Why are people scared of taxes?

[Hydrogen]

Because they consume 50% - 70% of your income?  

(...When you add them all together..)



 

[1714548225]

1714548225

[1714548225]

1714548225

[1714548225]

1714548225

[thebaron]

I'm not scared of taxes, I just want to be able to choose to self-insure, pick which charity I give out, and pay things that are necessary to function in my life as the need arises.

Some people don't want the hassle of making all those decisions. I don't understand why they hire enforcers who point guns at me when I don't want to join their "union". Who taught them to be so mean to their neighbors?

[Richy_T]

fantastic

guess who's reading A.S.

*shrug*? Not me. It's on my "I really must get around to reading that someday when I don't have paint to watch dry"

[Brunic]

It depends of the country.

Here, building a big government that took over and built many things completely fast-forwarded our development as a nation. The free market before the 60's was monopolized by anglophones only and our local population was stuck in a fight for survival. Free market was literally taking advantage of us and had to fight to prevent assimilation of francophone speakers like it happened in other place in north america(like the rest of canada, louisiania or new brunswick).

In the 60's, we've elected a government that fast-forwarded us through time and gave us many tools. Access to free education, better policies to protect french language in the businesses and subsidized development (highways, olympics games, cultural festivals, etc). It also developed monopolistic state business for energy, gambling and alcohol for example, that created jobs, expertise and that profit to our whole population. I don't want to go into details, because trying to explain 50 years of history in a couple of paragraphs is hard.

But overall, building ourself a "big nanny state" was the best thing that could happen to our canadian province. By sticking together and joining ourself around this type of government, we made tools to develop our nation according to our own values. It doesn't mean that the government has to stay big, but simply that I see taxes as a contribution to the "team". Governments evolve through time, but I see why taxes are needed.

I can understand people who got screwed by their governments, where the government doesn't serve the people, but itself, and that can be maddening too. I'm lucky to have a government that can screw up, but get caught when they screw up and where mechanism are in place to get back at people who try to corrupt the government.

I also understand that some people would prefer to choose where to help their society. I agree that whenever I see Harper building more prisons, canadians deputy trying again to make bills to make abortion illegal and remove it from the healthcare or government simply paying billions to buy some F-38 jets to protect the north pole against....whatever there is up there, I'm a little ashamed of paying for that. But hey, that's the price to pay to have democracy. At least you can fire the dude after 4 years.

[TheButterZone]

fantastic

guess who's reading A.S.

Round about 2002, one of my friends in high school (I was independent study, and did a few electives at her school) was reading it. Meanwhile I was neo-liberal, I guess? But mostly just anti-evil-Bushit, really. In the intervening years, I came to see that no matter who we vote for, tyrants always win.

I still haven't read A.S., but I did see Part 1 on the opening weekend while cosplaying John Galt, and it was/is art imitating life. I'm on the DVD special features (in costume) along with a ton of other Shruggers saying "I am John Galt."

[Richy_T]

It doesn't mean that the government has to stay big, but simply that I see taxes as a contribution to the "team". Governments evolve through time, but I see why taxes are needed.

I can tell you one direction they never evolve: smaller.

I'd also question who exactly has been telling you that big government has been a good thing for you.

[Severian]

First off, without taxes, who would pay for infrastructure? I don't think anyone would voluntarily fund it. Next off, how would the government even manage to exist?

This is the same mistake that people have been making for centuries: confusing the blessings of society for the evils of government (to paraphrase Thomas Paine). Human beings have a tendency to form orderly societies, with or without the overbearing, parasitic class known as "government workers" and "politicians".

In the modern day, taxes are the relief valve in a fractional reserve system. They don't "pay" for anything, they're taken out of circulation to prop up the value of newly printed money.

[luffy]

in my country taxes are changing every year depending on the "needs" (needs=political thieves and other bad use of money)
so a businessman cannot make an economic plan to calculate revenues of his investment. Nor the simple people can calculate
if their job will be enough to pay for their "needs" (needs that are dictated by TV advertisements)
Thus people are always afraid of the taxes and try to avoid them in every possible way!
I think it was always like that

[Richy_T]

First off, without taxes, who would pay for infrastructure? I don't think anyone would voluntarily fund it. Next off, how would the government even manage to exist?

This is the same mistake that people have been making for centuries: confusing the blessings of society for the evils of government (to paraphrase Thomas Paine). Human beings have a tendency to form orderly societies, with or without the overbearing, parasitic class known as "government workers" and "politicians".

Indeed, socialism is quite literally anti-social. It replaces voluntary social cooperation with coerced participation.

[Kontakt]

First off, without taxes, who would pay for infrastructure? I don't think anyone would voluntarily fund it. Next off, how would the government even manage to exist?

This is the same mistake that people have been making for centuries: confusing the blessings of society for the evils of government (to paraphrase Thomas Paine). Human beings have a tendency to form orderly societies, with or without the overbearing, parasitic class known as "government workers" and "politicians".

Indeed, socialism is quite literally anti-social. It replaces voluntary social cooperation with coerced participation.

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary. The majority of people I know and see daily (being a college student) would drink themselves into a stupor on a regular basis and do nothing more if it weren't a pressure to go to class and get a job. I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature. Why spend your time helping someone else when you could be working towards your own ends. The main force of social cooperation is the true parasite on society; religion.

[Severian]

Indeed, socialism is quite literally anti-social. It replaces voluntary social cooperation with coerced participation.

Many people have lived with coercion for so long they begin to think of it as their "way of life" that they have to defend when in reality, they're just fighting to stay on the plantation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

[Severian]

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary.

That's always been the opinion of the authoritarian.

I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature.

Perhaps because you perceive coercion as necessary?

[Kontakt]

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary.

That's always been the opinion of the authoritarian.

I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature.

Perhaps because you perceive coercion as necessary?

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this. Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

[Arto]

Quoting Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1867):

It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.

Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we CHOOSE to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not CHOOSE to make ourselves INDIVIDUALLY known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year.

If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him.

If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.

It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government," it needs no further argument to show.

[Richy_T]

I have always seen coercion to be quite necessary. The majority of people I know and see daily (being a college student) would drink themselves into a stupor on a regular basis and do nothing more if it weren't a pressure to go to class and get a job. I just don't see voluntary cooperation as compatible with human nature. Why spend your time helping someone else when you could be working towards your own ends. The main force of social cooperation is the true parasite on society; religion.

I disagree. Voluntary cooperation is part of human nature as a social species. There is a very strong aspect of self-interest in helping others. We are stronger together than apart and that's hard-wired. Even government evolves from a group of people working together (It's when they start bossing others around that it becomes an issue. Though I suspect that that may be part of human nature too).

For whatever reason, it's become a social faux-pas to stove in the head of someone who's ordering you around or helping themselves to the product of your labor. Society has yet to work out a satisfactory solution to this.

[Severian]

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this.

Those that argue for coercion are the ones that present circular reasoning.

Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

Because it makes survival more economically feasible. Coercion only makes life cheaper for those with the power to coerce.

I take it you've read no Bastiat?

[Severian]

Quoting Lysander Spooner

+1 for Lysander!

[dank]

I'll leave you one, too. Is the power of a government exactly equal to the military force it controls?

The power of government is equal to the amount of fear they can create.

[Kontakt]

I'll leave you one, too. Is the power of a government exactly equal to the military force it controls?

The power of government is equal to the amount of fear they can create.

So the government of Lybia is more powerful than that of Switzerland?

[Severian]

So the government of Lybia is more powerful than that of Switzerland?

To Lybians, yes.