Why do people think income tax is ok?

[u9y42]

[...]
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.
[...]

But you live within a society, the choice isn't yours alone. Further, those who would benefit most from some form of social safety-net as you put it, are usually those who have the most difficulty making their needs heard.

[Hawker]

...snip...

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

You have listed semi-authoritarian societies with established income tax regimes.  Is that really your ideal?

[Carlton Banks]

[...]
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.
[...]

But you live within a society, the choice isn't yours alone. Further, those who would benefit most from some form of social safety-net as you put it, are usually those who have the most difficulty making their needs heard.

The idea of giving people more responsibility is quite popular, so it's not just me and the others here. Why not empower the socially dependent in society to be able to live in a way with the minimum of help? This is a very common thing you hear from people with physical disabilities; they value the freedom to be able to live as independent a life as they can.
 
I'd like to see the focus being on improving everyone's ability to choose, and giving them free choice. That atmosphere would be more inspiring, more conducive to the kind of freer-thinking that produces innovative ideas.

Choice is the fundamental bedrock of imagination. Restriction and regularising inhibit by nature. Why are some people so against the right to choose?

[u9y42]

The idea of giving people more responsibility is quite popular, so it's not just me and the others here. Why not empower the socially dependent in society to be able to live in a way with the minimum of help? This is a very common thing you hear from people with physical disabilities; they value the freedom to be able to live as independent a life as they can.
 
I'd like to see the focus being on improving everyone's ability to choose, and giving them free choice. That atmosphere would be more inspiring, more conducive to the kind of freer-thinking that produces innovative ideas.

Choice is the fundamental bedrock of imagination. Restriction and regularising inhibit by nature. Why are some people so against the right to choose?

The problem is not everyone has the same right to choose. The idea of empowering everyone to live as independently as they can is great, but unless you're rich or pretty well off, that's going to backfire. The amount you'd spare by not having an income tax in most cases wouldn't be enough to pay for education, healthcare, and so on.

So, how would you propose those in need actually get the right to choose?

[Carlton Banks]

The problem is not everyone has the same right to choose. The idea of empowering everyone to live as independently as they can is great, but unless you're rich or pretty well off, that's going to backfire.

why? the alternative is that no-one is allowed to possess more money than anyone else. I'm not sure anyone advocates that idea these days

The amount you'd spare by not having an income tax in most cases wouldn't be enough to pay for education, healthcare, and so on.

Let's put it to the test. The income tax is the biggest part of tax revenue for most governments.

So, how would you propose those in need actually get the right to choose?

It's not about creating policies targeted at specific groups, it's a case of removing the rules that create excessive barriers to everybody doing what they want to get along in the world.


The amount of rules applying to all types of businesses are over-zealous, and they're used now to enable favouritism more than they are to protect the rights of everybody.

So, create a new culture. Remove the barriers to entry in enterprise. Educate people in a way that sparks their imagination and develops their reasoning skills. Learning factual information is pretty boring without allowing people the chance to use the facts in different contexts. And that's how kids at school learn today, for the overwhelming amount of time (no wonder so many dislike it).

This cultural change should create a virtuous circle, where everyone gradually becomes more capable of paying for themselves. People become empowered to run their own lives (instead of being paid to let their potential to do so deteriorate). Income tax would increase initially, and could be gradually rate-reduced to compensate for the more independent & successful society. This increases the motivation to become a part of the economy, instead of a passive recipient from it.

This is no different to the way culture worked in the very early human societies, the difference being that we have powerful new tools to assist us these days. If you want to create new technological tools that support our current way of life, go ahead. But I think they're as well defined as they'll ever be, and that decentralisation is the direction we're going in from now on.

[davedx]

[...]
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.
[...]

But you live within a society, the choice isn't yours alone. Further, those who would benefit most from some form of social safety-net as you put it, are usually those who have the most difficulty making their needs heard.

The idea of giving people more responsibility is quite popular, so it's not just me and the others here. Why not empower the socially dependent in society to be able to live in a way with the minimum of help? This is a very common thing you hear from people with physical disabilities; they value the freedom to be able to live as independent a life as they can.

I'm friends with somebody who is disabled. I met him because we both worked at the same place.

In one sense you are correct: I am 100% sure that he values his ability to make his own way and work as a capable employee of the company.

In another sense I think you do not see how much "dependent members of society" *need* help. He has an apartment that is provided by the government at a reduced rate, with all of the extra accessibility to support his disability (he's in a wheelchair). I am almost certain that without help from the state, even with his decent job's salary he would not be able to afford the apartment.

Without the "safety net" -- which in millions of cases is not a complete safety net, but a helping hand to ensure people have a decent standard of living because DESPITE the fact they can work, they still cannot afford that standard of living -- he would not have this opportunity.

You talk a lot about how we shouldn't be able to impose our beliefs on others. But we have this system in place *right now*. If you had your way, you would *take this away* from my friend. Are you OK with this?

[davedx]

The problem is not everyone has the same right to choose. The idea of empowering everyone to live as independently as they can is great, but unless you're rich or pretty well off, that's going to backfire.

why? the alternative is that no-one is allowed to possess more money than anyone else. I'm not sure anyone advocates that idea these days

The amount you'd spare by not having an income tax in most cases wouldn't be enough to pay for education, healthcare, and so on.

Let's put it to the test. The income tax is the biggest part of tax revenue for most governments.

So, how would you propose those in need actually get the right to choose?

It's not about creating policies targeted at specific groups, it's a case of removing the rules that create excessive barriers to everybody doing what they want to get along in the world.


The amount of rules applying to all types of businesses are over-zealous, and they're used now to enable favouritism more than they are to protect the rights of everybody.

