Topic: Why do people think income tax is ok? - page 11. (Read 17875 times)

How else can we afford to pay our soldiers to police the globe and fight wars on tyranny and genocide?

And this is why you need to be forced to. People have a right to survive, and that is more important than your right to property.

Your family should come first of course, and you shouldn't be taxed on the money you need to feed them and keep them safe, but when you earn more than that, yeah you should have to give some of that money to help others.

And this is why your assertion that we agree more than disagree is absurd.

No one has a right to steal from others. Period.

If you find a rich man who is exploiting poor people, you could argue that the poor people should be helped through charity, or maybe even that they should just sneak into his place and take food as needed, regardless of any right to. But I somehow doubt bryant is one of the rich bankers destroying the economy for his own personal gain. If he's just minding his own business, earning a legitimate income, then the only way you will ever get people (except for other thieves) to go along with your program is through force. Arbitrary, institutionalized, damn-the-innocent, kick-down-your-door-and-shoot-your-dog-and-lock-you-away-for-decades force.

The utter immorality of this is why we will never agree.



I thought rights weren't absolute?

Who says? Why do people have a right to survive, and where does this come from? Who gets to define "survive?"

Where's the equation for your moral calculus giving Bob's "right to survive" a higher objective valuation than bryant's property rights?

(Bonus question: What makes the divine right of the majority any more legitimate than the divine right of kings?)



What if he needs the money to give his children what he considers a decent education, or an adequate life? I guess that's irrelevant, as long as your definition of a decent education or adequate life is met, right?


Again, nice, cozy rights-stomping opinions there. Don't be surprised when those of us who see right through it fight such sugar-coated wrongdoing every step of the way.

Because they are voluntary?

I think this only serves to illustrate the problem in this thread: people that have been immersed in one culture will not accept that there is more than one model.

Although it seems like you're aware of the contradictions you're living under, too. The trouble is that what we're actually experiencing is a wedding of capitalist and socialist public policy, there are very few purist societies still around. The combination of the two is more often the worst of both worlds, though. Capitalism for the poor, and socialism for the rich. I think the last 5 years has seen the most obscene example; the banking giants played fast and loose with the system that was the total bedrock of our whole way of life, screwed it up irreparably (very gradually over 40 years), then convinced the governments to screw it up even more so that they could keep their unsustainable model going (they didn't notice the unsustainability, despite how good they were at making huge profits, hence the profits were basically fraudulent). Everyone else has to pay for their mistake, and they are right now continuing to make it worse.

The premise of this thread is to want what the old pre-20th century US system was based around. It got gradually hybridised over the years, arguably by neccessity, and arguably by ideology. Not here to argue about the merits of the ideology. I'm just saying that if you really believe in democracy, then you should believe that people should be allowed to choose to live in an ecological treehouse plaza, if that's what they want. Right now, big lines are drawn on maps by influential people, and people end in a very similar situation no matter what country they live in. If those treehouse people wanted their Ewok village, there shouldn't be some other type of purist saying "you can't do that, because". No system is actually perfect, it's just got characteristics that suit the way people think.

So give me a pure capitalist model, and you can live in your socialist place. That's another hallmark of democratic thinking: respecting the decision of people in different societies. Us capitalists will even come take a trip to visit you, it's not like we disapprove or want to deny you your way of life. Just don't try to pretend that one ideology fits all, and pass that off as the objective truth, it's an insult to your own intelligence as well as mine.

Why do people think TX fees are ok? 

You need to have some kind of tax in order to provide military and enforce laws and pay for just enough welfare so that the little guy can get back on his feet when he's fallen down.

Personally I'd prefer the FairTax, a fixed rate sales tax that still helps out the little guy by giving everyone back all the money they taxes they've paid up to all purchases that could've been made with a poverty level salary.

Tell me when you can come up with a level of "need" that everyone concurs with, without you shoving a fucking gun in all our faces.

Human rights are not limited to bare survival.

You're quite right of course, I agree that taxes on consumption should be reduced. However, I don't know where you live but in my country we pay 20% VAT on some types of goods and I can tell you that if that was gone, and I didn't have to pay my ~£5000/yr in tax, I still wouldn't be able to afford private healthcare, or to send my children to private school.

I'm going to keep using the UK as an example because I'm more familiar with it. In this country, the tax yield is broken down as follows:

Income taxes (incl. national insurance)	48%
Corporation tax & business rates	13%
VAT	15%
Property taxes (council tax, stamp duty)	7%
Fuel duty (oil-war fund  )	5%
Others (incl. cap. gains, inheritance)	12%

Income tax makes up almost 50% of the yield, and the top 10% of earners pay 50% of that, as well as the majority of property taxes, and of course they own most of the shares in companies that pay corporation tax. The bottom 45% of workers pay ~7% of income tax, and ~45% of VAT. (src). It is therefore demonstrably true that the majority of money saved by abolishing tax would not go to those who most depend on public services.

As an aside, my example children and sick people can never pay for their own services no matter how little tax they pay, because they can have no income until they are skilled/healthy.

I believe in tax reform. The rich do pay more of the tax, but they are least affected, because it cuts into their luxury money and not their subsistence money. The rich should pay more of the tax. As it happens, I do agree with reducing income tax for most people because it disincentivises work. I would tax hoarded wealth, encouraging people to invest and fuel the economy. I would also increase inheritance tax.

P.s. The idea that "if you don't like tax, move to Qatar/Somalia/The fucking MOON" is absurd - if you believe something strongly you should work to change it in your own country. That's what democracy is about.

I don't care. I am not going to feed anyone else, other than my family.

Where one guy spends his money another man earns it. But yes, it makes sense in a way - to remove income tax. Rich are paying more taxes already because they spend more .


Anyway, If I was happy with my country or it's government I really would not mind to pay 50% if I could afford it. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Only if I get to make my own government, or if someone  establishes new bitcoin themed country with the prospect of brighter future.

That might be true. Population growth may be the biggest challenge the world's facing. Not everybody can own a house, a car, a computer, a smartphone, a large TV and all the things people living in rich countries take for granted. I don't think we will go back to the law of the jungle, but only the fittest will survive, like it has always been. And tax doesn't help by going against nature. What's changing though, is the definition of "the fittest". Brute force is much less important in this time.

Tax reform will never happen because the politicians would lose out. Doesn't matter who you vote for.

And I with many others believe that it's impossible for everyone to earn their livelihood. That is with current level of population with current level of technology...

No. Only those who currently pay in more than the value of the public services they use will have more money. Who pays the most tax? That would be the rich. The rich will have more money.


As you well know, the rich stand most to gain from the abolition of taxation. How many rich people will choose to spend their money on "community projects" instead of a fancier yacht? To say nothing of communities where everybody is poor.


They are massively expensive. The cost of them should be brought down, but they are not a waste of money.


Yes Carlton, I geddit. I believe in the good that bitcoin can do, and I'm incredibly excited for the improvements that can be made to government. Most government systems have barely adapted to the internet yet, let alone the amazing things that are capable with cryptographic networks like bitcoin. I think there's massive scope for reducing the cost of government. But at the end of the day, people need (e.g.) teachers and doctors, and teachers and doctors need to be paid money for their services. If everyone pays for their own teachers and doctors, how will the poor afford it? How will children afford it, when they need an education to start earning money in the first place? How will sick people afford it, when they need to be healthy to earn money?

I'd agree. Income tax is not much different from a high-tech bank robbery. People should earn their livelihood. Out tax money is not meant to feed the losers.

Okay, so I disagree on a few points here, which I don't think you've substantiated.


Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean here, but it doesn't take any force to allow something to exist - the government I just formed in my garage can do that. It takes force to stop monopolies from occurring. It's a classic problem of free market economics - the best, most innovative company achieves a market advantage, then they can afford to sell at a loss and force competitors out of business if they want to, then they have a monopoly. Governments don't always succeed at stopping this, but to claim it would never be able to happen if there was no government is absurd.


I'm not sure which country you live in, but could you point me to an example of a law which actively steal from the poor to give to the rich? Your basic premise seems to be that government is the only thing that enables the rich to take the wealth of the poor? I think the rich manage to do that perfectly well on their own. I would agree that governments regularly fail to stop the poor from being exploited but again, why would this get any better if there were no government?


I don't believe that rights are, or should be, handed down from on high, and I don't know what I said to make you think that. It is self-evident that rights only exist if some-one defends them and, like it or not, it takes force to do that. It's all very well to say "each party will agree on their own set of rights and defend it themselves", but who will defend the rights of the weak, or the poor?


I should probably say at this point that I have been desperately poor in the past, and I obviously don't think it's because I was an animal. I did help myself, and a government-funded education system paid for by the citizens of my country helped me do it. There is a foot on the throats of the working poor my friend, but it does not belong to the government - it belongs to powerful corporations, and wealthy individuals who hoard wealth and property. At worst the government doesn't prevent the theft, but it's not the burglar.

I consider stealing to be wrong, as a matter of principle, regardless of one's geographic location.  I wouldn't mind seeing income taxes done away with everywhere, not just the USA.  I think the world would be better off if governments left people's income alone.  If stealing/taxing is necessary then, personally, I would prefer that it be done when the money is spent as opposed to when it is earned.  The tax code for the income tax (in the USA at least) is just a political football with too many loopholes for those who are able to buy political influence.  I don't think the USA's income tax can be fixed.  It just needs to be shitcanned altogether.

You're thinking of income tax. It's not the only tax. That's why it's called "income" tax, and not just "tax". Consumption tax is regressive, as you well know.


Put more money in everyones pockets. Everyone can afford it. I thought you said you understood that bit?

Well said and +1.

 Too many people putting rights before responsibility - they've been sold the parody of the idea of individual "liberty" and sovereignty since they took their first breath, not realising that what they have by now come to view as their God given inalienable rights are actually a luxury that have to be "afforded" and paid for by the communities from which they emanate and to which they belong.
   The individual has been effectively loaned the rights, the freedoms- and without a sufficient eye on the repayments/responsibilties the rights can very easily (and should) be called back in.

    It all seems a long long way from Lincolns Gettysburg address to me  - "GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH"