Why do people think income tax is ok?

[countryfree]

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.

In what way would I be trolling? I hope you're not trolling. Do some research. I don't know if there's many countries that will lock you up for avoiding any taxes unless you get yourself into a situation where they are owed. Go wherever you want and eat the grass and live under the stars and you can pay no taxes and you truly will be free (but I'd check the local laws first just to be safe). You might not be comfortable sometimes but I can assure you no police with guns will be after you unless you start doing illegal shit. But my guess is you'd rather stay at home infront of the comfort of your computer and modestly-sized TV and keep paying to play The Game, right?

No! You are trying to prove your point, and everybody's against you, so it's up to you to do the research.
I think you don't know much about the subject, but fortunately for you, I do. I know a place, a country, where there is no income tax, nor any capital gains tax, but you couldn't move there, and neither can I. Can you tell me why? If you know what you're talking about, you should have the answer.

[1715088563]

1715088563

[1715088563]

1715088563

[1715088563]

1715088563

[Mike Christ]

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 ?

In my belief, I don't think government should need to act as a parent to its child citizens; naturally if your children did something life-threatening, you'd stop them, but if the parents are so incapable that they need the guidance of government, they aren't fit to have children to begin with.  The relationship doesn't follow; if we truly do live in a society where the majority of people have the mental capacity of children who play with matches by petrol, and such a society where the people elected into office are these children, elected by the children, we still have the issues of the blind leading the blind; it follows, then, that you are no better off with or without government guidance, as your general population will be just as stupid as it was before (except in this case, they're stupid enough to let themselves be ruled and rallied into state-socialism or something akin.)

Anyway, if your rational self-interest (just as an example, as I'm sure you're a nice guy in reality ) is a detriment of another person's rational self-interest, that person isn't going to want to know you anymore; if the person was a grocer, for example, now you have to find another grocery store since you treated him poorly, and this is assuming he's the only one who cares about your action (which of course, life doesn't occur in a vacuum, so your consequence will actually be much more severe than this example will provide.)  If you continue to act in such a manner to everyone you know, nobody will want to know you anymore; eventually, after so much of this now irrational self-interest (since you're effectively cutting yourself off from the labor of other people, which is ultimately detrimental to your ability to participate in civilization), you become a threat to the general populace.  Society, then, becomes a distant concept to you, the mountain-man who had to live in the wild because nobody wanted to be around you.

Now: if you decide to then force your irrational self-interest on other people, as they no longer want to know you, then one of two proceeding actions will follow:

1. You become a ruler, provided you could amass the funds and manpower to do so
2. You become a prisoner for threatening the lives of innocent people

I think people are smart, however; they know what's good for them, we all know what's good for us, and the best relationship we could ever have with another human being is a cooperative-competitive one, as it is the most productive whilst being the path of least resistance; the most detrimental relationship, I think, is one acquired through violence, a coercive monopoly (i.e. uncooperative and non-competitive, or otherwise known as government services), as the people you're now assuming control over completely lose the will to live, and become incredibly under-productive, not to mention the sheer amount of energy required to keep them in your control (that is, in this case, ensuring taxation remains in effect to pay for the interest on debts which is then used to pay for these things.)  Nobody will view the serial killer as good if the state isn't around to punish them; we all agree that death is at the top of our lists as things we don't want to happen to us, this doesn't change.  And if you're too weak or ill to work, then it should be obvious that you will stop working, and hopefully you led a good life where people, friends or family or co-workers, will want to help you through it, or help you pass if that's the case.

Or are you referring to private police as protection in old age?  I hear Detroit's got something like this now with the failure of local government (assuming Somalia as well but I haven't studied them yet); what's more, they're actually peaceful police, if you can imagine.  It appears to me that the idea of the state owning certain businesses because the private sector doesn't want them is a myth; my understanding of business is, if people want something, they will be willing to pay for it, and it seems everyone wants to be protected, so it should follow that people would pay for a service of protection i.e. police, and follow that businesses would emerge to compete cooperatively for business.  As stated, people know what's good for them; they know what they want, it's just that they're fooled into thinking this or that is impossible or required for society to remain intact and such, irrational beliefs instilled in people before they could truly reason i.e. in primary school, or through religion, or through spankings and other such punishment.

[practicaldreamer]

In my belief, I don't think government should need to act as a parent to its child citizens

Yes - I realised pretty quickly that my "child in garage with matches" analogy might be taken this way. Perhaps my point might have been better made by asking, for example, wether you believe that a manager of a football team is needed in order for the success of the team ? Would you agree that a manager (a good manager that is) may be in a position (physically, intellectually, by virtue of experience etc) to direct the team in a way that the team might better achieve success - not least because the manager may have a vision that individual players in themselves may not have ?   Or do you think the individual players should be left to completely direct their own play/decisions and strategies ?

    Surely the important thing is that the manager be responsible,be capable, shows a duty of care, and is accountable for his actions (they are transparent) to the team he manages ? Of course, the manager can be none of these things if his interest lay elsewhere than in the betterment of the collective/team he has been granted responsibilty for managing - if, for example, he has his own interests at heart, or he is compromised by financial incentives from outside his club.

  I agree with a lot of what you say - but what I can't figure out about a lot of the anarchist/libertarian types on this forum (from the States ??) is how the private ownership of the natural wealth of a nation seems not to be seen as the overwhelmingly corrupt influence that it undoubtedly is on society - not least because that wealth distribution is so heavily skewed in favour of a very small minority.
 [it should not be forgot also that the US has the lowest rates of social mobility of any western advanced industrialised nation - meaning that if you were born without wealth, power and opportunity in the US you have less chance of seeing and/or achieving them on the basis of your own merit than anywhere else in the western world]

   I mean, if I were reading posts about employee managed businesses (such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Colliery) or land reform proposals (such as this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/17/eigg-housing-crisis-britain-answer) then I might be a little more amenable to the general flow.

  Sadly, for some, BTC seems to be something tantamount to a potential smash and grab.



 

the best relationship we could ever have with another human being is a cooperative-competitive one

 Yes, that sounds great - but how does this cooperative-competitive relationship actually manifest itself in the real world ?

 I might be odd - and its certainly not the American way (which is fine because I am British) - but the competition in my life has always been with myself. That is, I've always struggled/challenged and competed with myself in order to achieve - in some things I have been sucessful, whilst in others I have failed - such is life.
  However, in my relations with others I have always tried to co-operate as I have found this to be the most mutually beneficial and productive way forward.

  Hey, I may well, in my life, have been able to make a larger stash of wealth for myself if I had been a little more competitive in my relations to my fellow human beings - but do you know what ? - I'm happy with who I am  

[Mike Christ]

snip

The issue with the football manager example is thus: the football manager doesn't force the football players to take advice from him (i.e., if one of the players truly and utterly doesn't believe in his plays, then he will simply quit, as opposed to being thrown in jail in the example of the citizen not following advice (i.e. law) from the state.)  Though I agree that there will always be leaders in this world, for this implies there are some people who are more intelligent or wise or skillful than others (which I believe to be entirely true), they must remain as leaders to be counted as leaders; once a supposed leader imposes himself onto his subjects, he then becomes a ruler.  Certainly societies will have leaders who recommend courses of actions, but if these people are truly fit for such advice, they will naturally accrue a following, rather than forcing people to follow as is the case now (after all, if it's good advice, it would be voluntary, assuming people have rational self-interest which I believe they do.)  As per my political philosophy: so long as it is voluntary.

Anyhow, on the matter of cooperative-competitive relationships: I have such a relationship with my best friend, he and I are writers.  We share advice on the ways we do things because we want to improve; however, we also compete to show one another that this or that can be done better.  It's a benign relationship at best, certainly not the typical view of competition, and there are certainly more writers in the marketplace than just he and I that we must compete against, but I'm a peaceful fellow myself so that's about all there is from me  We can scale this relationship between businesses: two businesses exist in a small area--let's say, within the same suburb--and each sell basics for everyday life, such as bathroom and kitchen supplies, basic groceries, medicine, etc.  They cooperate by agreeing not to impede upon each other's businesses; they won't burn each other's stores down, try to steal each other's customers, and won't make nasty untruthful snarks about the other.  However, they also compete: to gain business, they each must provide something better that the other doesn't, whilst ensuring they offer these as the lowest possible price.  If one tries to charge too much, the other undercuts them and gains business; if the other tries to sell an inferior product, the customers have an alternative to turn to.  If they both attempt it (i.e. price fixing), a third business sprouts up and everyone flocks to them.  They agree to compete and cooperate, just as athletes would in the Olympics; they do not attack each other so that they can get an advantage, they cooperate and compete; just as rival bands would (well, perhaps the milder ones), they do not smash each other's instruments or break the drummer's fingers, they instead compete and cooperate.

We don't always do it tho; you and I cooperate with our talks, but I'm not entirely sure we compete; perhaps if our political ideas differed and we were actively trying to accrue a following into either camp, we'd compete, but I'd rather we got along  Anyway, that's not to say that competition can't eventually disappear; if that business mentioned before did such a tremendous job that the other businesses could not compete at all, then that business becomes a monopoly, but of a different sort we're used to: this monopoly offers the greatest service for the lowest prices, and makes it impossible for others to compete, at least in the area (I doubt a corporation can keep this kind of service and price going universally, but that's just my take on it; it'd be wonderful if this were possible but I have my doubts.)

