OK, the thread title is a bit misleading since this is going to be more of a pro- than an anti-tax post.

But anyway, here is the issue: I don't quite understand why people complain about taxes, particularly income tax. Now, living in NYC, I pay tax to the State of New York, the federal government AND New York City so I understand how it can hurt seeing the money being sucked out of your paycheck. But I don't really begrudge it, in the sense that I would ever think of moving to a different state and/or country simply because they have lower taxes there. I simply do not understand such a mentality, particularly since those taxes that I pay are for the good of the community in the form of roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Is it just that people think the tax dollars are being misspent and wasted (i.e., see Iraq War) so that they want to pay as little as possible?

I feel that all of the advantages that I was privileged to use, i.e., good public schools, state universities, roads, state parks, etc., that are due to taxes are something that I shouldn't begrudge the next generation from also enjoying. Before I was paying taxes, I benefitted from all of those things free of charge...and now it's time for me to pay up.

So, where do all of you think that the anti-tax feelings are coming from? Or if you are anti-tax, please present your argument.

Enlighten me about taxes, Lounge.

I agree with you Hobby, I think paying taxes is essential to having good roads, social services, emergency services, libraries, etc. So for the maintenance of certain key services I view paying taxes as a privilege.

One area where I think maybe the government gets out of line is in its taxation of retirement plans and home sales. I don't object to an income tax and sales tax but sometimes the government over does it to the point that every time someone turns a profit the government has his hand in their pocket. Tax penalties for early withdrawals of 401ks comes to my mind as potentially dangerous to individuals. Yes the money is growing tax free and they are taking the taxes on the back end but they are also restricting people's free handling of their own money. This helps stabilize the economy but it could also leave the individual in a precarious situation if he leaves his investments in a bad situation too long just to avoid tax penalties. Taxes in this scenario ensure a forced savings or investment but really should the government be forcing you to save for your retirement or stay to a strict timeline even if its a prudent thing to do?

HH and Splendour,

The gist of the Anarchocapitalist argument in counter to your point is that, if you didn't pay taxes to the government for things like roads, emergency services, libraries, etc., these services would be provided by private companies. If there isn't a government to provide these services, there wouldn't be a government to forbid a private company providing them right? You could still pay for them, and you could still get excellent service, theoretically better than the government, since if that company wasn't providing the best roads for your dollar, you'd take your business to the company that was.

In grown up world, that dog don't hunt. The AC argument (and I don't know if you're a proponent or just making a point, Wook) ignores key components of the human condition and takes for granted certain variable functions that cannot be guaranteed. It is very similar in this respect to it's polar opposite, Marxism. Unlike Marxism, though, there has never been an AC state that illustrates it's manipulative effect. Because it is an ideological pipe dream, pragmatically unworkable. Both are extremist viewpoints that seem awfully enticing when presented in flattering light, but even in theory end up as self defeating cluster****s that collapse beneath the weight of their respective conceits.

I'm sure I will now be vilified by AC devotees as a statist totalitarian; they're so cute when you have the temerity to question their omniscience.

That said, the impetus behind anarchocapitalism is well meaning and the concept not completely without merit and utility, when stripped of the slobbering, wild-eyed zealousness that tends to bedevil it's proponents. And I'm frankly not opposed to the idea that our method of funding our country doesn't need some serious structural work. But blind embrace of such a grossly oversimplifying theory is not the answer.

Or you could get worse service for super cheap, or you could get no service at all if you didn't want, and pay nothing. There are arguments based on efficiency, etc., but I think the biggest one is just about choice. The first thing an ACer would say is that taxes are involuntary, and involuntary things are worse than voluntary things.

uh, move to politics?

and, taxation is theft, ldo.



pvn countdown clock is ON!

Which is not an invalid point. But as has been argued, taxation as we practice it is tacitly agreed to and not a dictatorial imperative. Most are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, right or wrong.

Many people who are anti-tax are not anarchocapitalists. Actually, most people who are anti-tax aren't. I am anti-tax, and again, am not an anarchocapitalist. I don't, however, object to all taxes.

Taxing for things like roads is fine by me. Taxing for health care, education, and on a federal level, non-defensive wars, disaster relief funds, the drug war, is not fine. Income tax is especially immoral, working 4 months out of the year and just paying it to taxes is insane, in my opinion. The problem with big taxes is that it allows the government to go wild with policies, because they take so much money in (or print the rest).

Really though, much of it comes down to morals. Why should, say, the guy living over there who doesn't have any kids pay taxes to fund education? In effect, we are stealing from him, to support someone else. We say, give your money to our cause or we'll put you in jail. This applies to say, welfare, or health care, too. I respect taxes that benefit everyone, I don't see how a government could work without them, and as stated, I'm not an ACist, so taxes to keep roads going are cool by me - everyone benefits from roads, either you get goods that arrived using the roads, or you travel, etc. But that guy who doesn't have any kids does not benefit from the taxes he pays that go to education. He's not getting anything back from that.

I guess any system is subject to exploitation. I certainly see a need for an overhaul. How do you feel about a flat tax? It's certainly more equitable.

The "guy living over there"...how was he educated to the point he could become self-supporting? Chances are, it was a state financed education.

Th standard argument is that the community benefits from a better educated populace. And there are quite a few examples (japan comes immediately to mind, and Sweden) that support this. The benefits may not be direct and immediately recognizable, but they are there. But you bring up an excellent point, that not only is our current system subject to exploitation and corruption, it has now become "acceptable" because we refuse to examine any alternatives. Our educational system is a disgrace, but because it is all we know and we are afraid of the unknown, we accept it. So we allow ourselves to become victims of the exploitation, rather than question it. We do not need to stop funding our education, but we need to examine it's application and effect.

its possible it was, it's also possible it wasn't. It's entirely possible he went to a private school. Lets say he does have kids, he's now sending them to a private school, paying whatever the massive amount is, and then on top of that he has to pay massive property/school taxes for the public schools. His kids aren't benefiting from the public school, he isn't either, yet he's paying into it.

As for the flat tax, I prefer it over the income tax. That isn't saying much, though. I'd rather see the flat tax than the income tax, but I'd much rather see neither, at the federal level, especially.

You mentioned that you had no problem with taxes for road construction. So why should I pay for a road that you use to get home, when I don't need it? I mean, it benefits you, but not me.

I think roads are important, too, but I also recognize the community benefits of avoiding rampant illiteracy.

You shouldn't pay for a road that I<< use to get home. Here's a real life example



The public road, that's Wolver Hollow Rd, its very important for general commuting, as to get to 25A, one of the biggest roads on Long Island, which connects to the expressways, and those to NYC, and that to NJ/the rest of the country. Everyone uses this road. There are some roads that everyone uses. Maybe you don't go on it every day, but its essential for the transportation of goods, interstate and intrastate. Even if you don't drive on it, you're using a product that without that road would not be able to get to you.

The private road, the green one, connects my house (right most) and my two neighbors' houses to Wolver Hollow. No one uses it but us. We pay for the upkeep, and I think it'd be immoral to ask someone else to pay for it, when he gets no use out of it. Every 8 or so years we have it repaved, we have landscapers to take care of the forest/grass on the sides of it.

No one should have to pay for the road that the three of us use except us.

I understand. But the public road is what I'm talking about. If I live in your town, but don't use that road, then using your logic regarding education, I am being forced, against my will, to pay for something I don't use or need.
To use your words, you are stealing from me, to support someone else.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous (although, as you well know, I certainly don't fear it). And I know there are differences between the two examples. But the principle remains no different. You may not wish your tax dollars to go to a certain destination, as it has no bearing on your life. But ours is not a solipsistic society, whether that ethic is legislated or not. What benefits the body public, does benefit you.

