Topic: Should income tax be abolished? (Read 1195 times)

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

That's a perfect description of what's wrong with the state.



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.



I think the thieves and other moral transgressors would hang out together and plot. That would be a difficult problem to solve.



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 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 the thief is unable to get a job or buy food. What do you expect would happen then?


My answer was that in a system with functioning law enforcement a person would be more likely to use it rather than go vigilante.

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.
 



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?



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.



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.

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.


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?


Yes, a reasonable person would go to the police and would let them do their job.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


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.

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 read that as "Not at all", so I was reading too quickly :/



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.

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.

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.
 


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?

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.

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.

I've already said I'm not advocating for chaos. Can you admit that you will accept misuse of power as a consequence of centralised governance?

And FWIW, Somalia is a true canard in this kind of debate. You're talking about 1 region of Somalia; there are 6 regions with big differences in how stable everyday life is for humans.
 


All levels of US government demand money from all citizens regardless of how independent they are from society.

There are definitely countries with very low levels of government intervention and even completely lawless places. They often tend to be quite shitty though (e.g. parts of Niger or Somalia) so perhaps there is some benefit in having a working system of law enforcement.

Even e.g. in the US, if you live in a place without property tax and have your own water/electric/crop supply the government isn't gonna send its troops to take it away from you. What sort of "harassment" do you expect?

No, there is a majority everywhere that shares the belief that other people's will can be rightfully imposed upon by way of violent threats. There is nowhere to go now that the world has a definite jurisdiction on every piece of the existing land, whether inhabited by humans or not.

Individualistically: there is no option for those that would choose to live in an entirely self-reliant way apart from any society. If you built your own house, with it's own water-well and electricity generation, farmed only what you needed for crops, then what have you taken from anyone else? And yet you would still be harassed, that you are a part of a group to whom you owe some of your productivity, despite no such agreement existing.

Collectively: if you and a group of like-minded objectors to a corrupt society attempt to live as your own society, you will be harassed. Claims will be made that you're living under the jurisdiction of another group of people, with whom you have no agreement to cooperate.


And working within the framework of an established society to effect change is delusional. Politicians have long ago learned to simply give lazy and unimaginative people more or less what they want, in exchange for being dominated by people that break the rules. You cannot bargain with a majority of people that want that kind of slavery, they prefer an easy life where they do not have to confront anything difficult or dangerous.

How so? Don't you have the same options as everyone else, e.g. to move to a place that meets your ideals, or to join/form a political movement/party and attempt to change the laws to your liking?

Living in a society tends to involve some sort of compromise where you get certain benefits in exchange for compliance with certain rules. But if you think violence is the only reason why you're complying then you should work on changing that.

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.



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?

Any country in Eruope is taxed at it's maximum double for both income and VAT, compared to what you are taxed in there  I don't know exactly what the state is providing where you live, but at least in Europe welfare is not bad in general.

I'm a libertarian (as I'm sure many on this forum are), I believe in less government, and as such, a side effect of that would be lower taxes. But I don't believe in 0 government.

Someone has to pay for that; income tax is a form of payment for said service.
I don't think income tax should be completely abolished, but I do think it should be limited.

Well Guybrush, it seems that you can't make a rational arguement, and prefer to rely on dismissive witticism or straw man arguments instead.

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!

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. 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.


Part of the problem here is of stereotyping; well-known anarchists fetishize individualism to the extent that they claim that it's always the best solution to every problem. It's not.

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.

In your state system maybe. Find a state where it's possible. It's like constantly complaining about how shit the weather is when you could move abroad to a warmer climate. Do it if it makes you happier. I doubt your country is going to go full libertarian any time soon but I'm sure there are places where you can live this ideal life you want. I don't think they'll be what you had in mind, though. You also forgot to mention what you'd do with all the homeless people camped outside your house and others dying in the streets? Ignore their dying cries or perhaps just drive over them? Put them out of their misery? Not your problem, right?


And so do you. The bigger hypocrite is the armchair libertarian who pays into the system he despises and abhors whilst doing nothing about it. If you cared so strongly about this system then you would probably be living in it already. Practice what you preach. You're like the latte-sipping anti-capitalists sitting in Starbucks complaining about corporations online from their macbooks and iphones. People love to complain about things but never like to do anything about it. It's too comfy to get off the chair and go outside into the cold, cruel world. Would be even crueler if you had to start paying for the air that you breathe and every road and path you walk and drive down. 


And so is yours. It's the classic libertarian fantasy that never has a foolproof plan behind it just a hollow anarchist wetdream. It wouldn't really work in reality or it would be much more popular. I think deep down you know that and it would in fact be compete anarchy but I'm sure that doesn't stop your from fantasizing about the "bliss" of not having to pay taxes. It really wouldn't be as blissful as it seems even for you.


Sure. They do. So would a libertarian 'utopia', which would quickly turn into a libertarian dystopia.



I'm not at all. I'm a bad fit for you and your ideals, perhaps. Bitcoin is perfect for me. You don't have to be a full anarchist or hardcore libtard to use it, and you can believe in some sort of limited government without supporting a corrupt monetary system. Why are they not compatible exactly? Anyone can use bitcoin for whatever they want. Even statists can use it. Bitcoin isn't just for you and your politics nor is it inherently anti-state over everything. It's freedom from state-issued currency, banks, and third party providers, not socialism or governments. If you want to use it to overthrow the government or hide your money away then cool. You do you.


I do. I just don't support your philosophy. You don't even have to believe in it either. The majority of the people who are using it now are just greedy capitalists who couldn't give a shit about the tech or politics.

Today's average bitcoiner:




Here here. I agree with everything you said. No system is perfect but I know what systems are much worse and I know I don't want to live in one where everyone fends for themselves and those who can't simply rot.


No. They're not widespread for a reason. Can you or anybody else even name one that works where everyone fends for themselves and only pays for the services they want? That's not really how a functioning society works. Without some sort of limited state or benefit system you will have chaos and anarchy and people dying in the streets and not even anyone to come and clean up the bodies (unless you have corpse removal insurance like Carlton obviously will). If you want to see how well this system would work then go to a country with little to no government services and where you have to pay for anything privately. Not nice places and a broken arm would probably costs you tens of thousands to fix. You got that money? Most people don't. They're third world countries for a reason and it's that that largely separates them from developed ones.


Oh great, no rules for medical malpractice and botched surgeries. Go live in the 19th century if that was the classic American utopia. It seems to me that you want to go backwards but there are backwards places you can in fact go.

19th century USA was very much like that, there was very little government involvement in services, and the USA became a very wealthy country as a result. There were very few rules about the medical profession, and the health insurance system was very cheap if you didn't want the best treatment. This all changed in the early 20th century, when rules around medical licensing became much tighter, setting the minimum wage for medical professionals much higher than before, which in turn pushed health insurance rates far higher.

Roads is a time-old example: roads began as a private system. Some were terrible, but the incentive to make good quality roads is high, as it increases commerce transiting through the road (and can drive the success of market places served by the roads).


And have you heard of Bitcoin? A privatized money system, where violence is not required to enforce the rules, and violence cannot be used to break the rules?


Politicians and big companies collude to keep them on the right side of the law. Corporations use the legal system internationally to ensure they can outcompete small businesses. The rules essentially don't exist for them, but hurt small businesses instead.

The real solution is to actually make the playing field equal for all. And that means removing the rules. This will change things in important ways: fraud will increase without rules (corporations mostly abide by the fraud protection rules, although they still deceive people within the rules, of course). But we now have instant and abundant information systems to call out fraudsters, it's not like they can pack up and go to a place where no-one knows them, the internet can see to that. It's also important to note that the current anti-fraud rules do not prevent all cases of fraud, and there are frequent cases of people who are too clever or too protected for the rules to work. Alot of tax money goes into anti-fraud, yet the outcome of a decentralised policing of fraud such as I'm suggesting would probably be very similar, except without having to pay taxes to expensive agencies for it. I would happily report retail experiences if it meant I would help others to make an informed decision about the merchant I used. In fact, everyone already uses that system online anyway (and they consider it to be a pretty reliable method).

Just out of curiosity, is there any proof or evidence that a system - society fully privatized works at all or better than one publicly maintained?  Are you also thinking that the justice system should be handled privately?

As far as i can see, i'm no expert but big companies get already away with too much, so there is the possibility it would be even easier to steer everything in the direction you want, if you have a lot of money.

Glad to see another person defending the NHS with such vehemence. The truth is, regardless of how underfunded or poorly managed the NHS is, it is still an absolute triumph of civilization. I agree with your judgement about the allocation of taxes, did you know that in some parts of the UK, you actually pay more council tax for poorer service? Here in London, you pay council tax and have your bins emptied once a week, whereas in rural parts of the UK, you pay more for your bin to be emptied once a month, have fewer roads being maintained, and have access to far poorer facilities than elsewhere.

I think that if anything, income tax should be increased. Right now, critical services remain underfunded because they simply don't generate enough tax to cover them adequately. There are a number of improvements that could be made, such as spending the tax of our population on the following;

1. Development and implementation of renewable energy sources, to approach close to free energy
2. Production of a small, but survivable universal basic income for ALL. OR provide access to free food and nutrition for the very poor without any conditions.
3. Improvement of the education system. Massive investments into infrastructure and quality education to build a better, more capable future generation

Paying tax isn't the issue. It's what the tax payers money gets used for that is. Anyone paying tax should be able to select what their money gets put towards. Whether this be healthcare, road maintenance or funding of education. The United Kingdom has a free health care service called the NHS (National Health Service). Its often attacked by the masses that its poorly run, and under funded, and some of this may have some truth to it. Yet, I'll defend the NHS to my very last breath, because I've witnessed the good to come from it. At its very core its a good idea. However, its grossly underfunded, and is at threat of being replaced by private healthcare like other countries.

I think its a basic human right to receive free healthcare, and no one should be paying for it. The same as life sources such as water, however the water industry is greatly corrupted, and abused, for example English water isn't even owned by England. It's owned by the Chinese, and Spanish if I recall correctly. England also pays millions per year to Scotland, and Wales for them to send water from their reserve reservoirs. Thankfully, water in Wales is Welsh owned. But, for how long? The fact that external countries own English water is a joke to me. Water should be a basic human right, and not something to profit on. However, I understand the limitations of these services, and the cost of maintaining something like these for the whole country. Therefore, I'm more than happy to compromise on these services as we don't live in the perfect world. Paying taxes is how we go about it. Taxes when funding things like the above I don't have a problem with. The NHS is a system that we should be looking to not only save, but improve upon. Fundamentally, its a great system that is failing because of miss management, and abuse from the general population. Not all of this can be corrected by having a higher percentage of taxes going towards the system, but it will certainly help a little bit.

At the moment, the tax system is a joke, and is greatly misused. It only helps the tax man get richer, and the countries population get poorer, and a worse life style as a result of essential systems like the NHS closing down. When tax is pocketed, and misused its the people who live in the country that pay the price, and not anyone else.

If tax was used solely for the tax payers best interest it wouldn't be a problem. I'm a big fan of allocating a certain percentage to certain mundane causes such as road maintence, but allow the tax payer to decide where their money goes for the rest of the percentage. The only flaw with this is people are idiots, and will support stupid causes which won't benefit the population, and will only benefit their individual needs. For example, not funding free healthcare, because they are already rich as fuck, and pay private anyway.


TL:DR
I'm not against taxes. I'm against how they are put to use.

I do want all those things, and I do want to pay. I want to pay the best people to do it, and that's not possible in the state system. Either one accepts how bad the roads or police or fire service are, or is punished for refusing to accept it. There is no feedback that gives the public sector an incentive to perform well, and so they typically perform badly, and so public sector jobs attract people that don't care about doing a good job.


You seem to want to pretend you don't support a violent system, and at the same time claim I want chaos and depravity for everyone except me. Your argument is based completely on fantasy in other words: the state system fails egregiously all the time, that's why bitcoin exists at all. You're a bad fit for this tech guybrush; you don't support the political philosophy behind bitcoin, and yet want all it's benefits and the benefits of it's antithetical ideology too. That comes across as pretty selfish, which is particularly ironic considering how you labelled me (I've never said I don't want police or roads, lol).

Guybrush: "Money, I'm libertarian. Healthcare, I'm a socialist". Your socialist buddies aren't going to let you get away with that, you know.

The UK tax system works the reverse to this. The more people earn the higher percentage is paid in tax. This is why so many high earners use tax avoidance schemes.
I think a flat rate tax system is fairer where everyone pays the same level of tax, maybe there should be exceptions for low paid workers in public service industries such as health, police, fire fighters where they are not paid a wage that reflects their true value to society.

Forgot to respond to this:


And when everyone has to fend for themselves unregulated capitalism kicks into action and you get shoddy services with prices spiraling out of control and much worse. With no gov regulations malpractice would be rife and pharmaceutical companies would act even shadier than they already do. At least there's someone to punish and fine them when they get caught or screw up right now.


Get rid of health insurance and make it a fundamental human right as it should be. What about those who don't have the money or choice? If you can't afford it and they don't get insurance because they need to eat first? Health or starvation isn't something you should have to choose between or worry about.


It's not at all. Do you live in fascist state that you're not allowed to leave? If you lived in North Korea then you might have a point. Nobody has a gun to your heard forcing you to stay in a country. If you're so against the system then move to a tax haven or any other place that lets you live how you wish. You can't always have it your own way just like me or everyone else can't but you certainly have the freedom to do something about it if you don't like it.


I don't advocate this at all. I advocate you not complying with the system and moving to a place where you'd be happy in your ideals. Don't feed the beast you hate. Stop funding it. Choose a country where you can be free to live as you please. It sounds like you'd be much happier with people of the same mindset where you can watch the world burn and people starve from the comfort of your heavily fotressed ivory tower.


I've never voted despite being eligible to do so in several elections. I'm well aware of how my vote counts for little to nothing, nor has there ever been a politician I've ever believed in. If that ever changes I may start.


I'm not. Out of interest, what would you call someone who pays taxes to a state that they don't even agree with?


Not at all. Bitcoin isn't just for you or me. It's for everyone. Libertarians can use it. Fascists can use it. Drug dealers can use. Entrepreneurs can use it. Tyrants can use it. Philanthropists can use it. Citizens of North Korea or Botswana can use it. People should be able to do whatever they want with it good or bad. Why would I give it away to someone who threatens me? If the government said I had to give it to them for something I didn't agree with then I would move to somewhere that didn't, nor does what I'm suggesting leave me powerless. I want some sort of basic and functioning society, not one where only those who can afford it have a say or can do anything about it. There should be roads. There should be hospitals. There should be police. There should be Firefighters. I don't want to have to get insurance for everything I might possibly ever need or be expected to pay thousands upon thousands if I ever do need them. These things should be a basic human right and I have no problem in paying into the pot to use them as and when needed. If you don't want to pay for them then cool. I support you not doing that. I wouldn't force you to stay in that country. If you take away certain basics of society then you become a third world nation. Without a benefits system there would be women and children starving to death on the street. Without healthcare people will be dying of cancer in the streets. Do you want to see that happen? I don't, but I think you're so blinded by your own 'ideals' that you don't care and think everyone should fend for themselves. If that is so then move to a country where this is the case instead of doing nothing about it other than complaining on the internet whilst simultaneously financing it.


Just because this may be what happens now doesn't mean the whole system is fucked and can't change. Obviously things should be changed. I think a society where everyone chips in what they can afford is better than one where they don't. People who are poor shouldn't starve to death or die of cancer just because they can't afford it insurance or healthcare. Those should be a basic human right. I don't even believe we should tax the rich any more than the working or middle classes. Some sort of flat rate tax would be better in my opinion. Whether you're earning $50k a year or 50 million paying 20% is still fair to everyone. I don't think the rich should be paying 40-50% tax, though. Tax heavens and loopholes should also be abolished.


Don't some US states have a sales tax already? I think taxing spending could be much better than income, but I'd have to do more research on the figures it would bring in. Maybe some sort of minimal income tax with a higher sales tax would be better. I certainly think luxury goods should have higher taxes, but not basic essentials like food etc.

I also believe this, incentives matter and a progressive tax rate disincentives those that are the most productive, I have known a lot of people that could make more money and decide against it because the taxes are not worth it, so instead of having people working as hard as possible now you have some segment of the population working below capacity because of high taxes, governments should go back to its origins and secure their population from external and internal threats and enforce contracts.

The post is about removing the type of tax called income tax, not about reducing taxes, if income tax is 30% of the money the government make, and it cease to exist, they can increase other types of taxes to make up for this 30% loss

without an income tax, the government will get in tax from other things like a higher VAT(value added tax). it will create high inflation which poorer people will suffer more than rich ones. Income tax is better since the richer ones will pay more tax, unlike higher VAT everyone will pay equally. one of the roles of the government is to lessen the burden on the poor, removing income tax will not achieve its goal, in fact, it may burden them more because of the inflated price due to a higher VAT.

I don't think its all true. paying tax is necessary to maintain certain public systems such as roads, school etc. And although, middle class pays income tax richer people pay a higher percentage so its not all about poor people paying most tax its all relative and in my opinion its necessary to have these funds.

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.

Abolishing one type of tax in this case income tax will mean others might stop paying their tax completely which is why there all sorts of taxes

to maximize on tax collection but if you feel like not paying some form of tax try sales taxes which is also practically unavoidable as we all have that good or service we can not do without.

AFAIK if more people remain  unemployed, the burden remains on the working class which is why people need jobs to avoid been over taxed.

A man in Africa using only a couple of dollars a week, but who owns his own farm, produces a surplus of food, and doesn't really need to even go to the market is much richer then a McDonalds worker, who is constantly on call for his job, uses $300 dollars a week, and has trouble keeping his head above water (financially)



To the untrained eye, the McDonalds worker out-earns the "third world" man 150 to 1 . But the third world man can work less hours, owns the products of his labor and can do as he pleases.

unfair or fair atleast you can proudly say that the income/wage you are receiving to your employer is far more different from a third world country, the bigger the income the country is rich. you'll have nuclear weapons, submarines, jet planes, warships, and the more you complain about income tax, the country you belongs to, gets respected by other countries knowing that you have crazy weapons that could make a place vanish that's all i know. lol.

There are states without state income tax. You'd still have to pay the federal income tax.

why wouldn't it work if people just paid for what the use? Everyone would have more money than under taxation schemes, any improvement schemes that needed a lot of funding would still happen if the incentive to do it was good enough (especially in the internet age, Kickstarter etc proves that people will fund something they think will be good for them and others)

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

You could move to a country that doesn't have taxes if you're so against paying them. Usually, though, these countries don't have a high standard of living or come with other such negatives. I guess this is the price you pay for living in such a country.

Aren't there even US states that don't have income taxes?

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-with-no-income-tax-better-or-worse-1.aspx


You can argue all day about what taxes people should or shouldn't be paying, but usually places where you pay little to none aren't very nice places to live. I think some medium should be found. I don't think 'rich' people should have half of their money taken nor do I think very poor people should have to pay much if anything at all. I don't think taxes should be wasted on pointless wars either, but that's corruption and corporatism for you. I think a society where every one chips in what they can afford is a much better place as opposed to one where everyone fends for themselves and people get left by the wayside in the process. Taxes should be spent on improving society and services everyone uses and then everyone benefits.

It's not sustainable to carry on with a system that guarantees more unpayable debt

Roads, schools and other infrastucture can be paid for cheaper and using better construction when the deals made to implement them aren't corrupt. It's called capitalism.

It is not sustainable to abolish tax, as these money go into maintenance of the roads, state schools etc and without taxpayer's money the government won't be able to provide these basics.

Except it's impossible to actually implement fairly, particularly fair assessment is a bitch. Perhaps a bit easier than property tax but still prone to manipulation and corruption. Land or property is worth only as much as someone is willing to pay for it but even if it hasn't been sold in the last 20 years the government will still want to come up with some harebrained scheme to get the "current" value.

The US national debt increases every year because the US government continues to spend more than it brings in via taxes every year.

Roads are primarily financed by state governments, however the Federal DOT does give grants to states.

The overwhelming majority of US Federal Tax dollars go to transfer payments (welfare), although some of these tax dollars are specifically designated for transfer programs that the payor will, in theory will eventually get back (such as social security). It probably would be best to eliminate or significantly reduce most transfer programs because they create disincentives for individuals to generate income and wealth.

The primary thing that government provides that individuals absolutely cannot purchase themselves if there were no income taxes is a national defense, and as such, there must be some amount of taxes that collectively pays for national defense and security.

On the other hand, most economist are in favour of a land value tax, as it is a tax with minimal distortions and flagfall on the economy and tend to be more equitable and fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Depends - some places have fairly high local income and sales taxes and in some places property tax goes entirely to schools.

I wouldn't say property tax is more fair. I made the money, purchased property, and now I have to pay a tax on it forever regardless of what I earn or can afford. Instead of getting taxed once on earnings (income tax) or on spending (sales tax) - both of these seem more fair to me than property tax, which feels like the government constantly dipping into my pocket.

Most of those are paid for by municipal governments, not the federal government. Municipal services are funded almost entirely by property taxes, which is generally regarded as a fairer system than income tax.

Think about the mathematics. The debt always increases, every year. There's nothing magic about government debt, if the debt increases every year, that means it's not getting paid back. It's very simple.

What the US (and every other) government does is borrow all money to pay for public services. That's how they do it. Think: the only other way that this equation works is if we say that taxes pay for (say) 88% of public services, and the government than borrows money to pay it's remaining debts. Sure, saying 12% goes to debt repayments would be true if you expressed it that way, but it masks the fact that 12% of tax revenues do not cover all the bond repayments that are due in a given year. Hence why national debts always increase.

It's not about emotions, it's about math. And there is no long debate, it's very very simple

We can get into a long debate over the wonderful intracacies of the US finances, but that's not the time or the place... But to say of your taxes goes towards any public good is asinine.

Quick Google breaks down rough estimates of where tax dollars go: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18098378/ns/business-answer_desk/t/where-do-my-income-tax-dollars-go/

About 12% of taxes go towards debt payments.

Of course. There's also city, county, state taxes that fund various ventures. It's okay to hate the government or disagree with taxation policies, but it's hypocritical to talk about how useless taxation is while benefiting from all the public goods funded by it.

No, that's wrong.

The money paid in taxes doesn't even cover the interest that governments accrue on their national debts. Literally none of the money you pay in taxes pays for a single fragment of gravel in any government road.

Do you use public roads? Get your garbage disposed of? Call 911 in emergency? Go to the library? Send an receive mail?

It's not as if tax money goes into a black hole. Taxes are in place for a reason. If you don't want to pay taxes work remotely and move to a small island in the carribean

And who's gonna fund all those wars then?

You can move to a state that doesn't have sales tax on food. Perhaps there is also one that that doesn't have sales tax on food AND doesn't have property tax, not sure about that.

If you want to abolish the income tax then start generating ideas on how to reform the SPENDING side. We've already got a massive budget hole from the last cut, so figure out how to patch that one, reduce spending further by another $2 trillion, then let's talk about abolishing the income tax.

This is an argument I didn't expect. It makes total sense in a world where all of our basic needs are met (through UBI or other means) but I don't think it makes sense in our world.

With the current financial system this would just siphon money from the working poor to the wealthy.

I think if someones annual income is under or equal to $35K a year then double the tax if the income goes over $35K then reduce it to half. We can adjust the $35K with any other reasonable number.

My point is, give incentives to tweak peoples mind. Most of the people are poor, they don't work to earn more because they think it's good for them - they do not have to pay more tax. If we can tweak their mind and put this idea in-front of them that for up to x amount of annual income your tax is 20% and if you go above then your tax is 10% - you will see people will start working hard to cross the barrier of x to pay less tax.

I believe that income tax should be abolished.

I live in the US, and I don't think income tax is fair.


One of the reasons is that the median person will have to pay income tax and then a sales tax on food. Also you have to pay income tax and then property tax on your house.

Another reason is that from when income tax was established the tax brackets seem to have moved downwards. That is to say that poorer people have been getting progressively taxed more. It may help to start taxing people above a living wage of $35,000 but I know that's not going to happen.

(For reason number 2, I believe that the brackets have primarily moved down due to the hidden tax of inflation, which means that you get triply taxed the longer you hold your money)

What do you think?