I think income tax has a relatively good purpose, it might not make a lot of people happier
but on the long run, income tax can generally aid tax payers on wider scale.. it has to.
This is here is a never-ending debate, I mean everyone has strong opinions on the subject matter and everyone is right about it.
Whether were right or wrong, the government has all the undisputed power and is the one that clearly needs convincing on what we all are
saying and imposing here.
Topic: Should income tax be abolished? (Read 1178 times)
I don't think it should be abolished. It just need to be improved and made fairly. As we know the taxation seems unfair, there are many people in poor should pay for it. If it is abolished, then how the government funds the official civil such as police and soldier because the their salary is all from the tax income.
Answer on this question can be yes and now at the same time. It's needed to have taxes for health care, street's infrastructure and a lot but now think about this: How are those collected taxes wasted? It's wasted in producing weapons, funding military services, funding some shit non-government organizations, money laundering and a lot. Why does that happens? Because it's our nature, we don't like piece, otherwise there would be no need of having soldiers or working on weapons in this world. So for this reasons money is wasted, wasted for something that we can fix manually but our mentality is far from it. So since we live in this world, to avoid more unwanted things, we need taxes and I already wrote reasons in first line of my post.
Criminals in power wouldn't need to worry because said power allows them to avoid consequences for their criminal acts.
That's a perfect description of what's wrong with the state.
Ok, so if it's not a vacuum then what or who is holding power in your proposed system? Don't say "morality" please. Even a tiny "immoral" minority would quickly rise to the top and take control.
Well, codified morality is supposedly what gives the state system legitimacy, and guess what, a tiny immoral minority quickly rose to the top and took control.
My answer is that there would be no overall control, but that doesn't mean society would instantly collapse (although fans of the state believe this). If human beings are so cold hearted that only the law prevents them from behaving anti-socially or unethically, societies could never have had a chance to become established at all. Humans are social animals, and the social norms are inherent traits, not cultural, just as with all social animals.
Given the many examples of failed states and the lack of evidence that a libertarian construct of some sort prevented any such collapse I think it's safe to say that what you're suggesting does not and likely cannot exist.
So the thief is unable to get a job or buy food. What do you expect would happen then?
I think the thieves and other moral transgressors would hang out together and plot. That would be a difficult problem to solve.
My answer was that in a system with functioning law enforcement a person would be more likely to use it rather than go vigilante.
That's not an answer to the question I asked.
It's an answer albeit one you don't agree with. If the aggrieved person can go to the police with a reasonable expectation that the dispute can be resolved then that person would be less likely to assault the alleged perpetrator.
You don't seem to want to tackle the point; law enforcement cannot be reasonably expected to prevent altercations over property disputes, especially not in a rural setting. That's another difficult problem to solve, don't try to imply that a police force solves it, they can only act after the fact.
Angry people (or those jealous of another's property) simply don't find law enforcement to be a deterrent to acting on those emotions, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone in prison having done so (and a majority of people are in prison for just that; acting on an emotionally driven whim). These people know they'll likely be caught, but essentially accept the risk and do it anyway. The law does not solve the problem, people know it's unproductive and wrong, and they still do it.
Angry people (or those jealous of another's property) simply don't find law enforcement to be a deterrent to acting on those emotions, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone in prison having done so (and a majority of people are in prison for just that; acting on an emotionally driven whim). These people know they'll likely be caught, but essentially accept the risk and do it anyway. The law does not solve the problem, people know it's unproductive and wrong, and they still do it.
Functioning law enforcement and legal system can and does mitigate physical altercations, particularly over mundane matters such as property disputes. That's literally what a sheriff's department in a podunk county responds to most of the time. Theft and assault.
I think what you're trying to say is that the prevention is not 100%. It never would be, it's always a work in progress and improvements are welcome. However I don't agree that your suggestion of ditching publicly-funded law enforcement in favor of vigilante/private enforcement would be an improvement.
Criminals in power wouldn't need to worry because said power allows them to avoid consequences for their criminal acts.
That's a perfect description of what's wrong with the state.
Ok, so if it's not a vacuum then what or who is holding power in your proposed system? Don't say "morality" please. Even a tiny "immoral" minority would quickly rise to the top and take control.
Well, codified morality is supposedly what gives the state system legitimacy, and guess what, a tiny immoral minority quickly rose to the top and took control.
My answer is that there would be no overall control, but that doesn't mean society would instantly collapse (although fans of the state believe this). If human beings are so cold hearted that only the law prevents them from behaving anti-socially or unethically, societies could never have had a chance to become established at all. Humans are social animals, and the social norms are inherent traits, not cultural, just as with all social animals.
So the thief is unable to get a job or buy food. What do you expect would happen then?
I think the thieves and other moral transgressors would hang out together and plot. That would be a difficult problem to solve.
My answer was that in a system with functioning law enforcement a person would be more likely to use it rather than go vigilante.
That's not an answer to the question I asked.
You don't seem to want to tackle the point; law enforcement cannot be reasonably expected to prevent altercations over property disputes, especially not in a rural setting. That's another difficult problem to solve, don't try to imply that a police force solves it, they can only act after the fact.
Angry people (or those jealous of another's property) simply don't find law enforcement to be a deterrent to acting on those emotions, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone in prison having done so (and a majority of people are in prison for just that; acting on an emotionally driven whim). These people know they'll likely be caught, but essentially accept the risk and do it anyway. The law does not solve the problem, people know it's unproductive and wrong, and they still do it.
Criminals are worried about being identified as perpetrators of criminal acts. And I'm not advocating for a power vaccuum, where did you get that idea?Criminals in power wouldn't need to worry because said power allows them to avoid consequences for their criminal acts.
Ok, so if it's not a vacuum then what or who is holding power in your proposed system? Don't say "morality" please. Even a tiny "immoral" minority would quickly rise to the top and take control.
So what would those consequences be and how would the society apply those consequences?
Well, if everyone knows someone is a thief, they're going to behave differently towards them in many ways. Many people will not help a known thief when they need help. Many people will not allow a thief into their place of work, either to work or as a customer.
So the thief is unable to get a job or buy food. What do you expect would happen then?
You're not answering the question.
In a state system, it's highly unlikely the police would arrive in time to prevent the confrontation, they would likely be collecting evidence for serious assault or murder. In an anarchistic system, it would be no different, a private security service would be unlikely to prevent a rural confrontation. So it's not such a great example really.
In a state system, it's highly unlikely the police would arrive in time to prevent the confrontation, they would likely be collecting evidence for serious assault or murder. In an anarchistic system, it would be no different, a private security service would be unlikely to prevent a rural confrontation. So it's not such a great example really.
My answer was that in a system with functioning law enforcement a person would be more likely to use it rather than go vigilante.
I'd say that law enforcement is one of the factors deterring people from stealing.
It's far more complicated than that. But if we are to simplify it, I would disagree thusly; the main factor dterring people from stealing is not law enforcement, but morality.
A power vacuum is typically filled by criminals, not someone who would be worried about being identified.
Criminals are worried about being identified as perpetrators of criminal acts. And I'm not advocating for a power vaccuum, where did you get that idea?So what would those consequences be and how would the society apply those consequences?
Well, if everyone knows someone is a thief, they're going to behave differently towards them in many ways. Many people will not help a known thief when they need help. Many people will not allow a thief into their place of work, either to work or as a customer.
Maybe a better scenario might be: self sufficient farmer believes that a neighbor stole from them, and confronts them in anger. Can we reasonably expect third-party intervention to prevent this conflict, in a state system or an anarchist system?
Yes, a reasonable person would go to the police and would let them do their job.
You're not answering the question.
In a state system, it's highly unlikely the police would arrive in time to prevent the confrontation, they would likely be collecting evidence for serious assault or murder. In an anarchistic system, it would be no different, a private security service would be unlikely to prevent a rural confrontation. So it's not such a great example really.
Let's say a self-sufficient farmer is not totally benevolent and decides to steal from their neighbor. Who's gonna enforce property rights? I'm assuming we're not doing away with those rights. Is the neighbor supposed to go over to the thief's house or hire some thugs and take their property back by force? Wouldn't that be worse than publicly-funded police?
Well, first principles would be knowing your neighbor and securing your property appropriately, but let's say we accept your premise.
What makes you think that state police are a perfect solution to this problem, or a perfect deterrent? Situations such as you describe happen now. So why don't we all steal from our neighbors, we stand to gain more property for ourselves after all?
I didn't say it's perfect. No system is perfect. But I'd say that law enforcement is one of the factors deterring people from stealing.
In reality, few people inclined to theft would do what you describe anyway. The most reliable way of keeping the gains of theft is to conceal the identity of the thief, letting the victim identity the thief carries risks for the thief, no matter what. Your described scenario is a recipe for the thief to suffer the consequences, regardless of the societal system, so it's not an especially meaningful example.
That's pretty much the opposite of reality. A power vacuum is typically filled by criminals, not someone who would be worried about being identified. So what would those consequences be and how would the society apply those consequences?
Maybe a better scenario might be: self sufficient farmer believes that a neighbor stole from them, and confronts them in anger. Can we reasonably expect third-party intervention to prevent this conflict, in a state system or an anarchist system?
Yes, a reasonable person would go to the police and would let them do their job.
So you're all acknowledging that democratic government is unfair and/or corrupt in various ways, yet you don't see a problem with using the present system to change it?
When did we say we don't want to change it? And that doesn't mean yours wouldn't be unfair and corrupt either. There would be just as much corruption if not more so in your system. You're just swapping big government for a smaller one or 'committees' or 'clans' or 'gangs' or whatever sort of order you would set up to get things done like roads and parks and so on. Who will regulate the people you hire and the things like insurance companies and stop them from all the shady practices they will engage in to screw the customer? Who will regulate your park committees that get too big for their boots and when they start enforcing their way of life over others? There's so many things wrong with the way you want things to be that I could write a book about it.
Voting simply doesn't work as a democratic mechanism, it's too easy to tempt the majority of the electorate with trinkets. The majority aren't competitive, so they don't really want a meritocratic system. You're all arguing, really, for the continuation of the status quo: a tiny percentage of people, who are personal friends of the political class, dominating everyone else.
If voting doesn't work then why would your model be any better? Voting gives everyone a say and the equal right to make their voice heard, not hope the people can work it out amongst themselves. I'm sure the residents or whoever the head or 'leader' of RichTown or PoorTown can be tempted with the same sort of trinkets. Those big corporations who are looking for your town's business will just throw the same sort of bribes they do at politicians. There will almost certainly be voting going on in your system just in a smaller capacity. What happens when half of your neighborhood wants to spend the money on a swimming pool and the others want a lake? What happens when your park committee wants a couple of swings and the others want slides? Who gets the final say? Does it go to a vote or does nothing get done because you all can't agree? The democratic process is usually the best thing to do in these sorts of situations because everyone gets their say. It's obviously not perfect because everyone can't get their own way and votes can be bought, but neither is what you want either. No system is perfect but I know which one functions better and which would I'd hate to live in.
@Guybrush: you cannot expect me to debate you if you distort what I say, or outright put words in my mouth. It cannot be reasonably expected that you will behave ethically, and so I will not dignify such deceptive behavior. You are dishonest.
Fair enough, but that's just a cheap way of getting out of having to make an watertight argument, but that's to be expected. Let me know when you've actually written the manifesto and I'll show you everything that's wrong with it. Your system doesn't work and is a libertarian fantasy pipe dream, but in the meantime do some research on the list of countries above and maybe go visit them and see which is more to your taste. But I'll save you the time and money: None of them will be.
Let's say a self-sufficient farmer is not totally benevolent and decides to steal from their neighbor. Who's gonna enforce property rights? I'm assuming we're not doing away with those rights. Is the neighbor supposed to go over to the thief's house or hire some thugs and take their property back by force? Wouldn't that be worse than publicly-funded police?
Well, first principles would be knowing your neighbor and securing your property appropriately, but let's say we accept your premise.
What makes you think that state police are a perfect solution to this problem, or a perfect deterrent? Situations such as you describe happen now. So why don't we all steal from our neighbors, we stand to gain more property for ourselves after all?
In reality, few people inclined to theft would do what you describe anyway. The most reliable way of keeping the gains of theft is to conceal the identity of the thief, letting the victim identity the thief carries risks for the thief, no matter what. Your described scenario is a recipe for the thief to suffer the consequences, regardless of the societal system, so it's not an especially meaningful example.
Maybe a better scenario might be: self sufficient farmer believes that a neighbor stole from them, and confronts them in anger. Can we reasonably expect third-party intervention to prevent this conflict, in a state system or an anarchist system?
So you're all acknowledging that democratic government is unfair and/or corrupt in various ways, yet you don't see a problem with using the present system to change it?
Voting simply doesn't work as a democratic mechanism, it's too easy to tempt the majority of the electorate with trinkets. The majority aren't competitive, so they don't really want a meritocratic system. You're all arguing, really, for the continuation of the status quo: a tiny percentage of people, who are personal friends of the political class, dominating everyone else.
@Guybrush: you cannot expect me to debate you if you distort what I say, or outright put words in my mouth. It cannot be reasonably expected that you will behave ethically, and so I will not dignify such deceptive behavior. You are dishonest.
Voting simply doesn't work as a democratic mechanism, it's too easy to tempt the majority of the electorate with trinkets. The majority aren't competitive, so they don't really want a meritocratic system. You're all arguing, really, for the continuation of the status quo: a tiny percentage of people, who are personal friends of the political class, dominating everyone else.
@Guybrush: you cannot expect me to debate you if you distort what I say, or outright put words in my mouth. It cannot be reasonably expected that you will behave ethically, and so I will not dignify such deceptive behavior. You are dishonest.
Plus, I never said I believe in a system which threatens people's lives. If you don't pay taxes, yes, there are consequences. But I also believe in a system where if you don't agree w/ the tax policies of a specific country, you are able to leave said country and not pay those taxes.
So, you don't believe in a system that threatens people that don't pay, yet you accept that there are "consequences" (i.e. threats) if you refuse?
And if you disagree and with to leave, you cannot leave without the state's permission (and 2 separate offices, the passport office and the border police, grant you permission to leave. Or not). That's not democracy, that's a protection racket.
You're speaking past-tense (as in the user is deciding this after already owing tax & living in the country). I'm speaking forward. If you live in a country, and you don't like the tax system, leave, but pay current tax owage until the point you leave.
If you'd prefer to stay within the country, reap the benefits of social programs, and then not pay tax, then yes: there should be consequences. I'm not suggesting consequences such as life endangerment, or anything crazy. I'm suggesting additional penalties, fees, etc. I think the threat argument is kind of rash, as that is often the very very last resort.
Let's face it, there are plenty of different tax systems around the world. Some which may be more advantageous to specific users. If you don't like the tax system within your country, you can move to this specific locations (where in many circumstances, you can buy citizenship for the most part).
As for permission to leave, I don't agree w/ that, and never suggested that I believe that. Provided you haven't committed any serious crimes/offenses (and have paid taxes owed), I believe you should be freely able to move to other countries / change citizenship w/o massive oversight.
There's a common sense approach to everything, but no would should stay in a country, not paying tax (law of the land), and then leave scot-free without paying anything. That's simply abuse of the system.
As for people who live w/o the government's help & w/o social services, I believe there should be some exceptions. However, even if you live 100% off the grid, and use 0 social services, you still are protected by your countries government, etc, and as such there is a cost to that. It's virtually impossible to live in a modern country without using any services by the government (protection, etc).
The word Libertarian is obviously a word which stretches many walks of life. I don't believe in 0 government/0 tax. I just believe in a more optimized system w/ less waste/abuse of tax payers money, and less government.
Well Guybrush, it seems that you can't make a rational arguement, and prefer to rely on dismissive witticism or straw man arguments instead.
