Topic: Should income tax be abolished? - page 3. (Read 1179 times)

Income tax punishes those who work hard. Income taxes are often argued as a way to take money from the "uber-rich", and give it to those who are poverty stricken. They often will say
that the rich don't need all that money, and giving it to the poor will increase their standard of living. The most popular person toted in these arguments is Bill Gates, with a net worth $95 billion. However, income tax does not actually get much of its money from Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson, or Tiger Woods. People get distracted by the big numbers, and don't think about it relatively. Yes, $95 billion is a lot of money, but the National debt is around $14 trillion. You would need 147 Bill Gates to pay that off. Also, if you took all of Bill Gate's money and gave an equal amount, each person would only get $290 dollars. Just taking the rich peoples money would not fix any problems. Instead, the income tax money comes from the middle class, the small business owners who work hard to keep their business running. Income tax takes away their initiative to work.

That is the biggest way of income for the goverment and country, without it world could be completly different so i don't think that we could do anything with that tax.

Well of course they can always pay back bonds if they just issue new bonds to pay the old bonds! If the Federal Reserve is creating the bonds in the first place, and they're the only people buying them, there's never going to be a problem repaying debt they owe to themself.

But that means everyone else who already holds that debt (the bonds) will sell before the US dollar loses too much value. And that's exactly what's going on in the market for US bonds: big holders have mostly sold them off. And the only solution is to either default on the Fed's debts to itself (which means the end of the institution that supposedly gives the dollar value), or just keep printing new dollars by issuing new bonds. Dollar loses more value. Repeat till hyperinflation.

Having things such as warships and nuclear weapons does not mean a country will be respected. There is huge border that separates respect and fear. Therefore, one should not be proud of things such as these.

Furthermore, not because a country belongs in the Third World does not mean they are basically poor as there are other factors to be considered for this. (Moreover, the word Third World has a deeper meaning and history.) Some of these countries also  is also labeled with such due to high population or because of its low technological advancement and dependence on other countries' economy. In addition, First World Countries are countries which had already explored and exploited almost all of their natural resources, but Third World Countries natural resources remain untouched and unexploited because of the low advancement in technology, which is good for the country, since they can focus on different fields such as agriculture, fisheries, commodity trade and such. Higher income also means higher tax, too.

The bolded portion of your logic is false. The debt increases each year because the United States government is continuously taking on more debt in the form of government bonds. It is not unsafe or reckless for the government to do this, as its not like bonds are being defaulted on and the United States is accruing bad credit.

Also, a fun little tidbit: the US public is the majority holder of US Govt debt. So while you claim income tax is immoral or evil or a sin or whatever because its just being used to pay off taxes, even that logic doesn't work out because the same individuals paying taxes are earning interest on their bonds.

I disagree completely.  People will keep buying whatever they need.
Look at VAT.  How does that impede consumerism in EU or Canada?

As great as this would be, it would disincentivize consumerism. No company would ever support it. It can even be made friendly to the poor by giving them a tax number and the ability to spend tax exempt up to $5000-10000 in a year, thus paying a lesser total tax rate on the bare necessities.

I can't see a valid argument against that. The whole thing would be easier to calculate as well, we could burn about a library worth of tax code rules and pay billions less in tax preparation every year just in the US.

Yes, it should be changed.  USA should switch to consumption tax only and drop any income taxation.  Something like a VAT system would collect a lot more money than is currently.
And it's fair, based on spending.  Don't want to pay much? Don't spend much...

@guybrush

What you're forgetting is that the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies distort the market for healthcare a great deal. Without those distortions (patents, licensing and so on), the prices would find a more natural range.

Historical facts are against you; up until the early 20th century, cheaper medical insurance in more lightly regulated western medical industry was still available, and widely subscribed. Not everyone did though. Notice how that's different from a socialised system, only those that chose to be insured bore any costs, and rich or poor, if you didn't want the safety net, you could save the money and spend it on what you wanted instead. The medical industry was essentially turned into a price-fixing cartel, with government help, and now the insurance system is pretty corrupt.


Your assertion that I can choose piecemeal what I do and don't pay for now is incorrect. If I earn an income without paying tax, my life and my possessions are physically threatened, and likely stolen by the state. You advocate this Guybrush, you help them to do it with your lack of action. I don't want to pay money for social costs that gets used in a way I don't agree with, and everyone who agrees to pay is only making the problem worse.

Maybe you haven't taken part in enough elections yet, but you might eventually realise that there's only a very small number of people you can influence in elections, and so your vote does not matter. Where you spend your money though, that's a vote that really counts. One system works, the other doesn't.

If governments couldn't spend future taxes on the military in the present, war would be very different. If you advocate the government representative democracy system, that's essentially what you're standing up for; overwhelming military power and state power, where might is right and the citizen is really just a modern serf.

Democracy literally means "rule by the masses", but only the state has any power in this system, so it's not democracy. Bitcoin is designed to give some of that power back to people, but it sounds like you don't want power for either yourself or anyone else. You should sell, Bitcoin is not compatible with your ideals. Why own Bitcoin if you'll do anything someone says with your BTC if someone powerful threatens you?

We could have insurances and not pay taxes to mantain the current service infrastructure, however the main difference is: the goal of the state is to provide a service, while the goal of a private is to make money providing it.

There are and there have been already clear abuses coming from privatization unfortunately.

And what about those who can't afford such insurance? They die? We already see the flaws of health insurance in the US. Healthcare should be a human right for all, not just for those who can afford it. Or what about those that only take out health insurance because that's all they can afford and the chance of their house burning down is very slim. And then it burns down. There's not many people who could afford to take out insurance for every faucet of their life that could possibly go wrong.


Because not all of us are Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple. Do you have the time, money, means, expertise or technology to investigate such a crime? Even a small-scale murder investigation will likely cost hundreds of thousands employing dozens of people. Missing child cases can quickly run into the millions. What else are you suggesting people do by themselves? Find their own cures for cancer?


And that's why taxes exist. Many people in the US can't even afford health insurance, never mind insurance for everything else, then in addition having to find the money to pay for their trash collecting and pay the police to investigate every crime they fall victim to.


No I don't. You're not a prisoner in your own country are you?


Sure. You have that choice also, but I'm guessing you don't live in one of these libertarian ideas of utopia, right?


I guess some people just don't have compassion and would just like to see others die from their ivory towers. What is stopping you from moving to a place that functions as you wish? It sounds like you'd be much better in a place with zero taxes and you just pay for whatever you use. I don't think they would be the perfect utopia you have as an ideal, though.


Again, why should everyone do it your way? It's called an opinion. I'm not forcing this on you nor am I saying this is the only way and everyone should do it. Both could exist side by side and if you want to opt out of paying taxes and pay for insurance out of your own pocket for everything then so be it. If you are fundamentally against paying taxes then just don't pay them. There are several options for you to do so.

I do not think income tax should be abolished. I do believe, though, that the government should lessen the amount of each person's income tax depending on how much the person is earning. Income tax has its benefits, one of which is social amenities. But I guess this is why people are getting into bitcoin and other digital currencies; it is as transparent as it gets. People know where their money is going as opposed to income taxes.

Insurance



What's stopping you investigating the crime in these cricumstances? And what makes you think such an investigation would be out of most people's ability to pay?



You can spread the cost out with insurance policies, that's why insurance policies exist



What you actually mean is: opinions or different way of paying for your life aren't allowed under government systems, i.e. what you advocate. If we lived the way I've suggested, all ranges of possibility would be permitted, if you wanted to join some multi-levelled co-op where everyone pays into a giant investment fund that handles every part of your whole life (which is your apparent preference), then you could choose that.

As things stand, if I don't want to pay for your lifestyle choices or your misfortunes, then a huge amount of pressure is put on me to do so (and you have less incentive to be smarter or luckier). And far worse than that, if the government itself wants to spend money on it's employees or friends, or on ways to disguise that such things even happened, an equally huge amount of pressure is put on me to pay for that too. You claimed not to like paying for wars of aggression, neither do I. I have a solution, you do not.

So, why should everyone do it the way you think is good?

Well it could work, just like living in some sort of Hunger Games scenario could work, but I think there's a good reason why this sort of hardcore libertarian society isn't a more common thing. It's not really feasible to just pay for some things just when you need them.


Examples:

Your house is on fire. You can't afford to pay the fire brigade. Do they just sit outside and watch your house burn down whilst you desperately try set up a kickstarter?

Your child gets cancer. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay for treatment. You watch them die?

Your child is raped and murdered. You don't have hundreds of thousands to pay to investigate the crime. Case closed? Move on?

Some services should just be a basic human right and one person or family shouldn't have to bare the full cost of that when they unfortunately fall victim to it. To live in a functional society some basic things just need to be provided and the whole of society is better off for them.


Where here did I say they should? Why should they do it your way? Or are opinions not allowed here?


Well in that case: 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.

Taxes have their usefulness, I do not think it should be abolished,It is supposed to be meant to take care of social amenities and run the governmenance.

fair point. back to the drawing board...

In my country their is a slab according to it if you reach above that slab you have to fill the income tax if not you can just run your income without paying income tax. So their is no problem in paying tax as it helps in getting loan from bank.

That's a no-go right there. Folks with yachts have the best congresspeople money can buy.

we pay to have our garbage picked up in my town.

mail needs stamps, although im sure they dont cover the entire cost of the post office infrastructure. 

roads? ive seen a dominoes pizza commercial where you can call them and get potholes repaired at their expense. which is crazy.. a private business needs to repair the public roads they use just so they can deliver their product undamaged?

libraries? i donate to ours. of course mine alone is not enough.

now these points are cherry picked, taxes need to be collected and used, no argument there. but how about shifting to consumption based taxes.. food, medicine and basic clothing tax free, everything else has a federal and state tax built in. the more frivolous the item, the more tax percentage wise. ie basic car = x% of value of car, yacht = taxed at a much higher percentage of its value.

im sure this idea has been around for a while, its just not gone anywhere.

If we add a federal state tax and remove federal income tax, we at least wouldn't get taxed twice!  But it would probably hurt workers and poorer people at a greater rate (unless we give poor people cards that allow them not to pay the federal sales tax up to say $15,000 dollars a year.