Why are people so eager to pay tax?

[Severian]

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

My obligation is to contribute to the society I live in, not to support the government I live under.

There's a huge difference between society and government. Some or many of the ills of our day can be attributed to the fact that too many people confuse the greater good (society) for the lesser evil (government).

So no, no one is under any obligation to pay tax to a government. A government may coerce you into paying but that still doesn't mean you're obligated. But all decent human beings do have a desire to contribute to the community of people in which they live.

[RenegadeMind]

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.

Frayed knot.

What you are describing is criminal overstepping of government authority outside of its jurisdiction.

What you've put forward is, sorry to say, complete and utter insanity. It would put everyone under every law, and everyone would be stoned to death. e.g. Why shouldn't you be subject to Shariah law? Other people are.

Well, the objection you (or someone else) will put up is, "Oh, but I'm not a citizen of XYZ." The underlying assumption there is that you are the property of whatever country you are from and have no self-ownership. i.e. You are a slave. I'm not going to bother putting in the effort to explain why because statists can't be reasoned with because they start with logical contradictions after which any absurd premise follows, e.g. it's ok for some people to be violent, but not others, etc. etc. The slave logic there holds.

[RenegadeMind]

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

My obligation is to contribute to the society I live in, not to support the government I live under.

I'd go a lot further, or from a different perspective, I wouldn't go that far.

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

So no, no one is under any obligation to pay tax to a government. A government may coerce you into paying but that still doesn't mean you're obligated. But all decent human beings do have a desire to contribute to the community of people in which they live.

I think that's a much better characterization - the desire to contribute. But I wouldn't go as far as to say they are obligated.

Going back to Immanuel Kant, the only good is a good will. If you remove freedom, there is no possibility to do anything moral. i.e. Where there is no freedom, there is no morality.

Kant was right. End of story.

[kokjo]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

[RenegadeMind]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

Please! Be my guest. Do go ahead and show why Kant is wrong! But don't be surprised when you fail, just like several hundred years of others.

Critiques of Kant mostly rely on the introduction of a logical contradiction and then the critiquer dancing around and praising how clever they are. The rest of the critiques of Kant pretty much boil down to temper tantrums, hissy fits and name calling.

BTW - The reference there goes directly back to what Severian had brought up with obligation, i.e. duty. You need to read an understand Kant at least a bit though to get the reference and how it applies. It's not directed toward the broader discussion. Well, until you decide to apply it like that.

As for him being "some old dead dude", you appear to be showing a general lack of knowledge about moral philosophy. Kant is the giant.

[kokjo]

Kant was right. End of story.

Fascinating how much you  want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose?

Please! Be my guest. Do go ahead and show why Kant is wrong! But don't be surprised when you fail, just like several hundred years of others.

Critiques of Kant mostly rely on the introduction of a logical contradiction and then the critiquer dancing around and praising how clever they are. The rest of the critiques of Kant pretty much boil down to temper tantrums, hissy fits and name calling.

BTW - The reference there goes directly back to what Severian had brought up with obligation, i.e. duty. You need to read an understand Kant at least a bit though to get the reference and how it applies. It's not directed toward the broader discussion. Well, until you decide to apply it like that.

As for him being "some old dead dude", you appear to be showing a general lack of knowledge about moral philosophy. Kant is the giant.

the problem with kantian ethics is that if you follow the categorical imperative, its very easy to end up in a situation where you can't take any actions, but by not taking any action you have chosen not to do so, and therefor have chosen the action of non-acting, which is immoral. When kantian ethics are faced with a moral dilemma it fails horribly.

rational egoism or utilitarianism does not have this problem, they only try to maximize happiness(either your own, or a group's).

Kant is wrong.

[RenegadeMind]

the problem with kantian ethics is that if you follow the categorical imperative, its very easy to end up in a situation where you can't take any actions, but by not taking any action you have chosen not to do so, and therefor have chosen the action of non-acting, which is immoral. When kantian ethics are faced with a moral dilemma it fails horribly.

