Why are people so eager to pay tax?

[kokjo]

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

maybe, in some few cases.

So, are you saying that the best way to chat in this thread is for us to get together with some baseball bats and beat the shit out of each other? That's the best way to have a heated discussion?
[/quote]
i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

[1715082054]

1715082054

[1715082054]

1715082054

[RenegadeMind]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

[Anon136]

So someone who acknowledges that their taxes pay for roads, schools, the fire and police departments, hospitals, just to name several, and hence feels that freeloading by avoiding taxes is a dick move, is "brainwashed" or "stupid".

And as for the "you don't have to" argument because governments don't know what bitcoin is yet - it's a thing you got at price X, and you sold at price Y.  So at a minimum, if you convert your profits (Y-X) to fiat you have some kind of tax bill.  The other side - spending bitcoins bought (or mined) at X for something at Y (Y > X) - is something that governments will have to decide how to classify, but don't think that just because they haven't issued a ruling yet means your profits are free.

Try this on for size - if you don't pay you fair share of taxes then you are a freeloader, and I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate that is deserving of someone who's willing to take the benefits of living in a society but isn't willing to contribute to the financial upkeep thereof.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country that has no (or minimal) taxes.  There are plenty around.

For starters, not wanting to be stolen from at the point of a gun is not at all the same thing as being uninterested in helping the poor or putting out fires ect... Dont get me wrong it could mean that, im sure there are plenty of people who subscribe to your argument and yet dont pay taxes anyway because they legitimately dont care about the poor or having fires put out, but it doesn't necessarily mean this. There are those who believe that these same services could be provided, probably at a higher quality and for a lower price, by voluntary interaction instead of state threats of violence. Now it may be the case that we are wrong about this, and if you provide me with good evidence i will accept it. But either way i feel it is important to understand that many tax avoiders are, at the very least, 100% legitimately well intentioned.

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Fair point.  But does it matter? If you object to funding for police services you can pretend that your taxes only get spent on the fire department.  But what you can't do is refuse to pay any taxes.

why can you not refuse to pay any taxes? do you mean because the government will beat you up? does the same argument that applied to the fire department not also apply to the police? if not why not?

[Hawker]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

You've never encountered organised violence.  Once you meet a group of people that can't be stopped without violence, you'll think differently about refusing to have police.

[Hawker]

...snip...

why can you not refuse to pay any taxes? do you mean because the government will beat you up? does the same argument that applied to the fire department not also apply to the police? if not why not?

Taxation is by definition based on coercion.  If you refuse to pay it, either the state collapses or it forces you to.

[kokjo]

i have not said that it was the best way, im just making a statement about human nature.

And I'd like to say that we can easily rise above that. It's not that hard. The only thing needed is for people to refuse to hurt other people. Not really a difficult thing. Basically, you just need to do nothing and the problem is solved.

ah ha! so all the shit you people say about communism, that it can not function due to human nature, is also wrong?

[QuantumQrack]

I don't see why people are eager to pay tax either.  Our federal government is full of bumbling idiots to put it nicely.  At the very least they are thieves.  If a person's economic destiny is 100% under their own control, i.e. Bitcoin, then the "Fuck You, Too Big to Fail, asshats of the world" are truly fucked.  This is the primary power of Bitcoin, even if the Bitcoin Community doesn't get it yet.  (Of course, the power mongers on the government payroll realize this, hence FinCEN getting involved in Bitcoin).

[kokjo]

... This is the primary power of Bitcoin, ...

no, it is not.

[Severian]

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.

Jefferson despised the institution of slavery but ceased all talk of emancipation when he realized there were as many blacks as whites in Virginia. He was instrumental in ceasing the importation of slaves into Virginia and burned a lot of political capital trying to outlaw slavery when he was president.

The Continental Congress removed the anti-slavery paragraph Jefferson had written into the Declaration of Independence:

He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

Jefferson has many shortcomings to criticize. But perhaps one should be informed before criticizing them.

[Severian]

 The US is not as decent a place to live as the UK or most Northern European countries. 

I've never had the pleasure of visiting but that's what I've heard. America is tolerable if one stays away from the strip malls and the big cities.

[Hawker]

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.

Jefferson despised the institution of slavery but ceased all talk of emancipation when he realized there were as many blacks as whites in Virginia. He was instrumental in ceasing the importation of slaves into Virginia and burned a lot of political capital trying to outlaw slavery when he was president.

The Continental Congress removed the anti-slavery paragraph Jefferson had written into the Declaration of Independence:

He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

Jefferson has many shortcomings to criticize. But perhaps one should be informed before criticizing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

[Severian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

In 200 years, future generations perhaps will likewise be condemning us for whatever evils we compromised with, evils that we were also born to and are, in large part, trapped by. The point here is that Jefferson was one of the few members of his generation that recognized slavery for what it was and addressed. His peers removed his protests against slavery from his masterpiece.

BTW, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson's beloved dead wife. Court historians forget to mention that very human fact. It doesn't absolve Jefferson of his other sins but as far as 18th-19th century slave owners go, Jefferson was leagues beyond his peers.

Judging history by the standards of our day is a good way to miss the more subtle connections of history.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Opposed freeing of slaves.  Refused to recognise Haiti.  Never freed his own slaves.  Had children with his slave girls and refused to free the children.  Allowed the wife of his son and their 8 children be sold to 4 separate owners.  Disgusting.

I'm really pleased you asked me to get more informed on that.

In 200 years, future generations perhaps will likewise be condemning us for whatever evils we compromised with, evils that we were also born to and are, in large part, trapped by. The point here is that Jefferson was one of the few members of his generation that recognized slavery for what it was and addressed. His peers removed his protests against slavery from his masterpiece.

BTW, Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson's beloved dead wife. Court historians forget to mention that very human fact. It doesn't absolve Jefferson of his other sins but as far as 18th-19th century slave owners go, Jefferson was leagues beyond his peers.

Judging history by the standards of our day is a good way to miss the more subtle connections of history.

Oh I agree.  Times change and morality evolves. Were the old Testament god around today, he'd be locked up for advocating genocide.  However, it wasn't me that wheeled out Thomas Jefferson to support an argument against the right to levy taxes. 

[Severian]

However, it wasn't me that wheeled out Thomas Jefferson to support an argument against the right to levy taxes. 

This thread is now so wrapped around itself that I can't recall who brought up ol' TJ. But I can safely say he'd be utterly opposed to the form of extortion that passes for taxation in today's world.

In Jefferson's perceptions, allowing one's self to be taxed by a government one consented to was merely noblesse oblige. Likewise, fighting a government that attempted to impose unjust taxation was also considered a duty.

Were the old Testament god around today, he'd be locked up for advocating genocide.

No worries. Some of Yahweh's contemporary followers in the Christian and Jewish worlds are still trying to follow his instructions to the letter.

[elebit]

You nicely illustrate just how collectivists and statists always end up resorting to violence. They are basically incapable of not resorting to violence because they simply have no rational arguments otherwise. What better argument than just running around and beating and murdering people?

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

[Elwar]

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Actually, the town I used to live in had a private fire department. No taxes went toward putting fires out at people's houses. And that fire department was rated one of the highest in the state for safety giving all home owners in town a lower rate on their home owner's insurance.

I will not explain here how they were paid because if given a bit of thought, people can come up with ways that government services can be paid for without force.

But just getting the money at the point of a gun is easiest and requires no thought.

How would you create a private fire department?

[Anon136]

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

Actually, the town I used to live in had a private fire department. No taxes went toward putting fires out at people's houses. And that fire department was rated one of the highest in the state for safety giving all home owners in town a lower rate on their home owner's insurance.

I will not explain here how they were paid because if given a bit of thought, people can come up with ways that government services can be paid for without force.

But just getting the money at the point of a gun is easiest and requires no thought.

How would you create a private fire department?

Unfortunately when dealing with complex issues people tend to prefer easy but incorrect answers to complicated but correct ones. 

[RenegadeMind]

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

But no, it's not resistance to change.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

Don't tell me that.

Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".

Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.

Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.

There are countless more examples.

Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".

[Hawker]

I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

But no, it's not resistance to change.

However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.

Don't tell me that.

Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".

Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.

Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.

There are countless more examples.

Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".

There is a world outside the US borders.  You are confusing your dislike for your own country with a general argument against states.  Most countries tick along happily and have none of your drama.

[elebit]

Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".

I did, but it's not terribly useful. It's mainly a term used for fascists. Merely the fact that one can appreciate the wealth that organized societies make possible does not make one a statist in this sense.

Don't tell me that. Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".
Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.
Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.

The greater part of these numbers are caused by large upheavals where society and state is pretty much thrown over, and new dictators tries to base their power on quellling dissent on a large scale. That is the work of a weak state, revolutionary militias and the like, not of a well established state. You could not call any of these states welfare societies. If you look at the violence rates when these states are established, you will find that it is lower than in areas with very weak or non-existing states. Dictatorships are awful is many ways, but they tend to have a way with crime and petty violence.

Do not try to pretend I said a large state is always stronger and more secure, I did no such thing. I pointed out that there is a correlation, and it is the opposite of what you alluded to. Societies are complex beasts are there is no single factor that decides these things. Before we can decide on how to decide the amount of violence in a society, we can't even begin to untangle the different factors involved. But that does not mean there is not correlation.

It is true the superpowers of the 20th century has been responsible for much suffering, and most of the smaller ones are actually wars by proxy, such as the massacres of Cambodia which started out as a proxy war to Vietnam. But none of these compare to established states and welfare states, where the rates of violence and suffering is much, much lower.