why do people agree to pay taxes?

[NotLambchop]

...
This topic is overflowing with disinformation.

Former US President George Bush Admits Income Taxes are Voluntary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

[Eisenhower34]

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.

This would not work. We would encounter a tragedy of the commons and no one would pay any taxes but everyone would expect to receive the services that the government provides

no one expects to get free shoes or cars or houses why would people expect to get a free service?
people today buy a bunch of insurance policies they don't even need and you want to tell me they won't spend anything on things like national defense?
if anything they'll spend more than they can afford to.

The services that the government provides are not free, they are paid for by the taxes that citizens pay. The services are also not able to be reasonably purchased by individuals (or even medium sized groups of people) like national defense, food safety, police/fire protection ect. 

[Atdhe]

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.

It is "ok", because government has power. And the ones who have the most power simply can do what they want, because they can. That is power of the definition.

It is not just about governments, it happens across human society. Who has power is the one who has the freedom to use it or not. And the people with power who do not use it lose to other people who use the power, so it is only logical that we are all the time at the edge of totalitarian states.

If a group of people whats to oppose government they need sources in the first place. And the sources would be again something like taxes. It can not be voluntary fee, because most people behave that they want free ride. So this is why every revolution against government will fail, because the new opposition will in short time become the same system abusing power.

[opossum]

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.

It is "ok", because government has power. And the ones who have the most power simply can do what they want, because they can. That is power of the definition.

It is not just about governments, it happens across human society. Who has power is the one who has the freedom to use it or not. And the people with power who do not use it lose to other people who use the power, so it is only logical that we are all the time at the edge of totalitarian states.

If a group of people whats to oppose government they need sources in the first place. And the sources would be again something like taxes. It can not be voluntary fee, because most people behave that they want free ride. So this is why every revolution against government will fail, because the new opposition will in short time become the same system abusing power.

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

[TheButterZone]

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.

It is "ok", because government has power. And the ones who have the most power simply can do what they want, because they can. That is power of the definition.

It is not just about governments, it happens across human society. Who has power is the one who has the freedom to use it or not. And the people with power who do not use it lose to other people who use the power, so it is only logical that we are all the time at the edge of totalitarian states.

If a group of people whats to oppose government they need sources in the first place. And the sources would be again something like taxes. It can not be voluntary fee, because most people behave that they want free ride. So this is why every revolution against government will fail, because the new opposition will in short time become the same system abusing power.

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

Systemic, unbridled human rights violations are not good for society as a whole.

[teukon]

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

How can we know when a thing is "good for society as a whole"?

[opossum]

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.

It is "ok", because government has power. And the ones who have the most power simply can do what they want, because they can. That is power of the definition.

It is not just about governments, it happens across human society. Who has power is the one who has the freedom to use it or not. And the people with power who do not use it lose to other people who use the power, so it is only logical that we are all the time at the edge of totalitarian states.

If a group of people whats to oppose government they need sources in the first place. And the sources would be again something like taxes. It can not be voluntary fee, because most people behave that they want free ride. So this is why every revolution against government will fail, because the new opposition will in short time become the same system abusing power.

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

Systemic, unbridled human rights violations are not good for society as a whole.

Most governments do not engage in this kind of behavior. Most governments will attempt to spend their tax dollars on the good of society in good faith. Also most modern day governments that levy taxes are going to be a democracy so if they are not spending they tax revenue effectively the government will be voted out.

[TheButterZone]

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.

It is "ok", because government has power. And the ones who have the most power simply can do what they want, because they can. That is power of the definition.

It is not just about governments, it happens across human society. Who has power is the one who has the freedom to use it or not. And the people with power who do not use it lose to other people who use the power, so it is only logical that we are all the time at the edge of totalitarian states.

If a group of people whats to oppose government they need sources in the first place. And the sources would be again something like taxes. It can not be voluntary fee, because most people behave that they want free ride. So this is why every revolution against government will fail, because the new opposition will in short time become the same system abusing power.

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

Systemic, unbridled human rights violations are not good for society as a whole.

Most governments do not engage in this kind of behavior. Most governments will attempt to spend their tax dollars on the good of society in good faith. Also most modern day governments that levy taxes are going to be a democracy so if they are not spending they tax revenue effectively the government will be voted out.

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

[pattu1]

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

How can we know when a thing is "good for society as a whole"?

Just try to speculate what would happen if that thing did not exist.
What would happen if there were no taxes and hence no roads were built, no police force was around, etc..

[bf4btc]

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

Engaging in "verifiable" elections would likely result in many people not being able to vote as the process would be much too complicated. You need to remember that everyone has the right to vote not just the people who are educated or who are smart enough how to figure out the process.

[TheButterZone]

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

Engaging in "verifiable" elections would likely result in many people not being able to vote as the process would be much too complicated. You need to remember that everyone has the right to vote not just the people who are educated or who are smart enough how to figure out the process.

So now it's too hard to have a legitimate election? LMFAO, cry me a river of BS excuses!

