Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

1. I do not in anyway, support any government system in the world today, as far I can see we're in the shit.
2. I do not in anyway believe the current state of democracy to be 'good'.
3. I do not in anyway believe the taxation system in any country (that I know of) to be fair or effective.
4. I do not in anyway believe that the money from taxes collected today are spent 'well'

No argument here.

5. The only point I am trying to make, is that tax itself is not the problem, the governments are.

And contrary to what you say, I only partially disagree. The governments are indeed the problem. Of course, tax is how governments are funded, so it's best to strike the root rather than hack at the branches.

Now I know your going to disagree with number 5, but rather than focusing in on that, read everything else I have said. I agree with a lot of what yourself and Richy are saying.

However, the part about greed I was talking about comes down to a theoretical world where the taxes are being used for good, your life would be totally different, think of the money given to bankers, the military industrial complex etc. Even a fraction of that money could provide a huge array of public services. In an example like this, I can only see the possible answer for not being in favour of it as greed.

Why would tax be a bad thing when it can so easily be used for the benefit of society? Again all theoretical as the world we live in today is far from what I describe above.

Because it is armed robbery, given a thin whitewash. Even if you only use the funds for "good", the ends do not justify the means.

It would be great if everyone was charitable enough for there to be no need for taxes, but that just simply isn't going to happen. We cant even feed the world through charity, never mind providing infrastructure, health care or what ever else the people need.

Thankfully, charity is not the only option. Infrastructure, health care, etc can be produced for profit, as well.

[1714542322]

1714542322

[1714542322]

1714542322

[1714542322]

1714542322

[myrkul]

As for the robbery thing, which we have been over once, I told you were I stood, and il take the 8 ball part as a troll? or you really have a memory of a gold fish lol? I guess you thought robin hood was a baddie too?

Current theory is that the real Robin Hood was a thug who took from the rich and... took from the poor too and kept it for himself.

But that's the funniest part. He (and others like him) are misrepresenting the myth.

Gah it was a moot point that I made fairly light heartedly but again way over your heads huh?

You used a (possibly mythical - not the point) tax protester to defend taxation. Whose head was it over, again?

[MooC Tals]

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.

Taxes are no more a great thing than a band of thieves robbing a whole village and then using some of the loot to pay for a homeless family's dinner and shelter. It's still theft and it's still wrong.

Don't make the classic mistake of noting only what is seen and forgetting about what isn't. Taxes are theft of money, money that if left in their owner's hands could have been saved, could have been invested into a company and created some jobs, could have been spent much more efficiently and where the market regulated by strictly it's consumers i.e. the free market really wants it, and not where some bureaucrat thinks will earn him some points in the next election while stuffing his own pocket with a nice portion of it.


I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick and tired of being oppressed and robbed by this gang of thugs known as the government and without incriminating myself I'll say only this: If one should ever make a stand against theft - taxes, why not do it with Bitcoin?

Agreed. Every politician claims he want's to make jobs and everyone things politicians can make jobs. However if the government reduces taxes they make more revenue!!! Everyone in government knows this.

Taxes is only there to create a deflationary pressure to counter act against their bank created fractional reserve inflation. period

Taxes is to bring value to the debt money(aka negative value) we all need to pay it.

Taxes is only charged after the value of work has been placed into the dollar. (have you noticed that politicians don't pay taxes?)

Can anyone answer me this? If government have the power to tax and the power to print money for wars and bail outs then why not print the money and pay our taxes?

They don't need the money, They need us not to have the money. That value is us we are the valued commodity we were always the commodity like cattle..

[sturle]

Reality check: Do you have a free public school system?  Are there private schools as well, or do the public school system have a monopoly on running schools?  If there is demand for better or different services than the public provides, there is a market.

Indeed we do. And the case that I explained for private doctors is precisely the situation which exists for private schools. They are quite expensive, and of course sending your kid to one does not get you a tax break.

Fascinating.  In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools, provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards.  Same with private hospitals, btw.  They will get the same amount per patient as it would cost to heal them in a public hospital.  There is real competition between the private and public sectors in areas where the population is dense enough, for specialized services like heart surgery, and for boarding schools.  If the private sector can provide a better service at a lower cost, the private sector will win.  For some reason the private alternatives almost always cost more.  I.e. the sum of user payment and public refund is higher than the cost of the same in the public sector.

