Why do people think income tax is ok?

[Carlton Banks]

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

And this is why you need to be forced to. People have a right to survive, and that is more important than your right to property.

Your family should come first of course, and you shouldn't be taxed on the money you need to feed them and keep them safe, but when you earn more than that, yeah you should have to give some of that money to help others.

I think this only serves to illustrate the problem in this thread: people that have been immersed in one culture will not accept that there is more than one model.

Although it seems like you're aware of the contradictions you're living under, too. The trouble is that what we're actually experiencing is a wedding of capitalist and socialist public policy, there are very few purist societies still around. The combination of the two is more often the worst of both worlds, though. Capitalism for the poor, and socialism for the rich. I think the last 5 years has seen the most obscene example; the banking giants played fast and loose with the system that was the total bedrock of our whole way of life, screwed it up irreparably (very gradually over 40 years), then convinced the governments to screw it up even more so that they could keep their unsustainable model going (they didn't notice the unsustainability, despite how good they were at making huge profits, hence the profits were basically fraudulent). Everyone else has to pay for their mistake, and they are right now continuing to make it worse.

The premise of this thread is to want what the old pre-20th century US system was based around. It got gradually hybridised over the years, arguably by neccessity, and arguably by ideology. Not here to argue about the merits of the ideology. I'm just saying that if you really believe in democracy, then you should believe that people should be allowed to choose to live in an ecological treehouse plaza, if that's what they want. Right now, big lines are drawn on maps by influential people, and people end in a very similar situation no matter what country they live in. If those treehouse people wanted their Ewok village, there shouldn't be some other type of purist saying "you can't do that, because". No system is actually perfect, it's just got characteristics that suit the way people think.

So give me a pure capitalist model, and you can live in your socialist place. That's another hallmark of democratic thinking: respecting the decision of people in different societies. Us capitalists will even come take a trip to visit you, it's not like we disapprove or want to deny you your way of life. Just don't try to pretend that one ideology fits all, and pass that off as the objective truth, it's an insult to your own intelligence as well as mine.

[shawshankinmate37927]

Why do people think TX fees are ok? 

Because they are voluntary?

[westkybitcoins]

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

And this is why you need to be forced to.

And this is why your assertion that we agree more than disagree is absurd.

No one has a right to steal from others. Period.

If you find a rich man who is exploiting poor people, you could argue that the poor people should be helped through charity, or maybe even that they should just sneak into his place and take food as needed, regardless of any right to. But I somehow doubt bryant is one of the rich bankers destroying the economy for his own personal gain. If he's just minding his own business, earning a legitimate income, then the only way you will ever get people (except for other thieves) to go along with your program is through force. Arbitrary, institutionalized, damn-the-innocent, kick-down-your-door-and-shoot-your-dog-and-lock-you-away-for-decades force.

The utter immorality of this is why we will never agree.

People have a right to survive, and that is more important than your right to property.

I thought rights weren't absolute?

Who says? Why do people have a right to survive, and where does this come from? Who gets to define "survive?"

Where's the equation for your moral calculus giving Bob's "right to survive" a higher objective valuation than bryant's property rights?

(Bonus question: What makes the divine right of the majority any more legitimate than the divine right of kings?)

Your family should come first of course,

What if he needs the money to give his children what he considers a decent education, or an adequate life? I guess that's irrelevant, as long as your definition of a decent education or adequate life is met, right?

and you shouldn't be taxed on the money you need to feed them and keep them safe, but when you earn more than that, yeah you should have to give some of that money to help others.

Again, nice, cozy rights-stomping opinions there. Don't be surprised when those of us who see right through it fight such sugar-coated wrongdoing every step of the way.

[Damnsammit]

How else can we afford to pay our soldiers to police the globe and fight wars on tyranny and genocide?

[Carlton Banks]

Democracy isn't about letting everyone do things their own way, it's about choosing a common set of rules that benefit the most people. If rich people can easily choose not to pay any tax, the majority will.

Well, in a way, it is. It's an agreement between a certain constituency of people. I think part of the solution is to make all countries much smaller, there's a natural upper limit to a workable voting population, and we've long since passed it. Big federations are not more efficient in practice, it just makes the governing class more attractive to people who want to collude with corporate buddies.

I wouldn't call myself a socialist by the way - free markets are superb engines of growth that work really well in most situations. I just think it's naïve to think that the more you reduce government, the freer the markets will automatically be. Competitive markets in equilibrium are not naturally stable - they produce companies who are more successful, in whose interest it immediately is to drive competition out of business and form a monopoly. Government has a vital role to play in limiting the market share of large companies, and providing assistance to start-ups who would otherwise be prevented from competing due to the lack of economies of scale that larger companies have. I also don't think free markets work well with services that everyone should have by default - it's criminal that access to the best doctors or teachers is decided by how much you can pay.

