why do people agree to pay taxes?

[Hazir]

because i will go to jail if i didn't pay it
the gov force me to pay taxes, and said it for developing my country
but in fact, many tax money is corrupted by bad individual in government

True. Some, if not all of the money that came from tax were used not in projects related to improving and developing the country, but to the politicians themselves. Very evident in my country. Sad thing.

Politicians taking their cut is nothing new.
The problem comes when that is all they do.

Politicians and diapers should both be changed regularly - and for the same reason.

Good one, but what to do when some politicians are glued to their chairs? Take Putin for instance, the guy changed the constitution to stay in power.

Depending on what you believe, a higher power has already set an unavoidable term limit for all humans.  Sometimes nothing can be done, but eventually even Putin will need to relinquish his position.

TT

Dont you know , putin has more bitcoin that all of us together. Putin is the creator of bitcoins my friend , and he's gonna make sure all the russians in the world starts using it.

Putin here, Putin there... Is there a thread on this forum where he is not being mentioned in the end? Taxpayer, Russians are coming to steal your taxes!

Putin seems to be some kind of modern Hitler wannabe. But did not he ban bitcoin in russia? Bitcoin it to complicated to control it seems, not mention it is hard to tax as hell due to its decentralized nature. The best FIAT if you want to avoid taxes it seems.

[1714168009]

1714168009

[1714168009]

1714168009

[1714168009]

1714168009

[1714168009]

1714168009

[tee-rex]

Putin here, Putin there... Is there a thread on this forum where he is not being mentioned in the end? Taxpayer, Russians are coming to steal your taxes!

Putin seems to be some kind of modern Hitler wannabe. But did not he ban bitcoin in russia? Bitcoin it to complicated to control it seems, not mention it is hard to tax as hell due to its decentralized nature. The best FIAT if you want to avoid taxes it seems.

As far as I know, bitcoin is not officially banned in Russia, and its use is restricted only for legal entities. Besides that, with the recent devaluation of the national currency the Russian Central bank (which is the primary engine behind the bitcoin restriction in Russia) certainly has more important things on its agenda right now.

[polynesia]

Putin here, Putin there... Is there a thread on this forum where he is not being mentioned in the end? Taxpayer, Russians are coming to steal your taxes!

Putin seems to be some kind of modern Hitler wannabe. But did not he ban bitcoin in russia? Bitcoin it to complicated to control it seems, not mention it is hard to tax as hell due to its decentralized nature. The best FIAT if you want to avoid taxes it seems.

As far as I know, bitcoin is not officially banned in Russia, and its use is restricted only for legal entities. Besides that, with the recent devaluation of the national currency the Russian Central bank (which is the primary engine behind the bitcoin restriction in Russia) certainly has more important things on its agenda right now.

It has not been banned in Russia. They have taken a nuanced stance
"You can play with your bitcoins, but you can’t pay with them"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=824826.0

[specgamer]

If people did not agree to pay taxes. Citizens cannot benefit from the services the government provides. For ex. school, healthcare ...etc.
And public workers like teachers and police officers would not be paid.

[specgamer]

If people did not agree to pay taxes. Citizens cannot benefit from the services the government provides. For ex. school, healthcare ...etc.
And public workers like teachers and police officers would not be paid for their hard work.

[picolo]

If people did not agree to pay taxes. Citizens cannot benefit from the services the government provides. For ex. school, healthcare ...etc.
And public workers like teachers and police officers would not be paid for their hard work.

You pay 100 and you get 20 in services that are worth 5, services without competition, choice of using the service and innovation.
The private sector would provide a far better service at a much cheaper price.

[NotLambchop]

...
The private sector would provide a far better service at a much cheaper price.

No, the private sector can't.
It's impotent, it's weak.  My glorious jackbooted gubermint thugs already made your pathetic private sector my bitch, and I...  
I made it beg, squeal like a pig... I ... I've made it... HUMBLE.

[aso118]

...
The private sector would provide a far better service at a much cheaper price.

No, the private sector can't.
It's impotent, it's weak.  My glorious jackbooted gubermint thugs already made your pathetic private sector my bitch, and I...  
I made it beg, squeal like a pig... I ... I've made it... HUMBLE.

The private sector does provide better services in many countries?
Just compare government run colleges with private run colleges.
Why do people prefer to go to private colleges?

[suman66]

If people did not agree to pay taxes. Citizens cannot benefit from the services the government provides. For ex. school, healthcare ...etc.
And public workers like teachers and police officers would not be paid.

if you don't pay taxes you will not get facilities that govt provide you for free like free schools , hospital bill in some cases , or some accidental damage to your property

[Nicolas Dorier]

if you don't pay taxes you will not get facilities that govt provide you for free like free schools , hospital bill in some cases , or some accidental damage to your property

So it is not free school, free hospital bill and free accidental damage repairs. The fact that payment is decoupled in time from the service does not make it free.
On the contrary, it increases price elasticity, which means that the user becomes insensitive to price change.

If all of that was funded directly, and not through the intermediary of taxes, people would get upset about the prices, and the prices would decrease as a result.

[NotLambchop]

...
The private sector would provide a far better service at a much cheaper price.

No, the private sector can't.
It's impotent, it's weak.  My glorious jackbooted gubermint thugs already made your pathetic private sector my bitch, and I...  
I made it beg, squeal like a pig... I ... I've made it... HUMBLE.

The private sector does provide better services in many countries?
Just compare government run colleges with private run colleges.
Why do people prefer to go to private colleges?

For the same reasons they prefer to go to private schools--they can afford it & their friends, the other rich kids, go there. 
So now you know.

[Nicolas Dorier]

For the same reasons they prefer to go to private schools--they can afford it & their friends, the other rich kids, go there.  
So now you know.

A private school can't compete with price, so they must compete on quality.

Imagine "Free school" (which is not free) would not exist. All taxes expenses that pay the current public school system would flow back in the pocket of every citizen.
Now, since private school can compete on price because no free school exists, all the funds that citizens won back to their pocket is available for cheap private school.

With the help of competition, you can be sure that the most efficient school will win. Such school would cost less money that the current public school system that have no incentives to be cheap.

Once again, making the payment of a service decoupled from the benefit does not make it free. It only increase price elasticity. (which allows public school to be costly to the tax payer without consequences)

[NotLambchop]

For the same reasons they prefer to go to private schools--they can afford it & their friends, the other rich kids, go there.  
So now you know.

A private school can't compete with price, so they must compete on quality.

Imagine "Free school" (which is not free) would not exist. All taxes expenses that pay the current public school system would flow back in the pocket of every citizen.

Lol no.
The taxes would not flow back into the pockets of the uneducated unemployed--they don't pay taxes because deadbeat & poor.
When said poor breed, they birth more uneducated poor, because learningz are reserved for teh wealthy.

Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords did not decide on "free" primary education because too kind & warmhearted.  They're Lizards ffs, grow up!
No.
They, in Their wisdom, know that lack of public education breeds fail & AIDS.  They want their sheeple productive, happy, and, most of all, healthy & delicious.
Also because 21st century.

Now, since private school can compete on price because no free school exists, all the funds that citizens won back to their pocket is available for cheap private school.

Schools will be cheaper for the rich (who already pay for private schools), and more expensive (or, more likely, simply unaffordable) for the poor.  Because, as previously stated, the poor are lazy & unemployed, so none of their taxes go towards schools.  Deadbeats don't pay taxes.
Their kids will be left unschooled in anything other than stealing ur Lexus & selling crack to ur kids after mugging & raping them--you know how those people are

[tee-rex]

For the same reasons they prefer to go to private schools--they can afford it & their friends, the other rich kids, go there. 
So now you know.

A private school can't compete with price, so they must compete on quality.

Imagine "Free school" (which is not free) would not exist. All taxes expenses that pay the current public school system would flow back in the pocket of every citizen.
Now, since private school can compete on price because no free school exists, all the funds that citizens won back to their pocket is available for cheap private school.

With the help of competition, you can be sure that the most efficient school will win. Such school would cost less money that the current public school system that have no incentives to be cheap.

