Why do people think income tax is ok?

[practicaldreamer]

 Democracy is ......  the dictatorship of a majority over a minority.

Thats a contradiction in terms surely. You can only have a dictatorship when it is the minority exercising their will over the majority - and they do. How they do that is the interesting question - how the minority manage to subvert democracy and free choice.

[Kouye]

The problem here is way broader (and it's why this thread is still alive) than what's described in OP.

First, we need to change "taxes" (stealing) to "crowdfunding" (voluntary).
Then we need to change "income" to "you have the right to live" (no more 1/1000000 ratios in incomes as they exist today).

After that, we need to forget about those strict nation structures, and begin to think out of the box.
Voting for the top of the pyramid is an illusion, totally worthless.
Do never vote for anyone you cannot drink a beer with or scwol at.
Vote for ideas and actions, not for people.

Voting could include what is today considered as taxes.
You fund projects while voting, and this vote spreads out money to other related projects when you vote.

related projects =
the map being maintained by everyone, through a p2p voting system, which would look like music-map

You send a "valued-vote" so that your local hospital can pay its bills? Then your "valued-vote" is also spread (for tiny fractions, depending on the map) to "research for cancer cure", "car accident prevention", "jesus camps eradication", etc.

Bitcoin allows to reverse the "tax", from stealing to donating.
I know that won't happen before I die, but it is sooooo "the only way" that I'm convinced it will happen.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

Hmm.... someone has already replied.

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

Now, go and watch Atlas Shrugged, starring Grant Bowler & Taylor Schilling. 

[shawshankinmate37927]

In all seriousness though, who decides what rights each individual should have if not the majority? Who defends an individual's rights if not the majority? Without a government, your rights only last until some-one more powerful than you comes to take them away. Sure, from your point of view the government infringes some of your rights now, but don't pretend that there is some set of inalienable set of absolute human rights that God handed down to us, that the evil government is now infringing. It was you who decided you should have (e.g.) an absolute right to property in the first place. What rights are you going to appoint yourself next? Rights must be agreed upon and defended by the majority, or they are meaningless.

Aside from that fact, which is self-evident, I believe there are rights more important than the right to property. Stealing may be morally repugnant, but to wilfully allow people to starve or die of illness when it's within your power to prevent it is murder, which in my book is worse by orders of magnitude.

Straight from the USA's Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I think you'll find the answers to most of your questions in those few lines.  I also make a distinction between rights and entitlements.  You seem to believe in entitlements and I don't.  The first step in altering or abolishing the current system is to discuss it and bring it's failures to light.

[lemfuture]

its not. its too big

[fortune143]

Why do people think income tax is ok? Really interesting thread so far and thought I would weigh in with my 2 satoshis

From what I have gathered from reading so far is that people are opposed to tax for two reasons: a) on the principle that the removal of the income or wealth of an individual against their consent is stealing, or b) that the state is corrupt/inefficient and the money would be better spent in the hands of various types of groups (corporations, charities organisations, community groups etc)

As an alternative some people have advocated voluntary payments - crowd sourcing society, some have argued for non-income based taxes such as wealth taxes or taxing spending, others have argued for no form of collective pooling of resources and relying on a gun, essentially every man for himself.

The crux of this argument for me centers around the question of whether we need a state or not. I would personally argue that at the moment yes we do.

The purpose of a state is essentially to secure the freedom, property and lives of the individuals within it, based on the belief that if left to our own devices (state of nature) we would live in a world of savagery (not necessarily a belief I subscribe to). In order to create and maintain this state we contribute to community via our taxes.

So why do people tolerate income tax? for this reason; to uphold our state and public services. Most people like the fact that we have transport/hospitals/schools/sewage systems/running water/energy etc, and agree that this is something that we should all contribute to becasue a)we all use them and b)they are essential to our survival and prosperity. Some will argue that private companies now supply many of these things such as energy and even schools as well, but you will find that they do so with plenty of help from the state (at least in the UK they do).

So the question then falls: do we need the state? This is where things get interesting. Most if not all modern states have some element of corruption, bureaucracy is rife, there are countless cases across the world and across time where the state monopoly on violence has been abused, and in the west especially it seems that the role of the state has been to uphold the status quo and maintain the wealth and property of the rich.

However the state provides everything from roads to airports, the 'democratic' state to some degree provides a forum to express desires for change, the state does provide security both from internal and external threats, and the state does at least provide a mechanism for millions of people with differing opinions and differing levels of material wealth to debate ideas and issues then act in a unified manner.