So, create a new culture. Remove the barriers to entry in enterprise. Educate people in a way that sparks their imagination and develops their reasoning skills. Learning factual information is pretty boring without allowing people the chance to use the facts in different contexts. And that's how kids at school learn today, for the overwhelming amount of time (no wonder so many dislike it).

This cultural change should create a virtuous circle, where everyone gradually becomes more capable of paying for themselves. People become empowered to run their own lives (instead of being paid to let their potential to do so deteriorate). Income tax would increase initially, and could be gradually rate-reduced to compensate for the more independent & successful society. This increases the motivation to become a part of the economy, instead of a passive recipient from it.

This is no different to the way culture worked in the very early human societies, the difference being that we have powerful new tools to assist us these days. If you want to create new technological tools that support our current way of life, go ahead. But I think they're as well defined as they'll ever be, and that decentralisation is the direction we're going in from now on.

I actually agree with a lot of this. I am all for private enterprise as an enabler. For example I strongly support the site Kiva.org, that lets people finance microloans to small businesses around the world.

I don't however agree with removing income-tax funded government systems. The institutions we have now have been fought for with blood, sweat and tears by generations. (e.g. the welfare state in the UK post WW1). They are valuable and necessary to ensure a fair society.

[TheButterZone]

Until 100% of the bottom 90% get 100% tax refunds, the test will never begin.

[Carlton Banks]

The amount you'd spare by not having an income tax in most cases wouldn't be enough to pay for education, healthcare, and so on.

Let's put it to the test. The income tax is the biggest part of tax revenue for most governments.

Oh come on. Yes, income tax is the biggest slice of government income, but the top 10% of earners pay 50% of it. If you abolish it, most of the money will go to people who can already afford everything they need. You don't need to 'try it', just look at who is paying what now.

If you base your argument around one part of a whole set of changes, then it's going to be imbalanced. Well spotted. 

[thetruth]

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

The people do not think about that because they are disarmed. The short answer: because of fear to end in prison or fear of death. That's why 2nd Amendment exists in America. To protect the people from their own government when it becomes despotic.

[apsvinet]

Taxes are definitely not wrong, perhaps the discussion should be focused on what the tax money is spent on thought..

[pungopete468]

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

Roads, police, fire services?

lol

Do you know what the income tax is used for? Roads, Police, and Fire Services don't get a penny from the income tax... It must be nice to believe that there's a useful purpose behind it other than feeding an over-encumbered insanely wasteful Federal Government and paying interest to the Federal Reserve for the privilege of using their private currency.

[2bfree]

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

ha ha ha you dummy! just because the republic and the constitution the income tax is iligal doesn't mean your rules don't wand and demand you stupid surf will not pay and deman you pay and you will pay. so stop compaining an pay or else!

[chris_nor]

It's all about the right balance. Your annoyance should be more on how the money is spent. The powerful people who get breaks.

[Sheldor333]

I don't think they are wrong. I just think in a lot of cases that money is misused and that it could be used a lot better. Without it your country would fail and it wouldn't exist. I like living more in a civilized world than a wild west if you ask me. 

[Omikifuse]

Income tax is good

[thetruth]

He asked *why*.
Rephrasing: Why do you think slavery is good for you?
Provide some good reasons to be a slave to your master.

[Ekaros]

He asked *why*.
Rephrasing: Why do you think slavery is good for you?
Provide some good reasons to be a slave to your master.

Because he is better than some asshole I would have without him...

I have no desire to go back to serfdom...

[EvilPanda]

Income tax is good

I have to disagree. There is nothing good about it, it's just pure communism. Income tax basically says: "you are smart, hard working, prospering person - pay more so we can take your money and redistribute (give it away on things that are important to us). You are a lazy, wife beating, alcoholic - we will give you social benefits, rehabilitation and help you pay taxes, because you are sick and need the society's help.

[countryfree]

[...]
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.
[...]

But you live within a society, the choice isn't yours alone. Further, those who would benefit most from some form of social safety-net as you put it, are usually those who have the most difficulty making their needs heard.

The idea of giving people more responsibility is quite popular, so it's not just me and the others here. Why not empower the socially dependent in society to be able to live in a way with the minimum of help? This is a very common thing you hear from people with physical disabilities; they value the freedom to be able to live as independent a life as they can.

I'm friends with somebody who is disabled. I met him because we both worked at the same place.

In one sense you are correct: I am 100% sure that he values his ability to make his own way and work as a capable employee of the company.

In another sense I think you do not see how much "dependent members of society" *need* help. He has an apartment that is provided by the government at a reduced rate, with all of the extra accessibility to support his disability (he's in a wheelchair). I am almost certain that without help from the state, even with his decent job's salary he would not be able to afford the apartment.

Without the "safety net" -- which in millions of cases is not a complete safety net, but a helping hand to ensure people have a decent standard of living because DESPITE the fact they can work, they still cannot afford that standard of living -- he would not have this opportunity.

You talk a lot about how we shouldn't be able to impose our beliefs on others. But we have this system in place *right now*. If you had your way, you would *take this away* from my friend. Are you OK with this?

Yes, I would be very comfortable with this, because I'm not entitled to what your friend has. I've burned my social security card in 1991, and I have no healthcare in the country I'm currently staying. Most people living in rich countries can't imagine it, but billions of men, women and children in Asia and Africa live without healthcare paid for by the government, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is the culture of entitlement that so many have in rich countries. People believing that they belong to a superior species and that there should an even superior entity, the state, which will provide for all their basic needs and well-being. That superior entity, your country, it's an invention, and it doesn't work. It's failing everywhere, without rising deficits in every country.

There are more and more people on benefits and pensioners and less and less people to pay for them, so this whole redistribution system is doomed, and I'm happy not to be a part of it.