Why do people think income tax is ok?

[hilariousandco]

I think you have to gradually wean off the system of taxation. America has existed longer without the 16th Amendment than with it.

People think you need taxes for roads. Not income taxes as there is a tax on fuel already. However, I would go so far as to say that businesses have a vested interest in making sure there is good access to their locations so those businesses who build and maintain access will thrive. Just look at any major mall and you will often see roads that are maintained by the mall. Home builders create the roads in their subdivisions, voluntary HOAs can maintain those roads and some do.

Police. Many people don't need them if they were to take it upon themselves to procure the means of defending their lives and property from criminals. Investigations into crimes can be conducted by insurance companies, private investigators, etc.

Prisons. Wouldn't need 90% of them if we weren't locking people up for plants. Anyone convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc., could be executed in rapid fashion instead of being warehoused for years.

Fire. In many areas, people pay to be protected by a fire department. They get a bill for it. I suspect that if there were no government-operated fire departments, private fire departments would fill the void. People can either pay them directly or take out an insurance policy on their home. Since many lenders require insurance, the vast majority of mortgaged properties would be covered against loss. Those insurance companies may opt to pay for fire protection.

and so on, and so on....

You have to take small parts of supposed government responsibilities and return it to the private market for a solution. Then you drop the tax by the associated amount of savings. Eventually, you eliminate tax altogether on citizens. Import taxes can continue to exist because companies in other nations voluntarily ship goods for imports.

  at the bolded, but most of what you said is laughable. I can tell you now, most people wont have enough money to pay for insurance for medical and fire and to pay the police etc when they need them. You'd need to hire accountants just to pay for all this crap. Or, you could just pay a fair amount of tax every month and all this is already covered. You people seem to want to destroy something completely and rebuild it because there are small flaws in it. You don't mind paying for all this stuff individually to corporations, but to pay it to the government is diabolical?

[TheButterZone]

I think you have to gradually wean off the system of taxation. America has existed longer without the 16th Amendment than with it.

People think you need taxes for roads. Not income taxes as there is a tax on fuel already. However, I would go so far as to say that businesses have a vested interest in making sure there is good access to their locations so those businesses who build and maintain access will thrive. Just look at any major mall and you will often see roads that are maintained by the mall. Home builders create the roads in their subdivisions, voluntary HOAs can maintain those roads and some do.

Police. Many people don't need them if they were to take it upon themselves to procure the means of defending their lives and property from criminals. Investigations into crimes can be conducted by insurance companies, private investigators, etc.

Prisons. Wouldn't need 90% of them if we weren't locking people up for plants. Anyone convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape, etc., could be executed in rapid fashion instead of being warehoused for years.

Fire. In many areas, people pay to be protected by a fire department. They get a bill for it. I suspect that if there were no government-operated fire departments, private fire departments would fill the void. People can either pay them directly or take out an insurance policy on their home. Since many lenders require insurance, the vast majority of mortgaged properties would be covered against loss. Those insurance companies may opt to pay for fire protection.

and so on, and so on....

You have to take small parts of supposed government responsibilities and return it to the private market for a solution. Then you drop the tax by the associated amount of savings. Eventually, you eliminate tax altogether on citizens. Import taxes can continue to exist because companies in other nations voluntarily ship goods for imports.

  at the bolded, but most of what you said is laughable. I can tell you now, most people wont have enough money to pay for insurance for medical and fire and to pay the police etc when they need them.

Indeed, people couldn't afford it now, because they are being robbed blind by taxation and receive effectively nothing in return, unless you count civil rights violations.

[Duane Vick]

Just because I don't have an acceptable answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

You ever hear of the phrase "devil's advocate"?

It's where you argue in favor of a position you are against. To do this well, you have to find supporting research, etc. My debate teacher in school made us pick a side of an argument and then he would switch it.

Let's see you try. I'm switching your argument from pro-tax to anti-tax. Can you do it?

[davedx]

Just because I don't have an acceptable answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

You ever hear of the phrase "devil's advocate"?

It's where you argue in favor of a position you are against. To do this well, you have to find supporting research, etc. My debate teacher in school made us pick a side of an argument and then he would switch it.

Let's see you try. I'm switching your argument from pro-tax to anti-tax. Can you do it?

I'll bite!

My vision of a world without tax consists of loose confederations of co-operatives. Some of these co-operatives would be responsible for whole urban centres (cities, etc.). Some would be much more local: neighborhoods, blocks of flats, school districts. Direct democracy would select and vote on every issue. Everybody who voted for some kind of action (such as "we need to build a new highway connecting us to town B) would then be obliged to pay for a share to get the work done (a crowdfunding system). People would also choose which contractor got to build the roads using a voting system.

In my view, manufacturing and farming will be decentralised again, as everything devolves into smaller political entities. Technology will offset the loss of efficiency-of-scale: 3D printing, hydroponics, renewables.

Cryptocurrencies and the Internet will be essential tools for organising and running the co-operatives.

I don't think this political system is viable in a world of huge standing armies and globalization. It will get eaten alive, but it's a nice thought.

[practicaldreamer]

If you insist that you're not simply trolling, then please provide an example of "true 0% tax" country, so I can pack my suitcases.

They don't have taxes here :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle.

You could try that I suppose.

Some are smart, some are stupid, some are lazy and some aren't. Treating all people in the same way is a communist crap.

Indeed - some are fortunate and priviliged and some are not.

Some get to send their kids to Eton at £30,000 per annum, and some don't. Such people it is that are usually the ones to baulk at income tax - as their children don't actually need a state education thankyou very much. Neither do they use the NHS, public transport etc etc.

[bitlancr]

They don't have taxes here :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle.

You could try that I suppose.

Yes, we agree that having no wealth is a good way to protect yourself from wealth confiscation. Just like being dead protects you from murder.

[practicaldreamer]

They don't have taxes here :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle.

You could try that I suppose.

Yes, we agree that having no wealth is a good way to protect yourself from wealth confiscation. Just like being dead protects you from murder.

Yes, agreed.

But then wealth confiscation isn't really a problem for 3.5 billion members of the human race it would seem - the 85 richest individuals on the planet have as much wealth as one half of the worlds population put together - http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world - (one hell of a problem for those 85 lucky bastards though eh ? - most of whom will be from the USA btw ? ?  )

Just as a matter of interest, how do people here believe that BTC will either improve or exacerbate this situation ?

I'm assuming of course that:-

       a) you view this inequality as a problem in the first place  

  and      b) you believe BTC will have any influence one way or the other.

[hilariousandco]

They don't have taxes here :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle.

You could try that I suppose.

Yes, we agree that having no wealth is a good way to protect yourself from wealth confiscation. Just like being dead protects you from murder.

Most people won't have any wealth anyway when they're expected to pay for everything like roads, police, hospitals, schooling and their garbage being collected so it won't matter, so you might as well be living in a jungle because that's what it'll turn into.

[bitlancr]

Most people won't have any wealth anyway when they're expected to pay for everything like roads, police, hospitals, schooling and their garbage being collected so it won't matter, so you might as well be living in a jungle because that's what it'll turn into.

Who do you think pays for these services now? By the look of our governments' balance sheets, it's future generations.

A free market could deliver those services cheaper and more efficiently, and we'd all be better off.

Just as a matter of interest, how do people here believe that BTC will either improve or exacerbate this situation ?

I believe it will help in the long run, as we break our dependence on the financial oligopoly.

[hilariousandco]

Most people won't have any wealth anyway when they're expected to pay for everything like roads, police, hospitals, schooling and their garbage being collected so it won't matter, so you might as well be living in a jungle because that's what it'll turn into.

A free market could deliver those services cheaper and more efficiently, and we'd all be better off.

I don't believe it would, either more cheaply or efficiently. What happens to the people who can't afford all the services I mentioned above?

[practicaldreamer]

Most people won't have any wealth anyway when they're expected to pay for everything like roads, police, hospitals, schooling and their garbage being collected so it won't matter, so you might as well be living in a jungle because that's what it'll turn into.

A free market could deliver those services cheaper and more efficiently, and we'd all be better off.

I don't believe it would, either more cheaply or efficiently. What happens to the people who can't afford all the services I mentioned above?

No, I don't believe it would either.

I could cite a thousand reasons why - but I'll just mention School meals in the UK.

"If there was ever a ‘golden age’ of school meals, it began with the 1944 Education Act, which made it compulsory for local authorities to provide school meals, free of charge to poorer children and at no more than the cost of the raw ingredients to the rest. The aim, as declared in a government circular in 1955, was a lunch ‘suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day’. Free school milk was also provided from 1946 to all schoolchildren."

