be built/services be offered without government involvement!

Improve the well-being of citizens! This is exactly what Putin had in mind when he decided to annex Crimea. It will be better for the Russians living there, and f*ck the Ukrainians. It has always amazed me that when people see how bad the world is, they keep on dreaming about an enlightened leader who will take their money (their freedom, too), and make it a better place. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen.

Of course they couldn't. Imagine a private police, that acts on the behalf of whoever pays them the most. I wanna know if all the hardcore liberal anarchists lurking on this forum would like to live in that community.

Opinion based on ignorance.

There are already such things without government involvement. Hell, my fire department is private. Sheep only see the sheep's ass in front of them and think that that is the world they need to follow.

Again, people are ok with using force against humans as long as there is some benefit. Like with slavery.

Sort of a one note musician aren't you?

Being a free citizen is not the same as slavery.  You may argue that the difference is just one of degree - but that degree is so vast that that you may as well compare shaving to being skinned alive.

Sure, people have a right to life. But if they have inadequate food and healthcare, how am I suddenly obligated to work however hard is required to provide it for them? There's a difference between charity and entitlement. Charitable giving is moral. Forced entitlements are not. The idea that one can be said to have any sort of morality when they're forced to do something is a bit odd, really.


[citation needed]

Source: common sense



You said the point was to address inequity. Income taxes don't do that so long as private schools and private security are an option (and really, they always will be.) The rich don't have to be given better stuff, they just buy it.

So if the inequity will continue to exist, what's the problem with using property taxes rather than income taxes if one is to fund public schools?



Yes, that is a problem. If you're going to justify taxes by saying it's "for society," then how in the world does paying more but getting the same make any sense? If I'm your neighbor, and we use the same public school system (let's presume that this is someplace that income taxes actually pay for schools,) and it costs $X to pay for that school, there's several different ways to split up the cost of that. The only possible rationales for making those with higher incomes pay more are ideological: that they "should" pay more. It's a common opinion, but it's one that turns simple theft into wealth redistribution.

Justifying taxes is one thing. Justifying wealth redistribution is another.



Of course. That's the ideal, after all.

MOST fire departments in the U.S. are private. This again illustrates the large gap between perception and reality for many people when it comes to what they want/think/expect of government, and what actually occurs.

(Also, yes, there are plenty of private roads and gated communities with their own security forces in the U.S. Guess that should be pointed out too.)



That's really the bottom line. As long as I claim positive benefits for someone/everyone, and don't mistreat you too badly (or at least sweep the messes under the rug and just wave them off with "well, most people pay taxes, they should have too,") then I have some moral right to steal from you.  ::)

Double standards. Double standards everywhere!

If you delve a little deeper into your assessment of suffering vs happiness, your idea to tax sounds good on the surface and theoretically should provide a better outcome and add to the happiness pool more than the suffering pool. But Communism and Socialism are also great in theory(The fundamentals are based on wealth distribution)... However, after some spectacularly failed experiments we now know that in practice the reality is alot different.

What if that person has been saving that money and living on beans for 10 years because their child needs an operation that can only be performed by the best surgeon in the world? Your "Moral" act of thievery has just gone and killed that persons child... Can you rationalise away the death of that person for the potential quality of life improvement of a group of people that probably won't see most of the money you stole?

The answer is probably yes if you're a politician, you think you're doing a good thing by redistributing wealth, people definitely DID benefit from the funds you stole... mostly the people who distributed it but the people who needed it got some too and chances are that guy wasn't even going to spend the money on his child, he just liked living on beans and hoarding money... Its reasonable that you and the hard working thieves receive some for doing all the hard work and actually taking the money... Isn't it?

In what kind of society is thievery morally justified? especially when history shows that wealth redistribution (whether it be to the top or bottom of the pyramid is irrelevant) gives catastrophic consequences over time...

Unless i'm missing something and stealing actually increases the net wealth of society? Surely that thief would be better off doing something productive rather than stealing?

The two issues need to be separated.

I am all for building roads and giving away money to needy people and ponies for children and free medical care.

I would love to give that all away to everyone. I think everyone should have a million dollars to spend on whatever they want.

That would be so great. And I show compassion by saying that I want everyone to have that so that makes it even better.

I want everyone to have access to doctoral level education and we should fly spaceships to the moon again, to Mars, and other planets and beyond!

Aren't I great? I want to give away so much, I must be the most compassionate person in the world!

Now give me your money to pay for my compassion. Oh, and if you do not men with guns will throw you in jail.

People are not aware of other options.
Eliminating the income tax would take a huge educational effort.

It's ok. Perhaps the way it's wasted is not ok, but non the less it's ok. If income tax were removed, then you probably would have a lower paycheck anyway.

Only ethical and logical tax there is out there is VAT. We can rise it on stupid stuff like jet skis and lower it on food .

Income tax and other kind of taxes are only so people won't be aware how much they are paying to government in total. It works because people panic much more when VAT goes up then when capital tax is going up.  Of course it creates a lot of difficulties when you need to pay taxes. (it even creates such a weird job like tax adviser). With one kind of tax it would be much cheaper to process and much more transparent.

Countries with no income tax:

Bermuda (Social Security tax - 31BMD/week)
 
Cayman Islands

Bahrain (3% Social Security tax)
 
Marshall Islands
 
Turks & Caicos Islands
 
Qatar (10% Corporate tax)
 
UAE

I'd disagree with that. If you make $20/hour, your employer is shelling that out for you regardless of how much income tax you pay. It shouldn't affect his books at all (other than the savings from the reduction in paperwork.)

As far as whether the job market would benefit or not, that would depend on what, if anything, replaced the income tax.

Rofl. It reminds me of the first few minutes of this.

The similarity between slavery and taxes is that taxes are a modern form of slavery.
Also taxes discriminate against the poor, since the rich can afford to use every possible tax shelter.

Why is taxes a modern form of slavery? We're not forced to work without payment, which is what slavery was. It's just a stupid comparison made by hyper-liberals.

Have to agree with that. But look at the raising number of people who are fleeing nations which are taxing them to death. But I agree that such an option is available only for the super-rich. For example, a majority of the wealthy French elite migrated to other nations after Hollande raised the income tax to 75%. Again, only the rich could afford.  :(

They can only do that cause Britain & the City of London are a tax heaven, in some way. If the EU, the US, China, Russia, Japan etc. sat together and made sure the rich are taxed everywhere, it would help a lot. Of course they wont do that cause they are all bought by big business and big business likes the current system...

I am self-employed and I am furious that large corporations pay less taxes than my small "mom and pop" buiz. I should setup a LLC in a tax haven too. Costs less than 1000 Euros to do so.

All road services could be paid on a voluntary basis. If you don't pay, you don't use.

With Bitcoin, the exact money you paid for road service could be shown as to which part of the road it was applied to, and in joint with which other Bitcoin money for that section of roadway if necessary.

Rights of way do not necessarily be needed to be proved up. They can be wilderness-like trails that are trodden down by the people who use them. People who didn't pay for the roads could use the rights of way. The roads would be elsewhere, purchased by the people who used them.

No tax necessary. Rather, product/service and purchase, with an exact showing of what you purchased.

All government could be set up this way. Taxes are not necessary.

:)