Taxes, are there other ways?

[Radiate]

I frequently see people complain about the government "stealing" money from the people in the form of taxes, yet all of the examples I've seen so far often amount to straw man arguments with no realistic alternatives offered. Here's one taken from the thread "What's wrong with Civil Unions?".

Any relationship that you begin voluntarily can also be ended voluntarily. The belief that your relationship with the IRS is a voluntary one is simply not true because you cannot choose to disengage from the relationship. If you do, you will be kidnapped and taken to jail. That is not voluntarism.

If you pay monthly for a gym membership (say it's a basic month to month contract for argument sake), and you decide not to pay for any more months, you will get letters and phone calls citing your non-payment. Eventually if you do not pay, your membership will simply be canceled. End of story. Relationship over.

However, when it comes to paying the IRS, this scenario plays out a lot different (the govt is very good at hiding the gun in the relationship). You'll get a couple letters in the mail citing your non-payment. Then you'll get more letters which have a far more serious tone. Then I suppose you'll get a court summons and a demand to appear before a judge. If you ignore that, an armed officer will come to your door and attempt to put you in hand cuffs. If you resist this initiation of violence with self-defense, you will be killed or brutalized on the spot.

That sound voluntary? You certainly wouldn't call your gym membership voluntary if they behaved in this same manner, and they provide you services too!

This argument ignores the fact that everyone uses a government service in some form or fashion, and that those services are payed for by taxes. Thusly, use of these services without paying taxes is theft, or to equate it to ancaps analogy, it would be like refusing to pay your gym membership and showing up the next day and hopping on the treadmill.


Another complaint I've heard about taxes is that they aren't right because the individual doesn't make use of a particular service, or simply does not want the services at all. Aside from the fact that this falls back on the first argument, that everyone uses government services in some way, it also raises a question about the individuals selective attitude. I can understand not wanting to pay for things you don't use all the time, but why does this attitude apply only to the government? Why not argue with the owner of a gym to lower their monthly membership if you only use the treadmill, and never use the other machines? Why not argue with all businesses about the price of their services every time I deem that the price I pay are spent on things I believe are wasteful, not ethical, or not necessary?

On the statement of "ponying up for public infrastructure"...... If there was a voluntary system that could support all of our social infrastructure needs without the use of theft from a government, would it be worth exploring that possibility?

Alternatives are always worth exploring, as no system is perfect. However, I can only imagine how much abuse would come out of a system that would hinge on voluntary contributions to support our infrastructure.


So lets hear it. I want to hear real alternatives to the current tax system. Please include the specifics of how it will work.

 

[doobnVA]

We could have a bake sale.

here's how it would work:

1) Bake things

2) sell them

3) use the money to fund every government program/infrastructure program/public amenity

hey, it works for the Girl Scouts right?

 

[ObamaSanta]

Why not argue with all businesses about the price of their services every time I deem that the price I pay are spent on things I believe are wasteful, not ethical, or not necessary?

You don't? I sure as hell do and I save a great deal of money doing so.

 

[Keenly]

there is no law requiring most americans to pay an income tax.... but they take it anyway....stealing



im all down for taxes but the must be APPORTIONED
(aka THE SAME FOR EVERYONE)


as the constitution demands

 

[redivider]

taxes cannot be apportioned... they have to be PROPORTIONED.

if they are apportioned, then someone (INDIVIDUAL A)that makes 10 million a year would pay the same as a person (INDIVIDUAL B) that makes 15,000 per year.

let's say that "apportioned" number is 10,000. that means that everyone, regardless of income level, pays 10,000 in income taxes:

its 10,000/15000 x 100 = 66.7% of that individuals (B) income.

10,000/10,000,000 x 100 = 0.1% of (A) income.

that's why it doesn't work...

 

[ObamaSanta]

I'm pretty sure his intent was a percentage of income. Why should I pay 34% of my income while someone else pays 29% simply because I happen to make more? If it were based purely on a flat tax rate, I would still be paying more, but it would be fair. Not to mention it's been proven over and over that the Gov'ment would actually receive more revenue under a flat tax.

