Is forced taxation necessary to raise revenue?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:06:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Is forced taxation necessary to raise revenue?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Is forced taxation necessary to raise revenue?  (Read 5515 times)
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 05, 2017, 12:40:53 PM »

Can't funds be voluntarily given, or fundraised, or made from profits that the state makes?  Is it really necessarily to take so much from people's paychecks?  Wouldn't an economy really thrive if the government found a way to raise just enough revenue to pay for all of the things it needed to, and at the same time, allowed people to keep all of the money they earn?
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2017, 01:02:39 PM »

User fees would do better to make people associate 'free' government programs with their price tag, which would have a beneficent effect on economic output either way.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2017, 01:11:53 PM »

"Hey, that guy pays less than me, but he still gets all the benefits that me and my family do. I'm just going to pay less in that case"

"You know what, my contributions don't really matter - if I pay nothing, the schools will still work, the roads will still get built. Really, it would be stupid to pay in that case"

"I don't use that service, and people who live on benefits are just lazy, why should I be helping to pay for all of that?"
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2017, 01:15:16 PM »

"Hey, that guy pays less than me, but he still gets all the benefits that me and my family do. I'm just going to pay less in that case"

"You know what, my contributions don't really matter - if I pay nothing, the schools will still work, the roads will still get built. Really, it would be stupid to pay in that case"

"I don't use that service, and people who live on benefits are just lazy, why should I be helping to pay for all of that?"
Me me me me me me me meme meme meme...oh dear God I've turned into a meme.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2017, 02:37:25 PM »

"You know what, my contributions don't really matter - if I pay nothing, the schools will still work, the roads will still get built. Really, it would be stupid to pay in that case"

Again, user fees are a good solution to this issue, but people usually are objectionable to actually having to pay for the schools and roads that they use (rather than footing the bill to some invisible person richer than they are)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is why charity is nonexistent, and nobody with an income above the poverty line votes for candidates favoring redistribution.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2017, 04:31:23 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2017, 04:33:58 PM by AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE! »

The short answer is "Yes".

The long answer is "Of f**king course you need taxes, unless you seriously think the 40-50% of GDP needed for the State to perform its most socially beneficial functions could all be raised through people's sheer goodwill. Look, I'm not the person to say people are selfish monsters, but come on."
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2017, 04:49:05 PM »

"You know what, my contributions don't really matter - if I pay nothing, the schools will still work, the roads will still get built. Really, it would be stupid to pay in that case"

Again, user fees are a good solution to this issue, but people usually are objectionable to actually having to pay for the schools and roads that they use (rather than footing the bill to some invisible person richer than they are)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is why charity is nonexistent, and nobody with an income above the poverty line votes for candidates favoring redistribution.

You can't seriously think that voluntary donations are going to make up the shortfall of getting rid of taxes? I mean, businesses choosing to reduce the tax rates they pay through tax "planning" aren't exactly making up for that by donating 10-20% of their profits to charity.

In any case, a huge problem with trying to rely on charity as that people can donate to what is fashionable, or ideologically suits them, which means that some areas get fantastic funding, and less popular ones fall behind.

And user fees have the major issue that they are both humongously regressive, and would just serve to discourage people (except the rich) from using the services that the government is supposed to provide
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2017, 05:25:13 PM »

Taxes are the way we get people to pay for things for the common good rather than out of necessity. If there were no taxes, people without children wouldn't be paying for public education, but it's in everyone's best interests that people get educated, and taxes assure that this is done. In addition, we cannot have wealthy philanthropists alone holding up the state, because either they won't follow through or the whole system will get very corrupt very fast.

And no, taxation is not theft. It's human decency. We all get the privilege of public education and working infrastructure and a functioning government. We take a personal hit for everyone's benefit. That's called life, get used to it.
Logged
Sword
Newbie
*
Posts: 5
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2017, 07:20:11 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2017, 07:22:51 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2017, 08:02:17 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2017, 08:42:27 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Your belief is wrong.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2017, 08:47:03 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Is money not theft in itself? After all, it's basically government property.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2017, 01:23:32 AM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Is money not theft in itself? After all, it's basically government property.

     Money is minted to facilitate financial transactions; the wealth would still exist in absence of legal tender.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2017, 01:27:40 AM »
« Edited: March 06, 2017, 09:30:15 AM by mencken »

"You know what, my contributions don't really matter - if I pay nothing, the schools will still work, the roads will still get built. Really, it would be stupid to pay in that case"

Again, user fees are a good solution to this issue, but people usually are objectionable to actually having to pay for the schools and roads that they use (rather than footing the bill to some invisible person richer than they are)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is why charity is nonexistent, and nobody with an income above the poverty line votes for candidates favoring redistribution.

You can't seriously think that voluntary donations are going to make up the shortfall of getting rid of taxes?

No, hence why I advocated user fees in my two prior posts in this thread.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Normally they make up for it by passing the costs on to the consumer.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But people are not motivated to give to fashionable or ideological causes when they are in charge of allocating other peoples' money for redistributive purposes?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is not every product in existence regressive? Should a carton of eggs have progressively higher prices depending on your tax bracket? Where do we draw the line between what an individual is responsible for and what the government an invisible person richer than myself is supposed to provide?
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2017, 11:24:18 AM »
« Edited: March 06, 2017, 11:30:35 AM by Adam T »

Can't funds be voluntarily given, or fundraised, or made from profits that the state makes?  Is it really necessarily to take so much from people's paychecks?  Wouldn't an economy really thrive if the government found a way to raise just enough revenue to pay for all of the things it needed to, and at the same time, allowed people to keep all of the money they earn?

The percentage of tax the government (federal, state, county) collects from the various taxes it levies are easily found online. Your question would have a lot more context if you knew these percentages.  For instance, if income tax made up 5% of  Federal government revenue, then it would be a lot easier to eliminate than if it made up 95% of revenue.

Not to be a jerk here, but I could look this up for you, but I really don't care about these sorts of arguments.  There are all sorts of moral arguments claiming that the various tax levies are immoral or theft or whatever.  Ultimately, since governments need to raise the revenue to pay for the services that citizens through their representatives voted for, I find only the practical arguments regarding the effects of the tax to be relevant.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,099
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2017, 12:32:34 PM »

Yes, of course. Philosophies like voluntaryism or anarchism only work with widespread, collective agreement. Making taxes voluntary would cripple local, state, and federal governments. It would be disastrous.

Being a citizen in the United States means you agree to a social contract that includes the responsibility to pay your taxes.

Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2017, 01:37:21 PM »
« Edited: March 07, 2017, 01:15:20 PM by Shadows »

Yes. Taxation in itself is forced. That is how it is different from charity. It is forced not voluntary.

For one taxation & government is the basis for growth whether it is having a society, law & order, education, basic regulations or some welfare net to prevent people from dying.

Can enough voluntary money be raised ? No.

You have to learn about property rights in general & the tragedy of commons. Put a common resource like land in the earlier days & look at over-grazing. Everyone & their grand-dad will want to enjoy the benefit but no1 wants to pay if its voluntary unless society has a way of enforcing it. Would the Koch brothers want to pay or the billionaires who accumulate huge money? Everyone will feel they pay more & get a raw deal & year by year it will fall leading to a collapse of the nation in itself.

Other that other ways to go away from Taxation is to look @ Sales Tax, Service Tax, Bank Transaction taxes - These are all considered regressive taxes which charge the same from a poor guy as from a billionaire. Economists always want more in direct taxes than indirect taxes.

Taxes are a vital cog for economic growth. It is horrible for the economy if rich people have too much money. It is always better for 1000 people to have 1000 $ each & spend than for 1 person to have 1M $. In economics, we call in MPC (Marginal propensity to consume), the amount you spend for say every 100 $ which is very high in low income people & this determines the Consumption Function (C) of GDP.

Other than that progressive taxes are natural GDP stabilizers. When you earn a lot more or less suddenly, you either go to a higher or lower tax slab & the govt sucks more money or takes less money from you - They prevent overheating or crash of the economy suddenly. That with SS, Food stamps, etc are GDP Stabilizers.

Significant economic research has gone into this. Another thing is is that the money people earn is because of being born in some country & family, access to a strong economic market, access to education/financial markets to borrow, a supportive government, social safety nets & so on. 2 brothers with identical environments may have very different success rate but more often not, our wealth id to quite a significant amount determined by our birth !
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2017, 02:39:52 PM »
« Edited: March 06, 2017, 02:43:36 PM by Torie »

No, actually. Exhibit A is Hong Kong. It owns all the land in fee simple, except for one Anglican church. It leases it out on long term land leases, and derives 90% of its revenues from being a landlord.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2017, 04:08:55 PM »

Yes.

Even if you went full libertarian by cutting the welfare states, and used tolls and private industry to fulfill basic services like roads and garbage collection, you'd still have the free rider problem for stuff like justice and defense.

No, actually. Exhibit A is Hong Kong. It owns all the land in fee simple, except for one Anglican church. It leases it out on long term land leases, and derives 90% of its revenues from being a landlord.

Isn't that effectively a property tax?
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2017, 06:21:06 PM »


But people are not motivated to give to fashionable or ideological causes when they are in charge of allocating other peoples' money for redistributive purposes?

Yes, but a government is accountable to its citizens, and to ensure that things actually work.

How are you going to ensure street lights get paid for for instance? You cant stop people who don't pay the fee from using them, and as per my original argument, with no coercion, there is no reason for any individual to contribute to paying for them

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your "invisible person" is a strawman, every one pays tax, not just the wealthy, and it is easy to argue thT thise with the greatest financial stake in society should pay in the greatest amount. I mean flip the argument, our labour pays for their profits, therefore that money isn't even legitimately theirs to began n wit.

Also, both morally, and for society to function effectively, we need to ensure that everybody has access to certain services. User fees would ensure those most in need of those services would be denied them. For example, your argument posits that people should be charged to go to school, which would just deny education to a swathe of the population, with major societal and economic consequences.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2017, 06:48:31 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Taxation is sort of social contract (yes, I hate Rousseau, but couldn't think of any better word now). Taxes are necessary so the state can protect you.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2017, 08:37:41 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Taxation is sort of social contract (yes, I hate Rousseau, but couldn't think of any better word now). Taxes are necessary so the state can protect you.

I've never understood the "taxation is theft" argument. Without taxes nobody except the super rich would be able to actually afford to live. So only people who drive on the road should pay for it? Ok, well have fun with massive tolls that nobody could afford to get anywhere but you know "fake freedom!".
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2017, 09:04:55 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Taxation is sort of social contract (yes, I hate Rousseau, but couldn't think of any better word now). Taxes are necessary so the state can protect you.

I've never understood the "taxation is theft" argument. Without taxes nobody except the super rich would be able to actually afford to live. So only people who drive on the road should pay for it? Ok, well have fun with massive tolls that nobody could afford to get anywhere but you know "fake freedom!".

IIRC, are not highways already currently funded using the gas tax?
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2017, 09:16:17 PM »

Necessary for the state to get revenue? Yes. Moral? No

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

Taxation is sort of social contract (yes, I hate Rousseau, but couldn't think of any better word now). Taxes are necessary so the state can protect you.

I've never understood the "taxation is theft" argument. Without taxes nobody except the super rich would be able to actually afford to live. So only people who drive on the road should pay for it? Ok, well have fun with massive tolls that nobody could afford to get anywhere but you know "fake freedom!".

IIRC, are not highways already currently funded using the gas tax?

Supposed to be, but roads are hugely subsidized since it won't cover the cost. In WI it hasn't been raised in forever and there's a massive deficit for roads, they're bonding many millions each year now.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.