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free.  If you got a tax break for sending your kids to a private school, it is in fact less likely you will think it is good, because you already got the reward.  It is also less likely that you will make the most of it, because your net investment is lower.

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

That may be true. Certainly this half-public, half-private monstrosity needs to die. But of course, those other countries are not the US, and therefore have different demographics, and a smaller population, and are therefore a smaller burden on a healthcare system.

Many factors determine the cost of the health system, but public spending per capita is approximately the same all over Europe measured in % of GDP.  In the USA it is almost twice as much.  All are different countries with different demographics and population densities.

[Richy_T]

Fascinating.  In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools, provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards.  Same with private hospitals, btw.  They will get the same amount per patient as it would cost to heal them in a public hospital.  There is real competition between the private and public sectors in areas where the population is dense enough, for specialized services like heart surgery, and for boarding schools.  If the private sector can provide a better service at a lower cost, the private sector will win.  For some reason the private alternatives almost always cost more.  I.e. the sum of user payment and public refund is higher than the cost of the same in the public sector.

Subsidies tend to push the price up. This can be easily seen in the US higher education system but also in things like digital converter boxes which the government subsidized by $40 and what should have been a $20 box was being sold for $60.

[myrkul]

Reality check: Do you have a free public school system?  Are there private schools as well, or do the public school system have a monopoly on running schools?  If there is demand for better or different services than the public provides, there is a market.

Indeed we do. And the case that I explained for private doctors is precisely the situation which exists for private schools. They are quite expensive, and of course sending your kid to one does not get you a tax break.

Fascinating.  In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools, provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards.  Same with private hospitals, btw.  They will get the same amount per patient as it would cost to heal them in a public hospital.  There is real competition between the private and public sectors in areas where the population is dense enough, for specialized services like heart surgery, and for boarding schools.  If the private sector can provide a better service at a lower cost, the private sector will win.  For some reason the private alternatives almost always cost more.  I.e. the sum of user payment and public refund is higher than the cost of the same in the public sector.

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free. 

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

That may be true. Certainly this half-public, half-private monstrosity needs to die. But of course, those other countries are not the US, and therefore have different demographics, and a smaller population, and are therefore a smaller burden on a healthcare system.

Many factors determine the cost of the health system, but public spending per capita is approximately the same all over Europe measured in % of GDP.  In the USA it is almost twice as much.  All are different countries with different demographics and population densities.

Those are all European countries. How's Canada doing?

[Richy_T]

Just for the record, I'll give up that American's health system does have very big problems. I'll even agree that a single-payer system would likely be more effective and efficient than what we have now (especially with what Obama has done to it). I just don't agree that that's the best way to go and believe that a truly free market system would provide a better solution.

[sturle]

Fascinating.  In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools, provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards.  Same with private hospitals, btw.  They will get the same amount per patient as it would cost to heal them in a public hospital.  There is real competition between the private and public sectors in areas where the population is dense enough, for specialized services like heart surgery, and for boarding schools.  If the private sector can provide a better service at a lower cost, the private sector will win.  For some reason the private alternatives almost always cost more.  I.e. the sum of user payment and public refund is higher than the cost of the same in the public sector.

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free. 

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

That may be true. Certainly this half-public, half-private monstrosity needs to die. But of course, those other countries are not the US, and therefore have different demographics, and a smaller population, and are therefore a smaller burden on a healthcare system.

Many factors determine the cost of the health system, but public spending per capita is approximately the same all over Europe measured in % of GDP.  In the USA it is almost twice as much.  All are different countries with different demographics and population densities.

Those are all European countries. How's Canada doing?

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

[myrkul]

Fascinating.  In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools, provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards.  Same with private hospitals, btw.  They will get the same amount per patient as it would cost to heal them in a public hospital.  There is real competition between the private and public sectors in areas where the population is dense enough, for specialized services like heart surgery, and for boarding schools.  If the private sector can provide a better service at a lower cost, the private sector will win.  For some reason the private alternatives almost always cost more.  I.e. the sum of user payment and public refund is higher than the cost of the same in the public sector.

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free. 

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

[citation needed]

Countries with a free public healthcare system spends half as much taxpayer money per capita for a much more effective system than there is in the USA.  Your "nearly crushing tax burden required" is half of what you pay for the system now.

That may be true. Certainly this half-public, half-private monstrosity needs to die. But of course, those other countries are not the US, and therefore have different demographics, and a smaller population, and are therefore a smaller burden on a healthcare system.

