7 ms·

Considering those tax dollars go towards torture, murder, indefinite imprisonment, war crimes, genocide, illegal surveillance, and other tragedies I applaud any

Considering those tax dollars go towards torture, murder, indefinite imprisonment, war crimes, genocide, illegal surveillance, and other tragedies I applaud any company which finds novel ways of resisting the tyranny of the united States government.

ATsch 11y ago
It also goes towards the roads and infrastructure the company and its employees use daily. I don't understand why people refuse to pay their countries membership fees. They have no problem paying the fees for their gym, their sports club or their phones, but as soon as they have to pay for the services their country offers its okay to not pay?
- ksherlock 11y ago
  There are plenty of people that don't pay for a gym or a sports club. (or phone, I guess, if it's an Obamaphone).
- nickff 11y ago
  Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. If I created a club, defined territorial limits (which happen to include your house), and charged you a fee, would you feel obligated to pay? If I asserted that I was giving you a number of benefits, would your obligation increase? If I employed force to extract the fee from you, would that be legitimate? You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...
  - iamdave 11y ago
    >You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1] In the case of the United States, doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment give the State (meaning government, the entity, not State as in Utah specifically) this authority?
    - nickff 11y ago
      Did the citizen in question personally ratify the constitution, or otherwise agree to it? If not, why would they be obligated to follow a contract they never accepted?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
      - iamdave 11y ago
        Well...citizens, individual citizens can't ratify Constitutional Amendments in the US, so I'm unsure if this question is valid. Can you clarify your stance?
        nickff 11y ago
        Some people voted for ratification, but none of them happen to be alive now. If you want to propose another means by which you can justify citizens being bound to follow the constitution, please do. There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong); philosophers have devoted a great deal of time and effort to justifying the government, but failed. If you have a novel theory, please describe it.
        iamdave 11y ago
        There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong) I don't think I have much of an alternative-for no honest reason other than having not put the thought or time into coming up with one. Not for a lack of want. That said, the quoted line above, when you say 'wrong' do you mean "the notion that the citizen automatically accepts government rule" is incorrect by virtue of criminals rejecting the rule of law, evidencing a wholesale rejection of authority, or do you mean the concept itself is morally wrong?
        nickff 11y ago
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Your parents made the choice to enter you into the club when you were born here. As your custodians, they had the legal right to do so. When you reach the age of majority, of course, you are free to leave and relinquish your club membership.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Ah, the 'love it or leave it' theory. This argument is not used by any serious philosophers (that I know of). One of the many problems with this argument is that there is no reason to believe the state has a greater moral entitlement to the land where I live than I do. What makes the state special anyway? Why can't I just claim to be a state and have legitimate authority over the land? Another problem with this theory is that there is nowhere for the anarchist to go. Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump in the ocean and drown, or try to swim to another ship with an equally tyrannical captain? What makes the modern state different? As an aside, the 'you should leave if you don't like it' idea is also used by such prestigious organizations as the Klu Klucks Klan. edit: I believe it is important to know who makes similar moral arguments; if you find this company troubling, that is your concern, not mine.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        You claimed that "most citizens never chose to join the club". I pointed out that your parents made the decision for you, as they were your legal custodians from birth to the age of majority. As for the lack of stateless land that an anarchist may emigrate to, the lack of such land does not mean that the country of your citizenship is no longer valid. If you chose to renounce your citizenship and end your involvement in the social contract that your parents entered into on your behalf, where you go is up to you and no longer has anything to do with your former country. Also, trying to compare me to the KKK? Really? Come on, you can be better than that. I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of this; it's difficult to make sense of it. EDIT: It is so uncool to edit your remarks instead of replying! But I guess in the independent nation-state of nickfftopia you can do what you want, eh?
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    > Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. Then they can leave. It's actually really easy.
    - nickff 11y ago
      And go where? Is there any real alternative? Why does the victim have to be the one to leave?
      - rodgerd 11y ago
        > victim I think you mean "freeloader".
        nickff 11y ago
        So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? I'm not sure I follow (unless you are specifically arguing against anarchists on some sort of welfare/social security).
        rodgerd 11y ago
        > So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? Someone who wants all the priviliges of living in a particular society without having to pay for any of them is, yes, a freeloader.
  - InvisibleCities 11y ago
    By continuing to live in a country, you give it your tacit consent to be governed. This is one of the cornerstones of John Locke's political philosophy[1], which largely formed the basis for the theory behind American government and the Constitution[2]. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Inf...
    - nickff 11y ago
      This argument has been put forward by other posts (currently) below, though less well expressed. If you read your first citation, you will see that Locke's reasoning was more complex than yours, and actually allows for people to live in a country without the state having authority over them. No one has ever made a solid argument for why all people born in a country are bound to follow its laws, or respect the state's authority, though many have tried (and Rawls probably came closest, though I admire the democracy-theorists for their creativeness). The basic question is why the state has any special authority to claim the land and impose its will in the first place. Second, why are you (who may have been born there, thus giving you a presumptive right to keep living there) bound by previous agreements which may or may not have been legitimate to begin with. There are two questions which should be answered here: 1) Why can an individual not claim to be an indipendent state (and claim land as well)? 2) Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump into the ocean and drown, or try to swim to a different ship with a similarly tyrannical captain? How is the ship of state different from the ship described here?
      - lhc- 11y ago
        You can try to be an independent state, if you'd like. Good luck against the US Government though, they have a bit of a resource advantage.
- jstalin 11y ago
  Because if you choose not to pay for your country club, the country club doesn't bust your door down, shoot your dog, taze you, and throw you in jail until you do pay.
  - ancap 11y ago
    I'm not sure why the down votes. Your comment demonstrates perfectly why it's absurd to compare paying taxes (compulsory) to paying for some private club (voluntary).
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Happily, this also doesn't happen in the US. Simply failing to pay your taxes will result in your wages being garnished. Jail is not involved for failing to pay your taxes--you have to do a lot more than that to actually invoke criminal penalties for tax-related stuff.
    - refurb 11y ago
      Doesn't happen? Still... it isn't often that the Internal Revenue Service greets them with shotguns drawn. But that's what happened to rapper Young Buck - real name David Darnell Brown - on August 3rd, as the IRS attempted to satisfy a tax debt of roughly $300,000.[1] Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary.[2] [1]http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/rappers-home-raided-at-gunpoint-by-irs-agents http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/rappers-home-raided-at-... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-o...
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Did you read those linked articles? From the second one: "But the testimony by the three wealthy businessmen from Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia also showed that the agents had reason to suspect they had come across a $300 million tax fraud in one case and a drug operation in another. Holes and contradictions in testimony by two of the businessmen prompted Senate Democrats to complain that the hearings were not a search for truth but a one-sided propaganda show by Republicans, whose polling data show that attacking the I.R.S. is their best strategy for raising money and winning votes." That's not a simple failure to pay taxes. And the first article, the rapper was not jailed, he did have a bunch of stuff seized to pay off a $300,000 debt, however. No mention of a dog being shot, no mention of anyone being tazed.
- iamdave 11y ago
  I can sympathize with someone distressed that their tax dollars get used in ways they may not agree with, voting ostensibly is a measure to somewhat ensure your interests in taxes are represented (without getting into an endlessly caveat-laden debate about the virtues of democratic societies). But I think, personally my level of sympathizing with that incredulity ends with the understanding that taxes are signatures on a social contract and taxes aren't a zero-sum affair. I fully understand that my taxes might go to fund a war or might go into the landing gear of a bomber plane or a bomb itself. I get that. I wish I had the answers on how to get this through the minds of other voters "Yes, your tax money might be spent on x, it also might be spent on y. If you want to see more money going into y, vote accordingly, but remember you exist in a society with more than one viewpoint so someone 500 miles away might vote for x. Thems the breaks". As to your question of why people refuse to pay their country's membership fees...the cynic in me wants to blame ideological dogmatism that perpetuates "my party good, your party bad" and limits the scope of understanding a fuller picture of what being in a diverse society actually looks like (i.e. people value things differently than you)
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > taxes are signatures on a social contract If taxes were voluntary, I would wholeheartedly agree. As it sits, I consider (rightly or wrongly) most taxes to be voluntary, but the income tax is inescapably not. If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.
