Why are people so eager to pay tax?

[Anon136]

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

Merely the fact that one can appreciate the wealth that organized societies make possible does not make one a statist in this sense.

what tripe. 99.9% of your life is organized without authoritarianism. Do you brush your teeth because there is a man behind you with a gun? Do bridge builders build bridges because there is a man behind them with a gun? Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder? Stateism is not "the mystical force that allows society to be organized". It is a man with a gun telling you to give him your the products of your labor "or else". Please try not to confuse these 2 things, they are so very different.

If you want to understand what society is on a micro level, observe your own behavior. Observe the social rituals that allow you to cooperate with other people, with out any threats of violence being involved. Observe how you almost certainly play only a very small role in the creation of something greater, through spontaneous order, not because you and all your co-workers are threatening each other. This is what society is, statism is just that 0.1% of your life that is not spontaneous and voluntary. It is when the police man pulls you over because the sticker on your car is the wrong color, or the building inspector puts a red sticker on your house which indicates that the state is willing to murder you, if it comes down to it, for entering your own house.

[1713915972]

1713915972

[1713915972]

1713915972

[1713915972]

1713915972

[1713915972]

1713915972

[Hawker]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

[Anon136]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

I understand that many people are aggressive and many people would murder if they wernt supervised by men with guns. My point was never to say that this was not the case.

[Elwar]

...snip...
 Is the man with the gun even the reason why you refrain from committing murder?
...snip...

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death. 

The guy was not able to hold off the people outside? What kind of guns did he have?

[Mike Christ]

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

People are looting, pillaging and killing because the guns went away.  Not because their God was dying, not because their state was collapsing or their worlds were crumbling apart--meh, same things.  Couldn't be because something pissed an entire society off.  Couldn't be that the riot would've happened with or without the guns, and that controlling the riot with guns is an artificial way to quell any argument and is just a bandaid when nobody can or is willing to solve the reason why the riot happened to begin with.  No, that couldn't be right...

So quick question:  If the police went away, would you, not talking about anyone but yourself, revert into an animal and kill the next guy you saw?  Usually the answer is, "No, I wouldn't, but what's to stop someone else?"  Which implies everyone's stupid and barbaric and untrustworthy with any form of weapon (except the person being asked, of course, which is how statism was invented to begin with.)

[Hawker]

In London in 2011, the police withdrew protection from property while dealing with a riot.  Within an hour, looters were burning people out of their homes and within a day a man was beaten to death.  Same happened in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 and in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. 

Take away the man with the gun and people immediately start looting and soon will start killing.  The man with the gun is exactly why they don't loot, pillage and kill. 

...snip...

So quick question:  If the police went away, would you, not talking about anyone but yourself, revert into an animal and kill the next guy you saw?  Usually the answer is, "No, I wouldn't, but what's to stop someone else?"  Which implies everyone's stupid and barbaric and untrustworthy with any form of weapon (except the person being asked, of course, which is how statism was invented to begin with.)

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

[Twerka]

All you now where taxes go, don't you?

[Hiroaki]

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
by Frederic Bastiat, 1848

Unfortunately this is true, every year my government receives more taxes, yet it is never enough. Strange isn't.


http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

[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".

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.

You would be quite incorrect there. I'm not from the US.

However, the American police state disease is infecting my country. We have the same kinds of draconian legislation as the US, and some worse. We even have Cyprus-like banking theft legislation that pre-dates the Cyprus theft.

My dislike isn't for the US. My dislike is for police states, tyrants, slavers, and thieves.

[Mike Christ]

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society.  I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away."  The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed.  Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves.  Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool.  If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur.  Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.  So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?

[Hawker]

London is a city of over 8 million.  Less than 2000 rioted.  But as a mob they burnt people out of their homes and beat up, in one case beat to death, anyone that didn't surrender their property immediately.

You keep saying "statism" as if an anarchic society would allow that 2000 to prey on the 8 million.  Can I suggest you read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and understand that anarchists would have a police function and in events like riots would have conscription to ensure safety.

