Should income tax be abolished?

[Zicadis]

Abolishing one type of tax in this case income tax will mean others might stop paying their tax completely which is why there all sorts of taxes

to maximize on tax collection but if you feel like not paying some form of tax try sales taxes which is also practically unavoidable as we all have that good or service we can not do without.

AFAIK if more people remain  unemployed, the burden remains on the working class which is why people need jobs to avoid been over taxed.

[1713863845]

1713863845

[1713863845]

1713863845

[1713863845]

1713863845

[1713863845]

1713863845

[KonstantinosM]

Abolishing one type of tax in this case income tax will mean others might stop paying their tax completely which is why there all sorts of taxes

to maximize on tax collection but if you feel like not paying some form of tax try sales taxes which is also practically unavoidable as we all have that good or service we can not do without.

AFAIK if more people remain  unemployed, the burden remains on the working class which is why people need jobs to avoid been over taxed.

If we add a federal state tax and remove federal income tax, we at least wouldn't get taxed twice!  But it would probably hurt workers and poorer people at a greater rate (unless we give poor people cards that allow them not to pay the federal sales tax up to say $15,000 dollars a year.

[vapourminer]

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

we pay to have our garbage picked up in my town.

mail needs stamps, although im sure they dont cover the entire cost of the post office infrastructure. 

roads? ive seen a dominoes pizza commercial where you can call them and get potholes repaired at their expense. which is crazy.. a private business needs to repair the public roads they use just so they can deliver their product undamaged?

libraries? i donate to ours. of course mine alone is not enough.

now these points are cherry picked, taxes need to be collected and used, no argument there. but how about shifting to consumption based taxes.. food, medicine and basic clothing tax free, everything else has a federal and state tax built in. the more frivolous the item, the more tax percentage wise. ie basic car = x% of value of car, yacht = taxed at a much higher percentage of its value.

im sure this idea has been around for a while, its just not gone anywhere.

[suchmoon]

yacht = taxed at a much higher percentage of its value.

That's a no-go right there. Folks with yachts have the best congresspeople money can buy.

[bagalkot]

In my country their is a slab according to it if you reach above that slab you have to fill the income tax if not you can just run your income without paying income tax. So their is no problem in paying tax as it helps in getting loan from bank.

[vapourminer]

yacht = taxed at a much higher percentage of its value.

That's a no-go right there. Folks with yachts have the best congresspeople money can buy.

fair point. back to the drawing board...

[earnestoshodi]

Taxes have their usefulness, I do not think it should be abolished,It is supposed to be meant to take care of social amenities and run the governmenance.

[guybrushthreepwood]

I think a society where every one chips in what they can afford is a much better place as opposed to one where everyone fends for themselves and people get left by the wayside in the process. Taxes should be spent on improving society and services everyone uses and then everyone benefits.

why wouldn't it work if people just paid for what the use? Everyone would have more money than under taxation schemes, any improvement schemes that needed a lot of funding would still happen if the incentive to do it was good enough (especially in the internet age, Kickstarter etc proves that people will fund something they think will be good for them and others)

Well it could work, just like living in some sort of Hunger Games scenario could work, but I think there's a good reason why this sort of hardcore libertarian society isn't a more common thing. It's not really feasible to just pay for some things just when you need them.


Examples:

Your house is on fire. You can't afford to pay the fire brigade. Do they just sit outside and watch your house burn down whilst you desperately try set up a kickstarter?

Your child gets cancer. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay for treatment. You watch them die?

Your child is raped and murdered. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay to investigate the crime. Case closed? Move on?

Some services should just be a basic human right and one person or family shouldn't have to bare the full cost of that when they unfortunately fall victim to it. To live in a functional society some basic things just need to be provided and the whole of society is better off for them.

And why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

Where here did I say they should? Why should they do it your way? Or are opinions not allowed here?

Aren't there even US states that don't have income taxes?

There are states without state income tax. You'd still have to pay the federal income tax.

Well in that case: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx

Take your pick:

    United Arab Emirates.
    Oman.
    Bahrain.
    Qatar.
    Saudi Arabia.
    Kuwait.
    Bermuda.
    Cayman Islands.

[Carlton Banks]

Your house is on fire. You can't afford to pay the fire brigade. Do they just sit outside and watch your house burn down whilst you desperately try set up a kickstarter?

Your child gets cancer. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay for treatment. You watch them die?

Insurance

Your child is raped and murdered. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay to investigate the crime. Case closed? Move on?

What's stopping you investigating the crime in these cricumstances? And what makes you think such an investigation would be out of most people's ability to pay?

Some services should just be a basic human right and one person or family shouldn't have to bare the full cost of that when they unfortunately fall victim to it. To live in a functional society some basic things just need to be provided and the whole of society is better off for them.

You can spread the cost out with insurance policies, that's why insurance policies exist

And why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

Where here did I say they should? Why should they do it your way? Or are opinions not allowed here?

What you actually mean is: opinions or different way of paying for your life aren't allowed under government systems, i.e. what you advocate. If we lived the way I've suggested, all ranges of possibility would be permitted, if you wanted to join some multi-levelled co-op where everyone pays into a giant investment fund that handles every part of your whole life (which is your apparent preference), then you could choose that.

As things stand, if I don't want to pay for your lifestyle choices or your misfortunes, then a huge amount of pressure is put on me to do so (and you have less incentive to be smarter or luckier). And far worse than that, if the government itself wants to spend money on it's employees or friends, or on ways to disguise that such things even happened, an equally huge amount of pressure is put on me to pay for that too. You claimed not to like paying for wars of aggression, neither do I. I have a solution, you do not.

So, why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

[Impulseboy]

I do not think income tax should be abolished. I do believe, though, that the government should lessen the amount of each person's income tax depending on how much the person is earning. Income tax has its benefits, one of which is social amenities. But I guess this is why people are getting into bitcoin and other digital currencies; it is as transparent as it gets. People know where their money is going as opposed to income taxes.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Your house is on fire. You can't afford to pay the fire brigade. Do they just sit outside and watch your house burn down whilst you desperately try set up a kickstarter?

Your child gets cancer. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay for treatment. You watch them die?

Insurance

And what about those who can't afford such insurance? They die? We already see the flaws of health insurance in the US. Healthcare should be a human right for all, not just for those who can afford it. Or what about those that only take out health insurance because that's all they can afford and the chance of their house burning down is very slim. And then it burns down. There's not many people who could afford to take out insurance for every faucet of their life that could possibly go wrong.

Your child is raped and murdered. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay to investigate the crime. Case closed? Move on?

What's stopping you investigating the crime in these cricumstances? And what makes you think such an investigation would be out of most people's ability to pay?

Because not all of us are Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple. Do you have the time, money, means, expertise or technology to investigate such a crime? Even a small-scale murder investigation will likely cost hundreds of thousands employing dozens of people. Missing child cases can quickly run into the millions. What else are you suggesting people do by themselves? Find their own cures for cancer?

Some services should just be a basic human right and one person or family shouldn't have to bare the full cost of that when they unfortunately fall victim to it. To live in a functional society some basic things just need to be provided and the whole of society is better off for them.

You can spread the cost out with insurance policies, that's why insurance policies exist.

And that's why taxes exist. Many people in the US can't even afford health insurance, never mind insurance for everything else, then in addition having to find the money to pay for their trash collecting and pay the police to investigate every crime they fall victim to.

And why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

Where here did I say they should? Why should they do it your way? Or are opinions not allowed here?

What you actually mean is: opinions or different way of paying for your life aren't allowed under government systems, i.e. what you advocate.

No I don't. You're not a prisoner in your own country are you?

If we lived the way I've suggested, all ranges of possibility would be permitted, if you wanted to join some multi-levelled co-op where everyone pays into a giant investment fund that handles every part of your whole life (which is your apparent preference), then you could choose that.

Sure. You have that choice also, but I'm guessing you don't live in one of these libertarian ideas of utopia, right?

As things stand, if I don't want to pay for your lifestyle choices or your misfortunes, then a huge amount of pressure is put on me to do so (and you have less incentive to be smarter or luckier). And far worse than that, if the government itself wants to spend money on it's employees or friends, or on ways to disguise that such things even happened, an equally huge amount of pressure is put on me to pay for that too. You claimed not to like paying for wars of aggression, neither do I. I have a solution, you do not.

I guess some people just don't have compassion and would just like to see others die from their ivory towers. What is stopping you from moving to a place that functions as you wish? It sounds like you'd be much better in a place with zero taxes and you just pay for whatever you use. I don't think they would be the perfect utopia you have as an ideal, though.

So, why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

Again, why should everyone do it your way? It's called an opinion. I'm not forcing this on you nor am I saying this is the only way and everyone should do it. Both could exist side by side and if you want to opt out of paying taxes and pay for insurance out of your own pocket for everything then so be it. If you are fundamentally against paying taxes then just don't pay them. There are several options for you to do so.

[Piggy]

We could have insurances and not pay taxes to mantain the current service infrastructure, however the main difference is: the goal of the state is to provide a service, while the goal of a private is to make money providing it.

There are and there have been already clear abuses coming from privatization unfortunately.

[Carlton Banks]

@guybrush

What you're forgetting is that the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies distort the market for healthcare a great deal. Without those distortions (patents, licensing and so on), the prices would find a more natural range.

Historical facts are against you; up until the early 20th century, cheaper medical insurance in more lightly regulated western medical industry was still available, and widely subscribed. Not everyone did though. Notice how that's different from a socialised system, only those that chose to be insured bore any costs, and rich or poor, if you didn't want the safety net, you could save the money and spend it on what you wanted instead. The medical industry was essentially turned into a price-fixing cartel, with government help, and now the insurance system is pretty corrupt.


Your assertion that I can choose piecemeal what I do and don't pay for now is incorrect. If I earn an income without paying tax, my life and my possessions are physically threatened, and likely stolen by the state. You advocate this Guybrush, you help them to do it with your lack of action. I don't want to pay money for social costs that gets used in a way I don't agree with, and everyone who agrees to pay is only making the problem worse.

Maybe you haven't taken part in enough elections yet, but you might eventually realise that there's only a very small number of people you can influence in elections, and so your vote does not matter. Where you spend your money though, that's a vote that really counts. One system works, the other doesn't.

If governments couldn't spend future taxes on the military in the present, war would be very different. If you advocate the government representative democracy system, that's essentially what you're standing up for; overwhelming military power and state power, where might is right and the citizen is really just a modern serf.

Democracy literally means "rule by the masses", but only the state has any power in this system, so it's not democracy. Bitcoin is designed to give some of that power back to people, but it sounds like you don't want power for either yourself or anyone else. You should sell, Bitcoin is not compatible with your ideals. Why own Bitcoin if you'll do anything someone says with your BTC if someone powerful threatens you?

[CanaryInTheMine]

Yes, it should be changed.  USA should switch to consumption tax only and drop any income taxation.  Something like a VAT system would collect a lot more money than is currently.
And it's fair, based on spending.  Don't want to pay much? Don't spend much...

[KonstantinosM]

Yes, it should be changed.  USA should switch to consumption tax only and drop any income taxation.  Something like a VAT system would collect a lot more money than is currently.
And it's fair, based on spending.  Don't want to pay much? Don't spend much...

As great as this would be, it would disincentivize consumerism. No company would ever support it. It can even be made friendly to the poor by giving them a tax number and the ability to spend tax exempt up to $5000-10000 in a year, thus paying a lesser total tax rate on the bare necessities.

I can't see a valid argument against that. The whole thing would be easier to calculate as well, we could burn about a library worth of tax code rules and pay billions less in tax preparation every year just in the US.

[CanaryInTheMine]

Yes, it should be changed.  USA should switch to consumption tax only and drop any income taxation.  Something like a VAT system would collect a lot more money than is currently.
And it's fair, based on spending.  Don't want to pay much? Don't spend much...

As great as this would be, it would disincentivize consumerism. No company would ever support it. It can even be made friendly to the poor by giving them a tax number and the ability to spend tax exempt up to $5000-10000 in a year, thus paying a lesser total tax rate on the bare necessities.

I can't see a valid argument against that. The whole thing would be easier to calculate as well, we could burn about a library worth of tax code rules and pay billions less in tax preparation every year just in the US.

I disagree completely.  People will keep buying whatever they need.
Look at VAT.  How does that impede consumerism in EU or Canada?

[jeffthebaker]

About 12% of taxes go towards debt payments.

Think about the mathematics. The debt always increases, every year. There's nothing magic about government debt, if the debt increases every year, that means it's not getting paid back. It's very simple.

What the US (and every other) government does is borrow all money to pay for public services. That's how they do it. Think: the only other way that this equation works is if we say that taxes pay for (say) 88% of public services, and the government than borrows money to pay it's remaining debts. Sure, saying 12% goes to debt repayments would be true if you expressed it that way, but it masks the fact that 12% of tax revenues do not cover all the bond repayments that are due in a given year. Hence why national debts always increase.

It's not about emotions, it's about math. And there is no long debate, it's very very simple

The bolded portion of your logic is false. The debt increases each year because the United States government is continuously taking on more debt in the form of government bonds. It is not unsafe or reckless for the government to do this, as its not like bonds are being defaulted on and the United States is accruing bad credit.

Also, a fun little tidbit: the US public is the majority holder of US Govt debt. So while you claim income tax is immoral or evil or a sin or whatever because its just being used to pay off taxes, even that logic doesn't work out because the same individuals paying taxes are earning interest on their bonds.

[Swenna]

the bigger the income the country is rich. you'll have nuclear weapons, submarines, jet planes, warships, and the more you complain about income tax, the country you belongs to, gets respected by other countries knowing that you have crazy weapons that could make a place vanish that's all i know. lol.

Having things such as warships and nuclear weapons does not mean a country will be respected. There is huge border that separates respect and fear. Therefore, one should not be proud of things such as these.

Furthermore, not because a country belongs in the Third World does not mean they are basically poor as there are other factors to be considered for this. (Moreover, the word Third World has a deeper meaning and history.) Some of these countries also  is also labeled with such due to high population or because of its low technological advancement and dependence on other countries' economy. In addition, First World Countries are countries which had already explored and exploited almost all of their natural resources, but Third World Countries natural resources remain untouched and unexploited because of the low advancement in technology, which is good for the country, since they can focus on different fields such as agriculture, fisheries, commodity trade and such. Higher income also means higher tax, too.

[Carlton Banks]

The bolded portion of your logic is false. The debt increases each year because the United States government is continuously taking on more debt in the form of government bonds. It is not unsafe or reckless for the government to do this, as its not like bonds are being defaulted on and the United States is accruing bad credit.

Also, a fun little tidbit: the US public is the majority holder of US Govt debt.

Well of course they can always pay back bonds if they just issue new bonds to pay the old bonds! If the Federal Reserve is creating the bonds in the first place, and they're the only people buying them, there's never going to be a problem repaying debt they owe to themself.

But that means everyone else who already holds that debt (the bonds) will sell before the US dollar loses too much value. And that's exactly what's going on in the market for US bonds: big holders have mostly sold them off. And the only solution is to either default on the Fed's debts to itself (which means the end of the institution that supposedly gives the dollar value), or just keep printing new dollars by issuing new bonds. Dollar loses more value. Repeat till hyperinflation.

[Yurkov]

Taxes have their usefulness, I do not think it should be abolished,It is supposed to be meant to take care of social amenities and run the governmenance.

That is the biggest way of income for the goverment and country, without it world could be completly different so i don't think that we could do anything with that tax.