My personal ideal government aside, I also think that the best way forward is to work to change the governments we have, not to secede and try to start from scratch.

Like I said, no system is perfect. You can corrupt a small government system too. That doesn't mean that people should only be allowed to choose your way of solving the problems of communities and societies. And as I say above, influential government can use it's reach for harm or benevolence, and the harm can create an outcome that's no different from what you're saying is wrong with a small government system. Different means, same end. So you can't just point out the problems with one system, and then present something else as an idyll.

Take a look at where you agreed with me, and tell me if that isn't the very richest benefiting most egregiously at the expense of not just the poor, but literally everyone. That balance is even worse than what you're warning against; the top 1-5% taking more than 90% of the wealth, fraudulently. And with the government (that you say protects the interests of all) enabling them to do so. And they gave that assistance both before they wrung everything out of the money stream, and then afterwards too. You really think that a bit of stepwise modification will change that corporate-politic culture of mutual malfeasant backscratching?

[bryant.coleman]

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

And this is why you need to be forced to. People have a right to survive, and that is more important than your right to property.

Oh really? So you are going to come to my place to steal my money?

I'll be waiting for you, with my shotgun ready.

[empoweoqwj]

I don't think its ok. But people are slaves to nation states. For now ....

[bryant.coleman]

Hah! I'm gonna make an educated guess here and correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you actually do live in qatar/somalia/moon then people are already taking your money so I don't have to. Isn't that what you're here to complain about?

There are more than a dozen nations with zero income tax rate. And what makes you think that I'm a resident of Qatar?

And there are dozens of countries which do not tax equity dividends and long term capital gains. 99.99% of my yearly income is from these sources.

[empoweoqwj]

Hah! I'm gonna make an educated guess here and correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you actually do live in qatar/somalia/moon then people are already taking your money so I don't have to. Isn't that what you're here to complain about?

There are more than a dozen nations with zero income tax rate. And what makes you think that I'm a resident of Qatar?

And there are dozens of countries which do not tax equity dividends and long term capital gains. 99.99% of my yearly income is from these sources.

Yep. True enough. Income tax is a sign of governments wanting to control you. It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of people legally don't pay any income tax whatsoever.

[empoweoqwj]

There are more than a dozen nations with zero income tax rate. And what makes you think that I'm a resident of Qatar?

And there are dozens of countries which do not tax equity dividends and long term capital gains. 99.99% of my yearly income is from these sources.

If you live in one of these, I stand corrected. Qatar/Somalia was a reference to earlier in the thread when people where talking about these as examples of minimal govt.

How are the poor in your country doing? I get that you couldn't give a shit, but curious all the same.

You equate not paying income tax to the government (wasteful) vs "caring for people". The two are not the same. Many people would prefer to choose how to spend their money caring for others directly. rather than having a government choose wastefully how to do so.

Do not assume people paying no income tax do not care for others.

[davedx]

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

And this is why you need to be forced to. People have a right to survive, and that is more important than your right to property.

Oh really? So you are going to come to my place to steal my money?

I'll be waiting for you, with my shotgun ready.

The comments you've made on this thread are revealing.

You are a morally repugnant human being.

I cannot fathom how people can be so utterly selfish.

[davedx]

There are more than a dozen nations with zero income tax rate. And what makes you think that I'm a resident of Qatar?

And there are dozens of countries which do not tax equity dividends and long term capital gains. 99.99% of my yearly income is from these sources.

If you live in one of these, I stand corrected. Qatar/Somalia was a reference to earlier in the thread when people where talking about these as examples of minimal govt.

How are the poor in your country doing? I get that you couldn't give a shit, but curious all the same.

You equate not paying income tax to the government (wasteful) vs "caring for people". The two are not the same. Many people would prefer to choose how to spend their money caring for others directly. rather than having a government choose wastefully how to do so.

Do not assume people paying no income tax do not care for others.

Where I live, you can claim a decent amount of charitable donations back against your taxes at the end of the year.

There are middle grounds for this stuff, without abolishing taxation entirely.

[PrintMule]

When people like me see the word tax they go apeshit.

This topic should be about INCOME tax only, I guess that way it would be less prone to flaming.

Rather then imposing tax on people, the gov should make money in other ways. Like running a state company for example. The best use I can think of - is to fine people/companies for different stuff, to improve things.

