7 ms·

Because we have quadriplegics who need 24 hour care so they don't die. Just to choose one random example of why we choose to have a government that levies taxe

Because we have quadriplegics who need 24 hour care so they don't die. Just to choose one random example of why we choose to have a government that levies taxes and provides services.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Why not finance helping quadriplegics from increased VAT? If it comes to that, why not finance helping quadriplegics from charity?
- bitJericho 11y ago
  In the US we already have charities and they're not really taxed and if you donate to those charities, the money you donate is (generally) not taxed.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Why not charity? Because then the people donating to charity will (at least try to) impose conditions. So only quadriplegics or a certain faith or with a certain set of circumstances with receive help. (See e.g. the concepts of the deserving/undeserving poor and moral judgements with charities helping the poor in the UK pre-1945.)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- byroot 11y ago
  > Why not finance helping quadriplegics from increased VAT? Because VAT, beside being a very effective tax (it's the biggest source of income of most countries), is the most unfair one. Say a country have a 20% VAT Low income household need to use the entirety of their income to survive (food, housing, etc). So effectively 20% of their income is collected as VAT. Now a upper class household, let's say they save 25% of their income each month as retirement plans etc, and spend the rest. They've been effectively taxed at 20% of 75% of they income, so their effective VAT rate was 15%. While you often see very high income people advocate for flat rate tax instead of progressive tax, none of them have the nerve to propose a reversed progressive tax like VAT is, where poor people pay proportionally more than rich people.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    there is no enforceable way this would work. everybody would just pay some homeless/unemployed to buy him that expensive cool little thing, and give him 10 USD for the job. try to prevent that :) at the end, poor people would become less poor, but only by screwing with system, and only very few of them. you can put some limits on who can buy what, but this will inevitably create a massive bureaucratic overhead, meaning another set of useless government jobs that create no added value, but draw cash steadily from treasury.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    The best possible tax scheme for poor people would be a simple flat tax that is impossible for rich people to avoid. I've always felt your definition of "most unfair" to be a great fallacy. Yes poor people pay a higher percentage of their income. They also receive more in benefits than they give and the flat tax ensures the rich pay their share. The more complicated you make the system the more it will benefit the rich. VAT is a net benefit for the poor. Making the whole system work that way, particularly in the face of globalization, is the best course of action. To declare it unfair is to cut off your nose to spite your face. In my opinion.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      The best possible tax scheme for poor people would be a wealth tax. Make it a flat wealth tax, and I'm with you: 10% (or whatever) of what you possess, into the community coffers every year. Don't muck around with income, it's too easy to game.
      - bluecalm 11y ago
        Wealth tax is obviously (I think!) the best kind of tax but the problem with it is it's hard to collect (you would need to assess wealth of everyone and that is a problem).
        forrestthewoods 11y ago
        So if I start my own company I have to give away 10% of that company every year? Because I own shares in my company. And those shares have value. Which contribute to my wealth. That seems terrible! I don't see how a wealth tax is a good idea at all. If you could recommend a good article that argues why it's good and how it would work I'd love to read it.
ahallock 11y ago
You don't choose anything (apart from some semblance of choice through voting). Stop using voluntary language for something that is compulsory. This isn't an argument against gov, but your reasoning about choice is after the fact.
- Frondo 11y ago
  We do choose. We vote in a government that provides services for those people. Do you think that if there were a society of people where a majority were callous enough to deny those extremely disabled their medical care, that they wouldn't just vote out the bums who gave them that care, and the new generation of politicians wouldn't then rewrite the laws?

Because we have quadriplegics who need 24 hour care so they don't die. Just to choose one random example of why we choose to have a government that levies taxes and provides services.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Why not finance helping quadriplegics from increased VAT? If it comes to that, why not finance helping quadriplegics from charity?

bitJericho 11y ago
In the US we already have charities and they're not really taxed and if you donate to those charities, the money you donate is (generally) not taxed.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Why not charity? Because then the people donating to charity will (at least try to) impose conditions. So only quadriplegics or a certain faith or with a certain set of circumstances with receive help. (See e.g. the concepts of the deserving/undeserving poor and moral judgements with charities helping the poor in the UK pre-1945.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
byroot 11y ago
> Why not finance helping quadriplegics from increased VAT? Because VAT, beside being a very effective tax (it's the biggest source of income of most countries), is the most unfair one. Say a country have a 20% VAT Low income household need to use the entirety of their income to survive (food, housing, etc). So effectively 20% of their income is collected as VAT. Now a upper class household, let's say they save 25% of their income each month as retirement plans etc, and spend the rest. They've been effectively taxed at 20% of 75% of they income, so their effective VAT rate was 15%. While you often see very high income people advocate for flat rate tax instead of progressive tax, none of them have the nerve to propose a reversed progressive tax like VAT is, where poor people pay proportionally more than rich people.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  there is no enforceable way this would work. everybody would just pay some homeless/unemployed to buy him that expensive cool little thing, and give him 10 USD for the job. try to prevent that :) at the end, poor people would become less poor, but only by screwing with system, and only very few of them. you can put some limits on who can buy what, but this will inevitably create a massive bureaucratic overhead, meaning another set of useless government jobs that create no added value, but draw cash steadily from treasury.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  The best possible tax scheme for poor people would be a simple flat tax that is impossible for rich people to avoid. I've always felt your definition of "most unfair" to be a great fallacy. Yes poor people pay a higher percentage of their income. They also receive more in benefits than they give and the flat tax ensures the rich pay their share. The more complicated you make the system the more it will benefit the rich. VAT is a net benefit for the poor. Making the whole system work that way, particularly in the face of globalization, is the best course of action. To declare it unfair is to cut off your nose to spite your face. In my opinion.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    The best possible tax scheme for poor people would be a wealth tax. Make it a flat wealth tax, and I'm with you: 10% (or whatever) of what you possess, into the community coffers every year. Don't muck around with income, it's too easy to game.
    - bluecalm 11y ago
      Wealth tax is obviously (I think!) the best kind of tax but the problem with it is it's hard to collect (you would need to assess wealth of everyone and that is a problem).
      - forrestthewoods 11y ago
        So if I start my own company I have to give away 10% of that company every year? Because I own shares in my company. And those shares have value. Which contribute to my wealth. That seems terrible! I don't see how a wealth tax is a good idea at all. If you could recommend a good article that argues why it's good and how it would work I'd love to read it.

ahallock 11y ago

You don't choose anything (apart from some semblance of choice through voting). Stop using voluntary language for something that is compulsory. This isn't an argument against gov, but your reasoning about choice is after the fact.

Frondo 11y ago
We do choose. We vote in a government that provides services for those people. Do you think that if there were a society of people where a majority were callous enough to deny those extremely disabled their medical care, that they wouldn't just vote out the bums who gave them that care, and the new generation of politicians wouldn't then rewrite the laws?