    - iamdave 11y ago
      >If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able. I don't disagree with this at all, actually. In some respects, would you consider taxes to be a 'necessary evil for a net good (prescriptively speaking)'?
      - bmelton 11y ago
        I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, really. If I were the president, I would do everything I could to abolish the income tax and replace it with use/consumption taxes. On the whole though, yes, I agree that taxes are likely a necessary evil, and while I object to large swaths of the federal government, I think it would be naive, or even asinine to suggest that they do not have any good functions which I deem wholly necessary. That said, at the end of the day, citizenship is something that can be relinquished, and as such, an income tax (of any sort) is something that ought to be competitive. California offers a lot of niceties, and presumably, the people who live there don't mind the tradeoff of high taxes and a generally higher cost of living. If they did, they could trade out to one of the zero-income-tax southern states, in exchange for a generally less educated peer group, less efficient state services, etc. At the end of the day though, if taxes are to be citizenship criteria, then America is in competition with other nations to deliver good value. In addition to economic freedom, social freedoms, fair treatment, social services, safety net and a myriad of other factors are ways in which we compete. I am not likely to move to another country to save some money on taxes, but if another country offered the same freedoms that I value in America, with lower taxes, and a lower incarceration rate, a move would be worth strong consideration.
- charlesdm 11y ago
  I do. It has to do with value, not with price. Anything with a high price, whether it's a good or a service, has a negotiable price tag. Not so much with tax. Say I make $25k a year, and I pay $5k in tax. I'm probably getting that back in value (health insurance, roads, safety, etc). Now say I make $100k a year. I'd probably be paying $30-45k a year in tax (depending on the country). This is getting to the point where you're no longer getting enough value for your $/€. Third option, say you make $1M a year. On average, you now need to pay $400-500k a year to the treasury of your country in tax. No way you're getting that in value. Alternative: you structure things through a tax friendly jurisdiction, and at the end of the road you only have to pay $150k instead of $400k, legally. Honestly, why would I pay $400k in tax if I can pay $150k? Tax aside, I'm obviously still spending money in the country where I live (-> creating income for businesses, increasing the taxable base of those businesses, who in turn will pay full corporate tax).
  - goatforce5 11y ago
    > No way you're getting that in value. Infrastructure was in place before you were born that gave you the opportunities to succeed. It's now time to pay that back(/forward?) so that others have similar chances to succeed.
    - charlesdm 11y ago
      It was, but it would be in place regardless of whether you succeeded or not. Maybe not historically, but today, whether I personally succeed or not doesn't matter to the budget/deficit. Those who carry the taxable base are the middle class; the employees who can't restructure their affairs. Paying back / forward is great, but (imo) it has a limit. Unless you inherited your wealth, most people who are self made will have paid a significant amount of tax before they tax optimise their structures. So, if you’re a success, you will have paid back your “debt” to society (and then some). There needs to be a limit somewhere. Some countries are more aggressive (i.e. the US) in collecting their tax dollars than others (i.e. the UK).
      - kuschku 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wcummings 11y ago
  >It also goes towards the roads Not really, our infrastructure is falling apart, and congress can't even pass a long-term highway funding bill.
- yourepowerless 11y ago
  This is a non-sequitur, or as the saying goes, the Germans kept the trains running on time? If ISIS begins collecting taxes to fund road construction and terrorism does that somehow white wash terrorism? Of course not, yet the same tired argument is being made here because of misguided belief in American exceptionaliam, double think is alive and well when people can speak of road building one day while condemning torture the next. Those who work and fund the US government are funding genocide, you must accept that fact, you can down vote all you want to bury the truth but it remains the truth. Disgusting hypocrisy on display, utterly disgusting, and no real counter argument has been made.