I think it's you that hasn't made a rational argument. Write or show me your libertarian manifesto for the perfect utopian society and I'll gladly pick it apart. You don't have one and it wouldn't work how you wanted it even if you did. All you've really said so far is "buy insurance" but haven't answered any of my issues with that satisfactorily. You haven't said what happens to all the others that can't afford these things. A society benefits when we all chip in for the greater good. The current system isn't perfect but neither is anarchy where everyone fends for themselves and pays for everything out of their own pockets.
Insurance is a perfect example; it's very similar to a socialised system in fact, except that there is no compulsion to pay for private insurance and also more than one organisation providing. Or, if local people wanted to look after a place they wanted publicly available (e.g. a park or a lake), paying in to a joint ownership/maintenance scheme would be in everyone's interests, as it improves the lives of all the people within a certain range. These are collectivist ideas at root, but implemented in a way that incentivises a good use of resources. And disincentivises corruption.
Insurance isn't a perfect example. We've been through all this before and why it might work for you if you're sufficiently wealthy enough but not everybody else. The local inhabitants of RichTown probably wouldn't have any problem getting together for a nice town meeting with tea and cakes and fundraising for a nice park/lake in their suburban dream neighborhood, but what about those residents there who don't care for a lake or park so don't pay? Are they then not allowed to use it or go near it? How do you police them from not using it? 24/7 security at the park gates checking everybodies ID and wristbands? What about the residents of the next borough along in PoorTown who would really like a park and lake but can't afford it? Screw them? What happens if they want to use your park? Oh no, that's not allowed. Go build your own. How would your park rangers deal with these non-paying residents? Would your park rangers just politely turn them away? Would they use violent enforcement if the refused to leave or pay to use your park? The same applies to schools, hospitals, roads and everything else.
Also, if you're ok with paying for parks then why wouldn't you be ok with paying a one-shop fee for everything? Makes life much easier when you don't have to start paying out of your own pocket for parks, and health insurance and road taxes and other such things. Sounds like you're ok with paying for things just as long as you don't call them taxes.
It's ironic. You implied that you think limited government to be a good idea, and that being able to choose how your taxes are spent would also be a good idea. I fail to see how that's alot different from my position!
It's very different. In your world what would you do with those who are down on their luck or can't afford to pay for insurance or the tolls on the roads or even food? Without some sort of limited government these people would suffer and nothing would get done except for the wealthy elite who want their nice little tasty slice of utopian pie and screw everyone else (but the pie wouldn't taste as nice as it looks on the outside). The people who truly want this model should go pool their money and buy their own island somewhere and run it how they want. Let's see how long it lasts before they start tearing each other to pieces over the slightest of disputes. Who will then step in to pull them apart or clean up the bloody mess?
Have you read The Beach by Alex Garland? That's a novel about what happens when a group of nonconformists try build an idyllic utopia themselves. Never works or turns out how you planned. The tyrants rise to the top and they will do just about anything to keep control of power even if it means disregarding their ideals they hold so dear in the first place. People say they don't want governments but then assemble them just under a different name like your 'park committee' and that's when it all begins to crumble because everybody can never agree on everything, even the same group of people who have the same ideals because there's always going to be that one liberal who's more liberal than you or the tyrant who is that bit more tyrannical and it's hard to tell either parties apart sometimes especially when people have hidden agendas and hypocrisies.
Is the problem that I offending your moral sensibilities by asserting that you support a violent enforcement system? This is not intended to offend at all, it is (an apparently difficult to absorb) statement of fact.
You're not offending my moral sensibilities but I seem to be offending yours. As I've said before, I don't support violent enforcement. People are still free to move to wherever they want and live as they please within the laws of that country and that's what they should do if they feel they're being 'victimized' or being 'robbed' by the state. People could even opt out and pay for everything themselves if they really wanted. Just don't expect to use all the services that tax money provides without paying to do so.
If people pay for everything directly, there's no need to compel them to "do what's good for them" using negative incentives. They'll do what's good for them in their own judgement, of their own volition.
But people can't be trusted to do this. You would do what you think is best. Far right Neo-nazis would do what they think is best. Pedophiles would do what they think is best. Who is right and who is wrong? Let them hope they can work it out themselves peacefully? What happens when the pedophiles start raping kids and nazis start lynching people? Who steps in then? What about an invading army or the state next door doesn't like how you're running things, or does like them and wants a piece of that utopia you've created and you have a civil war? Where's the army going to come from to protect you from this? Maybe whip up a kickstarter to get yourself a tank and a few missiles?
Someone has to pay for that; income tax is a form of payment for said service.
They don't. If they don't want or don't need some service or other, they should not be compelled to pay.
You don't have to pay. If you choose to live in a country then you chose to abide by the laws of the land. You couldn't join a private club then complain about the rules or fees there. Leave the club if you don't like it. Unless you live in North Korea or some other such country then you don't have a gun to your head forcing or compelling you to stay. I don't think you really care that much about what you're complaining about; you just have a bugbear about being 'forced' to pay taxes but aren't actually prepared to do anything about it which looks to me like this:
People love to complain but never like to leave the comfort of their own homes (or countries) to do anything about it. Vote with action if you care so much about mistreatment.
What's more, in a Bitcoin world, they can not be compelled to pay for something they either don't want or don't need. Bitcoin literally gives them the right to withold payment, and there's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about it.
How so? That's like saying the cash under the mattress or buried in your back garden can't be taken. You can still face fines or be put in prison for refusing to pay what is owed in bitcoin. Again, I don't support that but I'd support you living in a country where that wasn't the case. If I was you I'd move to a country that doesn't criminalize your beliefs to avoid this. You could just as easily argue that taking the services of a country that you are not willing to contribute to is also theft. If you don't agree with the 'theft' or threats against you then choose your utopia:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/04/10-countries-with-zero-income-taxes.aspx
Take your pick:
United Arab Emirates.
Oman.
Bahrain.
Qatar.
Saudi Arabia.
Kuwait.
Bermuda.
Cayman Islands.
Do any of those pique your interest?
I don't think income tax should be completely abolished, but I do think it should be limited.
Your beliefs aren't compatible. On one hand, you want to minimise the amount you pay for socialised costs. But you also want a system that threatens people's lives in order to take as much money as they want, which those administrating the system claim pays for socialised costs. And the reality is that these organisations use the money in a multitude of ways that you probably consider to be wasteful, immoral, nepotistic or corrupt; providing good services is usually not the priority.
And your ideals pressurize me to do it your way, by way of violent threats. Can you justify this ethically?
How about we change the system? I don't think we should spend money on wars and locking up people for petty crimes and drug use, but there's no reason why in the future this couldn't be different. Just because the system isn't ideal now doesn't mean it can't be changed. I still think this system is better then the one you proposed even with all it's flaws. In fact, I know yours isn't better and I would hate to live there, but if you hate it so much then research which of the top ten countries above is the best for you. I'm sure you'd much rather stay put where you are, though. What we have now is certainly far from perfect but in my opinion it's the best option we have that benefits everybody and leaves nobody else behind. You're certainly free to disagree... or find some place else to live that suits your beliefs.
Well, it's interesting that some states in the US might permit self-sufficiency, in a possible future. I don't quite see how this rebukes my overall point: being self sufficient invites state interference, and there is no ethical basis for this. There's no reason that someone who has established and run their own home should be a part of any state simply because there are other people with a belief in a public territory that includes someone's (actually occupied) real territory. You could argue "the public territory is real too, armed police will arrive at any part within it to enforce their ownership". I say that's gangsterism, and that it's immoral and unjustifiable.
It would be an interesting experiment. I still don't see how it could work in practice. Let's say a self-sufficient farmer is not totally benevolent and decides to steal from their neighbor. Who's gonna enforce property rights? I'm assuming we're not doing away with those rights. Is the neighbor supposed to go over to the thief's house or hire some thugs and take their property back by force? Wouldn't that be worse than publicly-funded police?
I'm not following you here - why did you cross out "not all"?
I read that as "Not at all", so I was reading too quickly :/
Only one level (not all) of the government "demands" money in this example, and only from real-estate-owning residents (not all citizens). Being "a part of the state" represents an opportunity - you could remove this tax if you can find a way to run county schools without it. Or get rid of (privatize) public schools altogether. In fact there are attempts to do away with property tax in some parts of the country.
Well, it's interesting that some states in the US might permit self-sufficiency, in a possible future. I don't quite see how this rebukes my overall point: being self sufficient invites state interference, and there is no ethical basis for this. There's no reason that someone who has established and run their own home should be a part of any state simply because there are other people with a belief in a public territory that includes someone's (actually occupied) real territory. You could argue "the public territory is real too, armed police will arrive at any part within it to enforce their ownership". I say that's gangsterism, and that it's immoral and unjustifiable.
All levels of US government demand money from all citizens regardless of how independent they are from society.
FTFY. You're proving my point in detail and in spirit: self-sufficient people are considered a part of the state, and are assessed for taxation as such.
I'm not following you here - why did you cross out "not all"? Only one level (not all) of the government "demands" money in this example, and only from real-estate-owning residents (not all citizens). Being "a part of the state" represents an opportunity - you could remove this tax if you can find a way to run county schools without it. Or get rid of (privatize) public schools altogether. In fact there are attempts to do away with property tax in some parts of the country.
All levels of US government demand money from all citizens regardless of how independent they are from society.
FTFY. You're proving my point in detail and in spirit: self-sufficient people are considered a part of the state, and are assessed for taxation as such.
Plus, I never said I believe in a system which threatens people's lives. If you don't pay taxes, yes, there are consequences. But I also believe in a system where if you don't agree w/ the tax policies of a specific country, you are able to leave said country and not pay those taxes.
So, you don't believe in a system that threatens people that don't pay, yet you accept that there are "consequences" (i.e. threats) if you refuse?
And if you disagree and with to leave, you cannot leave without the state's permission (and 2 separate offices, the passport office and the border police, grant you permission to leave. Or not). That's not democracy, that's a protection racket.
Does your utopia involves using bitcoin for paying base private services? Or would it be ok if they would just accept precious metal in exchange?
Where would you plan to live, a big city, country side, somewhere else?
Where would you plan to live, a big city, country side, somewhere else?
All levels of US government demand money from all citizens regardless of how independent they are from society.
Not all. Where I live a self-sufficient small farm like the one you mentioned a few posts above would only pay county property tax above homestead exemption (~$10k IIRC). Without income there would be no state or federal income taxes and if you're not buying/selling anything then no sales tax either. Perhaps there are places without property tax or with a higher exemption.
Someone has to pay for that; income tax is a form of payment for said service.
They don't. If they don't want or don't need some service or other, they should not be compelled to pay.
What's more, in a Bitcoin world, they can not be compelled to pay for something they either don't want or don't need. Bitcoin literally gives them the right to withold payment, and there's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about it.
I don't think income tax should be completely abolished, but I do think it should be limited.
Your beliefs aren't compatible. On one hand, you want to minimise the amount you pay for socialised costs. But you also want a system that threatens people's lives in order to take as much money as they want, which those administrating the system claim pays for socialised costs. And the reality is that these organisations use the money in a multitude of ways that you probably consider to be wasteful, immoral, nepotistic or corrupt; providing good services is usually not the priority.
And your ideals pressurize me to do it your way, by way of violent threats. Can you justify this ethically?
Woah, 1: You've made a LOT of assumptions about me simply because I said I was a libertarian.
2: I said limited, not minimized. I understand social programs are required, and I understand their necessity. But at the same time, I have been in situations where I have personally seen the misuse and waste of tax money in my country.
I'm a fan of less government, not 0 government. Plus, I never said I believe in a system which threatens people's lives. If you don't pay taxes, yes, there are consequences. But I also believe in a system where if you don't agree w/ the tax policies of a specific country, you are able to leave said country and not pay those taxes.
Jump to: