"Fair" is whatever I part with willingly. Remove the threat of violence and ask for people's money nicely and then we'll see what everyone thinks is fair.
This is a point of personal annoyance, because I have Democrat relatives who always say that they don't mind paying taxes and yet they never pay extra.
How amazing it is that the amount they were forced to pay just so happened to be the amount they wanted to pay?
Everyone who doesn't answer "0%" literally has Stockholm Syndrome.
The first two sentences of your post are clearly right -- sort of like Christians who, miraculous to see, happen to be born into Christianity. What a funny coincidence that 99.9% of people who achieve this enlightened state happen to be enculturated into it! And how sad that the billions of people who adopt the non-Christian religions of their parents can't see how deluded they are! (People of other religions do the same, I just haven't endured so many conversations with them about it.)
But your final line is so clearly wrong that I think I must have misunderstood it. You think that anyone who believes that taxes can be legitimate -- that they would willingly pay some non-zero portion of them -- has Stockholm syndrome? Is that literally what you're contending?
If so, well, it's technically irrefutable so there will be no convincing you if you're taking a hard line on this one. But I can tell you that I think some amount of taxes are warranted, and it's not because I'm brainwashed, it's because I think there is non-zero value to society being a thing, and paying to support the collective interest of that society, even if you're grumpy about some of the things that society collectively warrants and supports.
And I'm sorry to have to break to you that certain ways of organizing collective action don't map easily onto the 'price' model, or the 'express everything in terms of property rights' model; and (related) that not every valuable thing in life is expressable in terms of prices.
I'm even sorrier to have to break to you that these issues have been wrestled with, extensively, over the course of the last few hundred years, or even the the last couple millennia. Your response suggests some sad things about your relationship to reality, and how much you actually care about the truth.
That's the thing that I am, honestly, sad to break to you, and to everyone else to whom it applies.
You imply that everyone has deeply considered taxes and agreed to allow the current system. That’s patently false.
Representation through elections is a farce. Reps simply vote based on their self interest, and get re-elected based on their donors’ spending, not on who the people would want absent propaganda campaigns. Everything is manufactured consent.
You imply that everyone has deeply considered taxes and agreed to allow the current system. That’s patently false.
I didn't imply that. The assertion was that a person couldn't possibly accept the role of taxes in society without being deluded. That's what's false, and it's trivially false.
Well, the safest place I am on a weekly basis with private security, and the second is my home, and finally a mall with private security; not only that, they have the best price to performance ratios of places I am in. The worst price to performance ratios, and places I am most likely to be subject to violence are in fact those run by the police. I could thus argue that we would all be safer if private entities controlled all property and were responsible for safety. So, the need for the investment is omnipresent, but the person collecting, the effectiveness, the price, and morality of the situation are all subject to being better when provides by the market.
There are a few key issues people start to question like this, who funds the courts, who defends the border, who regulates food and drugs. I can assure you that there are answers for all of those to be found in the market as a series of services, contracts, bilateral agreements and the such; most of these you already engage in already without even quite realizing it. When you pick up a pair of ANSI safety goggles or buy kosher food for instance, those are private regulatory agencies that ensure the quality of the product. Many contracts already outline private arbitration, because settling things in court is aweful; if you have an issue with a product you order for instance, the company does not rely on government arbitration to refund or replace your purchase.
Yes. But ask yourself why. Because we don't have choice.
If taxes were truly voluntary the state would have to convince people to pay for services. They say they are voluntary now but the threat of violence is the cost. If you remove that the state is just like every other service provider. They have to convince people they provide value.
I used to think this was crazy but honestly it is more sane than the alternative. We struggle with status quo bias. No one knows exactly how everything would work in a stateless society or in a society with voluntary governance organizations but many smaller more focused examples have been tried and worked well.
I agree, what you’re describing is basically the practice of tithing at church, I think 10% is what “taxes” would settle at, so long as the threat of violence is eliminated and the people are participating in the system willingly / setting the market for tax rate
Government services are never fair, because they either create unfair competition through subsidies or laws, or are outright monopolies.
Why would the government offer a service funded by voluntary donations when anyone can do that?
It just becomes another company, in which case it doesn't make sense to call it a government, unless it has rights normal companies don't - which brings us to the point of unfairness.
If they're valuable services then people will pay for them. You know how other service providers come to your house, do their job, and then you pay them? It would be like that.
Agreed, I’d rather have the option to subscribe to a private fire-fighting service than be automatically enrolled. Taxes are just pure evil any way you look at it
True, I’m sure there are some services that I’d like to have provided in my hyper local municipality, can’t really think of any right now, but 10% should be way more than enough
It's not taught in the American schools system, but before 1913 there was no personal income tax. The first years of the income taxes, in 1913 the income of $20,000 ( $617,557.58 inflation adjusted) was taxed at 1%, and at $500,000 ($15,438,939.39 now) at 6%. This is what made America rich (the Gilded Age was still before the income tax), the wealth that's being squandered now on entitlements and on foreign wars.
Here's the entire 4 page long first ever 1040 form with instructions, in its entirety. Those who dealt with complicated income taxes recently, can compare the complexity.
Also, one should not underestimate the psychological burden of compliance (fear of compliance often makes one not engage into a business activity that would otherwise be socially productive) and the required time investment for compliance.
Of course the government doesn't teach children how evil it is. If we expect to change the state of the world while allowing the government to educatemind control our children we are fooling ourselves.
No tax rate is fair, capitalism reduces human beings to a money-making race, and other non-money-making talents become dispensable. And in the end, the money will be heavily concentrated in the hands of one person. Because inevitably even if you are number two, you lose all your money to number one.
In fact, yes, because earning power affects capital accumulation, and capital accumulation affects earning power. This is an interactive effect, and finally capital will be concentrated in the hands of the most profitable people.
This is an economy of scale, yes. There are also the less talked about but equally important diseconomies of scale, reducing efficiency as scale increases. Comparative advantage means there will always be a distribution in who the most efficient at producing goods; when combined with opportunity cost, even if I am more efficient at making widgets and picking berrys I will still pay you to do one or the other, because my ability to do both is constrained by my capacity for labor or organizing capital, simply having lots of capital does not mean I can efficiently organize it.
You are right, but how can people accumulate capital effectively if they have no earning power? This is a trap, and everyone falls into it by reading too much. Value is accumulating efficiently because of capitalism on someone who has the ability to make money, and the money that others think they have earned is rapidly losing value. Because the capital is now very large and very hungry.
Can you rephrase that? I'm not following. Its not capitalism if you are forced to use a certain currency, right off the bat 50% of basically every transaction is currency, so if someone is forced to use a specific currency then it is not voluntary and this not capitalism.
As far as I understood, that book you linked shows you the way of not paying taxes while still following the law. Isn't it a flimsy path - evading the system while still playing by its rules?
The law can be changed, after all
You don't need to change "the law". That law is for slaves.
Be outside, far from the slavery system, as I explained in this guide, Natural law and Bitcoin
People are ignorant nowadays and read only the titles, but don't pay attention to the details inside... I will keep posting this guide until they get it.
IS THE ONLY WAY.
In the bitcoin world, I guess the tax would not be income, but capital gains in most places (unless you are a miner). The Swiss have it figure out, 0% :)
I think a 10% public spending relative to GDP is "fine", bearable, and already achieve a lot of things.
"Free" (but private) basic education + a good security (police and army for borders defense etc) are already achieved with that kind of expenditure and I need nothing more IMO
More it's becoming true socialism that I'm not confortable with
I think the federal government revenue (ie tax collections) averages ~18% of GDP historically. 10% is probably still very high in terms of what a reasonable bare minimum would be. What I’m saying is, if every single person (corporations are legal persons as well) paid the same % regardless of income level or anything else, 10% would probably be where the market settles out in terms of what is tolerated / not rebelled against
The answer is in your question. Fair would be up to the individual. Fair is so subjective that it fits your question. There is no correct answer because the question is based in feelings and opinion not fact.
I'm not aware of a state on the planet that operates like as a business or individual is expected to act. If you want my money, you provide a product or service that I can pay for. We mutually agree on a price. If there is competition for this service or good I may be able to find a lower price. In some cases I can forgo consumption. The state is really the only institution that pretends what it is doing is not theft and slavery. At least the mob doesn't pretend to be a moral authority. The fact that most people find what I'm saying absurd shows how much mental control is wielded over humans. Taxes require force/violence. If they didn't then it wouldn't be a tax. It would be a gift or a purchase. Theft is wrong therefore the state is immoral.
I have no issue paying for roads and services. It would be nice to have choice. To have a free market for services. The state does provide many valuable services but because they use force and hold monopolies the product is subpar at best. The state lacks the incentives to provide the best services in ANY field. This includes law and defense. Eventually we will see the fall of the state as we have seen massive changes in how society works in the past. It is not sustainable in the long run. It is not optimal. It is not moral. If the state were a person we could name we would all be in favor of disposing them of their power.
I would say 10%. As in reality we need police, military and court system to protect our property rights. Otherwise only property we can truly own is Bitcoin. And 10% was considered normal rate in medieval times.
fair, depends on which services are provided for me by a government and how well those services are provided. so it depends from state to state. is good free health care provided, or do I pay for that myself.? are the police and justice system good and well funded? how much corruption is there in the government?
Voluntary taxation would be ideal from a philosophical perspective. From a practical perspective then some level of taxes are probably necessary for some time, although in any sort of case I think income taxes are unessecary and one of the least ideal ways to tax
This is an interesting question as it comes down to the need of some kind of state. I don't think the complete disappearance of the state institution is possible neither desirable, and in order to sustain it, some taxes are needed. Back in time just a few percents were necessary for that.
educatemind control our children we are fooling ourselves.