Certainly, when I was growing up in the seventies, I have to say that the school meals were superb - provided and subsidised by the Local Education Authority (ultimately by the taxpayer of course) - and if you played for the school sports teams (football in my case) you got to drink as much milk as you could manage after a match 

"In 1980, Margaret Thatcher - now prime minister - started to run down the school-meals service. Nutritional standards were scrapped and local authorities were now only obliged to provide meals to poorer children. Free school milk was abolished altogether. Competitive tendering meant that many school meals were ‘contracted out’ from local authorities to private contractors and the number of children eligible for free meals was further reduced by the Social Security Act 1986."

Thatcher, it should be noted, was a big fan of Hayek apparently (though I couldn't say wether the respect was mutual or not)

End result of competitive tendering was that nourishing meals that provided all a child needed as a main meal of the day were superseded by a "bums on seats" ethos - and this :-

[bitlancr]

I don't believe it would, either more cheaply or efficiently.

You're arguing against economics there bro... Are you saying that central planning is more efficient in general? Or is there something special about those services which means a free market can't deliver?

I could cite a thousand reasons why - but I'll just mention School meals in the UK.
...provided and subsidised by the Local Education Authority (ultimately by the taxpayer of course)...

Which is the key point. We can debate quality, but these meals were never free. Just like the NHS isn't free today. Somebody is paying, even if it isn't you.

As an aside, I also think competitive tendering is a farce and doesn't constitute a free market. The government buying services on our behalf is no better than them providing it - the consumer must have choice.

What happens to the people who can't afford all the services I mentioned above?

Well you'd think food and clothes would be their first priority, but nobody is asking the government to nationalise these services...

These people would need to rely on charity, as they do now, but that charity would be voluntary rather than coercive.

[hilariousandco]

I don't believe it would, either more cheaply or efficiently.

You're arguing against economics there bro... Are you saying that central planning is more efficient in general? Or is there something special about those services which means a free market can't deliver?

How so, bro? I find it ironic that the only people who usually peddle this big bad government / taxes are bad have little-to-no understanding of economics or the cost of the services they provide. They are more efficient, yes. I also don't know how you expect people to afford or have the time to pay for all these services that they may or may not use.

What happens to the people who can't afford all the services I mentioned above?

Well you'd think food and clothes would be their first priority, but nobody is asking the government to nationalise these services...

These people would need to rely on charity, as they do now, but that charity would be voluntary rather than coercive.

And when there isn't enough charity these people just what exactly? They die... freeze/starve/bleed to death etc. And you can buy clothes with your state benefits. You can't buy them with nothing. Charities currently struggle to feed and clothe the poor as it is, never mind once all their benefits have been taken away and there's hundreds of thousands more out on the streets and freezing and starving and bleeding all over the place.

[bitlancr]

How so, bro? I find it ironic that the only people who usually peddle this big bad government / taxes are bad have little-to-no understanding of economics or the cost of the services they provide. They are more efficient, yes. I also don't know how you expect people to afford or have the time to pay for all these services that they may or may not use.

Show me a respected economic theory that states a command economy is more efficient than a free market. Better yet, show me a real world example.

As for how people will pay - well, not paying a quarter of their wage in tax would be a start...

And when there isn't enough charity these people just what exactly? They die... freeze/starve/bleed to death etc.

And what will happen to these people when the state realises its inevitable bankruptcy?

[hilariousandco]

How so, bro? I find it ironic that the only people who usually peddle this big bad government / taxes are bad have little-to-no understanding of economics or the cost of the services they provide. They are more efficient, yes. I also don't know how you expect people to afford or have the time to pay for all these services that they may or may not use.

As for how people will pay - well, not paying a quarter of their wage in tax would be a start...

The poor pay little-to-nothing in taxes and that's who will get shafted the most here, but even the people who pay minimal tax would be bankrupt and completely destitute if they had to start paying for the roads and the bins and healthcare and medication and police etc. Good luck finding charities to help people who have nothing especially with no state to support them.

[practicaldreamer]

Well, I suppose the meals (under tender) would be cheaper - thats largely because the meals are crap   Turkey Twizzlers anyone  

   And if you were just looking at the cost of providing the service then the private firm has clear advantages - not least because the staff they employ are low paid zero hours contract workers with no sick pay, pension, holidays or any other rights of employment.
   The dinner ladies that were previously employed by the local authority were respected contributors to the school and given full employment rights - as a result they were (at least from memory) happy and productive in their work. Yes, the cost would have been greater to the taxpayer than the service provided by the private frim. But how on earth could it compete ? - it reminds me of a psychopathic girlfriend I used to have the misfortune to know - she always had the advantage over me - why ? - because she cared less, and the power in a relationship always resides with those that care less.
        Likewise with the private catering firm - it cares less - its raison d'etre is not the provision of nutritious meals to the nations children (though it might say this in its Articles of Association) but profit.


Now we have a nation of employees on terrible terms of employment and with job insecurity - and I'm not just talking about caterers. The sad part is that a lot of them accept the crap that the schools now provide at meal times - why ? - because its cheap and they can't afford any better. Sad but true.
   Now whats the cost, to the nation as a whole, of the competitive tendering ?

   All this just so that Thatcher could reduce the rate of tax for those earning over £100k a year  

    
    Economics is a social science isn't it - its concerned with the welfare of human beings and how best to maintain that welfare given limited resources ? Or is it about allocating and distributing scarce resources most cost efficiently via the free market - thereby faciltating the obscene situation where 85 people own as much as 3.5 billion of the worlds population (who don't have 2 bits to scratch their arse with between them) ?

     I don't mind paying income tax at all per se - and neither do I object to Government where it might try to represent the interests of the 3.5 billion - instead of the 85 that it does currently.
  

[bitlancr]

The poor pay little-to-nothing in taxes and that's who will get shafted the most here...

Really? Ever heard of VAT, fuel duty, road tax, council tax? Not to mention the other taxes that ultimately get passed on through prices?

Taxes ultimately affect everyone, but they're justified to people like you by the second-rate services they pay for - services that have 'no free-market alternatives', so they tell us. All after deductions for the state's wars, debt, aid to friendly dictators, bank bailouts, and bureaucracy.

People should just pay for the services they choose - it works well.

[Mezzmarr]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. I think income tax and property tax are just wrong. What do you think?

We probably need to focus on the cost of government, not government taxation itself since we are now 100 years into this failed experiment.

If we could self-govern, we would have been doing so through the millenia. That being said, the cost of government has far exceeded the benefit in the United States and probably everywhere else. I will go out further on the limb and state that the value of my citizenship is depreciating as government gets bigger and more intrusive while continuing to fight endless wars.

Fathom that productive entrepreneurs must seek permission from regulators who produce virtually nothing.

It would have been a better system if production was not taxed at all and tax only consumption, but then Congress would really have to live within their means, something they have not been able to demonstrate.

[Mike Christ]

If we could self-govern, we would have been doing so through the millenia.

We have been; the majority of everyday life decisions, short-term and long-term, is born from rational self-interest.  To imply we cannot self-govern is to imply we can make no decision of our own; if this is true, that none can self-govern, then we should not pretend that a government of elected officials who also cannot self-govern can manage to find the capacity to govern others, a far more difficult task, nor should we pretend that they make our every decision for us, for if they did, what need do we have for democracy?

[practicaldreamer]

We have been; the majority of everyday life decisions, short-term and long-term, is born from rational self-interest.  To imply we cannot self-govern is to imply we can make no decision of our own; if this is true, that none can self-govern, then we should not pretend that a government of elected officials who also cannot self-govern can manage to find the capacity to govern others, a far more difficult task, nor should we pretend that they make our every decision for us, for if they did, what need do we have for democracy?

I agree with all of that - but is management of any type unnecessary then (and under any circumstance), in your opinion ?

I know that William Blake said that if a fool were to persist in their foolishness they would become wise - but on that I'd have to disagree with him  .
  If my kids start playing with matches whilst in my garage right next to a tank of petrol I'm not going to stand by and watch.

 And what if my rational self interest should clash with that of someone elses rational self interest ? Who is to arbitrate ? What if my everyday life decisions are demarcated by illness - or by old age, or by any other form of under privilege/disadvantage ? Who then will intervene when the man whose everyday life decisions aren't so constrained as my own takes from me all I have and hold dear ?