That's not even necessary. All you have to do is get a big enough voting population that rational ignorance kicks in, then advertise the hell out of your opponent. The one with the most money wins, and hey, guess what, corruption gets you money!
True, with money you can win democracy without outright cheating, but if you can also cheat that's much easier.
Topic: just drop taxes at all (Read 2196 times)
I do not say that a government is automaticly less corrupt, I am saying that they are likely to be less corrupt. Reason is that they need to be reelected by a majority of it's citizens
Not if the electoral system is rigged...I do not say that a government is automaticly less corrupt, I am saying that they are likely to be less corrupt. Reason is that they need to be reelected by a majority of it's citizens
Not if the electoral system is rigged...What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
see http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-03/thought-experiment-why-do-we-bother-paying-personal-taxes
A governments transparency is dependent on it's voters. Most voters are more interested in who rubs which private parts with whom, still I think the alternative without any government would be worse than it is today.
Please tell me that you are not making the false choice between what exists today and zero government, justify your suggestion that government is more productive/better/more transparent/less corrupt etc than private companies? That would be a heck of a false dichotomy.
I have nothing against government. I use their services (though perhaps less then most), but neither would I make the claim that they are automatically less corrupt than a private enterprise, and my personal experience bears this out.
I do not say that a government is automatically less corrupt, I am saying that they are likely to be less corrupt. Reason is that they need to be reelected by a majority of it's citizens instead of it's majority of shareholders. You cannot 51% a government in the same way as a private company where 1 person may own that 51%
Maybe you are right with respect to the subset of governments which are also have democratic institutions, maybe not, however consider this:
If we applied this test to Bitcoin, it would likely die.
The "voters" of the authoritative block chain are those that have invested their time and their energy and their wealth. They are more like shareholders than 1 person 1 vote democracy.
If we put the vote to the general population, Bitcoin, with all the scurrilous press it gets, would be easily 51%-ed.
Those with a vested interest in the success of an operation may also be the ones paying more attention to the details that matter.
Companies may have strict anti-corruption clauses in their contracts which allow for immediate termination on evidence of corruption, democracies have to wait for elections. People are people, being a government worker (which in many societies are more highly paid than private employees and get better benefits, and have more social power) does not make that person less subject to the things which may corrupt them, and quite possibly the opposite. It seems naive to think otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth
this is the whole point: you wont tax them, it is supposed to hit only those with cash in hand. because when someone is poor and its only asset is flat he was working whole life to get one, there is no point to force him to pay for this when he cant or force him to sell this so he can buy cheaper. its not fair to me.
Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.
Prove? Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
Quote
The Congress shall have Power...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
By definition, if the government takes away the Federal Reserve's power to print money (repeals the Federal Reserve Act), they become a counterfeiter and subject to "Punishment" as determined by Congress if they print any more.
Bad idea. What might work is if governments just collected fees on transactions/purchases.
That's regressive too! If your tax falls on poor people doing everyday business, you're hurting them more than even the most honestly and cleverly spent revenue will help.
I know it's counterintuitive, but this is because of what economists call "elasticity". Basically, since poor people NEED those jobs making luxury items and rich people can effortlessly do without them, the "tax burden" falls on the poor.
Even if food were exempt, poor people still buy a lot of the same things as rich people. When you venture into this territory where the government decides what's necessary and what isn't, they usually do so very poorly.
IMHO at this point I think the best way to help the poor without abusing them further would be to provide more unregulated crowdfunding and prediction markets. Since it's optional it won't hurt them, and would solve a lot of public good shortages like immunizations and research for cures (not just treatments). As an added bonus you won't have to argue with the idiots in charge of government.
Has anyone ever thought that although taxes are UNfair to most but it does keep in check naferous elements in societies (a bit). Fees and taxes do slow down money velocity and does keep in check the other kinds of inflation.
It's a bit difficult to explain (and it would benifit the economy at the main street level instead of wall street) I have these arguments with my brother all the time and he does have a point. Not that he is for taxation.
His angle is the social aspects of government as with welfare and the easy money given by governments to lazy people. All the while taking from savers and productive sectors. He believes government workers should never be paid more then the private sector worker and doctors and professionals should not be paid by government either. Interest rates are way to low.
Oh and the big one of all Politicians should be paid less and not get a pension or atleast not one so big. After all they only do work for 3 years and be eligible.
It's a bit difficult to explain (and it would benifit the economy at the main street level instead of wall street) I have these arguments with my brother all the time and he does have a point. Not that he is for taxation.
His angle is the social aspects of government as with welfare and the easy money given by governments to lazy people. All the while taking from savers and productive sectors. He believes government workers should never be paid more then the private sector worker and doctors and professionals should not be paid by government either. Interest rates are way to low.
Oh and the big one of all Politicians should be paid less and not get a pension or atleast not one so big. After all they only do work for 3 years and be eligible.
A governments transparency is dependent on it's voters. Most voters are more interested in who rubs which private parts with whom, still I think the alternative without any government would be worse than it is today.
Please tell me that you are not making the false choice between what exists today and zero government, justify your suggestion that government is more productive/better/more transparent/less corrupt etc than private companies? That would be a heck of a false dichotomy.
I have nothing against government. I use their services (though perhaps less then most), but neither would I make the claim that they are automatically less corrupt than a private enterprise, and my personal experience bears this out.
I do not say that a government is automaticly less corrupt, I am saying that they are likely to be less corrupt. Reason is that they need to be reelected by a majority of it's citizens instead of it's majority of shareholders. You cannot 51% a government in the same way as a private company where 1 person may own that 51%
And they would stay transparent without an enforcing government?
Who knows? We're not likely to ever have the opportunity to find out.