Many factors determine the cost of the health system, but public spending per capita is approximately the same all over Europe measured in % of GDP.  In the USA it is almost twice as much.  All are different countries with different demographics and population densities.

Those are all European countries. How's Canada doing?

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

[asdf]

5. The only point I am trying to make, is that tax itself is not the problem, the governments are.

What is a government without tax? What is a tax without a government? Can you really separate the two?

You either have some arbitrary power deciding what good cause to spend other peoples money on, or you can have each individual deciding for themselves what good cause they wish to support with their own money. If it really is a good cause, you don't need to rob people to pay for it. The end does not justify the means.

[sturle]

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

Do I?  If schools which are run for profit and don't get any public funding aren't actual private schools, which schools are?

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free. 

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

[citation needed]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Those are all European countries. How's Canada doing?

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

I don't have comparable numbers from different countries from decades ago, and I have no idea what the health systems in different countries looked like back then.  I don't know how relevant the numbers would be either.  Medicine has made a lot of progress the last few decades.  The odds of surviving many diseases has become much better due to better treatments.  Some of the new treatments are very expensive, and it is hard for one normal person or family to afford it alone.  A few decades ago most cancer diagnoses came with a very short life expectancy.  Nowadays most people get well from cancer, but the treatment is far from free.  Your alternatives are a) have a free public health system or b) a good private insurance or c) be very rich or d) die.

[myrkul]

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

Do I?  If schools which are run for profit and don't get any public funding aren't actual private schools, which schools are?

At least make it hard to make you eat your words...

In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools...

And I did not even touch upon the quality of the service provided: Public schooling is widely acknowledged as being sub-par, but while everyone knows that private schooling is much better, only the wealthy can afford it.

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free.

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

[citation needed]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Those are all European countries. How's Canada doing?

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

I don't have comparable numbers from different countries from decades ago, and I have no idea what the health systems in different countries looked like back then.  I don't know how relevant the numbers would be either.  Medicine has made a lot of progress the last few decades.  The odds of surviving many diseases has become much better due to better treatments.  Some of the new treatments are very expensive, and it is hard for one normal person or family to afford it alone.  A few decades ago most cancer diagnoses came with a very short life expectancy.  Nowadays most people get well from cancer, but the treatment is far from free.  Your alternatives are a) have a free public health system or b) a good private insurance or c) be very rich or d) die.

We're not comparing treatments. we're comparing healthcare expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Here, let me help you out: Option e): http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html (though this could be considered a subset of b)

[sturle]

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

Do I?  If schools which are run for profit and don't get any public funding aren't actual private schools, which schools are?

At least make it hard to make you eat your words...

In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools...

...provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards

So there are three kinds of schools.

You requested tax breaks for sending your kids to a private school.  What's the difference?  You must love bureaucracy!  Instead of sending one payment directly to the school, the government should send one payment to each of the parents sending kids to the school, so the parents can forward the money to the school?  This gets even more complicated with modern family structures.  You really want to waste money on this for some principle of what you choose to call the school?  You must be kidding!

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free.

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

[citation needed]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Yes.  If there is a free option available, the effort invested is proportionally higher.  If you want private schools to come out really badly, try giving people money to send their kids there.  You got the reward, and don't have to justify it by convincing yourself it is a better school.  As for taxes, please google that yourself.

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

I don't have comparable numbers from different countries from decades ago, and I have no idea what the health systems in different countries looked like back then.  I don't know how relevant the numbers would be either.  Medicine has made a lot of progress the last few decades.  The odds of surviving many diseases has become much better due to better treatments.  Some of the new treatments are very expensive, and it is hard for one normal person or family to afford it alone.  A few decades ago most cancer diagnoses came with a very short life expectancy.  Nowadays most people get well from cancer, but the treatment is far from free.  Your alternatives are a) have a free public health system or b) a good private insurance or c) be very rich or d) die.

We're not comparing treatments. we're comparing healthcare expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Here, let me help you out: Option e): http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html (though this could be considered a subset of b)

One or two dollars a year, huh?  No wonder the average life expectancy in Britain at the time was 31 years.

[myrkul]

There seems to be a mistake in terms. If your "private" schools are getting government funding, they're not private schools. They're public schools that also charge their students. You see "real competition" between the "public" sector and the "private" sector, when, in fact, you don't have a private sector.

