why do people agree to pay taxes?

[Sakarias-Corporation]

why is it ok for a group of people calling themselves the government to force everyone to buy their services?
if enough armed people refused to pay and told the government to go fuck itself there is nothing they could do.

Murica….

[1715272025]

1715272025

[1715272025]

1715272025

[1715272025]

1715272025

[EvilPanda]

The problem is not just the existence of a tax, but how many diferent ones we have. Governments are too greedy and some things like inheritance or gifts should not be taxed. Same as you shouldn't tax the same thing twice, which is a common thing nowadays.

[TheButterZone]

[worle1bm]

You mean like making folks pay for insurance because they may kill someone or inflict incredibly costly damage, and be unable to make equitable relief?

Or maybe making folks pay for health insurance because the cost to society would be orders of magnitude greater if they utilized public facilities for major surgery while uninsured?

That image is an oversimplification. It's poorly reasoned, and flat out wrong.

[twiifm]

I bet the people belly aching about taxes are the people that barely pay any taxes. 

[TheButterZone]

I bet the people belly aching about taxes are the people that barely pay any taxes.  

The people who barely pay any taxes pay tens, hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes, so they do not have to fear death or imprisonment, and therefore no reason to "bellyache".

[kjj]

You mean like making folks pay for insurance because they may kill someone or inflict incredibly costly damage, and be unable to make equitable relief?

Or maybe making folks pay for health insurance because the cost to society would be orders of magnitude greater if they utilized public facilities for major surgery while uninsured?

That image is an oversimplification. It's poorly reasoned, and flat out wrong.

Wow.  Speaking of poorly reasoned and flat out wrong, have you read your own post?  Hard to pack so much wrong into one sentence.  The "health insurance" sentence, if you are wondering which line of statist bullshit you are repeating without thinking.

Just for fun, I'll skip that one and look at the first sentence instead.  It is just as bad, really, but not currently a hot topic, so the talking points are rusty.  By your implied logic, everyone should be forced to carry crime insurance that pays out if they commit a criminal act.  From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson.  Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance?  Or do you?  In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".

Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?

* You don't come out and say it exactly, but I suspect that car insurance is what you are thinking of, being, by far, the most common form of insurance that people have to buy that protects other people instead of the purchaser.

[Gumbork]

I bet the people belly aching about taxes are the people that barely pay any taxes.  

The people who barely pay any taxes pay tens, hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes, so they do not have to fear death or imprisonment, and therefore no reason to "bellyache".

Not true. The people who pay little taxes are those who vote for more entitlements and make a huge deal about even tiny amounts of potential entitlement reform (meaning the democrats)

[worle1bm]

You mean like making folks pay for insurance because they may kill someone or inflict incredibly costly damage, and be unable to make equitable relief?

Or maybe making folks pay for health insurance because the cost to society would be orders of magnitude greater if they utilized public facilities for major surgery while uninsured?

That image is an oversimplification. It's poorly reasoned, and flat out wrong.

Wow.  Speaking of poorly reasoned and flat out wrong, have you read your own post?  Hard to pack so much wrong into one sentence.  The "health insurance" sentence, if you are wondering which line of statist bullshit you are repeating without thinking.

  Yawn. The need to label arguments as statist is a crutch. People like finding something to hate, and they give it fake form through loaded terms like "statist". Such nonsense.

By your implied logic, everyone should be forced to carry crime insurance that pays out if they commit a criminal act. 

Nope. That's an argumentative fallacy.

From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson. 

Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one?

Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance?  Or do you?  In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief.

Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?

So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid.

* You don't come out and say it exactly, but I suspect that car insurance is what you are thinking of, being, by far, the most common form of insurance that people have to buy that protects other people instead of the purchaser.

I would guess it's a toss-up between liability insurance, car insurance, and health insurance. I don't know which wins by volume or total people, whatever metric is a good representation.

[TheButterZone]

I bet the people belly aching about taxes are the people that barely pay any taxes.  

The people who barely pay any taxes pay tens, hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes, so they do not have to fear death or imprisonment, and therefore no reason to "bellyache".

Not true. The people who pay little taxes are those who vote for more entitlements and make a huge deal about even tiny amounts of potential entitlement reform (meaning the democrats)

Are these "entitlements" exemptions from sales, alcohol, cigarette, marijuana, gas taxes?

[kjj]

Wow.  Speaking of poorly reasoned and flat out wrong, have you read your own post?  Hard to pack so much wrong into one sentence.  The "health insurance" sentence, if you are wondering which line of statist bullshit you are repeating without thinking.

  Yawn. The need to label arguments as statist is a crutch. People like finding something to hate, and they give it fake form through loaded terms like "statist". Such nonsense.

I have a spade in my garage.  Calling it a spade doesn't mean that I hate it.  Based on your response, it looks like I got your name right too...

A name is an implicit reference to an internal ideal (in the Platonic sense).  That reference may be a "false form" in a philosophy class, but in the real world, most people would consider naming to be a useful tool.

From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson. 

Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one?

There is a reason that you don't get the point.

Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance?  Or do you?  In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief.

Why does the family home not have insurance?  Surely the owner understands that they face non-zero risks from many sources, not just your cliched redneck...

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Logic always catches the unwary.  If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right?  The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it.  Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?

May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it?  I've seen this movie before.  We all know how it ends.

Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?

So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid.

I have insurance that protects me against criminal actions done against my self and my property.  Surely you do too, if you aren't homeless.  If you find that concept confusing, perhaps you can use a nearby shiny surface to locate the source of the stupid.

[worle1bm]

I have a spade in my garage.  Calling it a spade doesn't mean that I hate it.  Based on your response, it looks like I got your name right too...
A name is an implicit reference to an internal ideal (in the Platonic sense).  That reference may be a "false form" in a philosophy class, but in the real world, most people would consider naming to be a useful tool.

Sure, but a spade does not connote anything beyond basic form. Using loaded terms like "statist" does. In the real world, people use loaded terms because they rely on them as proxy ad hominem attacks.

From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson. 

Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one?

There is a reason that you don't get the point.

Probably because it's poorly constructed, or poorly explain. Can you clarify?

Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance?  Or do you?  In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief.

Why does the family home not have insurance?  Surely the owner understands that they face non-zero risks from many sources, not just your cliched redneck...

Have insurance for what? Property loss? That's certainly possible, and makes sense.

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made.

Logic always catches the unwary.  If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right?  The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it.  Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?

The potential to cause catastrophic loss is not, by itself, reason to force a person to carry insurance. This is another example of an argumentative fallacy. Instead of making a distinct argument you're posting strawmen arguments, or false dilemmas. Because you don't have a robust counterargument, just a lot of attacks.

May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it?  I've seen this movie before.  We all know how it ends.

May I suggest, as a counter, that your guiding principle is simply to be contrary to the status quo? I've seen a lot of movies, I can't remember how most of them end to be honest. Good tangent, though.

Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?

So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid.

I have insurance that protects me against criminal actions done against my self and my property.  Surely you do too, if you aren't homeless.  If you find that concept confusing, perhaps you can use a nearby shiny surface to locate the source of the stupid.

I am so happy for you; I still have no idea why you feel shifting compulsory insurance from one party to the other in your binary situation is an argument against compulsory insurance. You're just shifting the cost, with a similar end product. And lots of ad hominem attacks to make you feel better about yourself.

[kjj]

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made.

Logic always catches the unwary.  If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right?  The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it.  Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?

The potential to cause catastrophic loss is not, by itself, reason to force a person to carry insurance. This is another example of an argumentative fallacy. Instead of making a distinct argument you're posting strawmen arguments, or false dilemmas. Because you don't have a robust counterargument, just a lot of attacks.

May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it?  I've seen this movie before.  We all know how it ends.

May I suggest, as a counter, that your guiding principle is simply to be contrary to the status quo? I've seen a lot of movies, I can't remember how most of them end to be honest. Good tangent, though.

So what is your principle then?  What I'm reading above really looks like it comes down to "many places already have auto liability insurance laws".  Unless those laws were handed down by god, you really can't use their existence as justification for their existence.

[twiifm]

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Car insurance covers accidents not criminal intent.  No insurance company will insure someone that might "accidentally" commit a crime

[RodeoX]

A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that. 

I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them. 

[notme]

A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that. 

I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them. 

The problem isn't all services and all taxes.  The problem is the cruise missiles that cost $1 million each, and all the other military hardware that only makes us less safe.  Our enemy has become a body of ideas, and by waging a war of force, we are creating more orphans, who are the most vulnerable to radicalization.

[GBGglenn]

Can't complain since i get free healthcare in my country. So lucky to be born in Sweden.... Would'nt be able to afford doctor visits for my hearth disease.

I dont have any problems paying taxes.

[RodeoX]

A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that. 

I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them. 

The problem isn't all services and all taxes.  The problem is the cruise missiles that cost $1 million each, and all the other military hardware that only makes us less safe.  Our enemy has become a body of ideas, and by waging a war of force, we are creating more orphans, who are the most vulnerable to radicalization.

I'm with you on that bro! For me there is a difference between the idea of taxation and how it is spent.

[TheButterZone]

Only select millionaires and above, who are evil sociopaths, have ultimate control over how taxes are spent, so you write carte blanche for evil by paying them.

[Robert Paulson]

A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that. 

I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them. 

The problem isn't all services and all taxes.  The problem is the cruise missiles that cost $1 million each, and all the other military hardware that only makes us less safe.  Our enemy has become a body of ideas, and by waging a war of force, we are creating more orphans, who are the most vulnerable to radicalization.

I'm with you on that bro! For me there is a difference between the idea of taxation and how it is spent.

now imagine if there was no taxation and you could control 100% what you are funding when you give the government money.
and if they abuse your money you don't give it to them anymore.
what a world that would be, where the government is held 100% accountable to the people who finance it.