[teukon]

It is really more about the rule of law and what is good for society as a whole. When the government imposes taxes on it's citizens, it is effectively forcing them to pay for things that is good for society as a whole.

How can we know when a thing is "good for society as a whole"?

Just try to speculate what would happen if that thing did not exist.
What would happen if there were no taxes and hence no roads were built, no police force was around, etc..

I have tried, and I've studied the writings of others that have tried.  I currently believe that, in such a world, life would be significantly better than it is now.  I reject the assumption implicit in your "and hence".

[NotLambchop]

...I currently believe that, in such a world, life would be significantly better than it is now...

And such a world has never existed* because?

*Though Soviet Union & some forms of dictatorship don't technically have taxation, let's not get hung up on such technicalities, k?

[Razick]

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.

The problem is that people who care about rights and understand how things work are usually too busy leading productive lives and being good citizens. The people who have time to do what you suggest enjoy using government force to make up for their laziness and lack of ambition.

[Razick]

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

Engaging in "verifiable" elections would likely result in many people not being able to vote as the process would be much too complicated. You need to remember that everyone has the right to vote not just the people who are educated or who are smart enough how to figure out the process.

I don't disagree, but at the same time, if you are too lazy to put in a little effort to figure out the voting process (assuming it's not unreasonably hard), then you probably aren't willing to put in the work to make informed decisions.

It's amazing that people will complain about the most minor inconveniences for voting and then put someone who makes a mistake in complying with their outrageously complicated tax obligations in jail.

[Erdogan]

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

Engaging in "verifiable" elections would likely result in many people not being able to vote as the process would be much too complicated. You need to remember that everyone has the right to vote not just the people who are educated or who are smart enough how to figure out the process.

I don't disagree, but at the same time, if you are too lazy to put in a little effort to figure out the voting process (assuming it's not unreasonably hard), then you probably aren't willing to put in the work to make informed decisions.

It's amazing that people will complain about the most minor inconveniences for voting and then put someone who makes a mistake in complying with their outrageously complicated tax obligations in jail.

I have figured out the voting process: 1 you vote 2 nothing happens.

[Nicolas Dorier]

The problem is that people who care about rights and understand how things work are usually too busy leading productive lives and being good citizens. The people who have time to do what you suggest enjoy using government force to make up for their laziness and lack of ambition.

Well, this don't have to be that way.
Say every citizen vote on a screen Candidate A, B, and C.
After the vote, they get back an id called "proof of vote".

With such id the citizen can check in the blockchain that his vote is taken into account, without revealing to others.
If the citizen is too lazy to check by himself in the blockchain he can trust other services that do so on his behalf.

Such ID can even include clues about the location of the voter so we can get accurate aggregate of vote by state/region/city.

The citizen does not have to know about the plumbing. Just to trust that the majority of people don't want to cheat the vote, and if they do, then why would they cheat since they are the majority ? (As contrary to now, where one well connected politician is enough to cheat the vote)

[Razick]

Every single government does engage in human rights violations, and then immunizes itself via the law and/or kangaroo courts, in bad faith. Every "democracy" on earth refuses to conduct E2EE verifiable elections, which ensures the worst possible evil (that counts the votes, pays the judges and enforcers) cannot be defeated.

Stop rejecting reality and substituting your own utopia.

Engaging in "verifiable" elections would likely result in many people not being able to vote as the process would be much too complicated. You need to remember that everyone has the right to vote not just the people who are educated or who are smart enough how to figure out the process.

I don't disagree, but at the same time, if you are too lazy to put in a little effort to figure out the voting process (assuming it's not unreasonably hard), then you probably aren't willing to put in the work to make informed decisions.

It's amazing that people will complain about the most minor inconveniences for voting and then put someone who makes a mistake in complying with their outrageously complicated tax obligations in jail.

I have figured out the voting process: 1 you vote 2 nothing happens.

Nothing happens? In 2008 voters managed to trample quite a few of my rights... I'd say it's an impressive accomplishment personally.

[kjj]

The problem is that people who care about rights and understand how things work are usually too busy leading productive lives and being good citizens. The people who have time to do what you suggest enjoy using government force to make up for their laziness and lack of ambition.

Well, this don't have to be that way.
Say every citizen vote on a screen Candidate A, B, and C.
After the vote, they get back an id called "proof of vote".

With such id the citizen can check in the blockchain that his vote is taken into account, without revealing to others.
If the citizen is too lazy to check by himself in the blockchain he can trust other services that do so on his behalf.

Such ID can even include clues about the location of the voter so we can get accurate aggregate of vote by state/region/city.

The citizen does not have to know about the plumbing. Just to trust that the majority of people don't want to cheat the vote, and if they do, then why would they cheat since they are the majority ? (As contrary to now, where one well connected politician is enough to cheat the vote)

There are reasons why voting is done in private, and why it is impossible to carry proof of a specific vote away.  Whatever one hopes to gain with "verifiable voting" isn't worth giving that up.

Paper ballots are a better solution all around.

[TheButterZone]

For shredding/burning/disappearing if they're from big birds, sure.