OK, I fear what I might ask may open up Pandora's Box but: I've heard of Libertarians always claiming that income taxation is theft. Can you elaborate as to why many Libertarians think this?
OK, I fear what I might ask may open up Pandora's Box but:
I've heard of Libertarians always claiming that income taxation is theft. Can you elaborate as to why many Libertarians think this?
I believe the key point from Libertarians is that taxation isn't voluntary, and it's compulsoriness is theoretically enforced via the threat of force, which is theoretically the definition of theft.
I believe the key point from Libertarians is that taxation isn't voluntary, and it's compulsoriness is theoretically enforced via the threat of force, which is theoretically the definition of theft.
I don't really respect it because it tears at the fabric of society. The stance is wholly confrontational and de facto accuses everyone who supports the idea of government or taxation of...
I don't really respect it because it tears at the fabric of society. The stance is wholly confrontational and de facto accuses everyone who supports the idea of government or taxation of supporting coercion via threat of violence underlying every possible government policy.
Civil discourse is very hard if you're being painted as some coercive evil.
Sounds more like the definition of extortion - as the enforcement is meant to coincide with something in return (in this case, social programs, roads, infrastructure, etc). Theft/burglary itself...
Sounds more like the definition of extortion - as the enforcement is meant to coincide with something in return (in this case, social programs, roads, infrastructure, etc). Theft/burglary itself would require simply taking with implied force, but leaving nothing behind.
You don't answer his question at all though. You admit you have no idea what you could do and suggest that maybe some luck or magic will intervene and this problem simply goes away by itself....
But to actually answer your question
You don't answer his question at all though. You admit you have no idea what you could do and suggest that maybe some luck or magic will intervene and this problem simply goes away by itself. You'd need to provide a detailed example of some kind in order to answer what he asked you.
Except most public goods, of course. This is the core of the response to the idea that taxation is theft, that there are certain public goods and public interests that fall outside of the domain...
A market tends to provide things that are in demand to the extent that they are possible.
Except most public goods, of course. This is the core of the response to the idea that taxation is theft, that there are certain public goods and public interests that fall outside of the domain of what a marketplace can provide.
I do not find that to be a very compelling example. Colonists were quick to establish governments and pool resources for public necessities like roads, water sources, etc. This was alongside and...
I do not find that to be a very compelling example.
Colonists were quick to establish governments and pool resources for public necessities like roads, water sources, etc. This was alongside and to support commercial enterprise. The idea that public works are some sort of antithesis to commercial works is, I think, misguided. Government is often formed to promote and protect those common interests that we have, and as such, is an extension of the people, rather than an adversary.
I could be persuaded. I don't really care how the taxation is accomplished, just that our revenue doesn't decrease (short or long term), it ends up more progressive, and there isn't some way for...
I could be persuaded.
I don't really care how the taxation is accomplished, just that our revenue doesn't decrease (short or long term), it ends up more progressive, and there isn't some way for wealthy people to dodge it.
If something can meet that critieria (and some other small ones), I can be convinced to support it.
I agree with you, but the wealthiest people in the country are already really good at avoiding taxes. Salary (income tax) means nothing to these people after they reach a certain level. I think...
I agree with you, but the wealthiest people in the country are already really good at avoiding taxes. Salary (income tax) means nothing to these people after they reach a certain level. I think the best way to counter the hoarding of money by the very rich would be to tax financial products, as their wealth is typically stored in them.
The regressive part of a consumption based tax would be taxing the goods that the poor disproportionately need/buy. Alcohol and cigarette taxes are notoriously regressive, for example. In theory...
The regressive part of a consumption based tax would be taxing the goods that the poor disproportionately need/buy. Alcohol and cigarette taxes are notoriously regressive, for example. In theory you could design a consumption-based tax to impact only those who can afford it (by exempting the goods that are purchased by the poor).
I like this idea. It would hasten the demise of consumerism I think. People might actually realise that they don't need a 78" screen TV, or three Maserati coupés to enjoy life. Slap a 40% "luxury...
I like this idea. It would hasten the demise of consumerism I think. People might actually realise that they don't need a 78" screen TV, or three Maserati coupés to enjoy life.
Personally, I like that my taxes fund things like the NHS, libraries, the legal and judicial systems and infrastructure in general. I'm happy enough with what they help fund that it makes the pill...
Personally, I like that my taxes fund things like the NHS, libraries, the legal and judicial systems and infrastructure in general. I'm happy enough with what they help fund that it makes the pill slightly less bitter when I have to swallow things I don't support, like renewing nuclear weapons programmes etc.
hmm, like describing taxation as theft is? :P Because you see, if you truly support that taxation is theft and that there shouldn't be any, you have no way to enforce or control property...
but I think describing all property as theft is something that sounds profound, but is actually contradictory.
hmm, like describing taxation as theft is? :P Because you see, if you truly support that taxation is theft and that there shouldn't be any, you have no way to enforce or control property ownership. "Property" would make no legal sense at all, since there wouldn't be a public police force to enforce property ownership, nor could you force someone to accept or obey any community laws or rulings on the matter. The only thing that decides ownership at that point is might makes right.
XKCD's 538 is a perfect illustration of why that doesn't work. Remember, we have no police force or a legal system to prevent coercion anymore. Sure you owe them something, you're using their...
I disagree that this is always true and would point to cryptocurrency as a counterexample. Assets on blockchains can be owned in a strongly enforced way that does not require any central entity or coercive force.
XKCD's 538 is a perfect illustration of why that doesn't work. Remember, we have no police force or a legal system to prevent coercion anymore.
The same is true now, I disagree that I owe the USG anything, yet if I don't pay they will lock me in a cage.
Sure you owe them something, you're using their services right now. You're sending me a message through the Internet on what is likely publicly subsidized communication networks. You spend every day driving on federal or state funded roads. You went to school for free with publicly funded education. You use water and electricity every day that are publicly funded. Your house was built with the aid of a construction company that was publicly verified and required to uphold safety standards. The alternative is you can be taxed and metered for every one of these - and I hardly see how a single large corporation that gets to charge you whatever exorbitant rates it wants, tracks your every move, and can arbitrarily decide when and who can and can't use basic infrastructure is more free. Especially when you have every right to vote and influence public decisions; you don't have any influence with a private business at all when they hold leverage against you (which they do when they run a monopoly or when the service they provide is essential, which basic infrastructure is)
I mean, you can have that in other countries too you know... And I wouldn't put the US at the top of such a list either. Trump does accurately represent a good 40% of the population after all, and...
I mean, you can have that in other countries too you know... And I wouldn't put the US at the top of such a list either. Trump does accurately represent a good 40% of the population after all, and he's pretty clear on what he thinks of beliefs or creeds contrary to his own.
Getting rid of the income tax would be the more achievable goal IMO. It'd take a constitutional amendment to get rid of tariffs. It was one of the first ways that the young American government...
Getting rid of the income tax would be the more achievable goal IMO. It'd take a constitutional amendment to get rid of tariffs. It was one of the first ways that the young American government raised revenue when the country was founded.
Remember what he said: He only makes the best deals.
Yup. Best deals or no deals.
No middle ground.
OK, I fear what I might ask may open up Pandora's Box but:
I've heard of Libertarians always claiming that income taxation is theft. Can you elaborate as to why many Libertarians think this?
I believe the key point from Libertarians is that taxation isn't voluntary, and it's compulsoriness is theoretically enforced via the threat of force, which is theoretically the definition of theft.
Isn’t by continuing to live in the country...volunteering for the responsibilities and obligations (taxes) that living here requires?
Wow. While I do not agree with that stance I do however respect it. Thank you.
I don't really respect it because it tears at the fabric of society. The stance is wholly confrontational and de facto accuses everyone who supports the idea of government or taxation of supporting coercion via threat of violence underlying every possible government policy.
Civil discourse is very hard if you're being painted as some coercive evil.
E: as > of
Sounds more like the definition of extortion - as the enforcement is meant to coincide with something in return (in this case, social programs, roads, infrastructure, etc). Theft/burglary itself would require simply taking with implied force, but leaving nothing behind.
I'm curious how you'd propose we fund infrastructure and critical services without taxation.
You don't answer his question at all though. You admit you have no idea what you could do and suggest that maybe some luck or magic will intervene and this problem simply goes away by itself. You'd need to provide a detailed example of some kind in order to answer what he asked you.
Except most public goods, of course. This is the core of the response to the idea that taxation is theft, that there are certain public goods and public interests that fall outside of the domain of what a marketplace can provide.
Can you share any examples of governments/countries with such a system?
I do not find that to be a very compelling example.
Colonists were quick to establish governments and pool resources for public necessities like roads, water sources, etc. This was alongside and to support commercial enterprise. The idea that public works are some sort of antithesis to commercial works is, I think, misguided. Government is often formed to promote and protect those common interests that we have, and as such, is an extension of the people, rather than an adversary.
Here's an interesting paper talking about water sources in early America and their regulation: http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/04water/html/historypaper/ch1.pdf
A bit later you have Henry Clay's proposal of the "America System" that uses tariffs to fund road and canal construction, which eventually lead to the Tariff Act of 1816:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)
That sounds horribly regressive. How would that not greatly increase inequality?
I could be persuaded.
I don't really care how the taxation is accomplished, just that our revenue doesn't decrease (short or long term), it ends up more progressive, and there isn't some way for wealthy people to dodge it.
If something can meet that critieria (and some other small ones), I can be convinced to support it.
I agree with you, but the wealthiest people in the country are already really good at avoiding taxes. Salary (income tax) means nothing to these people after they reach a certain level. I think the best way to counter the hoarding of money by the very rich would be to tax financial products, as their wealth is typically stored in them.
The regressive part of a consumption based tax would be taxing the goods that the poor disproportionately need/buy. Alcohol and cigarette taxes are notoriously regressive, for example. In theory you could design a consumption-based tax to impact only those who can afford it (by exempting the goods that are purchased by the poor).
As long as consumption includes securities and other general financial products, it sounds like an intriguing idea.
I like this idea. It would hasten the demise of consumerism I think. People might actually realise that they don't need a 78" screen TV, or three Maserati coupés to enjoy life.
Slap a 40% "luxury goods" tax on everything.
Personally, I like that my taxes fund things like the NHS, libraries, the legal and judicial systems and infrastructure in general. I'm happy enough with what they help fund that it makes the pill slightly less bitter when I have to swallow things I don't support, like renewing nuclear weapons programmes etc.
That generally makes sense and I can get behind that.
hmm, like describing taxation as theft is? :P Because you see, if you truly support that taxation is theft and that there shouldn't be any, you have no way to enforce or control property ownership. "Property" would make no legal sense at all, since there wouldn't be a public police force to enforce property ownership, nor could you force someone to accept or obey any community laws or rulings on the matter. The only thing that decides ownership at that point is might makes right.
This is the ultimate goal of the right wing big business sponsored Libertarian™ project.
XKCD's 538 is a perfect illustration of why that doesn't work. Remember, we have no police force or a legal system to prevent coercion anymore.
Sure you owe them something, you're using their services right now. You're sending me a message through the Internet on what is likely publicly subsidized communication networks. You spend every day driving on federal or state funded roads. You went to school for free with publicly funded education. You use water and electricity every day that are publicly funded. Your house was built with the aid of a construction company that was publicly verified and required to uphold safety standards. The alternative is you can be taxed and metered for every one of these - and I hardly see how a single large corporation that gets to charge you whatever exorbitant rates it wants, tracks your every move, and can arbitrarily decide when and who can and can't use basic infrastructure is more free. Especially when you have every right to vote and influence public decisions; you don't have any influence with a private business at all when they hold leverage against you (which they do when they run a monopoly or when the service they provide is essential, which basic infrastructure is)
I respect that. That's what makes America great, ya know? That we can all have different creeds and beliefs.
I mean, you can have that in other countries too you know... And I wouldn't put the US at the top of such a list either. Trump does accurately represent a good 40% of the population after all, and he's pretty clear on what he thinks of beliefs or creeds contrary to his own.
Getting rid of the income tax would be the more achievable goal IMO. It'd take a constitutional amendment to get rid of tariffs. It was one of the first ways that the young American government raised revenue when the country was founded.
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html