Yes, there are some schools which are run for profit, and don't want to keep their fees below the limits for public funding, or wants to have very different standards (not fulfilling all of the minimums, e.g. so their pupils will have to go an extra year to qualify for higher education).  A couple of those are popular among dropouts who want to pull themselves together and study intensively to qualify for higher education.

And yet, you refer to the faux-private schools, and not the actual ones.

Do I?  If schools which are run for profit and don't get any public funding aren't actual private schools, which schools are?

At least make it hard to make you eat your words...

In my country private schools will get almost the same amount from the government per pupil as public schools...

...provided they keep their fees at a reasonable level and comply with certain quality standards

So there are three kinds of schools.

You requested tax breaks for sending your kids to a private school.  What's the difference?  You must love bureaucracy!  Instead of sending one payment directly to the school, the government should send one payment to each of the parents sending kids to the school, so the parents can forward the money to the school?  This gets even more complicated with modern family structures.  You really want to waste money on this for some principle of what you choose to call the school?  You must be kidding!

Actually, I'd prefer that the government stop stealing my money to pay for other kids' schooling, and just let me pay for the schooling I want my kids to have. How's that for simple?

Show me one country which is satisfied with their public school system.  This is a matter of basic psychology as well.  When you spend resources on something, you expect a reward.  People who pay for something are therefore more likely to feel rewarded afterwards than someone who get it for free.

Seems like the best argument for a totally private school system I've heard yet.

No, it is an argument for sending your kids to an expensive private school.  Most of the effect vanishes when there is no free or much cheaper alternative.  Like taxes.

[citation needed]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Yes.  If there is a free option available, the effort invested is proportionally higher.  If you want private schools to come out really badly, try giving people money to send their kids there.  You got the reward, and don't have to justify it by convincing yourself it is a better school.  As for taxes, please google that yourself.

I almost see the logic here. But then I realize that it's not logic, it's a fallacy. You do understand that cognitive dissonance is not something to be sought, right? That effort justification is a perceived difference, like rating the same wine better if you're told it's $200 a bottle than if you're told it's $20? Whereas the difference between public schooling and private schooling is quantifiable?

In terms of USD corrected for purchasing power, Canada is on level with Europe.  Canada spends 55% of what the USA spends per capita.  Average life expectancy at birth is 81.38 years in Canada, 78.37 years in the USA.

All right. Now compare that to a 100% free market medical system (Hint, you'll have to go back a few decades).

I don't have comparable numbers from different countries from decades ago, and I have no idea what the health systems in different countries looked like back then.  I don't know how relevant the numbers would be either.  Medicine has made a lot of progress the last few decades.  The odds of surviving many diseases has become much better due to better treatments.  Some of the new treatments are very expensive, and it is hard for one normal person or family to afford it alone.  A few decades ago most cancer diagnoses came with a very short life expectancy.  Nowadays most people get well from cancer, but the treatment is far from free.  Your alternatives are a) have a free public health system or b) a good private insurance or c) be very rich or d) die.

We're not comparing treatments. we're comparing healthcare expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Here, let me help you out: Option e): http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html (though this could be considered a subset of b)

One or two dollars a year, huh?  No wonder the average life expectancy in Britain at the time was 31 years.

You seem to think that expending more money confers some magical quality upon healthcare that makes it better. Yet you also advocate spending fully half as much money on healthcare per capita. You must want my grammy to die!

[BlackHeartFund]

People are stupid, and ideological. They don't want to pay taxes because morons convince other morons that the "others" are getting more from the way taxes are spent than us "good folk". In the US it's blacks, in Canada it's natives... but it's universal. Regional tribalism I think it's called.

Instead of attempting to improve the way our representative systems function, morons convince other morons that any form of society is "niggers stealing our fucking money" and the morons decide that the idea of society itself is the problem. I don't have the answer to this fucked up situation. Morons fucking suck.

I can't imagine the bullshit spewed out in all these pages, and thankfully, I'm smart enough not to read any of it!

People call themselves libertarians and then support Ron Paul... not to mention Paul Ryan's Randian policies. Get a fucking education already. Learn about real libertarianism. It's people that should be free, not capital.

Morons.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

5. The only point I am trying to make, is that tax itself is not the problem, the governments are.

What is a government without tax? What is a tax without a government? Can you really separate the two?

You either have some arbitrary power deciding what good cause to spend other peoples money on, or you can have each individual deciding for themselves what good cause they wish to support with their own money. If it really is a good cause, you don't need to rob people to pay for it. The end does not justify the means.

I am merely saying that taxation could be used better and that tax itself is not the problem, but how it is spent. But you seem to be in the same boat as the other guy's here who see it is as 'robbery'.

I don't for a second buy into the idea that if you did not have taxes people's charity would be enough to cover the costs of supporting those who need it. As I have said earlier, we have charities today, yet we still have world hunger. To me, it seems fairly apparent that if people are not even charitable enough to stop people from starvation, they're not going to be charitable enough to pay for say, free healthcare or improving a road system that they will never use, but will help society in general.

 So unfortunately yes, people do need to be forced, as I have said earlier, people are too greedy for unforced charity to cover the costs of the needy.

Now I know your going to disagree with number 5, but rather than focusing in on that, read everything else I have said. I agree with a lot of what yourself and Richy are saying.

And once I agreed with a lot of what you're saying too.

So there's hope for you yet

Here's an important thing to consider when it comes to taxes and "good government"



The sentiment always seems to be "Everything will be OK if we can just get the right people in charge *this time*". There are no "right people"

Now this is a very good point, but in a system without tax, the power simply shifts away from a centralised government and more likely than not, into the hands of the big conglomerates (yes I realise this is what we have today anyway). The problem is power corrupts, we all know that, but I don't see how having no taxes would be a step away from centralised power, if anything the powerful would become more powerful and the poor and needy... (well going on how charitable people are) dead or in a worse place than they are now.

I agree with you, on the "Everything will be OK if we can just get the right people in charge *this time*" but what is the solution? I don't see the removal of tax helping the situation at all, only worsening the issue's we all ready see around us daily.

[sturle]

I believe it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance and more specifically Effort Justification.

Fascinating. Not the articles. That you even know the terms. However, neither of those articles imply any great loss of sense of achievement if no free option is available. And the link to taxes, is of course, non-existent.

Yes.  If there is a free option available, the effort invested is proportionally higher.  If you want private schools to come out really badly, try giving people money to send their kids there.  You got the reward, and don't have to justify it by convincing yourself it is a better school.  As for taxes, please google that yourself.

I almost see the logic here. But then I realize that it's not logic, it's a fallacy. You do understand that cognitive dissonance is not something to be sought, right? That effort justification is a perceived difference, like rating the same wine better if you're told it's $200 a bottle than if you're told it's $20? Whereas the difference between public schooling and private schooling is quantifiable?

The effect is quantifiable.  It actually works for precisely the same reason that many alternative treatments, prayer and whatnot works.  It works by the same mechanism as the placebo effect.  Any treatment works very well if you believe it works.  Only a very few people has a rare gene which code for placebo immunity.  There is the Nocebo effect as well -- if you believe something will make you ill, it probably will.  You may look up Confirmation Bias as well.

There is one more reason why private schools achieve better results.  By average pupils at private schools have better educated parents than pupils at public schools, and there is a huge correlation between parents education level and their children's grades at school.

One or two dollars a year, huh?  No wonder the average life expectancy in Britain at the time was 31 years.

You seem to think that expending more money confers some magical quality upon healthcare that makes it better. Yet you also advocate spending fully half as much money on healthcare per capita. You must want my grammy to die!

You can choose to spend your money on insurance companies, or you can choose to spend the money on doctors, hospitals and medicine.  The latter will improve your health at a lower cost than the former.  Send the money directly where the money are needed, and don't let unnecessary people and companies take their cut on the way.

Edit: Fixed quoting

[myrkul]

I agree with you, on the "Everything will be OK if we can just get the right people in charge *this time*" but what is the solution? I don't see the removal of tax helping the situation at all, only worsening the issue's we all ready see around us daily.

How will taking violence out of the equation make things worse?

[Richy_T]

People are stupid, and ideological. They don't want to pay taxes because morons convince other morons that the "others" are getting more from the way taxes are spent than us "good folk". In the US it's blacks, in Canada it's natives... but it's universal. Regional tribalism I think it's called.

Haha. We're racist communists now. I guess that rates two chuckles on the chuckle scale. 

[Richy_T]

By failing to see the wood for the trees, it seems that Capitalist (bordering on Fascist) dogma trumps the importance of having a healthier society.

Racist communist Nazis now. Three chuckles.