I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society.  I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away."  The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed.  Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves.  Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool.  If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur.  Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.  So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?

But what you say isn't true.

They rioted because the police allowed it.  They saw that they could get stuff for free and went for it.  No bookshops were looted but several sports chains were specifically targeted.  Once the police made public that they would be defending property as well as lives, the riots faded away.  No-one has ever suggested there was a political motivation.  And if the police withdrew protection from property at 4pm today, shops would be looted by 5pm. 

So the answer to your question as to what shaped these people is simple; they are human.  When law and order breaks down, rape and looting are normal.  That's why war zones are terrible places for civilians even though killing civilians is not part of the military strategy of most armies.

[ewitte]

Not a single $ in the US (federal tax) goes towards the US.  Look up the grace commission its all a big scam and intimidation.  Even their own forms for summons is conveniently missing information if you look it up says it only applies to federal employees!

[rider650]

But what you say isn't true.

They rioted because the police allowed it.  They saw that they could get stuff for free and went for it.  No bookshops were looted but several sports chains were specifically targeted.  Once the police made public that they would be defending property as well as lives, the riots faded away.  No-one has ever suggested there was a political motivation.  And if the police withdrew protection from property at 4pm today, shops would be looted by 5pm.  

So the answer to your question as to what shaped these people is simple; they are human.  When law and order breaks down, rape and looting are normal.  That's why war zones are terrible places for civilians even though killing civilians is not part of the military strategy of most armies.

And the police allowed it because they are state police. A private insurance company, with which I have a contract to protect my property, and which has to compensate me if they fail to protect my property, would never do such a thing. And in an anarchistic society, these insurance companies would flourish, and provide security much cheaper and more efficient than todays police, which is paid by the state with the funds the state robbed from its people (a.k.a. taxes), and is loyal only to the state.

A small number of people are willing to break natural law (i.e. rob, steal, murder, counterfeit money -> do all the things that in our statist society only the state is allowed to do!) - and these rulebreakers will be dealt with in any society, because there is a very high demand from all other people that these rulebraekers are dealt with. Most people don`t break natural law - because they are human, not because of threat of force!

Monopolies are alway expensive and inefficient. This is of cause also true for the monopoly of security, of decision making (justice) and of issuing money. Because states have had these monopolies for centuries, people are so brainwashed that they can`t imagine private entities fulfilling these functions - let alone fulfilling these functions much more efficient than states with monopolies. It`s funny that the same people mostly agree that state monopolies in areas where they are not used to them are bad - otherwise the East German Trabant and the Soviet Russian Mosqvich would have been the crown of automobile making of their time, for example. But they were not, they pretty much sucked ass - as does the state police forces and judicial and monetary systems of today.

[RodeoX]

I think a lot of people believe that if there was no government there would be no taxes. I have been to a lot of lawless places and that is not the case. You would pay tolls on roads at makeshift checkpoints. You would need to bribe smugglers to get basic goods, and pay protection money or face the terror of the militias. There is no free lunch.

[mgio]

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".

Roads > Paid for with gasoline/petrol taxes
Schools > Paid for by property taxes

Not sure about fire & police departments.

But I'm not so sure that I like my tax dollars funding unlimited wars, bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, forced sterilizations, human experimentation on unwilling/unknowing subjects, and a truckload of other outright immoral and evil things.

No... I'd prefer not to help fund wholesale murder and corruption.

If you really want to fund murder, why not just do it yourself. Why do you need a middle man?

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.

So, Joe decides to go on a long deserved holiday to Lovelyland, and purchases $2,000 Lovely dollars for $2,000 of his country's fiat dollar.

He returns from his Lovelyland holiday and goes to sell his remaining Lovely dollars, $1,000 as things were cheap and he was frugal. Much to Joe's suprise, oil, gas, diamonds, and the cure for cancer were all discovered in Lovelyland while he was away, and the Lovely dollar rose nicely. Joe end up recieving $2,000 of his country's fiat dollars for his $1,000 Lovely dollars.