I do agree somewhat with your assertion of Libertarians and Anarchists of America; I don't think people will naturally and voluntarily agree that certain individuals will be able to keep their stake of power over areas of land.  I think, without the use of force, this land will be much more divided and even among people (what good is land if nobody will agree to work on it?--what good is ownership if none agree to your owning it?), and places of work will not necessarily have an owner, but perhaps, as you mentioned, a leader, and people would then take a much more even cut of the profit, thereby squashing the class divide (mostly; that's not to say some people won't strike it rich with their products, i.e. Notch and Minecraft, but in general people will be much wealthier than before.)  

[PrintMule]

Are you just trying to pump your post count to get the ad reward or are you serious?You're either very confused or really need to keep posting nonsense for your sig.

Yep. So many lightly brushed issues that need scratching, so little time.

Turns out he was indeed post counter trolling, as he's nowhere to be seen in this topic now. Oh well. I was raking the post count myself, but I was genuinely interested in this particular topic

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.

But wouldn't that jungle belong to a government? I can go build myself a house, deep in a woods, but eventually someone will come, accuse me for using his land or chopping his wood, and present me a huge bill.

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.

Would there be huge wars, if there would be no governments at all? I'm thinking - only some local border conflicts.

[hilariousandco]

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.

Why don't you not pay any taxes and just pay for the services you use. Put your money where your mouth and ideals are and report back. Let's see how much money you have left at the end of the month then.

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

[bitlancr]

Why don't you not pay any taxes and just pay for the services you use. Put your money where your mouth and ideals are and report back. Let's see how much money you have left at the end of the month then.

By all means, I'd love to - but I also don't want to go to prison for tax evasion.

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

You've lost me on this altogether... Classic statist FUD.

[hilariousandco]

Why don't you not pay any taxes and just pay for the services you use. Put your money where your mouth and ideals are and report back. Let's see how much money you have left at the end of the month then.

By all means, I'd love to - but I also don't want to go to prison for tax evasion.

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

You've lost me on this altogether... Classic statist FUD.

Really? Who will pay for the poor when they can't afford healthcare of insurance? Will you feed/home/clothe/help them?

And you'll only go to prison if you owe money in taxes. Simple solution: don't owe any taxes. But of course, you want to pay these taxes whilst taking everything they offer and simultaneously denouncing the government and all their 'sub-par' services they offer.

[suky321]

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

I agree, but we do need services paid for by the tax.  However, having said that, the tax system is very unfair in the UK.

There is income tax, national insurance, then 80% tax fuel duty, cigarette duty, alcohol duty, council tax, VAT,  Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, capital Gains Tax, Flight Taxes, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest rate tax, Business Rates, and many more.  Then there's inflation

After all this, you're left with hardly anything.

[hilariousandco]

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

I agree, but we do need services paid for by the tax.  However, having said that, the tax system is very unfair in the UK.

There is income tax, national insurance, then 80% tax fuel duty, cigarette duty, alcohol duty, council tax, VAT,  Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, capital Gains Tax, Flight Taxes, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest rate tax, Business Rates, and many more.  Then there's inflation

After all this, you're left with hardly anything.

Wouldn't it better to fix the system though rather than destroy it completely? I think taxes are great, but only providing they're spent well and properly. That means no needless wars and other such bullshit.

[Carlton Banks]

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

I agree, but we do need services paid for by the tax.  However, having said that, the tax system is very unfair in the UK.

There is income tax, national insurance, then 80% tax fuel duty, cigarette duty, alcohol duty, council tax, VAT,  Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, capital Gains Tax, Flight Taxes, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest rate tax, Business Rates, and many more.  Then there's inflation

After all this, you're left with hardly anything.

Wouldn't it better to fix the system though rather than destroy it completely? I think taxes are great, but only providing they're spent well and properly. That means no needless wars and other such bullshit.

How about allowing a different system? You keep telling people what they do and do not have the right to choose, and you're desperate to prove that no-one should be able to choose anything anything but this one particular model of delivering services to people. That's kind of intolerant really, if you or whoever wanted to be a full-on communist, I wouldn't care, as long as I could choose something else.

[hilariousandco]

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

I agree, but we do need services paid for by the tax.  However, having said that, the tax system is very unfair in the UK.

There is income tax, national insurance, then 80% tax fuel duty, cigarette duty, alcohol duty, council tax, VAT,  Stamp Duty, Inheritance Tax, capital Gains Tax, Flight Taxes, Road Tax, Insurance Tax, Interest rate tax, Business Rates, and many more.  Then there's inflation

After all this, you're left with hardly anything.

Wouldn't it better to fix the system though rather than destroy it completely? I think taxes are great, but only providing they're spent well and properly. That means no needless wars and other such bullshit.

How about allowing a different system? You keep telling people what they do and do not have the right to choose, and you're desperate to prove that no-one should be able to choose anything anything but this one particular model of delivering services to people. That's kind of intolerant really, if you or whoever wanted to be a full-on communist, I wouldn't care, as long as I could choose something else.

Where exactly did I say there's only one system or say anything intolerant? In fact, I said the opposite. People have a right to choose and there are already other choices and people do in fact choose alternatives. It's these 'taxes are bad people' who are making out like they don't have a choice at all because they like to feel persecuted whilst simultaneously paying their masters wages. Ironically they do have a choice, they just don't want to choose.

[Kluge]

Income tax with EITC is great in the US so long as you're relatively poor. I can't wait for workplace to send over my W2s.

[uranian]

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, there was no income tax in the US. Just some tariffs, and limited government. There were some states that had no tariffs, either; the state governments paid for their existence by issuing currency at (minimal) interest, and levied no tax of any kind on their citizens.

I'm equally reminded of American's first reactions to the idea of compulsory schooling; they fought against it, understanding that their children were to be indoctrinated by the state. That indoctrination has been so successful that most people don't even know that a bare 100 years ago, there was no income tax.

I have no idea why people think any form of tax is ok, because it's akin to saying that violence is acceptable. I would happily, voluntarily pay for services like hospitals and roads; I do not happily pay at the point of a gun/court.

Some history at http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

[hilariousandco]

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, there was no income tax in the US. Just some tariffs, and limited government. There were some states that had no tariffs, either; the state governments paid for their existence by issuing currency at (minimal) interest, and levied no tax of any kind on their citizens.

I'm equally reminded of American's first reactions to the idea of compulsory schooling; they fought against it, understanding that their children were to be indoctrinated by the state. That indoctrination has been so successful that most people don't even know that a bare 100 years ago, there was no income tax.

I have no idea why people think any form of tax is ok, because it's akin to saying that violence is acceptable. I would happily, voluntarily pay for services like hospitals and roads; I do not happily pay at the point of a gun/court.

Some history at http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

So you're happy to pay taxes as long as they're not called taxes?



 .

Isn't there some states that have no income tax?

[uranian]

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.

[countryfree]

The original poster has left and that's probably a good thing, but for this post, I'll stand by his side, because somehow, it is possible not to pay any income tax. But few people can do it.

We've already seen the hypothesis of living in the streets, but there are also upmarket solutions.

There is no income tax, nor any capital gains tax in Monaco by example. One could move there, the only problem being that property is incredibly expensive as the city-state is so small. A small one bedroom costs more than a million $! If you can afford that, and don't mind living in a small place, then it's fine.

So you've got the choice of being dirt-poor or filthy-rich, but if you're the average person, you'll have to pay plenty of tax.

[countryfree]

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

I'd say exactly the opposite. Your tax money is very high and you get second rate services.
Public healthcare services are poor, and many firms have to hire security agents because in many cities, the police forces have failed to deliver what was expected from them.

[hilariousandco]

And if we got rid of the government and the services they provide, then you'd be forced to pay top price for second rate services, because most people wouldn't be able to afford to pay for premium services. But I guess it'd be your choice to see your house burn down and your children die in the street, right?

I'd say exactly the opposite. Your tax money is very high and you get second rate services.
Public healthcare services are poor, and many firms have to hire security agents because in many cities, the police forces have failed to deliver what was expected from them.

It's high for who exactly? And hiring security personal is up to the individual business. The police are not there to keep an eye on the contents of your store 24/7, but if there was any trouble the police would be the first people they call as security guards are essentially powerless.

People often complain that public services are shoddy yet I've never really had any problems with the NHS or police or environmental health services etc etc nor do I know anyone who has. Could they be run more efficiently and better? Of course. If I had any say I'd slash the defence budget and stop frittering money away on wars and put that money back into the system, but regardless of that; if your house burns down or you're in a serious accident you'll get sorted fairly quickly, but yeah, you might have to wait a few hours, but I can guarantee you wont get sorted pretty quick if we got rid of all these public services and you had to rely on community & charity emergency services or you couldn't afford to pay for them. People don't seem to think about the impact their choices have on others, just as long as they can say "I want the right to choose", and people already have that, but they'd just rather hypocritically keep paying their taxes and not cause a fuss.

[bitlancr]

Really? Who will pay for the poor when they can't afford healthcare of insurance? Will you feed/home/clothe/help them?

And you'll only go to prison if you owe money in taxes. Simple solution: don't owe any taxes. But of course, you want to pay these taxes whilst taking everything they offer and simultaneously denouncing the government and all their 'sub-par' services they offer.

I'd gladly contribute to charities which I believe make a real difference. And if those charities start fiddling their expenses or embezzling money I'd instantly switch my donations to another one. What's the choice now - wait five years for a vote, and expect that to make a difference?

Seeing as I have an income, I owe money in taxes. Seeing as I need an income to live and sustain a decent standard of living, there's no choice about tax. Tax isn't voluntary.

It's high for who exactly?

The middle-class majority.