 

[undertheice]

This argument ignores the fact that everyone uses a government service in some form or fashion, and that those services are payed for by taxes.

while there are those that believe all government is abusive and should be eradicated (i tend toward that view, but realize it is a necessary evil. for now.), there are very few who do not understand that the nation's infrastructure must be paid for with some sort of taxation. the complaints arise from the inherent inequities of a system that penalizes success and from our government's tendency to finance its pet projects at the expense of any minority it can label as wealthy or single out in some way for the derision of the masses. the alternatives of a flat tax rate on earnings above some set limit or a national sales tax that targets consumption instead of earning have been forwarded, but they are always shot down by those who see wealth as a fixed commodity and the wealthy as somehow responsible for the welfare of the nation. both are workable models, but the former undermines the expansion of the welfare state by holding even the lowest among us responsible for the government services they consume and the latter places the burden on the very creature comforts that are used to subdue the masses into their stupor of comfortable poverty. there is no perfect option. the question arises as to whether we should continue milking the wealthy at an ever increasing rate to satisfy the desires of the mob or chasten the unproductive members of our society in hopes that they may strive further to improve their lot.

while the manner in which government funds itself may be of great concern, the use to which it puts those funds is even more contentious. while the various forms of taxation continue to place an increasing burden on the middle and upper classes, our infrastructure's steady decline is evident. if it is not used for its intended purpose, where does all that money go? to the honest observer, the answer is evident. the nation's growth has stagnated because of an increasing emphasis on gaining popular support for whatever faction of the liberal establishment happens to be in power at the time. we throw good money after bad to support flawed social programs designed only to shore up the reputations of the proponents of the welfare state. billions are spent to fund a massive bureaucracy designed to eradicate poverty and still poverty increases with each passing day. we are inundated with intrusive regulations and the enforcement of those regulations funnels away even more of the funds wrung from the very people they were designed to subdue. we have been tricked into policing a world that despises us until we may be of some use to them and then despises us all the more for those efforts, spending billions in an effort to save the world from itself. the waste inherent in any government operated program is staggering, yet still we clamor for more, and let us not forget the ongoing public relations campaign, funded by the taxpayer and designed to convince him that all his sacrifices in the name of the holy state are not in vain.

I can understand not wanting to pay for things you don't use all the time, but why does this attitude apply only to the government?

Why not argue with all businesses about the price of their services every time I deem that the price I pay are spent on things I believe are wasteful, not ethical, or not necessary?

how can you compare government and the private sector in such matters? this tactic is becoming more and more popular and is disingenuous at best. one must use the carrot to induce growth, the other seems only to know the stick. within the free market there is choice, the answer to your question is that you do argue with all businesses by choosing whether or not to give them your patronage. a business must convince you that theirs is the product or service you should choose among a thousand other similar enterprises and that choice is your power over anyone in the private sector. government, on the other hand, uses force to make everyone comply with their demands. there is no option, no other government down the street that you can move your business to when you become disgusted with your treatment. government denies choice with the threat of violence, imprisonment and confiscation of property. the people may have some small say over their government's demands, but the final say is always in the hands of those few who strive to control our lives.

 

[Rob Roy]

This I'm sure will be an interesting thread. Many people will fall off the logic train quickly, but I'll play along.

Theft is unauthorized taking, when a person or group of people take your property or your money. If they attempt to control your body without your consent most people would agree that is slavery, a horrible variant of theft.

While most of us have taken something that didn't belong to us, most of us can agree that behavior (theft) is wrong.
A thief should not rationalize their behavior by saying, "well I was going to buy something good with the money I stole", that would not excuse the theft would it? I'd say if you had something that belongs to you that was taken without your consent you were stolen from, the "need" or the identity of the thief notwithstanding.

Being made to pay for something you don't use or want is EXTORTION. The meaning of extortion does not change when the perpetrator is the government. Or do "they" have the power to be able to change the very meaning of words! Hmmm.

Few of us have "authorized" government to tax us, I haven't anyway. Therefore if the "taking" is unauthorized we are either being stolen from under the threat of force (extortion) or the property was never really ours to begin with. Any other explanation is a deviation from the true meaning of the words and is a rationalization. Is it possible we don't own our homes, our bodies and our labor? Hmmm.

Logically the meaning of theft should not change when the identity of the thief changes should it?
If a masked bandit comes to my house and robs me at gunpoint or a self appointed official wearing a silly hat with a shiny piece of metal on his chest is the thief what is the difference? The difference is "government" has given themselves a "license" to steal. The act of theft remains, again unauthorized by me, the person who is being stolen from. I have given no consent to either thief, therefore neither act of thievery is a willful transcation on my part. Both are acts of theft,
if unauthorized taking occurred.

People that attempt to own their verybodie s by smoking pot have their lives stolen from them everyday under the guise of "legality". Making something legal or illegal doesn't make it right. It can, by coincidence be right, but it is not the legality that confers right or wrong upon an act, it is the morality of an act that confers right and wrong. For instance, we all know slavery was immoral and wrong, yet it was legal at one time.

The underlying premises of right and wrong are and always have been:
Do the actions of one party bring harm to another? If there are two parties to a "transaction" is one an unwilling participant? If these circumstances exist, a wrongful act is committed, even it is made "legal". Taxation for instance.

If you are not harming another, what you do with your property, your time, your body, your money, is "right" If you wish to exchange your stuff with another and all agree, it is a private affair if force was not used to obtain compliance.

Even if a transaction is made "illegal", it does not automatically confer immorality. Smoking pot is illegal, yet it is not "wrong" if it's what a person choses to do that is it? If a person leaves others alone what right do any of us have to impose our will upon them? Morally none.

There are many alternatives to forced taxes. A competitive free market results in better living for people. Government is simply a middleman that has wormed it's way into existence and like a parasite has no regard for it's hosts, us.
Government exists to feed itself.

A good book to read - THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Linda and Morris Tannehill.

 

[doobnVA]

A few long-winded posts but still, nobody answers the question.

RobRoy: You say "There are many alternatives to forced taxes", but you fail to name a single one, which was what the original poster asked for. Not a drawn out lecture about slavery and extortion.

 

[maxamus1]

i do not like taxes but know that we need them. i am open to other ideas though.

 

[undertheice]

perhaps we should follow doob's example and look to santa claus for relief.

 

[doobnVA]

MY example? I provide my own relief. It's you anti-tax people who seem to think the magical infrastructure fairy is going to take care of everything in the absence of taxes.

Does anyone remember what happened in Iraq when we invaded and took Saddam out of power? The Iraqis looted the shit out of everything. Museums, libraries, 1000s of years worth of Iraqi artifacts and history GONE overnight. Can you imagine what would happen if we had no government and no taxes? Here's a scenario:

Say you own a pawn shop (which are notorious for having a great deal of valuable merchandise as well as weapons and ammunition), there are no police to call if someone tries to rob you, no electricity because gangs have taken over the power station and cut you off so your alarm system doesn't work. This is your entire life's work and your source of income. Are you going to kill everyone who comes in and tries to steal from you? If you do, who is going to clean up the pile of bodies? Who is going to help the people who are injured in riots, or injured by shop owners trying to protect their property? What happens when looters have taken all your weapons and ammunition and you can't defend yourself anymore? The gas pumps are all empty, so you can't just jump in your car and drive away.

What's going to happen to the peaceful, innocent families who no longer have access to clean drinking water and FOOD? How are they going to defend themselves against the roving packs of criminals going house to house in search of food, clothing, weapons, and other valuables? How are people going to keep warm in the winter with no electricity or gas? How are people going to stay cool in the summer time?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[redivider]

I'm pretty sure his intent was a percentage of income. Why should I pay 34% of my income while someone else pays 29% simply because I happen to make more? If it were based purely on a flat tax rate, I would still be paying more, but it would be fair. Not to mention it's been proven over and over that the Gov'ment would actually receive more revenue under a flat tax.

well taxes aren't actually calculated as 29% of your total income.

there's a series of deductions that can be made, and it can be seen that lower income families, while enjoying the rights to the same deductions, they normally do not utilize all of them because of lack of information, time and money. this amount that is calculated is called the TAXABLE INCOME. they are two different numbers and the difference between the two may be a few bucks to tens of thousands of dollars, so remember that folks.


also, the current system is actually taxes the middle class more than the rich and the poor. so this whole argument of people being taxed more if they earn more, is only relative to the middle class.... because the poor enjoy rather lax tax brackets, and the rich have lobbyied their respective governments into believing that because of the double-taxation faced by the corporate business model, they should be taxed less....

solution: keep paying your taxes. stop whining. if you want to go to a nation that doesn't pay taxes go to Zimbabwe, or The Congo, or the Amazon basin.... if that doesn't sound like your cup-o-tea, better pay up...

 

[undertheice]

MY example?

just readin' the sig.

Here's a scenario.....

here we go again with the typical, end of the world, sudden anarchy crapola. since you like scenarios so much, here's another one for you:

imagine, if you will, a society whole greatest aim is the rights of the individual. its people are encouraged to depend upon themselves, falling back on state run institutions only when all else fails and even then only for a brief period. what centralized government there is exists only to settle disputes between individuals or regions, create and sustain needed infrastructure and act as a buffer between the society and the rest of the world. as time passes, the responsibility for infrastructure devolves down to regions and then individual communities, each dependent on the goodwill of the other and cooperating in their own best interests. with the mantra of "individual responsibility" taken seriously and a minimal central government so easily afforded, private charity may take more and more of the load from the public dole, possibly even eliminating the need for state run charity. without the burden of a massive governmental bureaucracy to support, business is allowed to expand and employ an ever increasing number of those who remain unemployed. with each passing year, the people attain more liberty by keeping the control of their rights close at hand and those with power over their rights under closer scrutiny. with each passing decade, that centralized government finds itself with less and less relevance to the daily lives of the people and local government takes on more and more of the responsibility.

of course abuses will occur. these are, after all, mere humans, but the law is close at hand because the law is the community. abusive regions may rise, but, with open borders between regions, people will flee their abusers and that reign of abuse will wither and die. a common goal, the success of the nation, can hold such a loose confederation together and band them together, if needed, to defeat a common foe.

___________________
​

i know, i know, i know. this is all just pie in the sky bullshit, but it is no more ludicrous than the sudden abdication of the powerful and the lawlessness that would ensue. the point is that this is an ideal, something to strive for. force, even the force of government, cannot make people care. the road to such an ideal cannot run through a landscape of ever more stringent regulation, increasing taxation and enforced charity. people will not take responsibility for their actions if it is discouraged or, as is sometimes the case, prohibited by the powers of the state. the notion of a caring parental government is even more of a fantasy than my little scenario. the powerful have no common ground with the working man, we are merely the implements of their desires for power. each move we make that binds us more firmly to the good intentions of the state is a step backward, away from personal responsibility and liberty. each right we allow to be taken from one of us by the all powerful state is a right taken from us all. the alternative, of course, is to give free rein to government and trust in their altruistic nature, but no sane man would give such power to a mere mortal.

 

[NoDrama]

This argument ignores the fact that everyone uses a government service in some form or fashion, and that those services are payed for by taxes.

You have been misinformed. Your Taxes are not used to pay for any kind of welfare/services/infrastructure etc etc etc. Every single penny from the income tax is used to pay the interest on the US debt. We actually Borrow at interest all the money needed to operate the country from day to day.


Lets not forget that the country grew by as much as 15%/year in the 1800's and there was NO income tax at all.

 

[fitch303]

^^^^^you got it, we have the second highest corporate taxes in the world.

 

[NoDrama]

MY example? I provide my own relief. It's you anti-tax people who seem to think the magical infrastructure fairy is going to take care of everything in the absence of taxes.

Does anyone remember what happened in Iraq when we invaded and took Saddam out of power? The Iraqis looted the shit out of everything. Museums, libraries, 1000s of years worth of Iraqi artifacts and history GONE overnight. Can you imagine what would happen if we had no government and no taxes? Here's a scenario:

Say you own a pawn shop (which are notorious for having a great deal of valuable merchandise as well as weapons and ammunition), there are no police to call if someone tries to rob you, no electricity because gangs have taken over the power station and cut you off so your alarm system doesn't work. This is your entire life's work and your source of income. Are you going to kill everyone who comes in and tries to steal from you? If you do, who is going to clean up the pile of bodies? Who is going to help the people who are injured in riots, or injured by shop owners trying to protect their property? What happens when looters have taken all your weapons and ammunition and you can't defend yourself anymore? The gas pumps are all empty, so you can't just jump in your car and drive away.

What's going to happen to the peaceful, innocent families who no longer have access to clean drinking water and FOOD? How are they going to defend themselves against the roving packs of criminals going house to house in search of food, clothing, weapons, and other valuables? How are people going to keep warm in the winter with no electricity or gas? How are people going to stay cool in the summer time?

Be careful what you wish for.

the income tax is mainly assessed by the FEDERAL government, your local government would still be running and be able to protect you from all the things you just mentioned.

As for your last paragraph, you don't need an ounce of government for any of those things you think would be gone. Right now the government does not provide me with food, electricity, fuel, Nat gas, ammo, Guns. The local municipality does provide water, but I can make my own clean water without them If I had to.

If it comes down to the SHTF scenario you can bet that anyone who tries to steal from me or do me harm will eat either a 5.56mm, .308 winchester, or a .45 caliber round. I will kill every one if I have to, although I suspect if their is a pile of bodies outside my door the looters will probably not come knocking.

And if your a looter and you got wounded by the shopkeeper, im either going to let you suffer and bleed to death in the street or if you make too much noise I will put you out of your misery. If someone comes to help you I will shoot them and let you live to suffer.

 

[doobnVA]

the income tax is mainly assessed by the FEDERAL government, your local government would still be running and be able to protect you from all the things you just mentioned.

As for your last paragraph, you don't need an ounce of government for any of those things you think would be gone. Right now the government does not provide me with food, electricity, fuel, Nat gas, ammo, Guns. The local municipality does provide water, but I can make my own clean water without them If I had to.

If it comes down to the SHTF scenario you can bet that anyone who tries to steal from me or do me harm will eat either a 5.56mm, .308 winchester, or a .45 caliber round. I will kill every one if I have to, although I suspect if their is a pile of bodies outside my door the looters will probably not come knocking.

And if your a looter and you got wounded by the shopkeeper, im either going to let you suffer and bleed to death in the street or if you make too much noise I will put you out of your misery. If someone comes to help you I will shoot them and let you live to suffer.

So you raise and slaughter your own livestock for meat, grow your own grains and vegetables, produce your own electricity, drill for your own oil, etc? I find that hard to believe. Just FYI, public utilities are called "public" for a reason. Even if they are technically privately owned, the government provides subsidies (just as they do to farmers and ranchers) and regulates them.

You're right about state income taxes (usually, when you add in local taxes results may vary) being lower than federal income tax, but the reason states don't have higher rates is because they receive funding from the federal government for things like schools, roads, etc. Lower the federal income tax rate and state income tax rates are sure to rise.

Here's an idea, change our name from the United States of America to the United Methodist States and we could all "voluntarily" tithe 50% of our incomes to buy our way into heaven.

 

[NoDrama]

So you raise and slaughter your own livestock for meat, grow your own grains and vegetables, produce your own electricity, drill for your own oil, etc? I find that hard to believe. Just FYI, public utilities are called "public" for a reason. Even if they are technically privately owned, the government provides subsidies (just as they do to farmers and ranchers) and regulates them.

Explain to me how the government grows food, tends cattle,produces electricity, drills for oil. You can't, because the government does not do these things, nor does it make them possible.

Just because they are given subsidies and are regulated does not mean they only exist because of government. I would say that all businesses would do better with no government subsidies or regulations. We would all be better off.

 

[Rob Roy]

A few long-winded posts but still, nobody answers the question.

RobRoy: You say "There are many alternatives to forced taxes", but you fail to name a single one, which was what the original poster asked for. Not a drawn out lecture about slavery and extortion.

I thought the references to the "free market" was sufficient. The free market IS the answer. I defined extortion because I knew you couldn't.