And I'm not saying shut up, your government knows what's best. You should certainly make your voice heard in matters that concern you, especially if you think there is inherent unfairness. Democracy thrives on disagreement, debate, and compromise, not mindless compliance and submission. .

Taxation, ugh. Don't get me started. This is where I begin to sound like a conservative gun-toting nut.

In theory I can understand everyone being asked to chip in to pay for roads, police and fire protection, public schools etc. I've grown a hell of a lot more irritated by what I see as poor planning and mishandling of funds. Pisses me off. If I have to pay taxes I want my money being spent well, not thrown at stupid projects.


Examples:

- shoddy repair of major roads and interstates in the Cincinnati area
- horrible schools and mismanagement of tax payers money...tear down old schools that could be renovated, build brand new ones! yeah, great plan.
- taxpayers being asked to foot the bill for football stadiums and the Freedom Center? Give me a break.
- levies for the zoo (come on now, "we need a new elephant house"... give me a break again)
- city govt payroll - i invite you to visit the city buildings and tell me why we pay these idiots' salaries. They are slow as **** and don't act like they are serving the public at all. Horrible attitudes.
- all the losers i know who are collecting welfare and SSI. What a scam. I can understand helping out people with legitimate problems but you have no idea how many people are scamming the system right now. It would make you sick if you knew.

- also, I agree with whoever said spending our taxpayer money on the war against drugs is disgusting. I hate the decisions of politicians.

If you don't understand taxation then you are a selfish bastard.

There should be a selfish bastard tax.

Taso,

If you don't like the income tax, and you don't like the Fair Tax, but are not totally anti-tax, how do you think people should be taxed?

I guess I'll start an outcry here because I've devoted almost no time to studying the anarchist's viewpoint on government but it seems to me that what the ACers mostly have is an argument. There are no examples of large anarchist bodies that operated successfully that I recollect in history so I looked up this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism.

And from that look it made me realize that we started from a state of anarchy unless of course you take a theist perspective that we weren't all alone in our anarchy we were actually under God. (I don't want this to become a religious debate so ignore that statement. Its really just an aside).

What I'm saying basically is that we haven't really had a successful anarchist state so I wonder that people think we could. It has the appearance of a big inoperable theory to me.

Somewheres out of our initial state of anarchy people figured out that when they banded together (organized) that they got a lot more done. Of course that led to govenments and hierarchies and class structures. There is something in the nature of organization that binds with the nature of man and produces big hierarchies. Almost a natural political narcissist state leading to one group thinking it is superior and has the right to dominate and or lead/control other groups.

I tend to favor democracy as one of the better forms of government because its what I know best, have studied the most and benefitted the most under. The biggest problem that democracy has is that it becomes corrupted somehwhat over time by too much regulation/legislation, bureaucracy and competing interest groups. So in that sense I guess the Republicans are right in that we need to recognize it and shear government back, but we also need to close certain doors to interest groups and/or regulate the interest groups more strictly.

It seems to me if we returned to a state of anarchy that human nature being what it is even if we achieved an almost utopic anarchic state that we wouldn't stay in it for long. Someone would have to screw with it for his own gain. I also wonder if anarchy wouldn't ultimately lead to their being an even bigger police state than we already have because right now anarchy is theory and when it isn't theory its been used by political activists to start revolutions that led to other forms of government/economic systems that weren't always improvements on existing governments. Look at the anarchy that led to the French Revolution. After that revolution they went back into a form of monarchy under Napoleon.

katy: "But that guy who doesn't have any kids does not benefit from the taxes he pays that go to education. He's not getting anything back from that."


If you think about it linearly, tit for tat, it seems like the guy without kids gets nothing by paying taxes for all kids in the community.

But if you think about it like a rippling pool, educating the group always benefits the individual. Your neighbor's kid might turn out to be the next Einstein and or develop something everyone will use/benefit from. And if he turns out not to be Einstein at all maybe he learned something else like hygiene that improves the overall health of the group and/or some other socially desirable trait. So by supporting education you are improving the social condition in at least two ways. There is something so basically good on multiple levels about supporting education whether or not you are personally participating that makes supporting it through taxes totally redeemable.

I think you want to improve every link in society. Society is like a chain and sometimes we're only as good as our weakest link.

I think most people's problem with taxes in the US, is lack of return on investment. I am paying almost 40% of my earnings to the government, and what am I getting? I have no kids, so I don't get public education for them. Many of the roads I usually drive on in Jersey have their own separate tolls I have to pay. I'll get social security and medicare (if it still exists by the time I retire) - but maybe I'd prefer to invest my own money for my old age.

So what I'm paying for, mainly, is stuff I don't use or care about. A bungled war in Iraq that I never supported, education for someone else's kids, social security checks going to a millionaire ex-CEO who doesn't need the extra money, and subsidies to corn farmers for the ethanol boondoggle. Oh, and maybe some lame art exhibit or opera or whatever that I would never want to see or financially support.

I would not mind high taxes if I got a lot for the money. Like in Scandinavia where they pay 50% but get free education right through university and free healthcare for life among other social services. The fact that we pay so much in taxes in the US and can't even get health care is a travesty.

Sadly, the Republican party no longer stands for this. It's open for debate as to whether they ever did.

Also, Splendour, here's a thread we had in the Lounge about Anarchocapitalism:

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...=1#Post9858920

You are right that bringing about an AC state is largely utopian. In order for AC land to exist, it fundamentally depends on everyone there absolutely rejecting the authority of the state and being willing to fight for that belief. If people are willing to surrender and be subjugated by a conquering force, then such a force will probably come along sooner or later. Even a very powerful force would have difficulty subduing a population that absolutely refuses to cooperate, but it's human nature to enjoy rallying behind a team, a school, a tribe, a city, or a country.

That's a symptom of the party system. The fact is the two main parties in the U.S. the Democrats and the Republicans have drifted closer and closer over time. Both are trying to capture the mainstream vote and the result is two parties that look more and more like each other every day.

I do think the Bush Administration is the perfect example of special interest groups getting a say into things far beyond the power they should exert in a country.

I'll have to read up on it Wook. I think from the little I've observed on these boards that it also depends on totally accepting that people's voluntary rights are something government has no right to regulate. That's a hard idea for me to totally accept because it seems to allow the criminals in society free reign and then that becomes a matter of public safety. I can see where the police state can become abusive, out of hand and totalitarian but I also can see some problems not regulating some of the problems of society. How do the ACers plan to deal with serious crime?

I don't know much of anything about taxes but...

From what I understand, the reason people are pissed about taxes is because the rich don't pay them.

In other words - hasn't it become an intergral part of any business, to do write-offs and exploiting all sorts of loopholes in the system? Businesses, especially large businesses, tend to do that a lot.

While an average citizen doesn't use any loopholes at all. So that results in poor paying a lot, while the rich not paying much.

Whereas it should be the other way around. A funny way of saying it is: if you don't have enough money, they CHARGE you. If you have too much money, they give you more. Isn't that the gist of why taxes are screwed up?

I am all for taxes, I just wish we'd have rich HELPING the poor, not ripping them off and forcing them into longer working hours and further debt at every chance possible.

Hmm?

I don't necessarily object to sales taxes, but not 30% sales taxes, or 20%. It's important to understand that the massive decrease in taxing would be accompanied by a massive decrease in the size of government. You cut out the various wars; Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (give it some time), cut out the foreign aid (Israel, all the other Arab states, though they aren't alone) stop the war on drugs, cut out a lot of departments, end the welfare state, etc etc, essentially "follow the constitution" and all of a sudden the people do not need to work four months out of the year to pay their federal taxes. Obviously it would not be "all of a sudden", this would happen slowly.