Those critques are short sighted and simply silly. I'm not going to bother explaining why as I'm simply lazy.

rational egoism or utilitarianism does not have this problem, they only try to maximize happiness(either your own, or a group's).

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

Kant is wrong.

No. You are.

[kokjo]

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

please explain why maximizing the world's happiness is a bad thing.

[Severian]

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

If you decide to be a hermit, you've removed yourself from society and have little need or way to contribute.

If you live in society, you have every right to be a selfish oaf and take without returning. But karma's a bitch.

Kant was right.

That's only because he ran into Swedenborg's works as a younger man.

[RenegadeMind]

And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.

please explain why maximizing the world's happiness is a bad thing.

Utilitarianism is a collectivist ideology where "the greater good" is used to justify violence against individuals. It is inherently evil.

Individuals naturally try to maximize their happiness, but once this becomes mobs of people trying to maximize happiness for everyone else, it simply ends in disaster.

Just look at how Mao or Stalin "maximized" happiness for the Chinese and Russians - hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of creating a "better" or "happier" society. When forced on people, Utopia invariably becomes Dystopia.

[RenegadeMind]

Do people have the right to be hermits? I'd say absolutely.

You have no obligation or duty to contribute to any society, and even not the one you live in.

If you decide to be a hermit, you've removed yourself from society and have little need or way to contribute.

Given the way things are, I think this is a bit of an interesting question:

Can you live in a city and still be a hermit?

If you live in society, you have every right to be a selfish oaf and take without returning. But karma's a bitch.

No argument there. You're bang on!

Kant was right.

That's only because he ran into Swedenborg's works as a younger man.

Hehehe! It pays to stand on the shoulders of giants.

[FinShaggy]

People are willing to pay tax because they don't want to go to jail.
BTC is only taxless when you don't turn it into money.

[kokjo]

Utilitarianism is a collectivist ideology where "the greater good" is used to justify violence against individuals. It is inherently evil.

okay, so people must not work together?

Individuals naturally try to maximize their happiness, but once this becomes mobs of people trying to maximize happiness for everyone else, it simply ends in disaster.

okay, then argue against the rational egoist if that whats you like.

Just look at how Mao or Stalin "maximized" happiness for the Chinese and Russians - hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of creating a "better" or "happier" society. When forced on people, Utopia invariably becomes Dystopia.

did stalin or mao make the world a happier place? NO!
was their actions utiltaristic then? NO!

okay, so you point to two people who killed a lot of poeple, yell utiltarist at them, and then generalize from a bad premise.

i see your flawless logic.

[CoinHoarder]

People are willing to pay tax because they don't want to go to jail.

This

[freedomno1]

Because I don't want to live in a society with armed guards protecting your house, barbed wire fences around your property steel bars over my windows and an inate fear of poor people swarming or robbing my place because their standard of living sucks

[TheButterZone]

So you don't want to live as a politician in practically every Western nation?

[freedomno1]

So you don't want to live as a politician in practically every Western nation?
[/quote

Zing mean XD nice one lol
Na meant third world vs first world the politicians are another level

[RavinTavin]

this is exactly my point of view. maybe people are brainwashed and scared that governments can come to them and say BU!

Fixed 


P.S. personally I'd add stupid too.

lol

[Bitware]

Isn't that a part of the attraction of bitcoin? You can AVOID tax?

And as for "realized gains", why not just sell your bitcoins offline to some person willing to show up at a coffee shop and pay cash?

All these threads about "how do I pay tax" sound like a cacophonous symphony of masochists screaming "Rape me! No, rape me first!"

Paperwork is painful enough. Why add to the misery?

Or at a minimum, why not just only sell back an amount equivalent to your initial investment and keep the BTC? The next time you take a holiday, or step out of the country, you can probably cash in some of your BTC and stay under the radar and avoid more paperwork.  

I am most interested in staying out of prison and maintaining a clean/non-existent criminal record.

[freedomno1]

Got a better one
Well I didn't sign the agreement to be part of this thing called society my ancestors did but if I want to participate in exchanges and not live alone in the wilderness I guess I am forced to make some compromises