Should income tax be abolished?

[Mjadon15]

Income tax punishes those who work hard. Income taxes are often argued as a way to take money from the "uber-rich", and give it to those who are poverty stricken. They often will say
that the rich don't need all that money, and giving it to the poor will increase their standard of living. The most popular person toted in these arguments is Bill Gates, with a net worth $95 billion. However, income tax does not actually get much of its money from Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson, or Tiger Woods. People get distracted by the big numbers, and don't think about it relatively. Yes, $95 billion is a lot of money, but the National debt is around $14 trillion. You would need 147 Bill Gates to pay that off. Also, if you took all of Bill Gate's money and gave an equal amount, each person would only get $290 dollars. Just taking the rich peoples money would not fix any problems. Instead, the income tax money comes from the middle class, the small business owners who work hard to keep their business running. Income tax takes away their initiative to work.

[1715416362]

1715416362

[1715416362]

1715416362

[1715416362]

1715416362

[1715416362]

1715416362

[1715416362]

1715416362

[1715416362]

1715416362

[boy130]

Income tax punishes those who work hard. Income taxes are often argued as a way to take money from the "uber-rich", and give it to those who are poverty stricken. They often will say
that the rich don't need all that money, and giving it to the poor will increase their standard of living. The most popular person toted in these arguments is Bill Gates, with a net worth $95 billion. However, income tax does not actually get much of its money from Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson, or Tiger Woods. People get distracted by the big numbers, and don't think about it relatively. Yes, $95 billion is a lot of money, but the National debt is around $14 trillion. You would need 147 Bill Gates to pay that off. Also, if you took all of Bill Gate's money and gave an equal amount, each person would only get $290 dollars. Just taking the rich peoples money would not fix any problems. Instead, the income tax money comes from the middle class, the small business owners who work hard to keep their business running. Income tax takes away their initiative to work.

I don't think its all true. paying tax is necessary to maintain certain public systems such as roads, school etc. And although, middle class pays income tax richer people pay a higher percentage so its not all about poor people paying most tax its all relative and in my opinion its necessary to have these funds.

[gawer33]

without an income tax, the government will get in tax from other things like a higher VAT(value added tax). it will create high inflation which poorer people will suffer more than rich ones. Income tax is better since the richer ones will pay more tax, unlike higher VAT everyone will pay equally. one of the roles of the government is to lessen the burden on the poor, removing income tax will not achieve its goal, in fact, it may burden them more because of the inflated price due to a higher VAT.

[inashed]

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

It is not sustainable to abolish tax, as these money go into maintenance of the roads, state schools etc and without taxpayer's money the government won't be able to provide these basics.

The post is about removing the type of tax called income tax, not about reducing taxes, if income tax is 30% of the money the government make, and it cease to exist, they can increase other types of taxes to make up for this 30% loss

[drachman]

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

I also believe this, incentives matter and a progressive tax rate disincentives those that are the most productive, I have known a lot of people that could make more money and decide against it because the taxes are not worth it, so instead of having people working as hard as possible now you have some segment of the population working below capacity because of high taxes, governments should go back to its origins and secure their population from external and internal threats and enforce contracts.

[guybrushthreepwood]

Forgot to respond to this:

@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.

And when everyone has to fend for themselves unregulated capitalism kicks into action and you get shoddy services with prices spiraling out of control and much worse. With no gov regulations malpractice would be rife and pharmaceutical companies would act even shadier than they already do. At least there's someone to punish and fine them when they get caught or screw up right now.

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.

Get rid of health insurance and make it a fundamental human right as it should be. What about those who don't have the money or choice? If you can't afford it and they don't get insurance because they need to eat first? Health or starvation isn't something you should have to choose between or worry about.

Your assertion that I can choose piecemeal what I do and don't pay for now is incorrect.

It's not at all. Do you live in fascist state that you're not allowed to leave? If you lived in North Korea then you might have a point. Nobody has a gun to your heard forcing you to stay in a country. If you're so against the system then move to a tax haven or any other place that lets you live how you wish. You can't always have it your own way just like me or everyone else can't but you certainly have the freedom to do something about it if you don't like it.

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.

I don't advocate this at all. I advocate you not complying with the system and moving to a place where you'd be happy in your ideals. Don't feed the beast you hate. Stop funding it. Choose a country where you can be free to live as you please. It sounds like you'd be much happier with people of the same mindset where you can watch the world burn and people starve from the comfort of your heavily fotressed ivory tower.

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.

I've never voted despite being eligible to do so in several elections. I'm well aware of how my vote counts for little to nothing, nor has there ever been a politician I've ever believed in. If that ever changes I may start.

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.

I'm not. Out of interest, what would you call someone who pays taxes to a state that they don't even agree with?

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?

Not at all. Bitcoin isn't just for you or me. It's for everyone. Libertarians can use it. Fascists can use it. Drug dealers can use. Entrepreneurs can use it. Tyrants can use it. Philanthropists can use it. Citizens of North Korea or Botswana can use it. People should be able to do whatever they want with it good or bad. Why would I give it away to someone who threatens me? If the government said I had to give it to them for something I didn't agree with then I would move to somewhere that didn't, nor does what I'm suggesting leave me powerless. I want some sort of basic and functioning society, not one where only those who can afford it have a say or can do anything about it. There should be roads. There should be hospitals. There should be police. There should be Firefighters. I don't want to have to get insurance for everything I might possibly ever need or be expected to pay thousands upon thousands if I ever do need them. These things should be a basic human right and I have no problem in paying into the pot to use them as and when needed. If you don't want to pay for them then cool. I support you not doing that. I wouldn't force you to stay in that country. If you take away certain basics of society then you become a third world nation. Without a benefits system there would be women and children starving to death on the street. Without healthcare people will be dying of cancer in the streets. Do you want to see that happen? I don't, but I think you're so blinded by your own 'ideals' that you don't care and think everyone should fend for themselves. If that is so then move to a country where this is the case instead of doing nothing about it other than complaining on the internet whilst simultaneously financing it.

Income tax punishes those who work hard. Income taxes are often argued as a way to take money from the "uber-rich", and give it to those who are poverty stricken. They often will say
that the rich don't need all that money, and giving it to the poor will increase their standard of living. The most popular person toted in these arguments is Bill Gates, with a net worth $95 billion. However, income tax does not actually get much of its money from Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson, or Tiger Woods. People get distracted by the big numbers, and don't think about it relatively. Yes, $95 billion is a lot of money, but the National debt is around $14 trillion. You would need 147 Bill Gates to pay that off. Also, if you took all of Bill Gate's money and gave an equal amount, each person would only get $290 dollars. Just taking the rich peoples money would not fix any problems. Instead, the income tax money comes from the middle class, the small business owners who work hard to keep their business running. Income tax takes away their initiative to work.

Just because this may be what happens now doesn't mean the whole system is fucked and can't change. Obviously things should be changed. I think a society where everyone chips in what they can afford is better than one where they don't. People who are poor shouldn't starve to death or die of cancer just because they can't afford it insurance or healthcare. Those should be a basic human right. I don't even believe we should tax the rich any more than the working or middle classes. Some sort of flat rate tax would be better in my opinion. Whether you're earning $50k a year or 50 million paying 20% is still fair to everyone. I don't think the rich should be paying 40-50% tax, though. Tax heavens and loopholes should also be abolished.

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...

Don't some US states have a sales tax already? I think taxing spending could be much better than income, but I'd have to do more research on the figures it would bring in. Maybe some sort of minimal income tax with a higher sales tax would be better. I certainly think luxury goods should have higher taxes, but not basic essentials like food etc.

[Scoobers]

What do you think?

I think if someones annual income is under or equal to $35K a year then double the tax if the income goes over $35K then reduce it to half. We can adjust the $35K with any other reasonable number.

My point is, give incentives to tweak peoples mind. Most of the people are poor, they don't work to earn more because they think it's good for them - they do not have to pay more tax. If we can tweak their mind and put this idea in-front of them that for up to x amount of annual income your tax is 20% and if you go above then your tax is 10% - you will see people will start working hard to cross the barrier of x to pay less tax.

The UK tax system works the reverse to this. The more people earn the higher percentage is paid in tax. This is why so many high earners use tax avoidance schemes.
I think a flat rate tax system is fairer where everyone pays the same level of tax, maybe there should be exceptions for low paid workers in public service industries such as health, police, fire fighters where they are not paid a wage that reflects their true value to society.

[Carlton Banks]

I want some sort of basic and functioning society, not one where only those who can afford it have a say or can do anything about it. There should be roads. There should be hospitals. There should be police. There should be Firefighters. I don't want to have to get insurance for everything I might possibly ever need or be expected to pay thousands upon thousands if I ever do need them. These things should be a basic human right and I have no problem in paying into the pot to use them as and when needed. If you don't want to pay for them then cool. I support you not doing that.

I do want all those things, and I do want to pay. I want to pay the best people to do it, and that's not possible in the state system. Either one accepts how bad the roads or police or fire service are, or is punished for refusing to accept it. There is no feedback that gives the public sector an incentive to perform well, and so they typically perform badly, and so public sector jobs attract people that don't care about doing a good job.


You seem to want to pretend you don't support a violent system, and at the same time claim I want chaos and depravity for everyone except me. Your argument is based completely on fantasy in other words: the state system fails egregiously all the time, that's why bitcoin exists at all. You're a bad fit for this tech guybrush; you don't support the political philosophy behind bitcoin, and yet want all it's benefits and the benefits of it's antithetical ideology too. That comes across as pretty selfish, which is particularly ironic considering how you labelled me (I've never said I don't want police or roads, lol).

Guybrush: "Money, I'm libertarian. Healthcare, I'm a socialist". Your socialist buddies aren't going to let you get away with that, you know.

[Welsh]

Paying tax isn't the issue. It's what the tax payers money gets used for that is. Anyone paying tax should be able to select what their money gets put towards. Whether this be healthcare, road maintenance or funding of education. The United Kingdom has a free health care service called the NHS (National Health Service). Its often attacked by the masses that its poorly run, and under funded, and some of this may have some truth to it. Yet, I'll defend the NHS to my very last breath, because I've witnessed the good to come from it. At its very core its a good idea. However, its grossly underfunded, and is at threat of being replaced by private healthcare like other countries.

I think its a basic human right to receive free healthcare, and no one should be paying for it. The same as life sources such as water, however the water industry is greatly corrupted, and abused, for example English water isn't even owned by England. It's owned by the Chinese, and Spanish if I recall correctly. England also pays millions per year to Scotland, and Wales for them to send water from their reserve reservoirs. Thankfully, water in Wales is Welsh owned. But, for how long? The fact that external countries own English water is a joke to me. Water should be a basic human right, and not something to profit on. However, I understand the limitations of these services, and the cost of maintaining something like these for the whole country. Therefore, I'm more than happy to compromise on these services as we don't live in the perfect world. Paying taxes is how we go about it. Taxes when funding things like the above I don't have a problem with. The NHS is a system that we should be looking to not only save, but improve upon. Fundamentally, its a great system that is failing because of miss management, and abuse from the general population. Not all of this can be corrected by having a higher percentage of taxes going towards the system, but it will certainly help a little bit.

At the moment, the tax system is a joke, and is greatly misused. It only helps the tax man get richer, and the countries population get poorer, and a worse life style as a result of essential systems like the NHS closing down. When tax is pocketed, and misused its the people who live in the country that pay the price, and not anyone else.

If tax was used solely for the tax payers best interest it wouldn't be a problem. I'm a big fan of allocating a certain percentage to certain mundane causes such as road maintence, but allow the tax payer to decide where their money goes for the rest of the percentage. The only flaw with this is people are idiots, and will support stupid causes which won't benefit the population, and will only benefit their individual needs. For example, not funding free healthcare, because they are already rich as fuck, and pay private anyway.


TL:DR
I'm not against taxes. I'm against how they are put to use.

[Parodium]

I'm not against taxes. I'm against how they are put to use.

Glad to see another person defending the NHS with such vehemence. The truth is, regardless of how underfunded or poorly managed the NHS is, it is still an absolute triumph of civilization. I agree with your judgement about the allocation of taxes, did you know that in some parts of the UK, you actually pay more council tax for poorer service? Here in London, you pay council tax and have your bins emptied once a week, whereas in rural parts of the UK, you pay more for your bin to be emptied once a month, have fewer roads being maintained, and have access to far poorer facilities than elsewhere.

I think that if anything, income tax should be increased. Right now, critical services remain underfunded because they simply don't generate enough tax to cover them adequately. There are a number of improvements that could be made, such as spending the tax of our population on the following;

1. Development and implementation of renewable energy sources, to approach close to free energy
2. Production of a small, but survivable universal basic income for ALL. OR provide access to free food and nutrition for the very poor without any conditions.
3. Improvement of the education system. Massive investments into infrastructure and quality education to build a better, more capable future generation

[Piggy]

I want some sort of basic and functioning society, not one where only those who can afford it have a say or can do anything about it. There should be roads. There should be hospitals. There should be police. There should be Firefighters. I don't want to have to get insurance for everything I might possibly ever need or be expected to pay thousands upon thousands if I ever do need them. These things should be a basic human right and I have no problem in paying into the pot to use them as and when needed. If you don't want to pay for them then cool. I support you not doing that.

I do want all those things, and I do want to pay. I want to pay the best people to do it, and that's not possible in the state system. Either one accepts how bad the roads or police or fire service are, or is punished for refusing to accept it. There is no feedback that gives the public sector an incentive to perform well, and so they typically perform badly, and so public sector jobs attract people that don't care about doing a good job.


You seem to want to pretend you don't support a violent system, and at the same time claim I want chaos and depravity for everyone except me. Your argument is based completely on fantasy in other words: the state system fails egregiously all the time, that's why bitcoin exists at all. You're a bad fit for this tech guybrush; you don't support the political philosophy behind bitcoin, and yet want all it's benefits and the benefits of it's antithetical ideology too. That comes across as pretty selfish, which is particularly ironic considering how you labelled me (I've never said I don't want police or roads, lol).

Guybrush: "Money, I'm libertarian. Healthcare, I'm a socialist". Your socialist buddies aren't going to let you get away with that, you know.

Just out of curiosity, is there any proof or evidence that a system - society fully privatized works at all or better than one publicly maintained?  Are you also thinking that the justice system should be handled privately?

As far as i can see, i'm no expert but big companies get already away with too much, so there is the possibility it would be even easier to steer everything in the direction you want, if you have a lot of money.

[Carlton Banks]

Just out of curiosity, is there any proof or evidence that a system - society fully privatized works at all or better than one publicly maintained?  Are you also thinking that the justice system should be handled privately?

19th century USA was very much like that, there was very little government involvement in services, and the USA became a very wealthy country as a result. There were very few rules about the medical profession, and the health insurance system was very cheap if you didn't want the best treatment. This all changed in the early 20th century, when rules around medical licensing became much tighter, setting the minimum wage for medical professionals much higher than before, which in turn pushed health insurance rates far higher.

Roads is a time-old example: roads began as a private system. Some were terrible, but the incentive to make good quality roads is high, as it increases commerce transiting through the road (and can drive the success of market places served by the roads).


And have you heard of Bitcoin? A privatized money system, where violence is not required to enforce the rules, and violence cannot be used to break the rules?

As far as i can see, i'm no expert but big companies get already away with too much, so there is the possibility it would be even easier to steer everything in the direction you want, if you have a lot of money.