It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on whether there is a need for a state (as we know it), if there is a need for a new kind of state, or whether there is no need for a state at all and what would be there in its place (if anything).  

In my opinion, for all the perceived failings of the state it does provide something key; it enables for the continuation and development of modern civilisation. It does so by providing systems to make our lives healthier (healthcare), more convenient (transport), it helps us develop our potential (education) and most importantly provides a system of security (rule of law, courts, police, army etc) which deters individuals from the use of violence or ceorcion, thus enabling the majority of peaceful people to pursue their lives fully.

If the state does not provide this, who or what does?

[empoweoqwj]

in thailand, there is no welfare state to talk of. families take care of each other and there are charities. there are alternatives to the "nanny state" where you get taxed to death.

[Kluge]

its not. its too big

You're clearly making too much taxable income and not having enough children. At least you can feel comfort in knowing you shelled out money to a nice fellow like myself who doesn't gloat at all. I picked my W2 up from the mailbox early this morning and have >$4k coming from the federal & state gov't (finally getting a snowblower for the quarter-mile gravel driveway from Hell). I had no idea my state issued as large of refunds as I'm due. I wasn't even going to bother filing state income taxes, but curiosity got the better of me and over half my local property taxes ended up refunded, which completely blew me away. Filling those little boxes in, I thought I was on a god-damned game show.

[DerrickS]

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

Why would they be wrong? They help you and others in times of need, for example if you are sick or lose your job. I don't know about the US, but in most Western European countries there is some social security for that event. I am happy to pay for roads, for welfare, and for health care. I am not so happy paying for industry subsidies and military expenses, but that doesnt make taxes inherently wrong, it just reminds me that the democracy isnt really working the way it should.

[bitlancr]

The purpose of a state is essentially to secure the freedom, property and lives of the individuals within it...

A common misheld belief. Historically, the state was the mechanism though which the ruling class exploited the productive class, in order to maintain their lifestyle and satisfy their megalomaniacal ambitions. I would argue this hasn't changed.

To do this, the state and ruling class needs to maintain an air of legitimacy. Historically (and still in some parts of the world) this was done by appealing to religion (defender of the faith, etc), or tradition (dynasties). Nowadays, the state maintains its legitimacy by providing services that allegedly can't be provided any other way.

[fortune143]

The purpose of a state is essentially to secure the freedom, property and lives of the individuals within it...

A common misheld belief.

...or a well established theoretical idea.

Locke's Political Philosophy
First published Wed Nov 9, 2005; substantive revision Thu Jul 29, 2010
John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution. Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members. Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov

I would be interested to know where you gained the information that the invention of the state was for a mechanism through which a ruling class exploits a productive class as you have said..

[shawshankinmate37927]

You're american I take it? A couple of points:

Yes, but obviously we agree that individual rights aren't exclusively reserved for Americans.

You really believe there is a creator, and that's where your rights come from? That no matter how human society changes, whether anyone knows about the rights or not, whether anyone upholds them or not, a sin is committed every time one of them is infringed? What has your creator done recently to defend your rights? I also note that the right to amass as much property as you can and become fabulously wealthy is not included (or not important enough to be mentioned anyway), whereas the right to life is listed first.

Yes, but I imagine there are also athiests that believe being a human being comes with innate rights.  Rights aren't dependant on another human being to provide them.  Yes, it is wrong to infringe on the rights of others.  Governments may or may not acknowledge or protect them, but they don't provide them.  There is a difference between protecting and providing.

I know you weren't necessarily arguing the opposite, but thanks for agreeing that government of some kind is needed to secure rights. I would argue that when the document refers to "the governed" and "the People" it is quite clearly referring to the majority, not the unanimity. It certainly cannot mean that every citizen has the right to "alter or to abolish" the government, because that would preclude the government having any power whatsoever, just or otherwise, and the document clearly opines that it should have power.

I would argue that it's the minority that needs their rights protected the most.  For example, it was the tyranny of the majority in the southern states that denied the rights of slaves.  The slaves had the the same rights as anyone else, despite the fact that the government at the time refused to acknowledge or protect their rights.  It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to alter the government that allowed that.

Even if it did declare a right to unlimited property or establish the ability of every citizen to remake the government as they see fit, the Declaration of Independence is just a letter, written by ordinary men. It does not bestow any rights on anyone, in any meaningful sense. When you quote it you are merely saying "this is what these guys thought, and I agree", which is fine but it doesn't hold any authority. In contrast, the Constitution of your country was written and unanimously ratified by the elected representatives of the first states to be united, and each subsequent state to join has also ratified it by majority. This mandate is what gives it authority, not some diktat by a creator. Surprisingly enough, that document contains the following:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

So tell me again about how taxes are infringing your rights.

Correct, the Declaration of Independence does not bestow any rights on anyone.  It's just a piece of paper that acknowledges that those rights exist.  It's not the piece of paper itself, it's the principles that are being expressed on that piece of paper.  The Constitution, in it's oiginal form, also allowed for slavery, but has since been altered to do away with "involuntary servitude".  Taxation, though obviously not as heinous as slavery, has become the new, modern day version of "involuntary servitude".  I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to a government that protects people's rights, but the majority is now using democracy and taxation as a means to entitlements.

I also make a distinction between rights and entitlements.

This is just an exercise in semantics, if you have the right to unlimited property then that's what you're entitled to. If you're entitled to life, then you have the right to it. What is the difference, in your opinion, between a right and an entitlement?

I believe there is a very distinct difference between the two.  This article does a good job of explaining that difference: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rights-versus-entitlements#axzz2rwtPKT2B

The first step in altering or abolishing the current system is to discuss it and bring it's failures to light.

Quite right, but people disagree on what constitutes failure. Your main grievance seems to be "they take bits of my property and use them in ways that don't directly benefit me!" whereas my chief critique of your government would probably be "they allow millions of their citizens to live in poverty while surrounded by fabulous wealth, and they are a bit too fond of bombing Pakistani weddings."

I'm not complaining about the taxes I pay.  My taxes are relatively small and I'm actually benefiting from the system as it is now.  I'm just looking at the big picture and arguing that society would be better off if we didn't "rob Peter to pay Paul".

[bitlancr]

...or a well established theoretical idea.

States were established well before John Locke's time, and certainly aren't theoretical. Locke (and others) are free to theorise as to what an 'ideal state' would be, but that doesn't change the reality of what states really are (in your excerpt he's comparing his theory against monarchies, for example).

I would be interested to know where you gained the information that the invention of the state was for a mechanism through which a ruling class exploits a productive class as you have said..

To answer this, I'd recommend reading "Anatomy of the State" by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/pdf/anatomy.pdf

This is of course, another theory. Theories have to be backed up by evidence to be credible. But if we look at the world today, you'll see that we're lucky to live under a democratic and relatively uncorrupt state. It's not the norm. Therefore I argue that states better reflect Rothbard's theory on the whole, not Locke's.

[countryfree]

 Democracy is ......  the dictatorship of a majority over a minority.

Thats a contradiction in terms surely. You can only have a dictatorship when it is the minority exercising their will over the majority - and they do. How they do that is the interesting question - how the minority manage to subvert democracy and free choice.

Read history books.
In the US up to the 60's, the white majority was routinely exercising its will over black people or native Americans.
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

If you like to travel, you may also go to Arab countries. It's happening today without much people noticing, the Muslim majorities are hurting and sometimes killing members of the Christian minorities.

[shawshankinmate37927]

I believe there is a very distinct difference between the two.  This article does a good job of explaining that difference: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rights-versus-entitlements#axzz2rwtPKT2B

The only concrete difference the article gives to distinguish rights from entitlements is that entitlements require forcible interference with the freedoms of others, whereas rights presumably do not. However, I would argue that all rights interfere with the freedoms of others by definition. Your right to liberty is nothing more and nothing less than the restriction of your neighbour's freedom to imprison you. All rights are necessarily identical to the restriction of the freedom of all other human beings to infringe them. What the article seems to mean is that entitlements are those rights which do not merely infringe freedoms, but which infringe those rights that the author considers most important.

I believe that, as an adult, no one owes me anything (perhaps my parents did when I was a child but not anymore). In my opinion, rights are something we all have and entitlements are something that are taken from one and given to another.  One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.  I concur with the Libertarian Party's principle that says individuals "have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

Yes, but I imagine there are also atheists that believe being a human being comes with innate rights.  Rights aren't dependant on another human being to provide them.

This seems to be the chief source of our disagreement - I do not believe that rights are innate. I would argue that slaves did not have an innate right to freedom, but that by blood, swear and tears those rights were valiantly won. Further, I believe the are more rights yet to win, including the right to a basic quality of life. Since you believe that the only rights that ought to be respected are those which are bestowed by a (judeochristian?) deity, can you point to the place in holy scripture where the rights are set out?

Yeah, that's just something we disagree on.  I'm no theologian or religious authority, so I'm not aware of a verse that specifically sets out all of our rights, but I think the Bible alludes to some of them when it says "...though shalt not murder...", "...steal...", "...covet...".   It seems to be saying not to violate the rights of others.

[davedx]

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.

Hmm.... someone has already replied.

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

Now, go and watch Atlas Shrugged, starring Grant Bowler & Taylor Schilling.  

You've said in this thread you'd let the "losers" fend for themselves rather than support them with taxes.

I've given this philosophy a lot of thought in the car in the past couple of days.

I have another question, since you said you wanted to support your family.

Imagine after you died, your son fell on hard times, lost his job, and was having trouble feeding himself. Do you think he should starve? Or should other human beings offer him support until he can get back on his feet again?

(Regarding Atlas Shrugged: No thanks, "The social contract" is more my thing. But you might have guessed that.)

[practicaldreamer]

 Democracy is ......  the dictatorship of a majority over a minority.

Thats a contradiction in terms surely. You can only have a dictatorship when it is the minority exercising their will over the majority - and they do. How they do that is the interesting question - how the minority manage to subvert democracy and free choice.

Read history books.
In the US up to the 60's, the white majority was routinely exercising its will over black people or native Americans.
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

If you like to travel, you may also go to Arab countries. It's happening today without much people noticing, the Muslim majorities are hurting and sometimes killing members of the Christian minorities.

Yes - good points all.

I guess you could argue though that the enslavement of the minority was only truly beneficial to the slave owners (another, albeit much smaller, minority) - for the rest of the working population (the majority) slavery merely had the effect of reducing their own wages and so wasn't beneficial at all. A lot of people in the UK are anti immigration today precisely for this very reason.

   Slavery wasn't the outcome of democracy and the general will of the  people - rather the slave trade took place in spite of it. In much the same way that fractional reserve banking does today for example. It operates in a counter productive way for the average working man.

  Again, the interesting factor for me is how the minority manage to "manufacture consent" in order to maintain their exploitative domination - and in the process make a mockery of democracy. Seems to me that the private ownership (remember the slave owners) of the means of production has a lot to answer for here.

   But yes - I agree with you in principle and stand corrected.

[davedx]

I believe there is a very distinct difference between the two.  This article does a good job of explaining that difference: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rights-versus-entitlements#axzz2rwtPKT2B

The only concrete difference the article gives to distinguish rights from entitlements is that entitlements require forcible interference with the freedoms of others, whereas rights presumably do not. However, I would argue that all rights interfere with the freedoms of others by definition. Your right to liberty is nothing more and nothing less than the restriction of your neighbour's freedom to imprison you. All rights are necessarily identical to the restriction of the freedom of all other human beings to infringe them. What the article seems to mean is that entitlements are those rights which do not merely infringe freedoms, but which infringe those rights that the author considers most important.

I believe that, as an adult, no one owes me anything (perhaps my parents did when I was a child but not anymore). In my opinion, rights are something we all have and entitlements are something that are taken from one and given to another.  One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.  I concur with the Libertarian Party's principle that says individuals "have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

The individualist in me really resonates with this. I try to live by a variant of this principle: "Let other people do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others". But the humanist in me says that we are all part of a community, a society. We aren't just a bunch of homo sapiens who happen to be close enough to trade -- we're interdependent. I really do think there are many problems with our current governments, but I just cannot see how we could live in a civilised state without some governing body to hold it all together: to enforce the social contract.

I should really read up on this stuff more, though. Maybe libertarian/anarchist theories hold more weight than I give them. One thing I think we can all agree on is the status quo needs to change.

[practicaldreamer]

 .. I just cannot see how we could live in a civilised state without some governing body to hold it all together: to enforce the social contract...

One thing I think we can all agree on is the status quo needs to change.

+1

[Carlton Banks]

The social safety-net people in this thread don't seem to be able to cope with incoming ideas, just outputting their ideas.


I like my way.

You like yours.

I say you can choose yours, if you let me choose mine. Tolerant.

You say my way won't work. And that it's morally wrong. No-one should be allowed to choose this way. Pretty intolerant.


Let's prove it. Not gas about it.

(hint: the societies in the world today with the most libertarian rules don't end up all bad: Switzerland, Singapore, Russia, Hong Kong)