Defend Taxation

[myrkul]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Where's the rental agreement?

Your W-4.

You seem to be mistaken. That is a tax form. It says nothing about tenancy. Moreover, it only applies to a specific subset of the population, of which I may or may not be a part.

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

[FirstAscent]

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

I already answered your question. You make choices when you agree to be paid, pay, or what you choose to own. Just like in your fabled AnCap world, you can agree to enter into contracts and get the benefits, or not, and not get the benefits. In a nation, you can make choices to not earn, to not buy, to not own.

Imagine now, how in your AnCap world, you still have to make those choices, and be bound to the respective contracts.

Really, it all boils down to bundled contracts. You prefer a general unbundling. Fine! Go find a service provider in the world that unbundles it all for you. Note: you should read the last sentence to mean "Go find a nation that unbundles it all for you."

[myrkul]

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

I already answered your question.

Your answer was decidedly a poor one. I can own property without ever once touching a W-4. So, find me a better "rental agreement", and show me where I signed.

[FirstAscent]

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

I already answered your question.

Your answer was decidedly a poor one. I can own property without ever once touching a W-4. So, find me a better "rental agreement", and show me where I signed.

I'll find you a better "rental agreement" when you find me a nation that offers what you want.

[myrkul]

So I say again, if I am a tenant of this nation in which I live, Where is the rental agreement?

I already answered your question.

Your answer was decidedly a poor one. I can own property without ever once touching a W-4. So, find me a better "rental agreement", and show me where I signed.

I'll find you a better "rental agreement" when you find me a nation that offers what you want.

Nice try. But the thread title is not "Defend AnCap" I did that one already. It's "Defend Taxation" and you're failing miserably.

[myrkul]

Government is inevitable. Government = taxation. Therefor the question is moot, but that is no fun is it. So...

I would rather "fund" a good, or at least decent government, than allow a bad one to take over. If one were to take over I would find a way for myself to stop paying taxes.

You asked where your rental agreement is. What makes your biological parents your biological parents? It just is. It is something we all have to live with.

You tell us not to attack ancap. A government without taxation is basically ancap, so it is kinda hard not to attack it.

I don't quite follow you.

I'm not saying "don't attack AnCap", I'm just saying that this is not the thread to do it in. I'm looking, here, for justifications of taxation. Defending taxation on it's own merits, not tearing down other systems.

I find it interesting that you say government is inevitable. Why do you say that?

[myrkul]

So far nobody's given me a decent justification for taxation. The closest has been FirstAscent, and he can't come up with my rental agreement, since he says that's what taxes are, rent to the State, so am I to conclude that Taxation has no justification?

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation.

Is it? I'd say is monopoly over justice (conflict resolution).
Isn't Monaco an example of tax-free state? I'm not sure, but I heard the government revenues in Monaco come exclusively from the prince's investments, properties (like his casino) and things like public parking and traffic tickets. But I'm not sure, you'd better check before believing me.

Anyway, that's not how I'd define a state. You could have a minimal state which doesn't tax, only charges for the particular services it provides and takes money from sources like punishments for having committed an aggression etc.

[myrkul]

The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation.

Is it? I'd say is monopoly over justice (conflict resolution).
Isn't Monaco an example of tax-free state? I'm not sure, but I heard the government revenues in Monaco come exclusively from the prince's investments, properties (like his casino) and things like public parking and traffic tickets. But I'm not sure, you'd better check before believing me.

Oh, you had my hopes up on that one.... I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. (I'd start planning my trip immediately) But, no. Monaco does indeed levy taxes:

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jmcpetx.html

Most notably:

Social insurance contributions payable by employers and employees are high. The employer's contribution is between 28%-40% (averaging 35%) of gross salary including benefits and the employee pays a further 10%-14% (averaging 13%).

Two rates of VAT apply: the normal rate of 19.6% (which is the standard rate in France) and a reduced rate of 5.5%, which applies to water, food products, medicines, books, special equipment for handicapped people, hotel accommodation, public transport services and public entertainment services.

Anyway, that's not how I'd define a state. You could have a minimal state which doesn't tax, only charges for the particular services it provides and takes money from sources like punishments for having committed an aggression etc.

You could, but I doubt most people would recognize it as a State. Certainly, it would not resemble anything we have today.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in.

Please, this is nonsense. It assumes for granted that the state is the legitimate owner of all the territory it controls, which is obviously false.  You can't legitimately own a land you took by force (otherwise you'd be justifying theft by... theft! Brilliant! ). You can't just claim enormous virgin territories as yours either (specially when parts of it are already occupied!).

Every state in this fucked world was established by violence, wars and crimes.  They do not legitimately own the land they claim thus they cannot claim their inhabitants are "tenants".

Actually, to be honest, if you consider Sealand and the Hutt River principalities as actual states, then yeah, these would be the only two examples I know of legitimate states. If you go live there, you can be considered a tenant. I don't know any other example.

EDIT: I forgot to post this video, about the "you can always leave" argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF-awFssf0&list=UUhG0VoTGXAB5gSsR0PHKg8A

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Oh, you had my hopes up on that one.... I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. (I'd start planning my trip immediately) But, no. Monaco does indeed levy taxes:

hehe, sorry for the deception - I'm also disappointed, but well, I should have expected it.

[myrkul]

Actually, to be honest, if you consider Sealand and the Hutt River principalities as actual states, then yeah, these would be the only two examples I know of legitimate states. If you go live there, you can be considered a tenant. I don't know any other example.

Maybe the Conch Republic?

[myrkul]

A lot of arab states have no tax and are funded by the royal families investments. Most of those do tax tobacco and alcohol though because thats just free money from western infidel vices.

UAE: Corporate taxes on Oil companies, mostly (Up to 55%, according to CNBC)
Qatar: 5% social security income tax (employers pay 10%), Tariffs, and they're considering a VAT.
Oman: 6.5 percent social security, 3% "stamp duty" on land purchases.
Kuwait: 7.5% social security income tax (employers pay 11%)

I could go on. but it's just more of the same.

[myrkul]

And who owns the oil companies in the UAE?

I'm gonna be honest. I just don't feel like looking that up.  Still, tax is tax. Foreign banks pay 20%, as well, and there are import duties of up to 10% on non-alcohol or tobacco luxury goods, and as you said, 33% on booze and cigarettes... which most people just avoid by buying black market.

So, still no tax-free country, and still no justification for taxation. Can't say I'm surprised at either.

[FirstAscent]

And who owns the oil companies in the UAE?

I'm gonna be honest. I just don't feel like looking that up.  Still, tax is tax. Foreign banks pay 20%, as well, and there are import duties of up to 10% on non-alcohol or tobacco luxury goods, and as you said, 33% on booze and cigarettes... which most people just avoid by buying black market.

So, still no tax-free country, and still no justification for taxation. Can't say I'm surprised at either.

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no tax society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. But you still have the opportunity to create one. But I doubt you will succeed.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no tax society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size.

FirstAscent in his 17th century version: "So, there's no slavery-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why?  You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no slaves society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "

Or even today: "So, there's no murder-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no murder society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "

But you still have the opportunity to create one. But I doubt you will succeed.

He won't succeed to create a tax-free nation because he'll likely be attacked by forces much stronger than him if he tries. As anyone trying to secede from the antique Roman empire to create a little slavery-free nation would be attacked and conquered.
That doesn't imply slavery or taxation are good or unavoidable. If anything, it only shows that unfortunately we live in a society of criminals.

That said, a seastead that manages to acquire actual sovereignty could be an example of "legitimate state", in which any "tax" they levy wouldn't be coercive and thus wouldn't enter in the definition of taxation OP is talking about. We can only hope they succeed.

[FirstAscent]

That said, a seastead that manages to acquire actual sovereignty could be an example of "legitimate state", in which any "tax" they levy wouldn't be coercive and thus wouldn't enter in the definition of taxation OP is talking about. We can only hope they succeed.

Question: are you so hell bent on eliminating taxes that you'd rather live on a platform in the sea? Be my guest, while I enjoy a hike in the mountains this weekend.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Question: are you so hell bent on eliminating taxes that you'd rather live on a platform in the sea? Be my guest, while I enjoy a hike in the mountains this weekend.

Hum, let me see, earning almost trice* as much as I earn now... I guess I could afford to take a ferry each time I'm willing to visit the mountains.

* Only in direct taxes, deducted from my payment and added to my employer's payroll, I could have 3 times more money. That does not count taxes embedded in things I buy. Of course, living in the sea would have its particular expenses, and I would have to pay for things which currently are covered by taxes. I'm pretty sure the net result can be quite positive though, specially when you take into account the prosperity added by the freer market context.

If seasteading really works out (a big if), it could have strong positive effects on continental governance as well, due to the competition it would generate. Anyways, that's getting too off-topic.

[FirstAscent]

Question: are you so hell bent on eliminating taxes that you'd rather live on a platform in the sea? Be my guest, while I enjoy a hike in the mountains this weekend.

Hum, let me see, earning almost trice* as much as I earn now... I guess I could afford to take a ferry each time I'm willing to visit the mountains.

* Only in direct taxes, deducted from my payment and added to my employer's payroll, I could have 3 times more money. That does not count taxes embedded in things I buy. Of course, living in the sea would have its particular expenses, and I would have to pay for things which currently are covered by taxes. I'm pretty sure the net result can be quite positive though, specially when you take into account the prosperity added by the freer market context.

If seasteading really works out (a big if), it could have strong positive effects on continental governance as well, due to the competition it would generate. Anyways, that's getting too off-topic.

Three times? You need an accountant. Anyway, go live your dream on a converted oil rig or cruise ship. More power to you. I for one, cannot even begin to think that would be more desirable. But I can see for you, the real allure comes from satisfying your ideology, even to the point of putting it before the focus of just enjoying life.

[myrkul]

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why?

Because though it "evolved", as you say, it is wrong, and coercive, and I say, unnecessary. Prove me wrong. That's what this thread is for. And you're still failing miserably.