Talk Elections

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?

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.

"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.

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)


That is why charity is nonexistent (https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/), and nobody with an income above the poverty line votes for candidates favoring redistribution.

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."

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

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.

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

It has been my belief that taxation is theft.

()

Your belief is wrong.

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.

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


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


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?


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?

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.


Isn't that effectively a property tax?

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


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.

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.

Ceteris Paribus yes, but that's not how the real world works.

It depends what you mean by "forced."  We could theoretically fund the entire government at all levels with road tolls and permit fees.  Obviously, this would still be "forced" taxation to the extent that all drivers would have to pay if they wanted to continue driving, but this tax scheme would make it at least theoretically possible to avoid being taxed directly [of course, exorbitant license/transportation fees for companies would still constitute an indirect tax as it would be ultimately passed onto the consumer].   Ultimately, someone has to pay for the government to function, though the degree of force could vary considerably. 

Why is the "degree of force" such a major concern anyway? Being forced to do things we'd rather not do (or prevented from doing things we'd rather do) is a fundamental aspect of life in society. It's how we learn to respect our fellow citizens and put general interest above our own. Living under the illusion that we can get all of society's benefits without paying any of the costs, and without ever doing anything we don't want to do, is not "liberating" - I'd argue it's morally and intellectually degrading.

Unfortunately it is necessary as it wouldn't be possible to raise the money necessary for a civil society.  Voluntary taxation might work if you were on an island country of only 1,000 people, but not in a large advanced one.  Perhaps if you lived in the Pitcairn Islands you could rely on voluntary taxes, but not in most modern countries.

You don't have to have an income tax, you can do a national sales tax instead. But that's still forced taxation - people are more able to determine what % of their annual income is paid in taxes through buying more/less - but you're still forcing them to hand that extra $$ to the cashier when they do buy things.

The answer is No. Sorry, DW Perry.