1) Does Joe have to pay capital gains tax?
2) How is bitcoin different? (For those that purchase and are not professional traders.)

I hope your house burns down, or you die in the street after being hit by a car, or some other fate

It's funny how often those that preach collectivist principles always end up calling for someone to die.

RenegadeMind, noone is "eager" to pay tax. But some of us to choose to obey the laws of the country we live in. The forum has plenty of people whose moral code appears to be "it is okay to break the law if I'm unlikely to get caught".

It seems like there are a lot of Americans in this forum, and a lot eager to cough up. I happen to have an advantage given my particular situation in that I'm not under any obligation in the country where I live to pay that particular tax.

Now, if you have money outside of your country of residence, it really isn't any business of the government of your country as it is outside of their sovereign territory and outside of their jurisdiction.

(Assuming you live in none of these places...)

You can go to Colorado and smoke pot.

You can go to Amsterdam for "intimate physical encounters".

You can go to Texas and own and shoot guns.

You can go to Vietnam and insult the king of Thailand. (God forbid you ever go to Thailand afterwards...)

But you're not going to face criminal charges where you live for what you do outside of that territory.

Why is bitcoin somehow magically different?

Large corporations and trusts do business in other countries simply to get around tax laws in their own countries?

Why do corporations get to avoid tax, but individuals don't?

*IF* you do your bitcoin activities where you live, then sure - you're doing it there.

If you are doing your bitcoin activities outside of where you live, then it's none of their business.

Does where you live necessitate that your local "authorities" somehow have absolute purveyance over everything you do and every aspect of your life, even outside of their jurisdiction?

I don't think so. Just because you live somewhere doesn't necessitate some kind of lien on your soul.

If you want to go whoring in Nevada, that's your business. It's legal there.


Perhaps a better question would be:

Why do people do bitcoin activity in jurisdictions where they will be liable for tax?


Here's something entertaining to think about as a minor distraction.

You are horribly misinformed. This is not how it works at all.

If you go to a foreign country and earn money, you still owe US federal tax.

If you go to Thailand and have sex with an underage prostitute, you will still go to jail when you return to the United States.

If you kill someone on a boat in international waters you still will be tried for murder.

Sorry, it usually does not matter where the deed takes place.

[mrkent]

I think a lot of people believe that if there was no government there would be no taxes. I have been to a lot of lawless places and that is not the case. You would pay tolls on roads at makeshift checkpoints. You would need to bribe smugglers to get basic goods, and pay protection money or face the terror of the militias. There is no free lunch.

I don't think anyone believes taxes (for services) will be gone. You are just free to choose who to pay your taxes to. If I don't drive on that road, I don't have to pay at the check point. People find the most efficient way to do things quickly.

[CryptoPath]

Paying tax sucks! Period !

[Zaih]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really. You're basically scamming your country.

But fair enough I guess, everyone to themselves.

[giantdragon]

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really.

If some considerable amount of rich people will decide to leave home country due to high taxes, its government can start imposing 20..30..50...% expatriation tax on all assets.
Some totalitarian govts could even try to ban to emigrate altogether IMHO.

[skull88]

At the end of the day, you're obligation as a citizen of your country is to pay tax.

If you think the tax is too high, then live some where else really. You're basically scamming your country.

But fair enough I guess, everyone to themselves.

That were my thoughts too, till they taxed my wife 9000 euro's while she had earned that year 1600/month. If you work in Belgium than they automatically deduct the taxes from your wage, my wife worked in The Netherlands where they taxed her on her wage and a year later the Belgium state was sending us a nice bill, seems they can tax you a second time. She worked 2 years in the Netherlands so you got to multiply that by 2, 18000euro on taxes. 

Welcome in Belgium 
http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/

I think my country scammed us enough to scam them back now.