Why are people scared of taxes?

[Richy_T]

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.

I think you had a quote-fail there. Hopefully I got it right but if not, apologies in advance.

Agreed that insurance companies are part of the problem. Not so much for their existence per se but in how they are implemented. They remove the coupling between the paying for and receiving of medical care. In the US, this is largely a holdover from government enforced wage controls where companies had to find a way to adequately compensate employees and health insurance turned out to be it. Now it's an expected part of the employment contract and no one pays directly for what they receive. It's no wonder costs are out of control really. Obamacare is just making it worse unfortunately.

[1713873832]

1713873832

[1713873832]

1713873832

[1713873832]

1713873832

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

[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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Define "help people who need it."
Oh, and while you're at it, explain why, if people are so greedy, government - made up of people - is so altruistic that they'll take other people's money to help people.

[TheButterZone]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Yep, charity doesn't work, because the greedy government would rather make us all slaves taxed into oblivion so we have not a single dollar or minute in the day to spare for charity.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Yep, charity doesn't work, because the greedy government would rather make us all slaves taxed into oblivion so we have not a single dollar or minute in the day to spare for charity.

Yeah, its the governments fault you dont give to charity, not because you, and our whole society is pretty much based on greed, right? Pfft wake up man, don't lie to yourself.

And don't for one second think that I don't agree with you about the government being greedy, but that is not the issue when it comes to charity, greed is, everyone always wants more.

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Define "help people who need it."
Oh, and while you're at it, explain why, if people are so greedy, government - made up of people - is so altruistic that they'll take other people's money to help people.

I'm thinking along the lines of those who are physically or mentally challenged, people who are severely ill, children without the support of a parent(s) for what ever reason, people who cannot find work (but are willing, not talking about the benefit society like in England, where you have a whole demographic of society who don't even want to work, because they are better off not working). Its obviously a lot more complicated than this but you get the picture.

The government is not altruistic, I have never said that. Merely that tax COULD be beneficial in a society, if only it were not spent on paying off corrupt bankers or flooding cash into weapons development to fight illegal wars. But then we reach RIchy T's point on insanity.. doing some thing over and over and trying to find the 'right guys', who always turn out to be no more right than the last... which I will admit is a valid point, but what is the answer???

No tax? Well I just don't agree with you there.

[myrkul]

I'm thinking along the lines of those who are physically or mentally challenged, people who are severely ill, children without the support of a parent(s) for what ever reason, people who cannot find work (but are willing, not talking about the benefit society like in England, where you have a whole demographic of society who don't even want to work, because they are better off not working). Its obviously a lot more complicated than this but you get the picture.

The government is not altruistic, I have never said that. Merely that tax COULD be beneficial in a society, if only it were not spent on paying off corrupt bankers or flooding cash into weapons development to fight illegal wars. But then we reach RIchy T's point on insanity.. doing some thing over and over and trying to find the 'right guys', who always turn out to be no more right than the last... which I will admit is a valid point, but what is the answer???

No tax? Well I just don't agree with you there.

Well, here's a thought... Have you ever considered that those endeavors - aiding the severely mentally or physically challenged, providing care for orphans, etc, could be run as for-profit industries, while at the same time providing work for those who desire it, but cannot find it, and removing the incentive that drives the welfare culture? (We have one here in the US, too, btw... it's a predictable consequence of giving out free money that some people will stop working for it.)

As for people being greedy, yes, they are. But as I have previously stated, the US is one of the most givingest nations on the planet. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of thriving charities. What you point to as their failures is in reality, simply their inability to keep up with the rapine of the world's various governments. An aid package is sent to a third-world nation, and a local warlord comes along and steals it to use to support his army.

If over and over again the people in charge of stealing your money to help others have decided to help themselves, maybe it's time to take control of that yourself and help others without the forced third-party?

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

I'm thinking along the lines of those who are physically or mentally challenged, people who are severely ill, children without the support of a parent(s) for what ever reason, people who cannot find work (but are willing, not talking about the benefit society like in England, where you have a whole demographic of society who don't even want to work, because they are better off not working). Its obviously a lot more complicated than this but you get the picture.

The government is not altruistic, I have never said that. Merely that tax COULD be beneficial in a society, if only it were not spent on paying off corrupt bankers or flooding cash into weapons development to fight illegal wars. But then we reach RIchy T's point on insanity.. doing some thing over and over and trying to find the 'right guys', who always turn out to be no more right than the last... which I will admit is a valid point, but what is the answer???

No tax? Well I just don't agree with you there.

Well, here's a thought... Have you ever considered that those endeavors - aiding the severely mentally or physically challenged, providing care for orphans, etc, could be run as for-profit industries, while at the same time providing work for those who desire it, but cannot find it, and removing the incentive that drives the welfare culture? (We have one here in the US, too, btw... it's a predictable consequence of giving out free money that some people will stop working for it.)

As for people being greedy, yes, they are. But as I have previously stated, the US is one of the most givingest nations on the planet. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of thriving charities. What you point to as their failures is in reality, simply their inability to keep up with the rapine of the world's various governments. An aid package is sent to a third-world nation, and a local warlord comes along and steals it to use to support his army.

If over and over again the people in charge of stealing your money to help others have decided to help themselves, maybe it's time to take control of that yourself and help others without the forced third-party?

I have seen what happens when you have privatisation of public services and would argue that once you have profit in the equation it always seem to be just about the profit, and not much else. A charity by its nature is funded by people's good will, for someone to then use that as a platform for profiteering, is wrong, in my opinion.

I think you know how I feel about you calling the US one of the most 'givingest nation'. You only need to look back in history to clearly see that most if not all of the USA's wealth has been stolen (yes I know, everyone else was up to it too, but does that make it right? especially for someone who is so against 'robbery') So to even hint that the US altruistic is pretty weak, when you consider they took everyone's shit in the first place. Thanks giving always made me laugh, the celebration of genocide? or am I missing something?

Even in your own example, it is again the governments which are the problem, not the taxes, which is what I have been saying all along, your last point is very well put and I agree with it, but I don't think the answer is no tax, It seems you'd like the free market to do what tax is doing now? But surely we all know what happens when a free market is left to rule? Look around us right now, many of the problems are due to less stringent regulations.

I think the key point here is what is the alternative? A question no one can seem to answer, but I cant see how removing tax is going to benefit anyone in general, except a small % of the worlds population who might feel a little more flush.

The problem has and always will be the government.

[myrkul]

The problem has and always will be the government.

I agree fully with you. Now, ask yourself, why is government the problem? Why are they not held in check? What is allowing them to act in this anti-social manner?

Taxes. The fact that they are funded by force, and not voluntarily, allows them to get away with these things. Would you voluntarily give your money to an organization that was going to use it to kill people? Would you not, instead, fund an organization which would use that money to feed orphans?

And if you say you would not fund an orphan-feeding organization voluntarily, the government is not the problem, you are.

[myrkul]

It boils down to this: The only "legitimate" functions of government are to protect the life and liberty of the people it represents. Even these functions need not be provided as a monopoly, however. In fact, the argument can be (and has been) made that providing these functions in this manner itself violates the principles which the government claims to uphold. The production of security, like any other industry, is best left to the free market.

You say that what we see around us is the result of "less stringent regulations." On the contrary, it is the result of stringent regulations limiting the field of competition, followed by a relaxation of those regulations for the established few. Every regulatory agency is staffed by former employees of the industry it regulates. Does this not seem like a conflict of interest to you? Former members of regulatory committees regularly take positions in the industry they regulated. Does this not seem like a conflict of interest to you? Industries spend great deals of money on lobbyists to get laws passed which limit their competition. Does this seem like a free market to you?

This is not a free market. This is Fascism. Corporatism. Crony Capitalism. Call it whatever you like, it is the unholy marriage of business and state, starting with the very concept of the limited liability corporation. That legal fiction has allowed CEOs and other corporate officers to run their company, and their stockholders, into the ground, and walk away richer than when they started. That legal fiction has allowed corporations to fund political candidates as if they were people. That legal fiction has enabled a great deal of the misery which you call the fault of the "free market."

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

It boils down to this: The only "legitimate" functions of government are to protect the life and liberty of the people it represents. Even these functions need not be provided as a monopoly, however. In fact, the argument can be (and has been) made that providing these functions in this manner itself violates the principles which the government claims to uphold. The production of security, like any other industry, is best left to the free market.

You say that what we see around us is the result of "less stringent regulations." On the contrary, it is the result of stringent regulations limiting the field of competition, followed by a relaxation of those regulations for the established few. Every regulatory agency is staffed by former employees of the industry it regulates. Does this not seem like a conflict of interest to you? Former members of regulatory committees regularly take positions in the industry they regulated. Does this not seem like a conflict of interest to you? Industries spend great deals of money on lobbyists to get laws passed which limit their competition. Does this seem like a free market to you?

This is not a free market. This is Fascism. Corporatism. Crony Capitalism. Call it whatever you like, it is the unholy marriage of business and state, starting with the very concept of the limited liability corporation. That legal fiction has allowed CEOs and other corporate officers to run their company, and their stockholders, into the ground, and walk away richer than when they started. That legal fiction has allowed corporations to fund political candidates as if they were people. That legal fiction has enabled a great deal of the misery which you call the fault of the "free market."

