Is forced taxation necessary to raise revenue?

[parochial boy]

"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?"

[parochial boy]

"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)

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

[parochial boy]

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

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.