A governments transparency is dependent on it's voters. Most voters are more interested in who rubs which private parts with whom, still I think the alternative without any government would be worse than it is today.
Please tell me that you are not making the false choice between what exists today and zero government, justify your suggestion that government is more productive/better/more transparent/less corrupt etc than private companies? That would be a heck of a false dichotomy.
I have nothing against government. I use their services (though perhaps less then most), but neither would I make the claim that they are automatically less corrupt than a private enterprise, and my personal experience bears this out.
There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.
My experience is different from your assumption.
For example, I have had more items stolen from USPS than from FEDEX or UPS.
The assumption itself seems counter-intuitive. If power corrupts, and governments have more power than private firms, why would you not expect the government to be more corrupt than the private firm (having also courts, police, armies, and the monopoly on the use of force). Are people magically transformed by virtue of government employment to be more saintly in the part of the world where you live? Sounds like a very nice place, but I've never heard of it.
It's mainly that a companys goal(generally) is to make as much profit as possible, and don't need to be transparent. A government is more likely to be transparent and to consider other aspects than pure economics.
Weird place that you live in. It sounds almost unbelievable, we should all go there. Most of the planet companies have transparency requirements that the government enforces, but government does not enforce on itself.
On the issue of profit. In what way is this different in a bad way? It seems a net positive for citizens that share the currency in which the private company operates.
And they would stay transparent without an enforcing government?
A governments transparency is dependent on it's voters. Most voters are more interested in who rubs which private parts with whom, still I think the alternative without any government would be worse than it is today.
There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.
My experience is different from your assumption.
For example, I have had more items stolen from USPS than from FEDEX or UPS.
The assumption itself seems counter-intuitive. If power corrupts, and governments have more power than private firms, why would you not expect the government to be more corrupt than the private firm (having also courts, police, armies, and the monopoly on the use of force). Are people magically transformed by virtue of government employment to be more saintly in the part of the world where you live? Sounds like a very nice place, but I've never heard of it.
It's mainly that a companys goal(generally) is to make as much profit as possible, and don't need to be transparent. A government is more likely to be transparent and to consider other aspects than pure economics.
Weird place that you live in. It sounds almost unbelievable, we should all go there. Most of the planet companies have transparency requirements that the government enforces, but government does not enforce on itself.
On the issue of profit. In what way is this different in a bad way? It seems a net positive for citizens that share the currency in which the private company operates.
Governments spend as much as possible, which is profit to them, but inflation cost to all those who use their currency. At least if a company profits, they either spend the money back into the economy, or hoard it (increasing the value of the money used by others). But the company profit does not inflate the currency. If they make too much profit, this encourages competition which then generates improvements in quality. Government has no competition if it decides it doesn't want it, so no innovation.
I used to argue your exact point, OP.
Now it seems it is too late for this to work, that is, if people learn that an alternative *cough* exists to scrip.
So why was this not tried as you describe it? One reason is that the taxes form the demand base for the scrip currency, adding additional control of the valuation. Another is that the tax guys are different folks than the money guys, and they also need to feed their families, and they also have guns.
Now it seems it is too late for this to work, that is, if people learn that an alternative *cough* exists to scrip.
So why was this not tried as you describe it? One reason is that the taxes form the demand base for the scrip currency, adding additional control of the valuation. Another is that the tax guys are different folks than the money guys, and they also need to feed their families, and they also have guns.
There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.
My experience is different from your assumption.
For example, I have had more items stolen from USPS than from FEDEX or UPS.
The assumption itself seems counter-intuitive. If power corrupts, and governments have more power than private firms, why would you not expect the government to be more corrupt than the private firm (having also courts, police, armies, and the monopoly on the use of force). Are people magically transformed by virtue of government employment to be more saintly in the part of the world where you live? Sounds like a very nice place, but I've never heard of it.
It's mainly that a companys goal(generally) is to make as much profit as possible, and don't need to be transparent. A government is more likely to be transparent and to consider other aspects than pure economics.
There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.
My experience is different from your assumption.
For example, I have had more items stolen from USPS than from FEDEX or UPS.
The assumption itself seems counter-intuitive. If power corrupts, and governments have more power than private firms, why would you not expect the government to be more corrupt than the private firm (having also courts, police, armies, and the monopoly on the use of force). Are people magically transformed by virtue of government employment to be more saintly in the part of the world where you live? Sounds like a very nice place, but I've never heard of it.
Bad idea. What might work is if governments just collected fees on transactions/purchases.
That's regressive too! If your tax falls on poor people doing everyday business, you're hurting them more than even the most honestly and cleverly spent revenue will help.I see your point. If there were only taxation of purchases, food could be exempt. Fees would be higher on luxury items than necessities.
Bad idea. What might work is if governments just collected fees on transactions/purchases.
That's regressive too! If your tax falls on poor people doing everyday business, you're hurting them more than even the most honestly and cleverly spent revenue will help. What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
that would be fake money.In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
the whole point of money, now that it isn't backed by gold, is to be able to pay taxes with it.
if there are no more taxes, then that currency isn't worth anything.
What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
Bad idea. What might work is if governments just collected fees on transactions/purchases.
There are already quite a bit of corruption in the world as is. If private firms were to supply the same services, they would also be corrupt and even more so.
After some time, a lot of workers would be in debt to the companies they work for, and would be forced to shop in the company store.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCen9-RELM
What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps.
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?
Not yet
The main portion of budget goes in money distribution. Govts. are pretty inefficient at doing this. But until we find a better way they will have a dominant position here.
The idea is that technology makes life easier for gov. so they can work with big surpluses to fund communal projects such as infrastructure, education etc.
They may be some bad actors, but I genuinely believe the vast majority have shared goals.
It's up to us to show how this technology can help society...
Jump to: