Taxes: Yea or Nay?

Taxation, for all intents and purposes, is theft. It involves the state forcefully taking the capital of individuals that was fairly earned off the back of their own labour. If one refuses to pay up, there is dire consequences. It is akin to a mugging.

However, unlike mugging, you technically get something back from this. Or at least in theory. The issue is, however, you don't get a say on what this tax money is to go towards.

That said, without some form of taxation, you can't really have a state - or at the very least not a very effective one. The theft problem would potentially be rectified by introducing a voluntary tax system. This would mean that taxation can only be paid with the consent of the individual who is paying them. While this theory is attractive, it is questionable on its effectiveness and may lead to the government lacking the sufficient funds to function the institutions it does fund.

If taxation is an necessary evil, it is my view that is should be limited to such a degree so as to be sufficient enough to maintain a limited minarchist government. With a lot of the institutions that governments currently fund in the West being handed over to the ebb and flow of the free market.

Having said that, Haggis, I really don't see an alternative. We live in the countries with political systems that decide the tax systems and I don't wanna live on a remote pacific island just to avoid taxes. I think USA claims them anyway.

The way I see it, we give them money and they give us roads, food regulation and social housing. It's not perfect, but it's alright.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some people think taxes are a necessary evil (me) and some people think that taxes are not ethical/moral (socool8520).

This thread is to discuss whether or not you want taxes, how do use them, or if you do not want taxes and how to live without them.

If we go that route, then firefighters, police, civil servants (of all types including lawyers provided by the state, which is a constitutional right), military, and even government funding scientific research has to go away. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you have an idea and you only me income taxes have to go away? I agree. I think we can do just fine if we get rid of income taxes. We just need to figure out how to fix our broken tax system, scale back what we spend, and spend smarter.

I think we can have our cake and eat it too: I think we can have a universal healthcare solution AND have no income taxes.

Personally, I think taxes are inevitable but they need to be minimal.

What I mean is that at the basis level people voluntarily lead their lives within a given society need to support basis societal needs. Basic, as in, needs that pertain to keeping order and safety so that the society can function.

In this respect some of the examples you've given, that is, law-enforcement, military and civil servants will be subsidized by taxes the first two are need to maintain safety and the rule of law, and the last one is needed to be the bridge between the government and the people. I would include infrastructure here too.

This would be something that I call essential, uncontested needs.

The matters of healthcare and education can be privately maintained, given that within such complex political structure as a country different regions and various groups will have different needs.

Scientific research is tricky, I have to think about it more.

IMHO Anything that goes beyond that will always be contested and usually one group or the other will be either a victim or a beneficiary of taxation. This breeds tension and suspicion (almost always justified) that your money is wasted.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Having said that, Haggis, I really don't see an alternative. We live in the countries with political systems that decide the tax systems and I don't wanna live on a remote pacific island just to avoid taxes. I think USA claims them anyway.

In the current system there is no alternative, indeed. However, hypothetically there are alternatives. These can come in the form of a volunteerist approach, like I said in my post that taxation would be strictly voluntary. The other option would be to abolish the government and have anarchy.

I'm more libertarian minded than most people, thus both options do have their appeal to me to some extent, however I'm not fully committed to them. Thus, like you said taxation seems like the only way if some form of proper state is to be maintained.

The way I see it, we give them money and they give us roads, food regulation and social housing. It's not perfect, but it's alright.

Well, roads could potentially be privatised. The effects of this are uncertain, but if I was to hazard a guess, the roads would probably have better upkeep due to the nature of business. If a company fails to provide a decent service at a good price, then they won't get much business. Government, on the other hand has a monopoly on roads, thus meaning they are not pressured by competition to provide a good service leading to faulty roads. Granted, however, that road privatisation has environmental hazards.

Food regulation, while making sense assumes that companies would want to sell dodgy foods. If they did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot as they will garner a bad reputation if consumers become ill or worse and thus people will not do business with them leading to a loss in profits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't social housing a mess currently?

Just like to note that I'm not entirely sure I take these stances, just playing around with ideas. The point is, if taxes do exist, they should be minimised.

i wouldn't mind being taxed so heavily if i had the option of electing where i can put my taxes.

Originally posted by RHaggis
In the current system there is no alternative, indeed. However, hypothetically there are alternatives. These can come in the form of a volunteerist approach, like I said in my post that taxation would be strictly voluntary. The other option would be to abolish the government and have anarchy.

I'm more libertarian minded than most people, thus both options do have their appeal to me to some extent, however I'm not fully committed to them. Thus, like you said taxation seems like the only way if some form of proper state is to be maintained.

Well, roads could potentially be privatised. The effects of this are uncertain, but if I was to hazard a guess, the roads would probably have better upkeep due to the nature of business. If a company fails to provide a decent service at a good price, then they won't get much business. Government, on the other hand has a monopoly on roads, thus meaning they are not pressured by competition to provide a good service leading to faulty roads. Granted, however, that road privatisation has environmental hazards.

Food regulation, while making sense assumes that companies would want to sell dodgy foods. If they did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot as they will garner a bad reputation if consumers become ill or worse and thus people will not do business with them leading to a loss in profits.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't social housing a mess currently?

Just like to note that I'm not entirely sure I take these stances, just playing around with ideas. The point is, if taxes do exist, they should be minimised.

As for roads, you pointed out environmental hazards, there are also factors such as where people live in proximity to those roads. I don't want a big ass road near where I live.

Food regulation is an issue that governments should sort out. Like drug companies, there are plenty of food companies that will and have dumped bad foods to undeveloped countries with little competition and caused problems. They also profited. I wouldn't mind paying tax to make sure that doesn't happen to me, or anyone, for that matter.

Social housing is a mess. I'd like to see a reduction in it. I opted to go private, myself.