Why do people think income tax is ok?

[shawshankinmate37927]

Why do you keep bringing up the same irrelevant questions I've answered time and time again. If my analogy isn't relevant to what's being discussed in this thread then neither is the you don't chose to get mugged/raped/murdered ones which is what I was referencing here. And there are many choices to park. You can find somewhere for free, you can pay a council space, or a lot. You can choose. You have not been forced to. Does a man with a gun come round and say you have to pay me no matter what even if you don't have a car or want to park anywhere? No. You can also try park for free illegally if you want and try get away with it, but if you get caught you have to pay a fine, but that's your choice and you were aware of the rules so in fact this is a perfect analogy for this situation and far more apt than the mugged/raped/murdered ones you lot keep brining up.

In your example there is a voluntary agreement between two individuals.  However, income taxes involve a third party that is not part of the agreement.  Neither of the two individuals have asked the thug with the badge to interfere or otherwise involve himself in the transaction.  He forces them to include him.  No one is forcing the two individuals to do business.  They are free not to do business, but just because two individuals voluntarily choose to do business does not give a third person the right to demand that he be included.  He doesn't ask them to include him, he insists that he be included and reminds them that if they don't then there will be consequences.

And if a person owns a lot or a space, he has chosen to own that an operate a business under the rules of the system. So he has not been forced to do anything; he chose to play by the rules and pay into this system, and so do you people. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, don't own a parking space or a lot or go where there are no taxes for this kind of thing. How is anyone being forced to do anything when they willing give it up and agree to play by the rules set out?

Yes, it's these "rules of the system" that we are discussing.  It's these "rules of the system" that need to be changed.  It's these "rules of the system" that make it okay to steal if the thieves refer to it as "income tax".  It's these "rules of the system" that makes it okay to steal as long as you have a badge.  The "rules of the system" are corrupt because the people that make those rules are corrupt.  The first step in changing the "rules of the system" is pointing out how immoral the rules and the rulemakers are.

And I wish people would stop bringing up this gun to your head thing. Not everybody lives in America.

The USA isn't the only place in the world where those individuals that enforce the "rules of the system" are allowed to carry guns and use those guns to enforce the "rules of the system".

[TheButterZone]

Gun to your head, knife to your throat, noose to your neck, club to your skull, fire to your body, any aggressive coercive force.

[davedx]

So to nail this down. Anti-tax guys, with the parking lot analogy:

Do you not agree being able to move to Qatar or Monaco means you do not have to pay taxes?

We're in a global economy with very free movement. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the USA.

[TheButterZone]

So to nail this down. Anti-tax guys, with the parking lot analogy:

Do you not agree being able to move to Qatar or Monaco means you do not have to pay taxes?

We're in a global economy with very free movement. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the USA.

The USA still forces you to pay taxes if you leave, or you will life the rest of your life in exile.

There is absolutely no "free movement" about that.

[westkybitcoins]

I'm happy when no-one is pointing a gun/court at my head and demanding I do what they say. Violence is bad, mmmm'kay.

I'm baffled that this needs pointing out but nevertheless...

The tax system exists (or should) such that the rich subsidise the poor. If people are given the choice to opt out, then a majority of rich people will opt out.

The majority of the super rich already opt-out. If you think that it is most such people who are subsidizing the poor (rather than exploiting them,) then I have a bridge to sell you. Anyone who thinks most such people should subsidize the poor rather than simply stop exploiting them, is just revealing the true nature of their character; and no, that nature is NOT "I'm generous and moral and believe in a peaceful society."

This should be obvious, but the rights and freedoms you (and most of us) hold dear are not natural, and they're not absolute. They weren't brought down from Sinai, and they weren't discovered encoded in our DNA or the laws of physics. They were invented by thousands of clever, decent people who figured out a better way for people to live, and a government that manages to defend most of all of them and all of some of them deserves a little credit.

Well, that about says it all then, doesn't it? If you don't believe there are absolute human rights, regardless of their origin, then you will simply NEVER AGREE with those who do, and frankly, we will fight you and your inconsistent opinions as long as we are able.

As an aside, I've always wondered why people who say they believe rights aren't absolute don't all just go into politics, acquire money and power, and do whatever they heck they want and "die happy" rather than wasting their time on internet forums. It's all just arbitrary, right? 

You are forced to contribute, and that is a good thing.

Institutionalize theft may have benefits to some, but it's ridiculous to try to sell (to the people being stolen from no less) the idea that it's a "good thing", particularly when the people doing the stealing are both horribly inept and disgustingly corrupt, to whatever degree.

Your right to private property is being partially infringed, but the right only exists because <snipped opinions>

You are free to hold those opinions if you wish. You shouldn't be surprised when those who see through the absurdity of it, and understand that rights are either inalienable or are being suppressed by some at the whim of others (i.e., immorally) refuse to play by your rules.

[Mike Christ]

You and I have so much we agree on. Let me be clear:
 

just go into politics, acquire money and power, and do whatever they heck they want and "die happy" rather than wasting their time on internet forums. It's all just arbitrary, right?

Of course I believe in morals, and I believe in rights, but to believe that any one right is absolute is extreme, absolutist, and frankly very american. As far as I am concerned, the basic objective of all morality should be to increase the quality of life of as many people as possible by as much as possible, and rights are a tool to achieve this end. I believe that people should have a right not to starve or die from treatable diseases. I believe that people should have a right to education. I also believe in a right to property, but that the first three (and others) are equally important. It would be great if a government could uphold all of those rights, but I don't think it's possible. Upholding rights costs wealth, and wealth starts out as people's property.

Aside from that minor hiccup,  we seem to have a lot in common. I think that tax avoidance by the super rich is one of the very greatest moral wrongs being perpetrated in our society. I think that taxes on the middle classes and small businesses are too high, but should they pay them at all? I think so. I absolutely agree that vast amounts of poor people are poor because they have been exploited and ripped off by the wealthy, but even in a near-ideal society the free market would produce winners and losers. What stops these winners from becoming the next oligarchs if not regulation and redistributive taxation? You are so right that too many governments are appallingly corrupt, but why not focus our efforts on fixing that instead of abolishing government altogether? As I say, however much more our governments have to improve, they have already come so far. On the other hand, can you point to a time when the abolition of democracy has led to an improvement in a population's quality of life? If companies are free to do as they please - to amass as much wealth as they please - then a small number of companies will establish a monopoly over all markets and services, and hey presto, there's your new government. Only you don't get the vote this time around.

Please don't mistake my thinking that rights should not be absolute to mean that I don't think they are important, just that I believe that society is vast, rich, diverse and beautiful, and it can't function via the absolutist application of simple rules, like a game of chess or the bitcoin protocol. Rights are complicated and contextual and they change according to the needs of people which makes them stronger, not weaker.

Again, I'm well aware that governments fail to live up to these ideals, but I don't think we'd be better off without them.

A government without the ability to use force, i.e. specifically to tax, is a government incapable of allowing businesses monopoly and thus the ability to become rich in the first place; this means, without the government to tax the rich, there wouldn't be any rich, for there is nothing to shield a corporation from unethical behavior and nothing to allow a corporation unfair practice among their small-business competition.  Without this use of force, people would be able to work without the expensive governmental overhead, without the laws which steal from the poor to give to the rich in the first place (which effectively removes the need for you to, again, steal from the rich to give back to the poor who would then be stolen from again thanks to government), meaning they would make more and could work less, which means they could afford food, housing, clothes, health care, education, without the need to steal back the money taken from them.  Instead of taking from the people to take care of the people (with all the government waste in between), the most practical, cost-effective and humanitarian approach is to simply not steal from the people in the first place.

Instead of viewing the poor as a bunch of animals that must be cared for by the rich pet owners, why not take your foot off their throat and let them help themselves?  Why do you agree with the horrendous practices of the rich whilst simultaneously claiming you're trying to help the poor?

Furthermore, I detest your skewed representation of "rights".  A right only functions when the parties involved agree upon them and agree to defend them; the idea that rights are granted by government is akin to saying that nobody has rights but what the masters of a given society allow them to have, which do not count as rights, but only as privileges, as you mother and father would give you when you're young, or, as mentioned, the owner of a pet.  This further points out your view of the poor being animals to be owned, and it's repulsive, and I insist that you live up to your claim to believing in morality because this does not cut it.

[Carlton Banks]

Ok.

It's a different system that people are asking for. Not justifications for the proper functioning of the system we all use now.

If no-one pays tax, everyone will have more money.

And when you get rid of all the middlemen that come inbetween the tax collection and the public spending, that means the money used to administer it all can just get spent on community projects directly.

No tax collectors means the money spent on tax collection is available for something else.

No politicians means the money spent on politicians wages is available for something else.

No government administrative staff means the money spent on administrative staff is available for something else.

No elections of public representatives means the money spent on elections is available for something else.

Lie to me, tell me that those things aren't massively expensive and a massive waste of money.


And you can build a really transparent and equitable system to do it all, based on bitcoin-like technology. It's a new paradigm for government, you know, a bit like how bitcoin is a new paradigm for money. Geddit? No? Well never mind then, I expect it'll happen with or without you.

[countryfree]

They don't pay taxes in Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar )- I suppose the anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org could move there - but then the US already owns Qatar doesn't it ? Or am I thinking of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Oman/Libya/Nigeria/UAE etc etc.

    If you do move there I hope you won't be going there to work [as well as avoid paying taxes through some kind of "libertarian" idealism]

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013

  Its no place for the needy.

     "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  ??  You must be having a laugh - not in Qatar sir - and not in the USA any longer it would seem.

    What have you become America ?

  

Qatar is a great place for the needy, if they're Qataris. And I doubt there's a single Qatari in need of anything, but the Gulf countries are very special because of their oil. Every Qatari benefits from the huge wealth oil brought, but nobody said the immigrants shall benefit too. They don't, and the Qataris look down on them.

I am some kind of a "libertarian idealist", and I'm the first to recognize that few people can afford to be like me (and live the way I do), but with the information economy, more and more people can afford to have such ideas.

[practicaldreamer]

 There is a foot on the throats of the working poor my friend, but it does not belong to the government - it belongs to powerful corporations, and wealthy individuals who hoard wealth and property. At worst the government doesn't prevent the theft, but it's not the burglar.

Well said and +1.

 Too many people putting rights before responsibility - they've been sold the parody of the idea of individual "liberty" and sovereignty since they took their first breath, not realising that what they have by now come to view as their God given inalienable rights are actually a luxury that have to be "afforded" and paid for by the communities from which they emanate and to which they belong.
   The individual has been effectively loaned the rights, the freedoms- and without a sufficient eye on the repayments/responsibilties the rights can very easily (and should) be called back in.

    It all seems a long long way from Lincolns Gettysburg address to me  - "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH"

[Carlton Banks]

If no-one pays tax, everyone will have more money.

No. Only those who currently pay in more than the value of the public services they use will have more money. Who pays the most tax? That would be the rich. The rich will have more money.

When you get rid of all the middlemen that come inbetween the tax collection and the public spending, that means the money used to administer it all can just get spent on community projects directly.

As you well know, the rich stand most to gain from the abolition of taxation. How many rich people will choose to spend their money on "community projects" instead of a fancier yacht? To say nothing of communities where everybody is poor.

You're thinking of income tax. It's not the only tax. That's why it's called "income" tax, and not just "tax". Consumption tax is regressive, as you well know.

And you can build a really transparent and equitable system to do it all, based on bitcoin-like technology. It's a new paradigm for government, you know, a bit like how bitcoin is a new paradigm for money. Geddit? No? Well never mind then, I expect it'll happen with or without you.

Yes Carlton, I geddit. I believe in the good that bitcoin can do, and I'm incredibly excited for the improvements that can be made to government. Most government systems have barely adapted to the internet yet, let alone the amazing things that are capable with cryptographic networks like bitcoin. I think there's massive scope for reducing the cost of government. But at the end of the day, people need (e.g.) teachers and doctors, and teachers and doctors need to be paid money for their services. If everyone pays for their own teachers and doctors, how will the poor afford it? How will children afford it, when they need an education to start earning money in the first place? How will sick people afford it, when they need to be healthy to earn money?

Put more money in everyones pockets. Everyone can afford it. I thought you said you understood that bit?

[shawshankinmate37927]

So to nail this down. Anti-tax guys, with the parking lot analogy:

Do you not agree being able to move to Qatar or Monaco means you do not have to pay taxes?

We're in a global economy with very free movement. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the USA.

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.  I think the world would be better off if governments left people's income alone.  If stealing/taxing is necessary then, personally, I would prefer that it be done when the money is spent as opposed to when it is earned.  The tax code for the income tax (in the USA at least) is just a political football with too many loopholes for those who are able to buy political influence.  I don't think the USA's income tax can be fixed.  It just needs to be shitcanned altogether.

[bryant.coleman]

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.

I'd agree. Income tax is not much different from a high-tech bank robbery. People should earn their livelihood. Out tax money is not meant to feed the losers.

[Ekaros]

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.

I'd agree. Income tax is not much different from a high-tech bank robbery. People should earn their livelihood. Out tax money is not meant to feed the losers.

And I with many others believe that it's impossible for everyone to earn their livelihood. That is with current level of population with current level of technology...

[bitmiggy]

Tax reform will never happen because the politicians would lose out. Doesn't matter who you vote for.

[countryfree]

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.

I'd agree. Income tax is not much different from a high-tech bank robbery. People should earn their livelihood. Out tax money is not meant to feed the losers.

And I with many others believe that it's impossible for everyone to earn their livelihood. That is with current level of population with current level of technology...

That might be true. Population growth may be the biggest challenge the world's facing. Not everybody can own a house, a car, a computer, a smartphone, a large TV and all the things people living in rich countries take for granted. I don't think we will go back to the law of the jungle, but only the fittest will survive, like it has always been. And tax doesn't help by going against nature. What's changing though, is the definition of "the fittest". Brute force is much less important in this time.

[PrintMule]

If stealing/taxing is necessary then, personally, I would prefer that it be done when the money is spent as opposed to when it is earned.

Where one guy spends his money another man earns it. But yes, it makes sense in a way - to remove income tax. Rich are paying more taxes already because they spend more .


Anyway, If I was happy with my country or it's government I really would not mind to pay 50% if I could afford it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Only if I get to make my own government, or if someone  establishes new bitcoin themed country with the prospect of brighter future.

[bryant.coleman]

And I with many others believe that it's impossible for everyone to earn their livelihood. That is with current level of population with current level of technology...

I don't care. I am not going to feed anyone else, other than my family.

[TheButterZone]

Tell me when you can come up with a level of "need" that everyone concurs with, without you shoving a fucking gun in all our faces.

Human rights are not limited to bare survival.

[BillClinton]

You need to have some kind of tax in order to provide military and enforce laws and pay for just enough welfare so that the little guy can get back on his feet when he's fallen down.

Personally I'd prefer the FairTax, a fixed rate sales tax that still helps out the little guy by giving everyone back all the money they taxes they've paid up to all purchases that could've been made with a poverty level salary.

[hashman]

Why do people think TX fees are ok?