Once again, making the payment of a service decoupled from the benefit does not make it free. It only increase price elasticity. (which allows public school to be costly to the tax payer without consequences)

While I certainly agree with you on schools, there are fields which are either not profitable enough to draw in private capital or too huge to be entirely and effectively digested by it. Furthermore, there are sectors where competition is either simply inappropriate or just dangerous (e.g. armed forces). 

[B.A.S.]

A private school can't compete with price, so they must compete on quality.

--> Private schools CAN compete with price. The wealthy attend private schools because other wealthy families attend those schools. It's not about the education, it's about the connections one gains there. Private schools are purely designed as meeting grounds for maintaining the future's already wealthy elite. Price is irrelevant to the rich. On-the-other-hand, if you are poor-middle class and gain acceptance into a private school, congrats as the "quality" of your education just got better (i.e. better chance at meeting good contacts).

Imagine "Free school" (which is not free) would not exist. All taxes expenses that pay the current public school system would flow back in the pocket of every citizen. Now, since private school can compete on price because no free school exists, all the funds that citizens won back to their pocket is available for cheap private school.

--> There is no separation between free school and private schools as you say. More money in tax payers pockets (from not paying for education) would not equate to 'cheap private school'. Education through the 12th grade is not optional, it is compulsory (in the US). If the Gov't mandates compulsory education up until a certain point, it is de facto paid by everyone. Having the option to select your education (at the lower rungs i.e. K-12th grade) doesn't do anything for the sake of making education better or more widely accessible. It instead stratifies people based upon income. Public education lacks support in the form of teacher's wages. If you do not incentivize those doing the educating, how could you ever expect the product (the educated) to benefit from such an arrangement?

Private schools don't face this problem per say because they are paid on average far better than public school teachers. The education in either of these settings is equal given the material being presented. The social factors surrounding the conveying of the material is what is vastly different.

Once again, making the payment of a service decoupled from the benefit does not make it free. It only increase price elasticity. (which allows public school to be costly to the tax payer without consequences).

--> I don't think you understand the nature of education. Education cannot be price intrinsically. One dollar does not equal learning algebra. One dollar also does not translate into X dollars of earning potential in the future. Politicans and law makers alike have been arguing this fact since the dawn of education in America. You simply cannot put a price on it. Education is an investment into your country for the good of everyone with the hopes that a smarter population equates to higher standards of living in the future. A capitalistic approach (the US) to education results in an education gap that favors those with money gaining access to knowledge over those who cannot afford it. The point of education in America is not to become smarter, but to get richer monetarily by gaining degrees. Knowledge is a gatekeeper in the US. It has nothing to do with becoming better educated to better your life, how you approach the World, think about things, etc..

While I certainly agree with you on schools, there are fields which are either not profitable enough to draw in private capital or too huge to be entirely and effectively digested by it. Furthermore, there are sectors where competition is either simply inappropriate or just dangerous (e.g. armed forces).

--> There is ample competition in the Gov't military sectors. Contracts are awarded to many enterprises yearly for producing war machine products. If military spending were more publicly controlled, we would not even have a fraction of the astronomical and uncheck armed forces spending we have today. Privatization helps those in charge. Not the converse.

[tee-rex]

While I certainly agree with you on schools, there are fields which are either not profitable enough to draw in private capital or too huge to be entirely and effectively digested by it. Furthermore, there are sectors where competition is either simply inappropriate or just dangerous (e.g. armed forces).

--> There is ample competition in the Gov't military sectors. Contracts are awarded to many enterprises yearly for producing war machine products. If military spending were more publicly controlled, we would not even have a fraction of the astronomical and uncheck armed forces spending we have today. Privatization helps those in charge. Not the converse.

It seems that you didn't quite understand what I meant to say. I don't speak about private contractors, I speak about army as whole. Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition? Furthermore, despite the fact that in earlier times kings and rulers bought private armies, nowadays only a "state" army can reliably maintain sovereignty in the long run.

