Topic: Why do people think income tax is ok? - page 3. (Read 17878 times)

I'd disagree with that. If you make $20/hour, your employer is shelling that out for you regardless of how much income tax you pay. It shouldn't affect his books at all (other than the savings from the reduction in paperwork.)

As far as whether the job market would benefit or not, that would depend on what, if anything, replaced the income tax.

Countries with no income tax:

Bermuda (Social Security tax - 31BMD/week)
 
Cayman Islands

Bahrain (3% Social Security tax)
 
Marshall Islands
 
Turks & Caicos Islands
 
Qatar (10% Corporate tax)
 
UAE

Only ethical and logical tax there is out there is VAT. We can rise it on stupid stuff like jet skis and lower it on food .

Income tax and other kind of taxes are only so people won't be aware how much they are paying to government in total. It works because people panic much more when VAT goes up then when capital tax is going up.  Of course it creates a lot of difficulties when you need to pay taxes. (it even creates such a weird job like tax adviser). With one kind of tax it would be much cheaper to process and much more transparent.

It's ok. Perhaps the way it's wasted is not ok, but non the less it's ok. If income tax were removed, then you probably would have a lower paycheck anyway.

People are not aware of other options.
Eliminating the income tax would take a huge educational effort.

Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more! Or close the wall up with our English dead!


Not much of a problem with this, though you'd have to raise them a great deal.


This is an appalling attitude. Civilised societies take care of their sick.


So the schools and police will be better funded in wealthy areas where they already have low crime rates and good schools? Nice.


Because corporations are the only ones who need defending, right?


Do you really mean income tax, or is your problem really with any tax where the rich pay progressively more than the poor?

Of the latter, income tax is as good as any other, though I would probably prefer a property/wealth tax - though not a local one, where the money is only spent on things that benefit the local wealthy...

The two issues need to be separated.

I am all for building roads and giving away money to needy people and ponies for children and free medical care.

I would love to give that all away to everyone. I think everyone should have a million dollars to spend on whatever they want.

That would be so great. And I show compassion by saying that I want everyone to have that so that makes it even better.

I want everyone to have access to doctoral level education and we should fly spaceships to the moon again, to Mars, and other planets and beyond!

Aren't I great? I want to give away so much, I must be the most compassionate person in the world!

Now give me your money to pay for my compassion. Oh, and if you do not men with guns will throw you in jail.

If you delve a little deeper into your assessment of suffering vs happiness, your idea to tax sounds good on the surface and theoretically should provide a better outcome and add to the happiness pool more than the suffering pool. But Communism and Socialism are also great in theory(The fundamentals are based on wealth distribution)... However, after some spectacularly failed experiments we now know that in practice the reality is alot different.

What if that person has been saving that money and living on beans for 10 years because their child needs an operation that can only be performed by the best surgeon in the world? Your "Moral" act of thievery has just gone and killed that persons child... Can you rationalise away the death of that person for the potential quality of life improvement of a group of people that probably won't see most of the money you stole?

The answer is probably yes if you're a politician, you think you're doing a good thing by redistributing wealth, people definitely DID benefit from the funds you stole... mostly the people who distributed it but the people who needed it got some too and chances are that guy wasn't even going to spend the money on his child, he just liked living on beans and hoarding money... Its reasonable that you and the hard working thieves receive some for doing all the hard work and actually taking the money... Isn't it?

In what kind of society is thievery morally justified? especially when history shows that wealth redistribution (whether it be to the top or bottom of the pyramid is irrelevant) gives catastrophic consequences over time...

Unless i'm missing something and stealing actually increases the net wealth of society? Surely that thief would be better off doing something productive rather than stealing?

MOST fire departments in the U.S. are private. This again illustrates the large gap between perception and reality for many people when it comes to what they want/think/expect of government, and what actually occurs.

(Also, yes, there are plenty of private roads and gated communities with their own security forces in the U.S. Guess that should be pointed out too.)



That's really the bottom line. As long as I claim positive benefits for someone/everyone, and don't mistreat you too badly (or at least sweep the messes under the rug and just wave them off with "well, most people pay taxes, they should have too,") then I have some moral right to steal from you. 

Double standards. Double standards everywhere!

Sure, people have a right to life. But if they have inadequate food and healthcare, how am I suddenly obligated to work however hard is required to provide it for them? There's a difference between charity and entitlement. Charitable giving is moral. Forced entitlements are not. The idea that one can be said to have any sort of morality when they're forced to do something is a bit odd, really.


[citation needed]

Source: common sense



Education and protection under the law are basic human rights. Giving the children of the rich a better education than the children of the poor just entrenches the advantage they already have. The whole point of funding them via income tax is that the wealthy are forced to subsidise education and protection for those who can't afford it.