Let's say you local grocery store throws out spoiled products, which, it could sell if only the price would be more appropriate. But no. Greed led to spoiled products. Which is now fined in our glorious country. Next time the store manager will think twice between setting high prices or maybe will order less stuff. Or goes bankrupt, who cares. Another example - people on your block recycle less stuff, than required by law? Here comes the fine for everyone living on that block. And the government lives off those fines, amongst other sources of income.

Also the government cuts its military expenses by 80%, bureaucracy bullshit by 60%, election-associated stuff by 90% and so on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXv-HCOw0c

...brutality is nere
in the form of income tax
I'd rather take a fucking axe
to my face, blow up this place...

[shawshankinmate37927]

Oh really? So you are going to come to my place to steal my money?

I'll be waiting for you, with my shotgun ready.

The comments you've made on this thread are revealing.

You are a morally repugnant human being.

I cannot fathom how people can be so utterly selfish.

Some would say that those who steal are the ones that are morally repugnant.

[practicaldreamer]

How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority. And so its not stealing is it ?
  Technically being the will of the majority doesn't necesarily make that will "right", I'll grant you. But then you have to ask - who exactly is the thief here ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over the land - because as we all know, land is the source of all wealth ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over labour ?

I'll grant you that the democratic process is flawed  (thats for another thread perhaps)- but still, it does beg the question doesn't it ?

[Carlton Banks]

How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority.
[...]

I'll grant you that the democratic process is flawed  (thats for another thread perhaps)- but still, it does beg the question doesn't it ?

And you're claiming a flawed process can confer a legitimate mandate? (you're even using the word majority, a majority of which constituency? only the constituency that happens to be a minority of those that the vote affects, i.e. not democratic at all)

[shawshankinmate37927]

How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority. And so its not stealing is it ?
 Technically the will of the majority doesn't necesarily make it "right", I'll grant you. But then you have to ask - who exactly is the thief here ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over the land - because as we all know, land is the source of all wealth ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over labour ?

I'll grant you that the democratic process is flawed  (thats for another thread perhaps)- but still, it does beg the question doesn't it ?

If a democratically elected government decides to spy on their citizens' communications or drop bombs on innocent people from drones, does that make it acceptable?  Some, including me, would argue no.

I consider stealing to be taking something from someone by fraud, force, or threat of force.  It's wrong for anyone to do that as far as I'm concerned--individuals, businesses, corporations, governments, etc...

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
 - Thomas Jefferson

[practicaldreamer]

If a democratically elected government decides to spy on their citizens' communications or drop bombs on innocent people from drones, does that make it acceptable?  Some, including me, would argue no.

I can't argue with that - and I agree with you.

But like I said before - perhaps its the "democratic" process itself that is at fault here.

I'm not talking about direct participatory democracy here - I'm talking, for example, about a situation whereby a billionaire Australian US citizen can have a massive amount of political clout in the UK via a media empire propagating self serving propoganda.

Of course things are changing -  some of us don't today rely on information gatekeepers in order to form an informed opinion. Information, and the access to it, is being disseminated via the internet. Maybe democracy is more possible today than its ever been.

  But for me personally, because of the electoral system in the UK ( I can't comment on the US electoral system) I am in the position whereby my views are not being reflected or represented by any of the mainstream parties.

   And so I  am increasingly coming around to the view that my only option is to not to use my vote at all - because in voting I am being complicit in my own disenfranchisement.

[countryfree]

How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority. And so its not stealing is it ?

It is. Democracy is no guarantee against theft, murder or discrimination, but the dictatorship of a majority over a minority.

[shawshankinmate37927]

I can't argue with that - and I agree with you.

But like I said before - perhaps its the "democratic" process itself that is at fault here.

I'm not talking about direct participatory democracy here - I'm talking, for example, about a situation whereby a billionaire Australian US citizen can have a massive amount of political clout in the UK via a media empire propagating self serving propoganda.

Of course things are changing -  some of us don't today rely on information gatekeepers in order to form an informed opinion. Information, and the access to it, is being disseminated via the internet. Maybe democracy is more possible today than its ever been.

  But for me personally, because of the electoral system in the UK ( I can't comment on the US electoral system) I am in the position whereby my views are not being reflected or represented by any of the mainstream parties.

   And so I  am increasingly coming around to the view that my only option is to not to use my vote at all - because in voting I am being complicit in my own disenfranchisement.

I haven't voted myself in over a decade.  I think the democratic process becomes a problem when it trumps an individual's rights.  I share Larken Rose's sentiments about that process that he very eloquently explains in this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A