ATsch 11y ago

It also goes towards the roads and infrastructure the company and its employees use daily. I don't understand why people refuse to pay their countries membership fees. They have no problem paying the fees for their gym, their sports club or their phones, but as soon as they have to pay for the services their country offers its okay to not pay?

ksherlock 11y ago
There are plenty of people that don't pay for a gym or a sports club. (or phone, I guess, if it's an Obamaphone).
nickff 11y ago
Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. If I created a club, defined territorial limits (which happen to include your house), and charged you a fee, would you feel obligated to pay? If I asserted that I was giving you a number of benefits, would your obligation increase? If I employed force to extract the fee from you, would that be legitimate? You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...
- iamdave 11y ago
  >You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1] In the case of the United States, doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment give the State (meaning government, the entity, not State as in Utah specifically) this authority?
  - nickff 11y ago
    Did the citizen in question personally ratify the constitution, or otherwise agree to it? If not, why would they be obligated to follow a contract they never accepted?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
    - iamdave 11y ago
      Well...citizens, individual citizens can't ratify Constitutional Amendments in the US, so I'm unsure if this question is valid. Can you clarify your stance?
      - nickff 11y ago
        Some people voted for ratification, but none of them happen to be alive now. If you want to propose another means by which you can justify citizens being bound to follow the constitution, please do. There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong); philosophers have devoted a great deal of time and effort to justifying the government, but failed. If you have a novel theory, please describe it.
        iamdave 11y ago
        There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong) I don't think I have much of an alternative-for no honest reason other than having not put the thought or time into coming up with one. Not for a lack of want. That said, the quoted line above, when you say 'wrong' do you mean "the notion that the citizen automatically accepts government rule" is incorrect by virtue of criminals rejecting the rule of law, evidencing a wholesale rejection of authority, or do you mean the concept itself is morally wrong?
        nickff 11y ago
- Frondo 11y ago
  Your parents made the choice to enter you into the club when you were born here. As your custodians, they had the legal right to do so. When you reach the age of majority, of course, you are free to leave and relinquish your club membership.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Ah, the 'love it or leave it' theory. This argument is not used by any serious philosophers (that I know of). One of the many problems with this argument is that there is no reason to believe the state has a greater moral entitlement to the land where I live than I do. What makes the state special anyway? Why can't I just claim to be a state and have legitimate authority over the land? Another problem with this theory is that there is nowhere for the anarchist to go. Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump in the ocean and drown, or try to swim to another ship with an equally tyrannical captain? What makes the modern state different? As an aside, the 'you should leave if you don't like it' idea is also used by such prestigious organizations as the Klu Klucks Klan. edit: I believe it is important to know who makes similar moral arguments; if you find this company troubling, that is your concern, not mine.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      You claimed that "most citizens never chose to join the club". I pointed out that your parents made the decision for you, as they were your legal custodians from birth to the age of majority. As for the lack of stateless land that an anarchist may emigrate to, the lack of such land does not mean that the country of your citizenship is no longer valid. If you chose to renounce your citizenship and end your involvement in the social contract that your parents entered into on your behalf, where you go is up to you and no longer has anything to do with your former country. Also, trying to compare me to the KKK? Really? Come on, you can be better than that. I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of this; it's difficult to make sense of it. EDIT: It is so uncool to edit your remarks instead of replying! But I guess in the independent nation-state of nickfftopia you can do what you want, eh?
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. Then they can leave. It's actually really easy.
  - nickff 11y ago
    And go where? Is there any real alternative? Why does the victim have to be the one to leave?
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      > victim I think you mean "freeloader".
      - nickff 11y ago
        So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? I'm not sure I follow (unless you are specifically arguing against anarchists on some sort of welfare/social security).
        rodgerd 11y ago
        > So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? Someone who wants all the priviliges of living in a particular society without having to pay for any of them is, yes, a freeloader.