[funtotry]

Just had a quick idea on education. Someone was talking about free school, but what about commission school (lack of a better name). Possibly private school, maybe public, but for all earnings in the future, a percent of it goes to that school for a lifetime. Something like 10%. School is free (and better quality) and has a lifetime income flow from graduates (assuming the graduates actually go and get jobs). So the 10% is taken from the after tax income, so if you have about 50% income tax thats 5% of your total income, which isn't bad considering you got free quality education. Also keep in mind that private schools are sometimes upwards of 20k per year, thats 240k over 12 years, plus university which brings it to probably 300k rounded, and so that would be about 10% of 3 million dollars of income over lifetime, and I would say that with a GOOD job, only possible through a private education and a good university, that would probably be a lifetime income enough to cover the 10%.
What do you guys think?

[B.A.S.]

While I certainly agree with you on schools, there are fields which are either not profitable enough to draw in private capital or too huge to be entirely and effectively digested by it. Furthermore, there are sectors where competition is either simply inappropriate or just dangerous (e.g. armed forces).

--> There is ample competition in the Gov't military sectors. Contracts are awarded to many enterprises yearly for producing war machine products. If military spending were more publicly controlled, we would not even have a fraction of the astronomical and uncheck armed forces spending we have today. Privatization helps those in charge. Not the converse.

It seems that you didn't quite understand what I meant to say. I don't speak about private contractors, I speak about army as whole. Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition? Furthermore, despite the fact that in earlier times kings and rulers bought private armies, nowadays only a "state" army can reliably maintain sovereignty in the long run.

Ahh, yes. Didn't mean it as a slight, I agree.

Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition?

--> Good question. My initial thoughts also sway to competition as it usually benefits all parties in the long run with respect to innovation and advancement. Privatization of regimes would make for a very interesting dynamic (at least on the National stage). It would be similar to France's situation. You have their State defense and than you have the Legionnaires.

[B.A.S.]

Just had a quick idea on education. Someone was talking about free school, but what about commission school (lack of a better name). Possibly private school, maybe public, but for all earnings in the future, a percent of it goes to that school for a lifetime. Something like 10%. School is free (and better quality) and has a lifetime income flow from graduates (assuming the graduates actually go and get jobs). So the 10% is taken from the after tax income, so if you have about 50% income tax thats 5% of your total income, which isn't bad considering you got free quality education. Also keep in mind that private schools are sometimes upwards of 20k per year, thats 240k over 12 years, plus university which brings it to probably 300k rounded, and so that would be about 10% of 3 million dollars of income over lifetime, and I would say that with a GOOD job, only possible through a private education and a good university, that would probably be a lifetime income enough to cover the 10%.
What do you guys think?

IMO, it's a decent idea, however; it pigeon holes people into going down particular career/job tracks (i.e. 5% on a police officer's wage is quite a bit more burdening than 5% on an investment banker's salary). It's difficult to do, but education must be competitive for education's sake, not for "better" jobs.

My idea (adding onto this) would be to make education geared for particular jobs or careers. All education for non-specialized jobs (vocational, trades, mid-tier) would be free provided the student's received high marks. You would go to school with the direct intention of a particular outcome (to be a nurse, to be a plumber...) Free = funded by taxpayers.

Should the pupil want a more specialized track (doctor, professor, lawyer, etc.) they would have to have the necessary grades to prove their eligibility into those educational tracks (similar to Germany). If they have what it takes educationally to get in, the schooling would be either lower cost (an educational cost subsidy to keep them competitive) or you pay a % of your future earnings back to the system.

__

The cost of public education (9 - 12; high school) in the US is roughly $100-$1000/year depending on if the student plays sports, there are advanced technology fees, etc. Waivers can be gotten for most of thee costs if you are lower income. The mean adjusted cost is closer to $5-$200/year.

Now just think: Tax payers in America are complaining about this... Complaining about $200/year to send their kid to school. Mind them this includes free day care for 7-8 hours, exercise, low cost lunch, socialization for the kids, learning, etc. The list goes on. It amazes me how stupid most people really are. If you gave them the choice between the latest Ipad or sending their kid to school another year, you can bet there would be some agony involved.

[manselr]

Because if for X reasons you lose your wealth and you become old and shit on your bedclothes, they can help you with the taxed money. It's called socialism aka common sense.

how about i'll buy my own insurance against that instead of them shoving it down my throat.

Not everyone can buy their own insurance, so therefore someone has to pay for it for those that cannot buy their own, unless you want to get murdered by a bunch of hopeless poor people.