5 ms·

I oppose compulsory taxation, not all taxation, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a troll :-) What's your objection to my opinion?

tomp 11y ago
Non-compulsory taxation doesn't work, see the "Free rider problem".
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Doesn't work, or, you don't think it'd work?
  - tomp 11y ago
    Logic dictates that it shouldn't work, anecdata suggests that it probably doesn't work (if it did, tax avoidance wouldn't be a problem), and I'm sure you can find actual well-researched real-world examples that it definitely doesn't work.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      Hang on. You can't cite tax avoidance as evidence that voluntary taxation wouldn't work - it happens now, with 'compulsory' taxation, with rates orders of magnitude higher than would be required for a minimalist voluntary state. For example when we (the LibertariaNZ) ran the numbers for New Zealand, we estimated the cost of providing Government - not social welfare or foreign intervention - to be $2500 per year per working adult. In the absence of any other form of taxation, do you really think this would be impossible to generate in a voluntary system? I'd argue you're right, though, if you're thinking of the level of taxation necessary for socialism.
      - tomp 11y ago
        So your main issue seems to be that you want to pay less taxes, not that you want taxation to be voluntary. I see that as an orthogonal issue. I mean, sure, I don't want to pay taxes that finance the military. And fortunately, the state allows me to actually pay less taxes (in theory, at least; to be able to effectively exploit the loopholes, I would need to be much richer). But by saying, "I'll only pay for what I think is worth paying for", you're just moving democracy from "voting with votes" to "voting with money". I'm not sure why that would be any better than the current system.
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Actually, both. Firstly, I don't think that coercive funding is ever moral. This means that the only moral way of funding Government is voluntary taxation. This is my primary objection - even if you kept all the current State apparatus intact, it would be a tremendous improvement to simply stop coercing people into funding it. Secondly, I think the current level of taxation is outrageous, and that State socialiam (as separate from charitable safety nets) is a monstrous moral evil. Ditto the massive military expenditure in most countries - it has precious little to do with legitimate national defence in most cases. Thirdly, restricting the scope of Government vastly reduces the scope for corruption. We most certainly have voting with money now, and the votes of the rich and "connected" are counted for a lot more than those of the plebs. It's not so much a case of wanting to pay for what I think is worth paying for, as it's a case of wanting Government to be limited to a very particular set of functions, and to be funded in a way that doesn't involve threatening or practising violence against people. There's more information about the Objectivist position on Government funding here: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-government-financing-in-a-free-society http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-gove... Thanks for discussing this, by the way. My original comment is attracting the usual flurry of down votes, which I've observed is the normal response on HN for criticising compulsory taxation, Apple, or socialism. Not necessarily in that order ;-)

tomp 11y ago

Non-compulsory taxation doesn't work, see the "Free rider problem".

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Doesn't work, or, you don't think it'd work?
- tomp 11y ago
  Logic dictates that it shouldn't work, anecdata suggests that it probably doesn't work (if it did, tax avoidance wouldn't be a problem), and I'm sure you can find actual well-researched real-world examples that it definitely doesn't work.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    Hang on. You can't cite tax avoidance as evidence that voluntary taxation wouldn't work - it happens now, with 'compulsory' taxation, with rates orders of magnitude higher than would be required for a minimalist voluntary state. For example when we (the LibertariaNZ) ran the numbers for New Zealand, we estimated the cost of providing Government - not social welfare or foreign intervention - to be $2500 per year per working adult. In the absence of any other form of taxation, do you really think this would be impossible to generate in a voluntary system? I'd argue you're right, though, if you're thinking of the level of taxation necessary for socialism.
    - tomp 11y ago
      So your main issue seems to be that you want to pay less taxes, not that you want taxation to be voluntary. I see that as an orthogonal issue. I mean, sure, I don't want to pay taxes that finance the military. And fortunately, the state allows me to actually pay less taxes (in theory, at least; to be able to effectively exploit the loopholes, I would need to be much richer). But by saying, "I'll only pay for what I think is worth paying for", you're just moving democracy from "voting with votes" to "voting with money". I'm not sure why that would be any better than the current system.
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Actually, both. Firstly, I don't think that coercive funding is ever moral. This means that the only moral way of funding Government is voluntary taxation. This is my primary objection - even if you kept all the current State apparatus intact, it would be a tremendous improvement to simply stop coercing people into funding it. Secondly, I think the current level of taxation is outrageous, and that State socialiam (as separate from charitable safety nets) is a monstrous moral evil. Ditto the massive military expenditure in most countries - it has precious little to do with legitimate national defence in most cases. Thirdly, restricting the scope of Government vastly reduces the scope for corruption. We most certainly have voting with money now, and the votes of the rich and "connected" are counted for a lot more than those of the plebs. It's not so much a case of wanting to pay for what I think is worth paying for, as it's a case of wanting Government to be limited to a very particular set of functions, and to be funded in a way that doesn't involve threatening or practising violence against people. There's more information about the Objectivist position on Government funding here: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-government-financing-in-a-free-society http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4314-gove... Thanks for discussing this, by the way. My original comment is attracting the usual flurry of down votes, which I've observed is the normal response on HN for criticising compulsory taxation, Apple, or socialism. Not necessarily in that order ;-)