- InvisibleCities 11y ago
  By continuing to live in a country, you give it your tacit consent to be governed. This is one of the cornerstones of John Locke's political philosophy[1], which largely formed the basis for the theory behind American government and the Constitution[2]. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Inf...
  - nickff 11y ago
    This argument has been put forward by other posts (currently) below, though less well expressed. If you read your first citation, you will see that Locke's reasoning was more complex than yours, and actually allows for people to live in a country without the state having authority over them. No one has ever made a solid argument for why all people born in a country are bound to follow its laws, or respect the state's authority, though many have tried (and Rawls probably came closest, though I admire the democracy-theorists for their creativeness). The basic question is why the state has any special authority to claim the land and impose its will in the first place. Second, why are you (who may have been born there, thus giving you a presumptive right to keep living there) bound by previous agreements which may or may not have been legitimate to begin with. There are two questions which should be answered here: 1) Why can an individual not claim to be an indipendent state (and claim land as well)? 2) Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump into the ocean and drown, or try to swim to a different ship with a similarly tyrannical captain? How is the ship of state different from the ship described here?
    - lhc- 11y ago
      You can try to be an independent state, if you'd like. Good luck against the US Government though, they have a bit of a resource advantage.
jstalin 11y ago
Because if you choose not to pay for your country club, the country club doesn't bust your door down, shoot your dog, taze you, and throw you in jail until you do pay.
- ancap 11y ago
  I'm not sure why the down votes. Your comment demonstrates perfectly why it's absurd to compare paying taxes (compulsory) to paying for some private club (voluntary).
- Frondo 11y ago
  Happily, this also doesn't happen in the US. Simply failing to pay your taxes will result in your wages being garnished. Jail is not involved for failing to pay your taxes--you have to do a lot more than that to actually invoke criminal penalties for tax-related stuff.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Doesn't happen? Still... it isn't often that the Internal Revenue Service greets them with shotguns drawn. But that's what happened to rapper Young Buck - real name David Darnell Brown - on August 3rd, as the IRS attempted to satisfy a tax debt of roughly $300,000.[1] Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary.[2] [1]http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/rappers-home-raided-at-gunpoint-by-irs-agents http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/rappers-home-raided-at-... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-o...
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Did you read those linked articles? From the second one: "But the testimony by the three wealthy businessmen from Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia also showed that the agents had reason to suspect they had come across a $300 million tax fraud in one case and a drug operation in another. Holes and contradictions in testimony by two of the businessmen prompted Senate Democrats to complain that the hearings were not a search for truth but a one-sided propaganda show by Republicans, whose polling data show that attacking the I.R.S. is their best strategy for raising money and winning votes." That's not a simple failure to pay taxes. And the first article, the rapper was not jailed, he did have a bunch of stuff seized to pay off a $300,000 debt, however. No mention of a dog being shot, no mention of anyone being tazed.
iamdave 11y ago
I can sympathize with someone distressed that their tax dollars get used in ways they may not agree with, voting ostensibly is a measure to somewhat ensure your interests in taxes are represented (without getting into an endlessly caveat-laden debate about the virtues of democratic societies). But I think, personally my level of sympathizing with that incredulity ends with the understanding that taxes are signatures on a social contract and taxes aren't a zero-sum affair. I fully understand that my taxes might go to fund a war or might go into the landing gear of a bomber plane or a bomb itself. I get that. I wish I had the answers on how to get this through the minds of other voters "Yes, your tax money might be spent on x, it also might be spent on y. If you want to see more money going into y, vote accordingly, but remember you exist in a society with more than one viewpoint so someone 500 miles away might vote for x. Thems the breaks". As to your question of why people refuse to pay their country's membership fees...the cynic in me wants to blame ideological dogmatism that perpetuates "my party good, your party bad" and limits the scope of understanding a fuller picture of what being in a diverse society actually looks like (i.e. people value things differently than you)
- bmelton 11y ago
  > taxes are signatures on a social contract If taxes were voluntary, I would wholeheartedly agree. As it sits, I consider (rightly or wrongly) most taxes to be voluntary, but the income tax is inescapably not. If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.
  - iamdave 11y ago
    >If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able. I don't disagree with this at all, actually. In some respects, would you consider taxes to be a 'necessary evil for a net good (prescriptively speaking)'?
    - bmelton 11y ago
      I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, really. If I were the president, I would do everything I could to abolish the income tax and replace it with use/consumption taxes. On the whole though, yes, I agree that taxes are likely a necessary evil, and while I object to large swaths of the federal government, I think it would be naive, or even asinine to suggest that they do not have any good functions which I deem wholly necessary. That said, at the end of the day, citizenship is something that can be relinquished, and as such, an income tax (of any sort) is something that ought to be competitive. California offers a lot of niceties, and presumably, the people who live there don't mind the tradeoff of high taxes and a generally higher cost of living. If they did, they could trade out to one of the zero-income-tax southern states, in exchange for a generally less educated peer group, less efficient state services, etc. At the end of the day though, if taxes are to be citizenship criteria, then America is in competition with other nations to deliver good value. In addition to economic freedom, social freedoms, fair treatment, social services, safety net and a myriad of other factors are ways in which we compete. I am not likely to move to another country to save some money on taxes, but if another country offered the same freedoms that I value in America, with lower taxes, and a lower incarceration rate, a move would be worth strong consideration.
charlesdm 11y ago
I do. It has to do with value, not with price. Anything with a high price, whether it's a good or a service, has a negotiable price tag. Not so much with tax. Say I make $25k a year, and I pay $5k in tax. I'm probably getting that back in value (health insurance, roads, safety, etc). Now say I make $100k a year. I'd probably be paying $30-45k a year in tax (depending on the country). This is getting to the point where you're no longer getting enough value for your $/€. Third option, say you make $1M a year. On average, you now need to pay $400-500k a year to the treasury of your country in tax. No way you're getting that in value. Alternative: you structure things through a tax friendly jurisdiction, and at the end of the road you only have to pay $150k instead of $400k, legally. Honestly, why would I pay $400k in tax if I can pay $150k? Tax aside, I'm obviously still spending money in the country where I live (-> creating income for businesses, increasing the taxable base of those businesses, who in turn will pay full corporate tax).
- goatforce5 11y ago
  > No way you're getting that in value. Infrastructure was in place before you were born that gave you the opportunities to succeed. It's now time to pay that back(/forward?) so that others have similar chances to succeed.
  - charlesdm 11y ago
    It was, but it would be in place regardless of whether you succeeded or not. Maybe not historically, but today, whether I personally succeed or not doesn't matter to the budget/deficit. Those who carry the taxable base are the middle class; the employees who can't restructure their affairs. Paying back / forward is great, but (imo) it has a limit. Unless you inherited your wealth, most people who are self made will have paid a significant amount of tax before they tax optimise their structures. So, if you’re a success, you will have paid back your “debt” to society (and then some). There needs to be a limit somewhere. Some countries are more aggressive (i.e. the US) in collecting their tax dollars than others (i.e. the UK).
    - kuschku 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wcummings 11y ago
>It also goes towards the roads Not really, our infrastructure is falling apart, and congress can't even pass a long-term highway funding bill.
yourepowerless 11y ago
This is a non-sequitur, or as the saying goes, the Germans kept the trains running on time? If ISIS begins collecting taxes to fund road construction and terrorism does that somehow white wash terrorism? Of course not, yet the same tired argument is being made here because of misguided belief in American exceptionaliam, double think is alive and well when people can speak of road building one day while condemning torture the next. Those who work and fund the US government are funding genocide, you must accept that fact, you can down vote all you want to bury the truth but it remains the truth. Disgusting hypocrisy on display, utterly disgusting, and no real counter argument has been made.