Taxless society idea

[deisik]

Exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain. It will depend on the understanding of every member of the "society", the meaning of "organized" as a "society". AFAIK, every person has their own point of view on things. Since there's no "law", as there's no acting "government", e.g. if one member doesn't agree on the decision of the majority, the said person will tend to do either commit a crime or just accept the situation whatever it may be

In fact, there is law

And it has always been there. The codified law you implicitly refer to in your post is only a subset of a wider system of unwritten laws and traditions existing in society. So it is not the lack of law as such which would be at the root of potential problems that a society without government would likely encounter but rather the lack of law enforcement, which is part of the government (and therefore, part of the problem). In other words, as soon as we are able to solve this little hindrance, we can happily live without any government and don't sink into lawlessness and chaos soon thereafter

This will be possible. But it will only be applicable to very selective-people--people who are as sympathetic as you are, I guess. If these conditions are met, then this "society" will exist

We can hope for that, even if it would require a quantum leap of sorts. But at least we don't need evolution for this leap anyway (read, we don't have to wait another few million years)

[1715000156]

1715000156

[1715000156]

1715000156

[DaftAjax]

It is truly important, taxes are not only used for the development of the country itself, but also to fund new discovery and upgrades we need in life. We have technology today because of our tax, tax is being used to buy goods and services from other country, and services from government officials/public sectors. If tax does not exist, a county won't be called a country anymore.

Not quite true.

Scientific researches and discoveries can be done by the government themselves, they're called government-funded researches; or non-government, and even private companies, e.g. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency of the United States Federal Government, provides space discoveries; Elon Musk's SpaceX and Tesla provides various new technologies to improve life, essentially. So it is not bound to the government, even back then some discoveries and researches are not backed-up by the government, in fact, discoveries and researches are directly presented to the authorities(the government), to gain their approval for the public.

I think you might want to "discover" and "research" about what the government really does with tax (no pun intended).

[DaftAjax]

~snip

In fact, there is law

And it has always been there. The codified law you implicitly refer to in your post is only a subset of a wider system of unwritten laws and traditions existing in society. So it is not the lack of law as such which would be at the root of potential problems that a society without government would likely encounter but rather the lack of law enforcement, which is part of the government (and therefore, part of the problem). In other words, as soon as we are able to solve this little hindrance, we can happily live without any government and don't sink into lawlessness and chaos soon thereafter

Hmm, all this time I was confused about what "law" really implies. I always thought that the governement "created" the "law". And tbh, I haven't thought about traditions to have innate "law", but there's always has been. AFAIK, these "unwritten laws", I reckon they're subjective to "moral conducts". I say that because if a "society" is to follow traditions, which are embedded with "unwritten laws", "moral conducts" are the only things to be considered--no need for the government (no need for law enforcement); no need for taxes.

~snip

We can hope for that, even if it would require a quantum leap of sorts. But at least we don't need evolution for this leap anyway (read, we don't have to wait another few million years)

Agreed. (What I'm about to say is based on how I understand "being human") If ever we achieved such circumstances, do you think we are still considered as "human beings"? Because I'm so fixated on humans being violent(or kind), irrational(or rational).

[ifinta]

I have idea for discussion.

How it could work Taxless society:

Independent world deflationary money for storing value (bitcoin, litecoin...) in combination with inflationary digital money from central banks valid only limited time to directly spend (buying goods and services) or you can change to deflationary money (store of value).

With transparent view of circulating supply on blockchain for each country (inflation based on growing population, number of new pensions... in last year or some other time period).

Community interests (healthcare, roads, pensions...) can be financed directly from the part of that emission with limited valid time inflationary money on annual base.

The salary received in inflationary digital money from the moment of receipt must be spent or exchanged for some store of value (bitcoin, litecoin...) in 1 year or will be automaticly exchanged for some independent world "store of value" (bitcoin, litecoin...) upon expiration of time (just example).

After expiration inflatory money would not be worth (will be "burned").

What do you think is this can be done to work?

The idea is very interesting. It would be fine to try it. I have some "taxless" society ideas also. i.e. 'No' Republica, Vortexledger... Other one is Charm. 100 Charm are a Kiss, 1111 Charm are a Thank. And Curtly - but there the community will be get fees from the transactions and the from long run don't used (stolen? or loosed?) coins.

[deisik]

If you'll try to replace taxes with printing money (which is effectively a tax on owning money), you'll just destroy your economy, because no one would want to own money and the inflation would be much higher than what would you expect from simple calculations. Taxes can be very complex, there are tons of rules that can increase, decrease or even remove taxes for certain situation, meanwhile printing money just affects everyone the same, so this idea is much worse than taxes

The so-called inflation tax is most harmful to those who receive the new money the last

And since the government printing money has this money before anyone else, they can easily abuse the purchasing power which they essentially receive for free at the expense of the whole society (real, simple people). In fact, that's what all governments do whenever their very existence is threatened (for example, in war or economic collapse)

Well said. A taxless society simply would not work in this day and age. Radical ideas like this, although they sound beautiful and rosy, are just idealistic adventures that have no place in a free and democratic society. I'd be more agreeable if we lived in a tyrannical communistic society, but luckily we don't

If taxes can be paid directly, i.e. as a price for services and goods offered, a taxless society would become a reality. Moreover, it would be a better reality due to less corruption and inefficiency caused by the tax system itself (read, we could safely dismantle it altogether)

[serjent05]

It is truly important, taxes are not only used for the development of the country itself, but also to fund new discovery and upgrades we need in life. We have technology today because of our tax, tax is being used to buy goods and services from other country, and services from government officials/public sectors. If tax does not exist, a county won't be called a country anymore.

Not quite true.

Scientific researches and discoveries can be done by the government themselves, they're called government-funded researches; or non-government, and even private companies, e.g. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency of the United States Federal Government, provides space discoveries; Elon Musk's SpaceX and Tesla provides various new technologies to improve life, essentially. So it is not bound to the government, even back then some discoveries and researches are not backed-up by the government, in fact, discoveries and researches are directly presented to the authorities(the government), to gain their approval for the public.

I think you might want to "discover" and "research" about what the government really does with tax (no pun intended).

Well, government expenses is not limited to researches alone, they have to do maintenance and development of country's infrastructure.   We can remove science research out of the budget of the government as you said, it was funded privately, but things like employees salary, infrastructure development and maintenance, penal colony maintenance and other stuff needs fund.  And  one of the government major source of fund is tax. 

with this I believe a taxless society idea is delusional because it is impossible to happen.

[STT]

c) No, poor people can have a choice. It has been proven many times over, those who strive and persevere through hardships will be successful. But that will depend on your understanding of "successful". The government isn't always responsible for this.

Thats capitalism, I respect the ordinary people as being the bulk of a countrys wealth in that the fastest growth can come from the very smallest of productive enterprises.  100% growth for someone who starts a business is possible and if we consider the millions across the country taking on this task then we have a great wealth of production possible.    However we have to allow the people to operate, excessive taxes restrict and even stop them.  The burden of red tape is disproportionate, the largest companies can devote a cadre of lawyers to navigate the legal minefield that government leaves in its wake where as a solo trader only knows the skills they do best and must consult others at great cost to avoid becoming illegal in their honest trade.    Large government quite often criminalizes their population by the clumsy moves and endless laws passed.   I love that opportunity for all but its not a given in even democracies now.
    Inflation as a tax undermines the smallest operations also, again they are bound to the local economy where as large companies have international arbitrage.  Inflation erodes value with little given in exchange, the largest companies will deliberately borrow to benefit from loose money policy of government with large debt.  Microsoft maybe the richest company in the world borrows to pay their share dividends because the yield on the debt is below the yield on the shares and even below the rate of inflation so debt is a negative cost to them.  The common person is worse off with large government and inflation attacks the smallest participants in an economy most aggressively.

[DaftAjax]

~snip

~snip

Well, government expenses is not limited to researches alone, they have to do maintenance and development of country's infrastructure.   We can remove science research out of the budget of the government as you said, it was funded privately, but things like employees salary, infrastructure development and maintenance, penal colony maintenance and other stuff needs fund.  And  one of the government major source of fund is tax. 

with this I believe a taxless society idea is delusional because it is impossible to happen.

Labor, Development, and Maintenance--intriguing. Definitely, most of the taxes went to these three things.

Labor is probably the most "paid" (not paid by 'how much', but paid by 'how many'), considering how big and clunky the government is. Besides, no one works for free now. Inflation is good for the economy, but not for the people. Further inflation could lead to unemployment which eventually affects the economy. Deflation, on the other hand, is probably one of the keys to having a taxless society. Maintenance is also needy, not only it requires funds from the government it also needs "labor". Probably the one thing that needs most of the attention from the government. Development, this one also requires funds and labor, but I think this is on the downside. But the government should consider it because development means less labor.

A taxless society isn't delusional at all. Way before the government and tax becomes relevant, groups of people (a society) exists. The government and tax only helped us to become a civilization we are today, but in a (or one) sense a society can exist without it.

[blckhawk]

I don't think it would be good and I don't agree on implementing it. A taxless society is a society without government, without enforcers of the law, everything would be chaos. No one would follow anyone. As much as we hate taxes, we cannot avoid them and we should not. The problem arises when the people on the government has corrupted ideas. We cannot live on a perfect society since we, ourselves, the people aren't perfect. The government maintains order, we still need to use these centralized currencies and pay our part or else we would only live for ourselves.

[deisik]

~snip

In fact, there is law

And it has always been there. The codified law you implicitly refer to in your post is only a subset of a wider system of unwritten laws and traditions existing in society. So it is not the lack of law as such which would be at the root of potential problems that a society without government would likely encounter but rather the lack of law enforcement, which is part of the government (and therefore, part of the problem). In other words, as soon as we are able to solve this little hindrance, we can happily live without any government and don't sink into lawlessness and chaos soon thereafter

Hmm, all this time I was confused about what "law" really implies. I always thought that the governement "created" the "law". And tbh, I haven't thought about traditions to have innate "law", but there's always has been. AFAIK, these "unwritten laws", I reckon they're subjective to "moral conducts". I say that because if a "society" is to follow traditions, which are embedded with "unwritten laws", "moral conducts" are the only things to be considered--no need for the government (no need for law enforcement); no need for taxes

The codified law of a country typically reflects the already existing rules of "moral conduct"

If it stops doing that, and the law system is not adapted accordingly and on time, this may lead to a revolution (or a coup). That takes long years since the society doesn't change overnight. Nonetheless, these changes are objective and they are prone to accumulate over time, so they can and do have such grave consequences. But we would still need law enforcement anyway, at least as long as something else doesn't take its place

For example, the term ostracism has its roots in the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, where someone breaking the law would be expelled (ostracized) from Athens by the local citizenry. In the same way, if a criminal or wrongdoer could be quickly and effectively isolated from the society (to the extent of the gravity of his crime or delinquency), there would be no need for special law enforcement bodies

We can hope for that, even if it would require a quantum leap of sorts. But at least we don't need evolution for this leap anyway (read, we don't have to wait another few million years)

Agreed. (What I'm about to say is based on how I understand "being human") If ever we achieved such circumstances, do you think we are still considered as "human beings"? Because I'm so fixated on humans being violent(or kind), irrational(or rational)

I think that technically (or rather, physiologically), we would still remain same human beings as before. It is our environment that we operate within that should change dramatically for us to stop being "human beings" in the most casual sense of the word

[DaftAjax]

Hmm, all this time I was confused about what "law" really implies. I always thought that the governement "created" the "law". And tbh, I haven't thought about traditions to have innate "law", but there's always has been. AFAIK, these "unwritten laws", I reckon they're subjective to "moral conducts". I say that because if a "society" is to follow traditions, which are embedded with "unwritten laws", "moral conducts" are the only things to be considered--no need for the government (no need for law enforcement); no need for taxes

The codified law of a country typically reflects the already existing rules of "moral conduct"

If it stops doing that, and the law system is not adapted accordingly and on time, this may lead to a revolution (or a coup). That takes long years since the society doesn't change overnight. Nonetheless, these changes are objective and they are prone to accumulate over time, so they can and do have such grave consequences. But we would still need law enforcement anyway, at least as long as something else doesn't take its place

For example, the term ostracism has its roots in the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, where someone breaking the law would be expelled (ostracized) from Athens by the local citizenry. In the same way, if a criminal or wrongdoer could be quickly and effectively isolated from the society (to the extent of the gravity of his crime or delinquency), there would be no need for special law enforcement bodies

So, in short, until we reach such goal (society) we're still going to need "law enforcement", to make sure that "adaptation" is accordingly received. Instead of "taxless society", which the OP wants to call it, would you consider this one as "free society"? (This "society" we're discussing reminds of a movie called "The Giver", but that's for another topic)

Assuming that all members of this society are already well aware, that If we were to implement ostracism, would it still be appropriate(?), justifiable(?) whatever that person has done, in this current era?

Agreed. (What I'm about to say is based on how I understand "being human") If ever we achieved such circumstances, do you think we are still considered as "human beings"? Because I'm so fixated on humans being violent(or kind), irrational(or rational)

I think that technically (or rather, physiologically), we would still remain same human beings as before. It is our environment that we operate within that should change dramatically for us to stop being "human beings" in the most casual sense of the word

Do you mean a cyberpunk-esque environment? (I apologize in advance, I am engrossed to sci-fi genre)

[deisik]

For example, the term ostracism has its roots in the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, where someone breaking the law would be expelled (ostracized) from Athens by the local citizenry. In the same way, if a criminal or wrongdoer could be quickly and effectively isolated from the society (to the extent of the gravity of his crime or delinquency), there would be no need for special law enforcement bodies

So, in short, until we reach such goal (society) we're still going to need "law enforcement", to make sure that "adaptation" is accordingly received. Instead of "taxless society", which the OP wants to call it, would you consider this one as "free society"? (This "society" we're discussing reminds of a movie called "The Giver", but that's for another topic)

Assuming that all members of this society are already well aware, that If we were to implement ostracism, would it still be appropriate(?), justifiable(?) whatever that person has done, in this current era?

Humans are social beings

And not to go mad they need to connect and bond with other people. So if you did something wrong, the rest of the pack may choose to ignore you until you have redeemed your wrongdoing. Obviously, the level of such "ignorance" is going to depend on the gravity of your "crime". This is not possible right now because we have not yet reached this level of integration (but we are well on our way)
 
But there are pitfalls with this idea too as someone may be ostracized for the entirely wrong reasons. So, on the one hand, we need an extremely tightly-knit society for this to work in the first place, but then, on the other hand, for this to work properly everyone should be totally responsible for his own actions and decisions to avoid what is called the herd instinct (otherwise known as the mob effect)

I think that technically (or rather, physiologically), we would still remain same human beings as before. It is our environment that we operate within that should change dramatically for us to stop being "human beings" in the most casual sense of the word

Do you mean a cyberpunk-esque environment? (I apologize in advance, I am engrossed to sci-fi genre)

Actually, no, I don't mean anything such. To get an idea, think of the world as one large village where everyone knows everyone else on the societal level (and what he is potentially up to). This doesn't mean losing personal privacy, though. It should probably be valued and maintained even higher and stricter than ever in history

[DaftAjax]

~snip

This is not possible right now because we have not yet reached this level of integration (but we are well on our way)
 
But there are pitfalls with this idea too as someone may be ostracized for the entirely wrong reasons. So, on the one hand, we need an extremely tightly-knit society for this to work in the first place, but then, on the other hand, for this to work properly everyone should be totally responsible for his own actions and decisions to avoid what is called the herd instinct (otherwise known as the mob effect)

TBH, it could happen right now, but I also think that you don't like the idea of "selection", as this suggestion would only impose people to submit in the said society. And when I think about it, this would also arise hierarchical supremacy, some would think highly of such "society", and some members would probably discriminate those who aren't. So I guess "selection" won't cut it.

Exactly, what if it's a result of false accusations--defamation. If every member "acknowledges" the responsibility of such actions/decisions (I was gonna say, 'should we include thoughts?' but I think that's getting overboard), then it could be avoided.

~snip

Actually, no, I don't mean anything such. To get an idea, think of the world as one large village where everyone knows everyone else on the societal level (and what he is potentially up to). This doesn't mean losing personal privacy, though. It should probably be valued and maintained even higher and stricter than ever in history

I see the possibility, it will surely be valued (be the first as well) in history, but doubt comes into mind, would I ever live that long to see this day?

[deisik]

Exactly, what if it's a result of false accusations--defamation. If every member "acknowledges" the responsibility of such actions/decisions (I was gonna say, 'should we include thoughts?' but I think that's getting overboard), then it could be avoided

But that's what already happens (and has been happening all this time)

People are often stigmatized and labeled for just being different from the rest of the pack, and I don't necessarily mean some difference sort of carved in stone, so to speak. You can just have an opinion somewhat different from the party line, and already be a target for communal disdain and contempt. On the other hand, if you gain support and bring in enough people, you can do the same thing against those who so foolishly chose to disrespect you

In other words, the balance is still going to be mostly the same, i.e. more power means more responsibility, but on average it will level out to what we have right now. As you can see, we can change the variables (or the limits) in pretty wide range here but without dramatically affecting the bottom line, which basically means we do not need to "enhance" the human being itself as it all revolves around environment (which we can change)

Actually, no, I don't mean anything such. To get an idea, think of the world as one large village where everyone knows everyone else on the societal level (and what he is potentially up to). This doesn't mean losing personal privacy, though. It should probably be valued and maintained even higher and stricter than ever in history

I see the possibility, it will surely be valued (be the first as well) in history, but doubt comes into mind, would I ever live that long to see this day?

It is still a difference of degree, not of kind or substance (read, it will be a gradual change)

[Aying]

I don't think it would be good and I don't agree on implementing it. A taxless society is a society without government, without enforcers of the law, everything would be chaos. No one would follow anyone. As much as we hate taxes, we cannot avoid them and we should not. The problem arises when the people on the government has corrupted ideas. We cannot live on a perfect society since we, ourselves, the people aren't perfect. The government maintains order, we still need to use these centralized currencies and pay our part or else we would only live for ourselves.

I agree with you.. taxless society won't be easy. everyone has its own freedom but with tax society its limited. without it how people will live with neutral way? Crypto society with our wanted freedom, if this implemented without any study it maybe cause any trouble. we know that this will have advantage but we didn't know yet how percentage we can get. so we need to analyze it more.

[Edraket31]

I don't think it would be good and I don't agree on implementing it. A taxless society is a society without government, without enforcers of the law, everything would be chaos. No one would follow anyone. As much as we hate taxes, we cannot avoid them and we should not. The problem arises when the people on the government has corrupted ideas. We cannot live on a perfect society since we, ourselves, the people aren't perfect. The government maintains order, we still need to use these centralized currencies and pay our part or else we would only live for ourselves.

Exactly, we don't need to implement such thing, we need to have a government and if will remove taxation then how are we going to rule the world. Without the fund that came from taxation no one would like to be a leader as we don't have fund to implement rules and make a project. Right now, what we need is to lessen the tax so that it won't be a big burden for those who are just earning small amount.

[GreenStox]

indeed at this time seems to have started to develop digital currency and there are many platforms that use payments using cash, meaning that now has begun to reduce payments using cash, all of them prefer to make payments more easily by digital currency.

[Silberman]

indeed at this time seems to have started to develop digital currency and there are many platforms that use payments using cash, meaning that now has begun to reduce payments using cash, all of them prefer to make payments more easily by digital currency.

But I think the government will impose a tax on everyone who gets money from online including from Crypto. Although later they set Crypto as one the methods of payment but they will also impose tax with it. And we as citizens who obey the law, of course we must obey it.

Governments can create laws to tax cryptocurrencies, that is correct, what they cannot do is to impose a tax on cryptocurrencies, that is precisely what it is driving them crazy, they have no way to force people to pay taxes from their activities on cryptocurrencies because they have no control of the bitcoin network and even if at some point they achieve control of the bitcoin network those that are smart will see it coming and will just move to another cryptocurrency that is not controlled by the government.

[BChydro]

Governments can create laws to tax cryptocurrencies, that is correct, what they cannot do is to impose a tax on cryptocurrencies, that is precisely what it is driving them crazy, they have no way to force people to pay taxes

Why would any government force people to pay taxes if they are not getting any profit out of it, if the concept of tax can be tweaked then all these issues will be sorted, if people are converting their bitcoin to fiat currency and if they are doing it through the proper channel then they will naturally pay the tax.

from their activities on cryptocurrencies because they have no control of the bitcoin network and even if at some point they achieve control of the bitcoin network those that are smart will see it coming and will just move to another cryptocurrency that is not controlled by the government.

No government can control the bitcoin network and hence it is a truly decentralized network and if not for bitcoin which coin you can trust .

[Lanatsa]

Our economy would definitely die without taxes. Honestly, it's really a burden for most of us to pay taxes but we can't just eliminate it for our own good. Our taxes are allocated in a lot of departments which would benefit the economy and society. It's a burden yet a part of the circulation of the economic needs so we got no choice but to be responsible to do it as our duties. Everything must be put into balance, the taxes, the printing of money and the role of cryptocurrency.

A country can't survive without having this, Taxes are the life of the country it's need to pay your obligations so the government can act and perform things that's needed around their jurisdictions. Implemented taxes is design to returned the favor to the citizens by providing the needs of the entire communities. Without collecting this obligations we also will not see any improvements from the society.

I strongly agree that taxes is very important in a country because it is a contribution of every citizen in their country. The reason why we pay taxes to our government because it provides the needs of every citizen in their country which they can also use it to build establishments like public schools, hospitals, highways, centers and many more, that is why without paying taxes it will be difficult for us to build such establishment and improve a certain country. People just don't want to pay taxes due to corruption that they don't trust their government that they will use it for good.

It is truly important, taxes are not only used for the development of the country itself, but also to fund new discovery and upgrades we need in life. We have technology today because of our tax, tax is being used to buy goods and services from other country, and services from government officials/public sectors. If tax does not exist, a county won't be called a country anymore.

People will not hesitate to pay taxes if they have surety that they are being used for the welfare of people or humanity on the whole. Most of the taxes we pay are used for security and developing war materials. We shall never ever completely trust governments in regard of taxes because all governments are led by few violent people who want common people to obey them.

It should be on balance where those taxes would be utilized which is on development and security.It will really vary on the government that would handle and managed up those funds.Yes, we cant trust them completely because there would always be corruption or misused of funds and it will really be justified most likely on countries which
do have slow progress.

Taxless society idea is somewhat a dumb one because these funds do play out a major role on a countries development and progress.
The only problem here is the governing bodies that would handle and manage these funds carefully.