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...
But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend
Now that's a silly statement. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.Prove?
I heard the opposite, without lifting the debt limit, government can't even borrow money from FED. Government can apoint FED chairman, but they can't interfer FED's movement
If the ultimate tax is hyperinflation, Bitcoin's some kind of government kryptonite.
Crypto-nite?
You'll get much farther once you do the following:
1. Stop saying we. You are not me, so stop speaking for me. Say "I", as in "I need to be taxed", as it sounds much better and less crazy. When you say we, it makes me believe that you're okay with people being robbed, as long as you're not the only one getting shafted.
2. There is nothing the government offers that must be forced upon us, nor is there anything the government offers which cannot be taken care of by the private sect. If we truly need the services provided by the government, and many of them I believe we do, then it would be difficult to believe that the market could not handle these services.
Example: I like protection. I want to pay an entity to protect me when something bad happens. Right now, I'm not only forced to pay for protection, but if I don't like the service, tough! The government is the top dog on security, and even if I hired a private security firm to protect me, they must ultimately answer to the men on top, none of which I've elected to protect me, none of which I wish to pay, and whose services I do not want, yet would have to pay for on top of private security. If the services provided by all forms of government through tax are enough to pay for both an oversized military and local police, and highway police, and constables and sheriffs, all through the little bites taken out of every dollar I earn, would I not then, if I were no longer taxed, earn enough to pay for these services on my own, if I truly wanted them?
3. If the men in power adjusted taxes, do you truly believe they will do it in the average Joe's favor? And if they did, how long do you believe, given the political history of, say, America, that these tax changes will remain until they begin to change again? It would be better to simply remove the ability for the men in power to tax, and to strive for a system as explained in point 2. This way, there's no opportunity for a central source of power to become corrupt, as we've seen happen time and time again, as there would be no central source with enough power for bribery to be a lucrative investment. In this case, it would be the average Joe who has all the power, and he would have little power: ideally, only enough power to alter his own life, and no one else's.
Crypto-nite?
We need taxes, they just have to be adjusted, severely!!
You'll get much farther once you do the following:
1. Stop saying we. You are not me, so stop speaking for me. Say "I", as in "I need to be taxed", as it sounds much better and less crazy. When you say we, it makes me believe that you're okay with people being robbed, as long as you're not the only one getting shafted.
2. There is nothing the government offers that must be forced upon us, nor is there anything the government offers which cannot be taken care of by the private sect. If we truly need the services provided by the government, and many of them I believe we do, then it would be difficult to believe that the market could not handle these services.
Example: I like protection. I want to pay an entity to protect me when something bad happens. Right now, I'm not only forced to pay for protection, but if I don't like the service, tough! The government is the top dog on security, and even if I hired a private security firm to protect me, they must ultimately answer to the men on top, none of which I've elected to protect me, none of which I wish to pay, and whose services I do not want, yet would have to pay for on top of private security. If the services provided by all forms of government through tax are enough to pay for both an oversized military and local police, and highway police, and constables and sheriffs, all through the little bites taken out of every dollar I earn, would I not then, if I were no longer taxed, earn enough to pay for these services on my own, if I truly wanted them?
3. If the men in power adjusted taxes, do you truly believe they will do it in the average Joe's favor? And if they did, how long do you believe, given the political history of, say, America, that these tax changes will remain until they begin to change again? It would be better to simply remove the ability for the men in power to tax, and to strive for a system as explained in point 2. This way, there's no opportunity for a central source of power to become corrupt, as we've seen happen time and time again, as there would be no central source with enough power for bribery to be a lucrative investment. In this case, it would be the average Joe who has all the power, and he would have little power: ideally, only enough power to alter his own life, and no one else's.
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.
but overall i understand hyperinflation problem but the answer is not that easy because it all depends on economy and how much money is frozen in not used bank accounts etc.
besides some things can be done like in anarcho-capitalism where people pay for themselves for services and only few most important like army which have to be centralised is paid from government printed money. and army is needed as long as there are other countries that have one.
But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend
Now that's a silly statement. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.
OP has a valid point, printing more money is equivalent to a tax, so all the taxes could be combined into one simple form: currency tax
But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend
And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth
But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend
And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?
http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100
Because inflation is addictive, and just like heroin, once you get started, it takes more and more to get the same effect.
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?
We need taxes, they just have to be adjusted, severely!!
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
examples of hyper inflated countries provided here before didn't included economy free of taxes as far as i know or they simply made other errors in the process - i don't know what they were buying with that printed money but i guess they didn't spent them in favour of people who live there.
The problem isn´t errors in process, the problem is error in your model. The more money is in circulation the less this money is worth anything. The government is spending tax money for processes in the economy. A bridge, a road, a salary for administration workers, teachers, military, social welfare etc. requires money someone spends. You could erase taxes and pay for everything you use out of your own pocket - in theory. So you need a road. Do you build that for your own? I doubt that. So you pay for said road with a lot of others who also need roads. Of course you could call your share of road building costs anything else but taxes - for feel good. Or you call it tax, enjoy your road and get over the fact, that a modern society doesn´t live in the Wild West anymore
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea. my idea has big advantage: its simple and hits rich while letting poor ones to live easier. but i guess governmemts are not interested to willingly give up taxes and let they slaves go away.
It doesn't hit the rich while letting the poor live easy. Inflation is regressive. If you're forcing people to accept it this is a tax, and if you're not then no one will use it.
Better ideas include a different choice for the single tax, no taxes at all, or just keeping the existing complicated tax system.
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe?- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
examples of hyper inflated countries provided here before didn't included economy free of taxes as far as i know or they simply made other errors in the process - i don't know what they were buying with that printed money but i guess they didn't spent them in favour of people who live there.
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe? - in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one 
If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
No taxes, no inflation, and best of all, no jack-booted thugs.
Quote
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
What about inflation?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
Printing money is a tax. It essentially removes value from your pocket. Yes, you have bills of exactly the same denomination in your pocket as before, but suddenly they're worth much less. Unlike something like income tax, which can be challenged if it is unfair or done without due process, inflation is a completely silent tax that you have no say over or way to fight. Now, nobody likes paying taxes, but the "printing money" tax is particularly pernicious. It is also particularly "addictive" for governments, some of which become the printing money addict equivalent of crackheads, like your example of Zimbabwe, or Germany right before the Nazis. Arguably, hyperinflation from irresponsible money-printing was one of the main causes of the rise of the Nazis.
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
No taxes, no inflation, and best of all, no jack-booted thugs.
Quote
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.
but its just ideas thrown in the air.
So your idea to fix something is by your own admission not something which actually fixes it at all? Well done. Good thinking.
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe
sure im open for anything that works but this thread is about taxless inflationary currency.
i started topic earlier about p2p government also. if i could combine that two, i would allow people to decide how much they think would be fair earning for government and other things paid from budget and how much money are needed to be printed for country to function ...
but its just ideas thrown in the air.
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it?they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
Why not encourage one which won't break?
Or are you just trolling?
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea. my idea has big advantage: its simple and hits rich while letting poor ones to live easier. but i guess governmemts are not interested to willingly give up taxes and let they slaves go away.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
Why not encourage one which won't break?
Or are you just trolling?
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one
If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it? this is true but the difference is that printing powers would be in government hands who spends on your education or health centres, hospitals etc. you have to trust them like you are doing now that they will do it taking responsibility for their actions.
lol. yes, I "trust" the government. That's why I don't get into all this bitcoin silliness. Oh wait a sec...
look at governments now and how much debt they have and rising, or hospitals debt etc. who is going to pay for this?
No-one ultimately. And these systems will break down at some future point. Be ready.
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
this is true but the difference is that printing powers would be in government hands who spends on your education or health centres, hospitals etc. you have to trust them like you are doing now that they will do it taking responsibility for their actions. there is no system that stupid people cant break down.
look at governments now and how much debt they have and rising, or hospitals debt etc. who is going to pay for this?
Today, inflation+tax pays for it. In the end game, the poor. They pay because they are those who have the least choice in what currency they are holding when someone has to be left holding the bag. They won't have gold, land, or hard assets. They will have a lot of paper currency.
Paper currency are debt instruments. So the holders of them are owed a debt. The debt is only payable in more debt, and so they trade these debt notes around for what they need to live.
the poor spend money as soon as they earn it or live off the debt anyway. but they have to pay taxes on top of it. its easy to calculate, when you earn money you have to pay (depending on country i assume average 50% tax total, some more?) so what if you wouldnt have to pay taxes, you would earn 2x more, which means you could afford 2x more bread or clothes or anything you need. which in turn means that country doesnt need to help that much to poor people like it does now => cheaper country
on the other hand rich people have many ways to avoid taxes but with higher inflation they couldnt do this at all. they would have to invest money in something instead of having them in tax free heavens ...
this is true but the difference is that printing powers would be in government hands who spends on your education or health centres, hospitals etc. you have to trust them like you are doing now that they will do it taking responsibility for their actions.
lol. yes, I "trust" the government. That's why I don't get into all this bitcoin silliness. Oh wait a sec...
look at governments now and how much debt they have and rising, or hospitals debt etc. who is going to pay for this?
No-one ultimately. And these systems will break down at some future point. Be ready.
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
this is true but the difference is that printing powers would be in government hands who spends on your education or health centres, hospitals etc. you have to trust them like you are doing now that they will do it taking responsibility for their actions. there is no system that stupid people cant break down.
look at governments now and how much debt they have and rising, or hospitals debt etc. who is going to pay for this?
Today, inflation+tax pays for it. In the end game, the poor. They pay because they are those who have the least choice in what currency they are holding when someone has to be left holding the bag. They won't have gold, land, or hard assets. They will have a lot of paper currency.
Paper currency are debt instruments. So the holders of them are owed a debt. The debt is only payable in more debt, and so they trade these debt notes around for what they need to live.
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
this is true but the difference is that printing powers would be in government hands who spends on your education or health centres, hospitals etc. you have to trust them like you are doing now that they will do it taking responsibility for their actions. there is no system that stupid people cant break down.
look at governments now and how much debt they have and rising, or hospitals debt etc. who is going to pay for this?
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could? - cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
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?
What about inflation?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?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
everything can be calculated: how much it cost to collect taxes, how much is lost because people are avoiding them and what inflation printing would make
Inflation never hits everyone equally.
Inflation hits those furthest from the currency issuer the hardest, always.
The first person to spend a newly created unit of currency spends it into an economy that has not adjusted its prices to accommodate that new unit of currency. The second person to spend that newly created unit of currency, if they spend it anywhere other than with the creator, is also spending it into an unadjusted economy. But as this progresses, out and away from the currency creator the economy adjusts.
I would be fine with this non-taxing government that issued its own inflating currency.
As long as I am not forced to use their currency.
As long as I am not forced to use their currency.
This and this is the problem. Is the US did this (and other currency issuers didn't) then Americans would as quickly as possible exchange USD for BTC, EUR, etc. This reduces demand for the dollar drives the value down and inflation up. The only way a country "could" finance itself solely by printing/inflation would be absolute capital controls even then there those looking to escape would do so by buying commodities (primarily precious metals).
What they are doing now, even they consider it a last resort.
Look, you monetary novices come along every so often with this exact idea. It's not new. And it's not a good idea.
It won't be applied evenly. The more financially astute will benefit while those less financially astute will suffer. It will destabilise the currency just like what is happening now, which if not halted will eventually lead to a complete loss of confidence in the currency.
Look, you monetary novices come along every so often with this exact idea. It's not new. And it's not a good idea.
It won't be applied evenly. The more financially astute will benefit while those less financially astute will suffer. It will destabilise the currency just like what is happening now, which if not halted will eventually lead to a complete loss of confidence in the currency.
As pointed out countries with unlimited ability to print money generally end up printing a nearly unlimited amount. Tax collection being difficult acts as a constraint on the system. It is well known that as the level of tax burden increases the amount of tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal) increases. This reduces the effective collected taxes. Excessive taxation also leads to capital flows, companies and investors decide to leave a location in favor of one which is "business friendly".
Obviously this system isn't perfect but you can think of the difficulty in collecting taxes as a safety valve on government spending. In the US the major problem is that the US has too good of a credit history. The T-bond is still seen as a safe haven (least bad option) this means the government can borrow record amounts at negligible rates. So while tax burden hasn't significantly increases, spending has exploded because of the ease in borrowing. Expenditures = Revenue + Debt. Revenue hasn't significantly increased so the increase in expenditures has gone directly to debt financing.
As long as the US govt can borrow trillions @ less than the rate of inflation don't expect debt financing to be seen as unattractive and thus it won't provide a cap on spending. However eventually rates will go up and the difficulty in borrowing combined with the difficulty in collecting additional taxes will constrain spending ... well at least in theory. There has never been a country which just printed without limit that lasted more than a decade. Not rome, not Germany, not Zimbabwe. History has shown that without some constraint on spending government inevitably overpsend and fail.
Obviously this system isn't perfect but you can think of the difficulty in collecting taxes as a safety valve on government spending. In the US the major problem is that the US has too good of a credit history. The T-bond is still seen as a safe haven (least bad option) this means the government can borrow record amounts at negligible rates. So while tax burden hasn't significantly increases, spending has exploded because of the ease in borrowing. Expenditures = Revenue + Debt. Revenue hasn't significantly increased so the increase in expenditures has gone directly to debt financing.
As long as the US govt can borrow trillions @ less than the rate of inflation don't expect debt financing to be seen as unattractive and thus it won't provide a cap on spending. However eventually rates will go up and the difficulty in borrowing combined with the difficulty in collecting additional taxes will constrain spending ... well at least in theory. There has never been a country which just printed without limit that lasted more than a decade. Not rome, not Germany, not Zimbabwe. History has shown that without some constraint on spending government inevitably overpsend and fail.
I would be fine with this non-taxing government that issued its own inflating currency.
As long as I am not forced to use their currency.
As long as I am not forced to use their currency.
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?
What about inflation?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?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
everything can be calculated: how much it cost to collect taxes, how much is lost because people are avoiding them and what inflation printing would make
Wiemar Germany
Zimbabwe
Chile
Nicaragua
Greece
Hungary
Those are all examples of why this is a bad idea.
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
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?
What about inflation?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?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
everything can be calculated: how much it cost to collect taxes, how much is lost because people are avoiding them and what inflation printing would make
Wiemar Germany
Zimbabwe
Chile
Nicaragua
Greece
Hungary
Those are all examples of why this is a bad idea.
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?
Give the government an unlimited license to counterfeit as much money as they want? Couldn't possibly go wrong...
like now everything works great
and system is overcomplicated too
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?
Give the government an unlimited license to counterfeit as much money as they want? Couldn't possibly go wrong...
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?
What about inflation?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?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
everything can be calculated: how much it cost to collect taxes, how much is lost because people are avoiding them and what inflation printing would make
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?
What about inflation?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?
(Zimbabwe, they printed too much money)
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?
Jump to: