just drop taxes at all

[tutkarz]

they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one

Why not encourage one which won't break?

Or are you just trolling?

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea. my idea has big advantage: its simple and hits rich while letting poor ones to live easier. but i guess governmemts are not interested to willingly give up taxes and let they slaves go away.

[1715099669]

1715099669

[1715099669]

1715099669

[myrkul]

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.

they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one

If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?

[tutkarz]

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.

they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one

If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?

you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything that works but this thread is about taxless inflationary currency.
i started topic earlier about p2p government also. if i could combine that two, i would allow people to decide how much they think would be fair earning for government and other things paid from budget and how much money are needed to be printed for country to function ...
but its just ideas thrown in the air.

[hawkeye]

but its just ideas thrown in the air.

So your idea to fix something is by your own admission not something which actually fixes it at all?  Well done.  Good thinking.

[myrkul]

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.

they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one

If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?

you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything

Good. Then we can end this thread with a simple link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
No taxes, no inflation, and best of all, no jack-booted thugs.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

[darkmule]

What about inflation?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)

Printing money is a tax.  It essentially removes value from your pocket.  Yes, you have bills of exactly the same denomination in your pocket as before, but suddenly they're worth much less.  Unlike something like income tax, which can be challenged if it is unfair or done without due process, inflation is a completely silent tax that you have no say over or way to fight.  Now, nobody likes paying taxes, but the "printing money" tax is particularly pernicious.  It is also particularly "addictive" for governments, some of which become the printing money addict equivalent of crackheads, like your example of Zimbabwe, or Germany right before the Nazis.  Arguably, hyperinflation from irresponsible money-printing was one of the main causes of the rise of the Nazis.

[tutkarz]

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.

they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one

If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?

you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything

Good. Then we can end this thread with a simple link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
No taxes, no inflation, and best of all, no jack-booted thugs.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.

but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.

both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.

the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.

[myrkul]

but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.

both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.

the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.

So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?

[tutkarz]

but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.

both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.

the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.

So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?

why do you assume there will be hyperinflation? i said, it can be calculated but i dont have resources and time to give examples. but maybe its not that bad like you think, government expenses should be way lower than it is now not to mention businesses that wont need to hire accountants and other people responsible for handling taxes.

examples of hyper inflated countries provided here before didn't included economy free of taxes as far as i know or they simply made other errors in the process - i don't know what they were buying with that printed money but i guess they didn't spent them in favour of people who live there. 

[Explodicle]

well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea. my idea has big advantage: its simple and hits rich while letting poor ones to live easier. but i guess governmemts are not interested to willingly give up taxes and let they slaves go away.

It doesn't hit the rich while letting the poor live easy. Inflation is regressive. If you're forcing people to accept it this is a tax, and if you're not then no one will use it.

Better ideas include a different choice for the single tax, no taxes at all, or just keeping the existing complicated tax system.

[nosurrender]

but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.

both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.

the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.

So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?

why do you assume there will be hyperinflation? i said, it can be calculated but i dont have resources and time to give examples. but maybe its not that bad like you think, government expenses should be way lower than it is now not to mention businesses that wont need to hire accountants and other people responsible for handling taxes.

examples of hyper inflated countries provided here before didn't included economy free of taxes as far as i know or they simply made other errors in the process - i don't know what they were buying with that printed money but i guess they didn't spent them in favour of people who live there.  

The problem isn´t errors in process, the problem is error in your model. The more money is in circulation the less this money is worth anything. The government is spending tax money for processes in the economy. A bridge, a road, a salary for administration workers, teachers, military, social welfare etc. requires money someone spends. You could erase taxes and pay for everything you use out of your own pocket - in theory. So you need a road. Do you build that for your own? I doubt that. So you pay for said road with a lot of others who also need roads. Of course you could call your share of road building costs anything else but taxes - for feel good. Or you call it tax, enjoy your road and get over the fact, that a modern society doesn´t live in the Wild West anymore

[MagicBit15]

What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?

We need taxes, they just have to be adjusted, severely!!

[myrkul]

but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.

both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.

the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.

So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?

why do you assume there will be hyperinflation?

Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?

http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100

Because inflation is addictive, and just like heroin, once you get started, it takes more and more to get the same effect.

[johnyj]

OP has a valid point, printing more money is equivalent to a tax, so all the taxes could be combined into one simple form: currency tax

But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend

And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth

[myrkul]

But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend

Now that's a silly statement. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.

[tutkarz]

And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth

this is the whole point: you wont tax them, it is supposed to hit only those with cash in hand. because when someone is poor and its only asset is flat he was working whole life to get one, there is no point to force him to pay for this when he cant or force him to sell this so he can buy cheaper. its not fair to me.

but overall i understand hyperinflation problem but the answer is not that easy because it all depends on economy and how much money is frozen in not used bank accounts etc.
besides some things can be done like in anarcho-capitalism where people pay for themselves for services and only few most important like army which have to be centralised is paid from government printed money. and army is needed as long as there are other countries that have one.

[Mike Christ]

If the ultimate tax is hyperinflation, Bitcoin's some kind of government kryptonite.

Crypto-nite?

We need taxes, they just have to be adjusted, severely!!

You'll get much farther once you do the following:

1.  Stop saying we.  You are not me, so stop speaking for me.  Say "I", as in "I need to be taxed", as it sounds much better and less crazy.  When you say we, it makes me believe that you're okay with people being robbed, as long as you're not the only one getting shafted.
2.  There is nothing the government offers that must be forced upon us, nor is there anything the government offers which cannot be taken care of by the private sect.  If we truly need the services provided by the government, and many of them I believe we do, then it would be difficult to believe that the market could not handle these services.

Example:  I like protection.  I want to pay an entity to protect me when something bad happens.  Right now, I'm not only forced to pay for protection, but if I don't like the service, tough!  The government is the top dog on security, and even if I hired a private security firm to protect me, they must ultimately answer to the men on top, none of which I've elected to protect me, none of which I wish to pay, and whose services I do not want, yet would have to pay for on top of private security.  If the services provided by all forms of government through tax are enough to pay for both an oversized military and local police, and highway police, and constables and sheriffs, all through the little bites taken out of every dollar I earn, would I not then, if I were no longer taxed, earn enough to pay for these services on my own, if I truly wanted them?

3.  If the men in power adjusted taxes, do you truly believe they will do it in the average Joe's favor?  And if they did, how long do you believe, given the political history of, say, America, that these tax changes will remain until they begin to change again?  It would be better to simply remove the ability for the men in power to tax, and to strive for a system as explained in point 2.  This way, there's no opportunity for a central source of power to become corrupt, as we've seen happen time and time again, as there would be no central source with enough power for bribery to be a lucrative investment.  In this case, it would be the average Joe who has all the power, and he would have little power: ideally, only enough power to alter his own life, and no one else's.

[johnyj]

But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend

Now that's a silly statement. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.

Prove?

I heard the opposite, without lifting the debt limit, government can't even borrow money from FED. Government can apoint FED chairman, but they can't interfer FED's movement

[melvster]

What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?

Not yet

The main portion of budget goes in money distribution.  Govts. are pretty inefficient at doing this.  But until we find a better way they will have a dominant position here.

The idea is that technology makes life easier for gov. so they can work with big surpluses to fund communal projects such as infrastructure, education etc.

They may be some bad actors, but I genuinely believe the vast majority have shared goals.

It's up to us to show how this technology can help society...

[Malawi]

What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?

Bad idea. What might work is if governments just collected fees on transactions/purchases.

There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.

After some time, a lot of workers would be in debt to the companies they work for, and would be forced to shop in the company store.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCen9-RELM