Why are people scared of taxes?

[asdf]

Also, consider that the price of everything you pay for is already inflated by taxes that the business pays: staff, fuel, corporate tax, etc. The government is probably eating %90 of societies production. Not to mention the stagnation of economic growth that results. IMAGINE the prosperity if this burden was lifted! How many problems that the government "solves" would be irrelevant in such a wealthy environment. It would be like The Jetsons!

Much of those taxes are spent on solving real problems to make commerce more efficient.  E.g. taxes on fuel which are spent on building roads and taking care of them.  How much production and trade would be left if they just closed the roads and cut the taxes on petrol?  Taxes on fuel is an effective and just way of making the users of the roads pay for them.

Taxes on air traffic are mostly spent on the terrorist organization TSA.  This *is* wasteful and very harmful, and a good example of not to do it.  Governments exists to make production and trade efficient, and countries that do this most effectively will prosper.

This is obviously from the USA.  An area where the the USA do extremely badly is healthcare.  In most of Europe people enjoy free healthcare paid by the government, run by the government.  In the USA healthcare is not free.  It is a complicated system of insurances, government programs and private hospitals.  Yet the U.S. government pays more per capita for healthcare than any other country in the world!  This shows that taxes can be the most effective way of paying and getting done.  Get rid of red tape and intermediates who take their cut, and it will turn out much cheaper for everyone.  Reduced taxes _and_ no costly health insurance.

And don't forget, even if 52% is eaten by taxes, 100% of the money will come out again.  The government isn't collecting the money in a large treasure chest and keeping it.  This was done by some kings in Europe back in the middle ages, to save up for the next war, but the practice got abolished.  Nowadays wars are paid for using credit cards.  To build a road they need building materials, machines and workers, who will again spend their money and contribute to economic growth.

Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient, because there is no accountability to the market (competition), there is no profit/loss mechanism to determine if the market is being served efficiently. Yes, the government, in theory, steals our money for services we need (and allot we don't), but do a horrible job of providing that service. If it's such a good deal, then why is it mandatory? I want free choice in what transportation infrastructure I patronise. Healthcare, roads, whatever.

I'll keep my %90 taxes and take my changes with the competitive market place, if you don't mind.

As for your last point, sure, the money comes out again, but first it's paid to bureaucrats to shuffle papers and hassle productive businesses, paid to others for not working, paid to keep pot smokers in cages, paid to the military to blow up sand, build roads to nowhere, etc, etc, etc. This is misdirected energy which could have been used productively and we are all poorer for it.

[1714516263]

1714516263

[1714516263]

1714516263

[sturle]

Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

[asdf]

I don't know why ppl are always scared of paying taxes.
taxes are actually a great thing but only if everyone pays them and if they are spend on useful things only. Just look out your window and you will see lots of things paid with your taxes you use everyday.

Must admit I only read some of the replies, but there's some interesting perspectives in there...

I don't think people are scared of paying taxes, but rather: they just don't like paying. Most of the time it sounds like some combination of
1) Selfishness or greed.
2) A naive belief that "the free market" can solve everything. (Given a chaotic power vacuum as the alternative, surely governments are already the result of market forces keeping things efficient?)
3) Examples of bad spending by governments lead them to believe that the overall value gained by paying tax is a bad deal.

1) wow! so not wanting to be robbed makes you greedy? So if I pulled out a gun and demanded you pay me $1000 so I could give it to some homeless man, you would be greedy if you didn't willfully hand over the cash?

2) Naive? like the belief that giving a monopoly on violence to an unaccountable institution will solve all our social problems? Clearly I need some education here.

3) Name one thing the government does that isn't bad. The competitive marketplace is always more efficient than some violence funded bureaucracy. If you think taxes are a good deal, pay them, but allow me the freedom to not and forgo the "services" provided.

The good thing about government is that it has the potential, at least in theory, to operate morally, i.e.: in the best interests of its constituents. Since they typically control a large part of a country's wealth, and have a large amount of power over the people, why would they have a profit motive to start with? Using Occam's Razor, many government actions can be boiled down to being driven purely by human morals. Things like education, healthcare, looking after the disabled, allowing the needy to survive on subsidised rations, being an equal opportunity employer. Also: competing against corporations that do have a profit motive (and no morals), general law and order, leadership to inspire and placate the masses, and being a giant "angel investor" for projects that are too risky or expensive for the private sector to attempt. Somebody has to pay for it.

what. the. fuck.

Yes, the politicians love us and have our best interests at heart. They don't want wealth and power, they just want to help the poor. Also, everyone in society agrees on the right thing to do and will all vote in unison for the right one-size-fits-all policies. Naive much?

"Theft is moral, as long as you spend it on the needy" - ends justify the means. Nice.

Limited liability corporations are an artifact of the state. go figure.

[myrkul]

Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

What else do you call taking money by force?

[asdf]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

[sturle]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

[myrkul]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

Two problems with that:
Just because they do something productive with it doesn't mean it's not theft, and
You may get to choose who steals from you, but you can't choose not to be stolen from.

[nobbynobbynoob]

Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

What else do you call taking money by force?

Robbery with violence.

(Actually that's what forced expropriation is. Theft is sneaky larceny with no violence or force or threats.)

[stochastic]

I think what many people fail to realize, especially when saying "the rich only pay 15% of their income", is that there are other taxes that are paid, but not directly by them.  Let's say Ms. X owns 50% of the stock in a US based company and that company made a taxable profit of $10 million.  The US has a corporate income tax of 35%.  So that $10 million profit is reduced to by $3.5 million.  The net profit of that company after taxes is now $6.5 million.  Now the company pays out dividends to its owner, lets say 50% of its earnings.  The company pays out $3.25 million to its shareholders of which Ms. X gets ~$1.63 million.  Mr. X then has to pay taxes on the dividend, which currently for his tax bracket is 15% for this qualified long term dividend.  Ms. X personally pays $244,000 in taxes.

So how much did Ms. X really pay in taxes?

If there was no corporate income tax Ms. X would have really received $2.5 million in dividends from his company, but because of the corporate tax of 35% Ms. X paid $870,000 in corporate income tax and $244,000 in dividend tax.

Ms. X pays a total of $1,121,000 in taxes for a total tax rate of 44.84% (considering that the dividend is their only income and no deductions or credits).

A lot of people, me included, don't like taxes because from January 1 to about June these "rich" people are working for free.  All the money during this time period is going to the government.  These rich people also don't receive as much benefit from the government for their taxes.  Most rich people are frugal and want value for things they purchase.  If a person can get a better value for a product and pay less, why would they not take that route?

[stochastic]

Warren Buffet (the 2nd/3rd richest man in the world) was a big proponent of the Buffet Rule in America where the rich would be taxed more because he pays the same tax rate of his secretary.  In reality he does not because he owns a company and that company is an extension of him and his company pays taxes on his income that may or may not flow down to him.  This is one reason Mr. Buffet does not pay dividends for his companies because that money would be taxed twice and Mr. Buffet made his fortune by avoiding taxation.

During the 1960s he bought a textile company in America that was failing due to the textile industry not being competitive in America.  He then went on to convert this company, Bershire Hathaway, into a holding company that owned stock in other company.  He did this because the top marginal tax rate during the 1960s was in the 90%.  This would mean if he made $1 million on his own he would only be able to spend/invest $100,000 after taxes.  The corporate tax during that time was 22-50%.  Instead of investing individually he was able to make money through a corporate structure and have an extra 40% of the money he didn't have to pay to the government.  Because of this he was able to create a $50 billion company.

[asdf]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

So if I pull a gun on you and demand $100 and then buy you a $50 stereo, that's okay, because it's a "tax". Also, you, and a large group of others can "vote" for me or my buddy to point the gun next time, so it's fair.

Use whatever word you want, the point is that it's involuntary. Re-read my post and replace tax with involuntary appropriation of funds

[Kontakt]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

So if I pull a gun on you and demand $100 and then buy you a $50 stereo, that's okay, because it's a "tax". Also, you, and a large group of others can "vote" for me or my buddy to point the gun next time, so it's fair.

Use whatever word you want, the point is that it's involuntary. Re-read my post and replace tax with involuntary appropriation of funds

The problem is that you will always be losing money. If there are no taxes, and everything is privatized, you will lose exactly the same amount or more. Bills must be paid. Services you use constantly will not pay for themselves. If you can come up with a plan that would work for privatizing your lifestyle, the military, infrastructure and industry regulation, I might begin to consider taxes as replaceable. Until you have that, you're basically suggesting that we throw our money away.

[myrkul]

The problem is that you will always be losing money.

True.

Bills must be paid. Services you use constantly will not pay for themselves.

True.

If there are no taxes, and everything is privatized, you will lose exactly the same amount or more.

False. This would be true if "privatized" meant "private monopoly", but it does not.

If you can come up with a plan that would work for privatizing your lifestyle, the military, infrastructure and industry regulation, I might begin to consider taxes as replaceable. Until you have that, you're basically suggesting that we throw our money away.

Ask, and ye shall receive. It's quite simple, really: Remove the monopoly. The rest will follow.

[byronbb]

If a government could tax it's people to further itself OVER the interests of the population it taxes and serves, it would undoubtedly attempt to do so. There is no better business than taxing people.

[sturle]

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

Two problems with that:
Just because they do something productive with it doesn't mean it's not theft, and
You may get to choose who steals from you, but you can't choose not to be stolen from.

Are you this stupid, or just retarded?

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters.  Problem solved.  If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there.  No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea.  (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)

[sturle]

Use whatever word you want, the point is that it's involuntary. Re-read my post and replace tax with involuntary appropriation of funds

No, it isn't.  If you don't like the laws of your country or state, you are free to move somewhere else.  E.g. to North Korea, where taxes were abandoned in 1974.

[myrkul]

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

Two problems with that:
Just because they do something productive with it doesn't mean it's not theft, and
You may get to choose who steals from you, but you can't choose not to be stolen from.

Are you this stupid, or just retarded?

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters.  Problem solved.  If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there.  No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea.  (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)

That's like saying that if you choose to remain in the territory of a gang, you choose to be mugged every day.

Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?

[Kontakt]

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

Two problems with that:
Just because they do something productive with it doesn't mean it's not theft, and
You may get to choose who steals from you, but you can't choose not to be stolen from.

Are you this stupid, or just retarded?

If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters.  Problem solved.  If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there.  No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea.  (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)

That's like saying that if you choose to remain in the territory of a gang, you choose to be mugged every day.

Let me ask you something: If a bunch of your neighbors got together and agreed, by majority vote, to take half of your money, and even wrote it down to be all official, would that make it alright?

That's called a Home Owner's Association.

[Richy_T]

Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Correct. Robbery is closer.

[Richy_T]

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.
.

What proportion would they have to put towards that to make it OK?