No arguement with all of the above, but do you honestly believe that people would be charitable enough to give up the needed amount to covers those who cannot for what ever reason provide for themselves? What's the solution to that? Sure the way taxes are being spent you could argue(and would be right too imo) that they don't cover these costs, but they quite easily could.

[myrkul]

The problem has and always will be the government.

I agree fully with you. Now, ask yourself, why is government the problem? Why are they not held in check? What is allowing them to act in this anti-social manner?

Taxes...

Wha...? Society's own fault for having a dysfunctional government? No way! That would imply that a small portion of the blame lies with each individual for failing to take ownership or personal responsibility for the problem.

Oh, I fully agree that should each individual take ownership or personal responsibility for fixing the problems they see in society, life would be much better for all concerned. But since there is this organization which takes responsibility for them, and not only that, but takes the payment for that responsibility by force, there is little incentive to take initiative themselves. Even those who, like myself, would and do take responsibility ourselves are required to pay for this organization which forcibly claims responsibility. Perhaps if we were not required to pay for it, those who would take responsibility unto themselves would have more resources with which to do so, and those who would rather lay responsibility at others' feet would have more and better choices.

No argument with all of the above, but do you honestly believe that people would be charitable enough to give up the needed amount to covers those who cannot for what ever reason provide for themselves?

Would you? If you could, would you support someone who could not (not would not - legitimately could not) support themselves?

Answer that question, and you answer yours.

[TheButterZone]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Yep, charity doesn't work, because the greedy government would rather make us all slaves taxed into oblivion so we have not a single dollar or minute in the day to spare for charity.

Yeah, its the governments fault you dont give to charity, not because you, and our whole society is pretty much based on greed, right? Pfft wake up man, don't lie to yourself.

And don't for one second think that I don't agree with you about the government being greedy, but that is not the issue when it comes to charity, greed is, everyone always wants more.

Tyrants, entirely separate from society, ultimately want you to have no money and liberty at all, and take more and more of it at gunpoint, with impunity. No, the government has a violent monopoly on greed. Try to make enough money (without bribing, or effectively bribing, the government, and not committing any crimes against your fellow man either directly or by proxy) to have a spartan living and donate to charity, and you will be penalized.

[myrkul]

The government has a violent monopoly on greed.

Oh, that is so getting stolen. Hope you don't mind.

[TheButterZone]

The government has a violent monopoly on greed.

Oh, that is so getting stolen. Hope you don't mind.

Nope.

[asdf]

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?

How else are you going to help people who need it? Charity?..... It doesn't work. People are too greedy for it to work.

Yep, charity doesn't work, because the greedy government would rather make us all slaves taxed into oblivion so we have not a single dollar or minute in the day to spare for charity.

Yeah, its the governments fault you dont give to charity, not because you, and our whole society is pretty much based on greed, right? Pfft wake up man, don't lie to yourself.

And don't for one second think that I don't agree with you about the government being greedy, but that is not the issue when it comes to charity, greed is, everyone always wants more.

So you want to use violence to force other people to give to charity. How noble of you. Consider this, if we are all so greedy that we would never help the unfortunate (which there are allot more of, thanks to the state), how is it that we democratically elected a candidate that promised to steal our wealth and give it to the them.

Our society isn't based on greed, it's based on violence. Greed without violence is harmless, because you can only gain wealth though voluntary trade, which is win win for both parties.

[Minerolero]

Low income tax rates have a strong correlation with wealth-inequality within societies. Wealth-inequality in turn correlates positively with violence, low life-expectancy, infant-mortality, obesity,...

I am happy to pay my taxes and why shouldn't I be? The state has provided me with free university education, cheap public transport, free access to medical care and I don't have to have to fear going anywhere - partly because I know that all the other people in my country are not that much worse off than I am.

Do you live in Norway? Switzerland? There are only a few countries where people get really nice returns from their taxes..

[Namecom]

People just greed. They are used to complain that their government is corrupted (doesn't actually matter where you live). And at the same time they just don't pay any attention to the services they get in turn (police, medicine, transport, roads other infrustructure)

[ckorbba]

People just greed. They are used to complain that their government is corrupted (doesn't actually matter where you live). And at the same time they just don't pay any attention to the services they get in turn (police, medicine, transport, roads other infrustructure)

I agree with you, especially in the area that no one wants to pay taxes, but at the same time Everyone wants to have social guarantees or good roads in the country or some other benefits at the expense of the state. This is unfair.

[Douglasyukanov]

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.

in fact people will not be afraid to pay taxes, the tax is indeed mandatory and funds collected from tax payments can be used for the benefit of the people, infrastructure development, education financing and public health.
people are only afraid if the taxes they pay are not used for the benefit of the people, the tax money is in corruption, used for personal or certain interests so that the needs of the people are not met.