Topic: Why do people think income tax is ok? - page 12. (Read 17878 times)

Qatar is a great place for the needy, if they're Qataris. And I doubt there's a single Qatari in need of anything, but the Gulf countries are very special because of their oil. Every Qatari benefits from the huge wealth oil brought, but nobody said the immigrants shall benefit too. They don't, and the Qataris look down on them.

I am some kind of a "libertarian idealist", and I'm the first to recognize that few people can afford to be like me (and live the way I do), but with the information economy, more and more people can afford to have such ideas.

You and I have so much we agree on. Let me be clear:
 

Of course I believe in morals, and I believe in rights, but to believe that any one right is absolute is extreme, absolutist, and frankly very american. As far as I am concerned, the basic objective of all morality should be to increase the quality of life of as many people as possible by as much as possible, and rights are a tool to achieve this end. I believe that people should have a right not to starve or die from treatable diseases. I believe that people should have a right to education. I also believe in a right to property, but that the first three (and others) are equally important. It would be great if a government could uphold all of those rights, but I don't think it's possible. Upholding rights costs wealth, and wealth starts out as people's property.

Aside from that minor hiccup,  we seem to have a lot in common. I think that tax avoidance by the super rich is one of the very greatest moral wrongs being perpetrated in our society. I think that taxes on the middle classes and small businesses are too high, but should they pay them at all? I think so. I absolutely agree that vast amounts of poor people are poor because they have been exploited and ripped off by the wealthy, but even in a near-ideal society the free market would produce winners and losers. What stops these winners from becoming the next oligarchs if not regulation and redistributive taxation? You are so right that too many governments are appallingly corrupt, but why not focus our efforts on fixing that instead of abolishing government altogether? As I say, however much more our governments have to improve, they have already come so far. On the other hand, can you point to a time when the abolition of democracy has led to an improvement in a population's quality of life? If companies are free to do as they please - to amass as much wealth as they please - then a small number of companies will establish a monopoly over all markets and services, and hey presto, there's your new government. Only you don't get the vote this time around.

Please don't mistake my thinking that rights should not be absolute to mean that I don't think they are important, just that I believe that society is vast, rich, diverse and beautiful, and it can't function via the absolutist application of simple rules, like a game of chess or the bitcoin protocol. Rights are complicated and contextual and they change according to the needs of people which makes them stronger, not weaker.

Again, I'm well aware that governments fail to live up to these ideals, but I don't think we'd be better off without them.

Ok.

It's a different system that people are asking for. Not justifications for the proper functioning of the system we all use now.

If no-one pays tax, everyone will have more money.

And when you get rid of all the middlemen that come inbetween the tax collection and the public spending, that means the money used to administer it all can just get spent on community projects directly.

No tax collectors means the money spent on tax collection is available for something else.

No politicians means the money spent on politicians wages is available for something else.

No government administrative staff means the money spent on administrative staff is available for something else.

No elections of public representatives means the money spent on elections is available for something else.

Lie to me, tell me that those things aren't massively expensive and a massive waste of money.


And you can build a really transparent and equitable system to do it all, based on bitcoin-like technology. It's a new paradigm for government, you know, a bit like how bitcoin is a new paradigm for money. Geddit? No? Well never mind then, I expect it'll happen with or without you.

A government without the ability to use force, i.e. specifically to tax, is a government incapable of allowing businesses monopoly and thus the ability to become rich in the first place; this means, without the government to tax the rich, there wouldn't be any rich, for there is nothing to shield a corporation from unethical behavior and nothing to allow a corporation unfair practice among their small-business competition.  Without this use of force, people would be able to work without the expensive governmental overhead, without the laws which steal from the poor to give to the rich in the first place (which effectively removes the need for you to, again, steal from the rich to give back to the poor who would then be stolen from again thanks to government), meaning they would make more and could work less, which means they could afford food, housing, clothes, health care, education, without the need to steal back the money taken from them.  Instead of taking from the people to take care of the people (with all the government waste in between), the most practical, cost-effective and humanitarian approach is to simply not steal from the people in the first place.

Instead of viewing the poor as a bunch of animals that must be cared for by the rich pet owners, why not take your foot off their throat and let them help themselves?  Why do you agree with the horrendous practices of the rich whilst simultaneously claiming you're trying to help the poor?

Furthermore, I detest your skewed representation of "rights".  A right only functions when the parties involved agree upon them and agree to defend them; the idea that rights are granted by government is akin to saying that nobody has rights but what the masters of a given society allow them to have, which do not count as rights, but only as privileges, as you mother and father would give you when you're young, or, as mentioned, the owner of a pet.  This further points out your view of the poor being animals to be owned, and it's repulsive, and I insist that you live up to your claim to believing in morality because this does not cut it.

I'm baffled that this needs pointing out but nevertheless...

The tax system exists (or should) such that the rich subsidise the poor. If people are given the choice to opt out, then a majority of rich people will opt out. Either you think the world would be a much happier place if the poor learned to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stopped being so lazy and feckless, or you subscribe to the libertarian fantasy that everything would be magically cheaper, people would be much more charitable and markets would be much freer with more competition, if only companies could do whatever they wanted and no-one paid any tax, as if the first thing truly free companies would do wouldn't be to eliminate competition.

It's all very well to consider a reductive case: "I get money from another party for my property or skills, no-one else has the right to get involved" but like it or not, you, your skills, your property, your money, and the other party were born out of a system in which you are kept safe, educated and healthy, and (with the exception of the evil, money-grabbing taxman) your right to private property is respected and defended. You benefited from the system before you were born and you benefit now, whether you're rich or poor.

This should be obvious, but the rights and freedoms you (and most of us) hold dear are not natural, and they're not absolute. They weren't brought down from Sinai, and they weren't discovered encoded in our DNA or the laws of physics. They were invented by thousands of clever, decent people who figured out a better way for people to live, and a government that manages to defend most of all of them and all of some of them deserves a little credit. This isn't to say that it does as good a job as it should, or that it isn't corrupt - as a centre-left kind of guy I spend half my time fuming about the corruption and incompetence of governments - but to what are we comparing them? Those countries over the last century whose governments have used taxes to help their weaker citizens while promoting free markets are the wealthiest on Earth, and most of their citizens enjoy a standard of material comfort that used to be beyond all but kings and emperors.

TLDR:

You are forced to contribute, and that is a good thing. Your right to private property is being partially infringed, but the right only exists because it improves everyone's quality of life, and part of the money goes towards defending your rights, and the rights of other people. Depending on where you live, your government is among the best at upholding these rights than any government in the history of humankind. Governments in future will be better at it, but a weak government (or no government) would not be, and that is the only outcome of abolishing taxes.

The majority of the super rich already opt-out. If you think that it is most such people who are subsidizing the poor (rather than exploiting them,) then I have a bridge to sell you. Anyone who thinks most such people should subsidize the poor rather than simply stop exploiting them, is just revealing the true nature of their character; and no, that nature is NOT "I'm generous and moral and believe in a peaceful society."



Well, that about says it all then, doesn't it? If you don't believe there are absolute human rights, regardless of their origin, then you will simply NEVER AGREE with those who do, and frankly, we will fight you and your inconsistent opinions as long as we are able.

As an aside, I've always wondered why people who say they believe rights aren't absolute don't all just go into politics, acquire money and power, and do whatever they heck they want and "die happy" rather than wasting their time on internet forums. It's all just arbitrary, right? 



Institutionalize theft may have benefits to some, but it's ridiculous to try to sell (to the people being stolen from no less) the idea that it's a "good thing", particularly when the people doing the stealing are both horribly inept and disgustingly corrupt, to whatever degree.


You are free to hold those opinions if you wish. You shouldn't be surprised when those who see through the absurdity of it, and understand that rights are either inalienable or are being suppressed by some at the whim of others (i.e., immorally) refuse to play by your rules.

The USA still forces you to pay taxes if you leave, or you will life the rest of your life in exile.

There is absolutely no "free movement" about that.

So to nail this down. Anti-tax guys, with the parking lot analogy:

Do you not agree being able to move to Qatar or Monaco means you do not have to pay taxes?

We're in a global economy with very free movement. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the USA.

Gun to your head, knife to your throat, noose to your neck, club to your skull, fire to your body, any aggressive coercive force.

In your example there is a voluntary agreement between two individuals.  However, income taxes involve a third party that is not part of the agreement.  Neither of the two individuals have asked the thug with the badge to interfere or otherwise involve himself in the transaction.  He forces them to include him.  No one is forcing the two individuals to do business.  They are free not to do business, but just because two individuals voluntarily choose to do business does not give a third person the right to demand that he be included.  He doesn't ask them to include him, he insists that he be included and reminds them that if they don't then there will be consequences.


Yes, it's these "rules of the system" that we are discussing.  It's these "rules of the system" that need to be changed.  It's these "rules of the system" that make it okay to steal if the thieves refer to it as "income tax".  It's these "rules of the system" that makes it okay to steal as long as you have a badge.  The "rules of the system" are corrupt because the people that make those rules are corrupt.  The first step in changing the "rules of the system" is pointing out how immoral the rules and the rulemakers are.


The USA isn't the only place in the world where those individuals that enforce the "rules of the system" are allowed to carry guns and use those guns to enforce the "rules of the system".

Why do you keep bringing up the same irrelevant questions I've answered time and time again. If my analogy isn't relevant to what's being discussed in this thread then neither is the you don't chose to get mugged/raped/murdered ones which is what I was referencing here. And there are many choices to park. You can find somewhere for free, you can pay a council space, or a lot. You can choose. You have not been forced to. Does a man with a gun come round and say you have to pay me no matter what even if you don't have a car or want to park anywhere? No. You can also try park for free illegally if you want and try get away with it, but if you get caught you have to pay a fine, but that's your choice and you were aware of the rules so in fact this is a perfect analogy for this situation and far more apt than the mugged/raped/murdered ones you lot keep brining up.

And if a person owns a lot or a space, he has chosen to own that an operate a business under the rules of the system. So he has not been forced to do anything; he chose to play by the rules and pay into this system, and so do you people. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, don't own a parking space or a lot or go where there are no taxes for this kind of thing. How is anyone being forced to do anything when they willing give it up and agree to play by the rules set out?

And I wish people would stop bringing up this gun to your head thing. Not everybody lives in America.

Of course someone that owns a parking lot should be free to charge whatever he wants for access to his property and anyone who is not willing to pay his asking price should be free to park elsewhere and should not be forced to pay.  If the person looking for a place to park chooses to pay, then he has not been robbed.  They have both entered an agreement voluntarily.

But that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.  A more relevant question would be:  Should a thug with a badge be able to go to the owner of the parking lot and put a gun to his head and demand that he hand over half of the parking fee income that he earns?

I love how people call users with differing opinions trolls, especially ironic when they themselves offer nothing to the discussion.

I cant believe you guys are seriously still feeding this troll who is obviously trying to bump his post-count. Lol.

Hate to break it to the "anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org" but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

If you go to park your car and to be able to legally park there you have to pay for a ticket... have you been forced to pay that money? Has the owner of the parking space robbed you? I'd say that's your choice to park there, or you could find a free place to park.

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

They don't pay taxes in Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar )- I suppose the anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org could move there - but then the US already owns Qatar doesn't it ? Or am I thinking of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Oman/Libya/Nigeria/UAE etc etc.

    If you do move there I hope you won't be going there to work [as well as avoid paying taxes through some kind of "libertarian" idealism]

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013

  Its no place for the needy.

     "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  ??  You must be having a laugh - not in Qatar sir - and not in the USA any longer it would seem.

    What have you become America ?

  

Well, I did say let's try it all, and then see which works and which people choose 

I guess that's what I'm trying to illustrate, that right now there is only one basic model of government in the whole world, and that Venezuela or Singapore are only slightly different from each other if you consider the whole spectrum of possibility. Everyone seems incredibly stuck in believing the 20th century ideas were the best, and there's no room to try anything different.

10 whole pages and this book has not been posted?

Sums up the debate pretty much. I accept the reality of the day, but theoretically it cannot be defended when taken to the logical max.