Topic: Why do people think income tax is ok? - page 7. (Read 17875 times)

Income tax and property tax are immoral.

Taxation in and of itself is a necessity but as a society we need to always evolve to the lesser of any two evils. For example, paying a tax while you use something or buy some types of things is ok as you are getting a benefit in your use of a road for example and in your use of the ecosystem supported by regulation.

I support VAT tax and sales tax 100%, but not WITH income tax and property tax.

Elect me as dictator of the USA for six months and I will fix taxation in the US for the better, it will never get fixed without a dictator.

You fail to see that compassion and generosity are completely independent from government and the power to tax.

Anybody is free to help anyone else voluntarily, but they shouldn't expect the right to stick their hand in others' pockets to do it.

Income tax makes the world a nice place where the bankers and politicians are safe and happy

I think you should go live in Somalia and spew your statist fallacies from their sitting government's facilities.

It's a good job that the militias are so well-regulated, otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance against dem predator drones

I think you should go live in somalia

It's not what I meant. My point is a reaction to the idea that income tax makes the world a nice place where's everybody's safe and happy. This is not the case. There are very heavy taxes in Spain, France, Greece and all those countries have huge and growing debt. And more than one billion people live with less than $2 a day. So I guess it was worth trying the idea of an income tax, but it just doesn't work. It may have been good for a while, but in the long term, it's simply not sustainable, and the world will get back to what it was before income tax was invented. I'm ready for it.

Ok, I was tired and that was lazy. But seriously, wealthy individuals and large corporations pay the majority of tax. So straight off the bat, any of the proposals previously mentioned that "reduce the size of govt", "end inefficiency" or "get rid of middle-men" will primarily benefit the wealthy. Regarding your other points:


No. This is the main thing that confuses me about hardline communists and anarchists alike - it's not a choice between complete state-enforced equality of outcome and the law of the jungle. There is a vast middle ground wherein lies a system of government that minimises suffering, maximises opportunity, and still allows people to enjoy the fruits of their own labour and ingenuity.


I would argue that small businesses are better off with strong government than they would be otherwise. Admittedly I can't speak for the US, but in my country the government supports small businesses and does a great deal to protect them from the anti-competitive practices of large corporations. The government provides low-interest loans only available to small businesses, provides mentors, financial advisers and tax assistance for young entrepreneurs, and regulates take-overs and mergers to prevent monopoly building. In my eyes, this is a far freer market than there would be without government - freedom for the wolves means death for the lambs, and old lions kill the offspring of rivals before they are grown.


I agree with you here, if I understand what you're saying. Education must be the single biggest priority of our time, and it is the key to ending poverty and empowering people. It is also incredibly difficult, and if you think that good teachers don't already want to "spark imagination and develop reasoning skills", then you're doing them a disservice. Truly, the biggest barrier to universal high-quality education is money. In my country state-school teachers are poorly paid and little thanked, which puts off the best minds from entering the profession. Those heroes who do it anyway struggle without resources in run-down buildings, with far too many children per teacher. The best teachers are skimmed off by private schools who often pay more than double what the state will, but of course cater only to those whose parents can afford it. The state should double, or triple, their spending on schools until the finest graduates of top universities are fighting to become teachers in the same way they fight to become doctors or lawyers, and until the poorest child in the country can receive a better education at a state school than the child of a baronet can at Eton College. Good luck doing it without tax.

How exactly does people starving by the millions equate in any way to them agreeing with you?

Sorry to correct you, but you don't know the world you're living in. We are the majority.

In India and on most of Africa, there are thousands dying in the streets everyday. According to the U.N. there are 842 million people who do not have enough to eat. I know many people are just dreamers, and the news only confirm this: the U.S. House just once again raised the debt limit. I'm proud to say I'm standing on my two feet while you're sitting on hot air.

Good luck with your counter-reality wankfest where nobody is privately charitable and all assistance for the needy has to be obtained at gunpoint.

Oh come on. Yes, income tax is the biggest slice of government income, but the top 10% of earners pay 50% of it. If you abolish it, most of the money will go to people who can already afford everything they need. You don't need to 'try it', just look at who is paying what now.

You know what, I'm out of this thread.

I see now some people have no problem with returning to societies where those unable to fend for themselves are left to die in the streets.

Fortunately I believe these people are in the minority.

Good luck with your infantile libertarian wankfest.

All the wars are funded by tax money.... including the recent American invasion of Iraq.

Income tax is ok but not if the tax is use to fund wars...

Yes, I would be very comfortable with this, because I'm not entitled to what your friend has. I've burned my social security card in 1991, and I have no healthcare in the country I'm currently staying. Most people living in rich countries can't imagine it, but billions of men, women and children in Asia and Africa live without healthcare paid for by the government, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is the culture of entitlement that so many have in rich countries. People believing that they belong to a superior species and that there should an even superior entity, the state, which will provide for all their basic needs and well-being. That superior entity, your country, it's an invention, and it doesn't work. It's failing everywhere, without rising deficits in every country.

There are more and more people on benefits and pensioners and less and less people to pay for them, so this whole redistribution system is doomed, and I'm happy not to be a part of it.

I have to disagree. There is nothing good about it, it's just pure communism. Income tax basically says: "you are smart, hard working, prospering person - pay more so we can take your money and redistribute (give it away on things that are important to us). You are a lazy, wife beating, alcoholic - we will give you social benefits, rehabilitation and help you pay taxes, because you are sick and need the society's help.

Because he is better than some asshole I would have without him...

I have no desire to go back to serfdom...

He asked *why*.
Rephrasing: Why do you think slavery is good for you?
Provide some good reasons to be a slave to your master.

Income tax is good