Politicians and big companies collude to keep them on the right side of the law. Corporations use the legal system internationally to ensure they can outcompete small businesses. The rules essentially don't exist for them, but hurt small businesses instead.

The real solution is to actually make the playing field equal for all. And that means removing the rules. This will change things in important ways: fraud will increase without rules (corporations mostly abide by the fraud protection rules, although they still deceive people within the rules, of course). But we now have instant and abundant information systems to call out fraudsters, it's not like they can pack up and go to a place where no-one knows them, the internet can see to that. It's also important to note that the current anti-fraud rules do not prevent all cases of fraud, and there are frequent cases of people who are too clever or too protected for the rules to work. Alot of tax money goes into anti-fraud, yet the outcome of a decentralised policing of fraud such as I'm suggesting would probably be very similar, except without having to pay taxes to expensive agencies for it. I would happily report retail experiences if it meant I would help others to make an informed decision about the merchant I used. In fact, everyone already uses that system online anyway (and they consider it to be a pretty reliable method).

[guybrushthreepwood]

I want some sort of basic and functioning society, not one where only those who can afford it have a say or can do anything about it. There should be roads. There should be hospitals. There should be police. There should be Firefighters. I don't want to have to get insurance for everything I might possibly ever need or be expected to pay thousands upon thousands if I ever do need them. These things should be a basic human right and I have no problem in paying into the pot to use them as and when needed. If you don't want to pay for them then cool. I support you not doing that.

I do want all those things, and I do want to pay. I want to pay the best people to do it, and that's not possible in the state system.

In your state system maybe. Find a state where it's possible. It's like constantly complaining about how shit the weather is when you could move abroad to a warmer climate. Do it if it makes you happier. I doubt your country is going to go full libertarian any time soon but I'm sure there are places where you can live this ideal life you want. I don't think they'll be what you had in mind, though. You also forgot to mention what you'd do with all the homeless people camped outside your house and others dying in the streets? Ignore their dying cries or perhaps just drive over them? Put them out of their misery? Not your problem, right?

You seem to want to pretend you don't support a violent system.

And so do you. The bigger hypocrite is the armchair libertarian who pays into the system he despises and abhors whilst doing nothing about it. If you cared so strongly about this system then you would probably be living in it already. Practice what you preach. You're like the latte-sipping anti-capitalists sitting in Starbucks complaining about corporations online from their macbooks and iphones. People love to complain about things but never like to do anything about it. It's too comfy to get off the chair and go outside into the cold, cruel world. Would be even crueler if you had to start paying for the air that you breathe and every road and path you walk and drive down. 

Your argument is based completely on fantasy

And so is yours. It's the classic libertarian fantasy that never has a foolproof plan behind it just a hollow anarchist wetdream. It wouldn't really work in reality or it would be much more popular. I think deep down you know that and it would in fact be compete anarchy but I'm sure that doesn't stop your from fantasizing about the "bliss" of not having to pay taxes. It really wouldn't be as blissful as it seems even for you.

the state system fails egregiously all the time

Sure. They do. So would a libertarian 'utopia', which would quickly turn into a libertarian dystopia.

that's why bitcoin exists at all. You're a bad fit for this tech guybrush

I'm not at all. I'm a bad fit for you and your ideals, perhaps. Bitcoin is perfect for me. You don't have to be a full anarchist or hardcore libtard to use it, and you can believe in some sort of limited government without supporting a corrupt monetary system. Why are they not compatible exactly? Anyone can use bitcoin for whatever they want. Even statists can use it. Bitcoin isn't just for you and your politics nor is it inherently anti-state over everything. It's freedom from state-issued currency, banks, and third party providers, not socialism or governments. If you want to use it to overthrow the government or hide your money away then cool. You do you.

you don't support the political philosophy behind bitcoin,

I do. I just don't support your philosophy. You don't even have to believe in it either. The majority of the people who are using it now are just greedy capitalists who couldn't give a shit about the tech or politics.

Today's average bitcoiner:

Paying tax isn't the issue. It's what the tax payers money gets used for that is.

Here here. I agree with everything you said. No system is perfect but I know what systems are much worse and I know I don't want to live in one where everyone fends for themselves and those who can't simply rot.

Just out of curiosity, is there any proof or evidence that a system - society fully privatized works at all or better than one publicly maintained?  Are you also thinking that the justice system should be handled privately?

No. They're not widespread for a reason. Can you or anybody else even name one that works where everyone fends for themselves and only pays for the services they want? That's not really how a functioning society works. Without some sort of limited state or benefit system you will have chaos and anarchy and people dying in the streets and not even anyone to come and clean up the bodies (unless you have corpse removal insurance like Carlton obviously will). If you want to see how well this system would work then go to a country with little to no government services and where you have to pay for anything privately. Not nice places and a broken arm would probably costs you tens of thousands to fix. You got that money? Most people don't. They're third world countries for a reason and it's that that largely separates them from developed ones.

Just out of curiosity, is there any proof or evidence that a system - society fully privatized works at all or better than one publicly maintained?  Are you also thinking that the justice system should be handled privately?

19th century USA was very much like that, there was very little government involvement in services, and the USA became a very wealthy country as a result. There were very few rules about the medical profession, and the health insurance system was very cheap if you didn't want the best treatment. This all changed in the early 20th century, when rules around medical licensing became much tighter, setting the minimum wage for medical professionals much higher than before, which in turn pushed health insurance rates far higher.

Oh great, no rules for medical malpractice and botched surgeries. Go live in the 19th century if that was the classic American utopia. It seems to me that you want to go backwards but there are backwards places you can in fact go.

[Carlton Banks]

Well Guybrush, it seems that you can't make a rational arguement, and prefer to rely on dismissive witticism or straw man arguments instead.

It's ironic. You implied that you think limited government to be a good idea, and that being able to choose how your taxes are spent would also be a good idea. I fail to see how that's alot different from my position!

Is the problem that I offending your moral sensibilities by asserting that you support a violent enforcement system? This is not intended to offend at all, it is (an apparently difficult to absorb) statement of fact. If people pay for everything directly, there's no need to compel them to "do what's good for them" using negative incentives. They'll do what's good for them in their own judgement, of their own volition.


Part of the problem here is of stereotyping; well-known anarchists fetishize individualism to the extent that they claim that it's always the best solution to every problem. It's not.

Insurance is a perfect example; it's very similar to a socialised system in fact, except that there is no compulsion to pay for private insurance and also more than one organisation providing. Or, if local people wanted to look after a place they wanted publicly available (e.g. a park or a lake), paying in to a joint ownership/maintenance scheme would be in everyone's interests, as it improves the lives of all the people within a certain range. These are collectivist ideas at root, but implemented in a way that incentivises a good use of resources. And disincentivises corruption.

[Initscri]

I'm a libertarian (as I'm sure many on this forum are), I believe in less government, and as such, a side effect of that would be lower taxes. But I don't believe in 0 government.

Someone has to pay for that; income tax is a form of payment for said service.
I don't think income tax should be completely abolished, but I do think it should be limited.

[Piggy]

I live in Malaysia.  The maximum income tax rate is at 27%.  Apart from this tax, we have to pay 10% for any manufactured products e.g processed food, clothes etc.  Imported goods have its own duty and tax.  Even alcohol and imported cars are taxed in Malaysia.  There are just too many taxes I think it is unfair to pay income tax.   

Any country in Eruope is taxed at it's maximum double for both income and VAT, compared to what you are taxed in there  I don't know exactly what the state is providing where you live, but at least in Europe welfare is not bad in general.

[Carlton Banks]

Someone has to pay for that; income tax is a form of payment for said service.

They don't. If they don't want or don't need some service or other, they should not be compelled to pay.

What's more, in a Bitcoin world, they can not be compelled to pay for something they either don't want or don't need. Bitcoin literally gives them the right to withold payment, and there's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about it.

I don't think income tax should be completely abolished, but I do think it should be limited.

Your beliefs aren't compatible. On one hand, you want to minimise the amount you pay for socialised costs. But you also want a system that threatens people's lives in order to take as much money as they want, which those administrating the system claim pays for socialised costs. And the reality is that these organisations use the money in a multitude of ways that you probably consider to be wasteful, immoral, nepotistic or corrupt; providing good services is usually not the priority.

And your ideals pressurize me to do it your way, by way of violent threats. Can you justify this ethically?

[suchmoon]

And your ideals pressurize me to do it your way, by way of violent threats. Can you justify this ethically?

How so? Don't you have the same options as everyone else, e.g. to move to a place that meets your ideals, or to join/form a political movement/party and attempt to change the laws to your liking?

Living in a society tends to involve some sort of compromise where you get certain benefits in exchange for compliance with certain rules. But if you think violence is the only reason why you're complying then you should work on changing that.

[Carlton Banks]

And your ideals pressurize me to do it your way, by way of violent threats. Can you justify this ethically?

How so? Don't you have the same options as everyone else, e.g. to move to a place that meets your ideals, or to join/form a political movement/party and attempt to change the laws to your liking?

Living in a society tends to involve some sort of compromise where you get certain benefits in exchange for compliance with certain rules. But if you think violence is the only reason why you're complying then you should work on changing that.

No, there is a majority everywhere that shares the belief that other people's will can be rightfully imposed upon by way of violent threats. There is nowhere to go now that the world has a definite jurisdiction on every piece of the existing land, whether inhabited by humans or not.

Individualistically: there is no option for those that would choose to live in an entirely self-reliant way apart from any society. If you built your own house, with it's own water-well and electricity generation, farmed only what you needed for crops, then what have you taken from anyone else? And yet you would still be harassed, that you are a part of a group to whom you owe some of your productivity, despite no such agreement existing.

Collectively: if you and a group of like-minded objectors to a corrupt society attempt to live as your own society, you will be harassed. Claims will be made that you're living under the jurisdiction of another group of people, with whom you have no agreement to cooperate.


And working within the framework of an established society to effect change is delusional. Politicians have long ago learned to simply give lazy and unimaginative people more or less what they want, in exchange for being dominated by people that break the rules. You cannot bargain with a majority of people that want that kind of slavery, they prefer an easy life where they do not have to confront anything difficult or dangerous.

[suchmoon]

No, there is a majority everywhere that shares the belief that other people's will can be rightfully imposed upon by way of violent threats. There is nowhere to go now that the world has a definite jurisdiction on every piece of the existing land, whether inhabited by humans or not.

Individualistically: there is no option for those that would choose to live in an entirely self-reliant way apart from any society. If you built your own house, with it's own water-well and electricity generation, farmed only what you needed for crops, then what have you taken from anyone else? And yet you would still be harassed, that you are a part of a group to whom you owe some of your productivity, despite no such agreement existing.

Collectively: if you and a group of like-minded objectors to a corrupt society attempt to live as your own society, you will be harassed. Claims will be made that you're living under the jurisdiction of another group of people, with whom you have no agreement to cooperate.


And working within the framework of an established society to effect change is delusional. Politicians have long ago learned to simply give lazy and unimaginative people more or less what they want, in exchange for being dominated by people that break the rules. You cannot bargain with a majority of people that want that kind of slavery, they prefer an easy life where they do not have to confront anything difficult or dangerous.

There are definitely countries with very low levels of government intervention and even completely lawless places. They often tend to be quite shitty though (e.g. parts of Niger or Somalia) so perhaps there is some benefit in having a working system of law enforcement.

Even e.g. in the US, if you live in a place without property tax and have your own water/electric/crop supply the government isn't gonna send its troops to take it away from you. What sort of "harassment" do you expect?