6 ms·

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can thi

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country where we're not ok seeing people in the street and we're not ok seeing sick people who can't pay for medecine. I'm ok with paying taxes for those. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate.

Chris2048 10y ago
What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? > people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes But tax is not flat rate. The poorest often pay the least tax, but use public facilities the most; how is that "pay[ing] for their part"?
- oelmekki 10y ago
  > What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? What has unemployment to do here? Are you saying that with no taxes, there is no unemployment? (for reference, I live in France) > how is that "pay[ing] for their part"? This is exactly paying for their part: everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor. And if you're about to say that poor people are abusing that and stay poor on purpose: find me a poor person that refuses a billion dollar if you offer them. Or even who refuses to earn more than currently, for the matter.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I'm linking "people in the street" to unemployment, because you didn't mention how it relates to taxes. Make statements like "I live in a country where we're not OK seeing" only if the solutions to these problems in your own country is stable - many European countries aren't clearly so, so the idea that these are just matters of public choice isn't fair. Choice WP snippets: "The French healthcare system was named by the WHO as the best performing system in the world" "the rising cost of the system has been a source of concern" The latter seems to be a common problem, and is what I mean by "stable". > everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor If this is true, do the rich use public services proportionally more wrt their tax contributions? What does "feel" the same as their neighbor mean - a service costs $10, my neighbor pays $1.50, I pay $8.50, which is fair because I earn more? Who says I didn't work harder in order to earn more; Where does my neighbor share the burden in that? Maybe I contribute more value to society, which is why I earn more; Why is my reward for that reduced? Aren't the fixed tax band fairly arbitrary? Let's actually work to reduce corruption and un-fair money-making, but otherwise tax people in proportion to the value they get from society.
- eschaton 10y ago
  The poorest often pay the proportion of their income they can least afford to lose in taxes: A person who makes a million a year paying 50% is more able to afford it than a person making $10000 a year and paying 10%, because there's a nonzero floor to the cost of living. Learn some about diminishing marginal utility. (Also note that you need to consider all taxes, not just income taxes, when considering tax burden.)
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    What does "able to afford it" mean? If we assume a fixed, minimum cost of living, a richer person can always afford more since they have more money. What can be afforded, and what is fair payment for public services used are different things. OP was talking about "paying fair share" of public services used. Also, comparing the very bottom with the very top is extreme. There are plenty more in the middle. > diminishing marginal utility What relevance it this to fair tax on individuals?
  - wav-part 10y ago
    I will learn about your stupid riddles when its perfectly clear to me what you are doing. You are stealing from me. If I buy I loaf of a bread I am more than happy to pay for it but dont think I am ok with you extorting percentage of my income for it. Fk Off man.
delegate 10y ago
>I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? I live in Spain, there's no such thing here. What I propose is for people to have the ability to specify what their taxes are spent on. I dislike it when government wastes tax money on useless or corrupt projects, military, police, surveillance and other such things, which I personally would not support if I had the choice. I would invest that money in more schools, hospitals, etc. This would change what we now call 'government' from raw money spenders into project managers who seek public funding. Citizens can fund public projects from their phones and get involved in the debates, votes, etc. That's real-time democracy - no need for elections or politicians, just technocrats who monitor the needs of society and ask people for funding. Think about it for a while and you'll notice lots of positive consequences of such a system.
- oelmekki 10y ago
  I like the idea of being able to choose where taxes are spent, but maybe not in totality. If people choose for the whole attribution, they'll certainly spend everything in healthcare when them or one of their family member will be sick, then on infrastructure when they'll want to make a road trip, etc. But totally agree that people should have a bigger role to play in governments decisions. That being said, thinking having a central government is the problem is extreme. Your examples and suggestions simply demonstrate we need more democracy, not less government. EDIT: yeah, thinking about it twice, it definitely needs to be only a part of the taxes you can choose where to allocate, and thus some kind of administration to decide about the rest. Think about this scenario: You live in a country where unemployment is high and sickness are low. People will naturally spend most of the budget in reforms allowing for more jobs, because they, or people they know, are unemployed. But there are sick people, with no budget. If the amount sick people pay in tax is enough to heal them, that's ok. Now, imagine it costs more, like, you need expansive medicine to cure a virus. People will still invest in job reforms, until they hear about a big epidemic that threatens them. Only then will they start to allocate taxes to healthcare, which will cost way more because the epidemic will be already there. With no fixed budgeting failsafe, such a system will naturally create a lot of epidemics, and other problems caused because small problems are not fixed early enough. Also, those who have rare problems are screwed and will fall first, so you'll probably having a less creative and risk taking society.
mindcrime 10y ago
I'm ok with paying taxes for those. Your being OK with taxes is completely irrelevant to anything outside of yourself. As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft, and it's immoral, no matter how noble the purported objective(s). Eliminating taxation does not, however, preclude the idea of voluntary, collective funding for important causes, including the idea of a "social safety net". If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate That is also irrelevant. There's no reason the people being robbed should be the ones to move. A better idea would be to construct a social system based purely on voluntary exchanges and interactions altogether.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft How so? The government is collecting the money you owe them. And you owe them money because every single day you use and benefit from things the government has funded, such as as infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, military protection and much, much more. It's true that there is no way to "opt-out" of those things but that's simply because it would be impossible to create a system where people can do so that is not massively and incredibly complex. Besides, do you really want to live in a world where your house burns down because your neighbor has "opted out" of fire protection and their house fire spread to yours?
  - wav-part 10y ago
    Then give me exact amount I owe ? Why does it have anything to do with my Income ? Do you pay 5% for your iPhone ? Why is police protection any different ? Why am I not allowed to opt-out of it ? Admit it. Its socially-excepted extortion from successful where people always increasing welfare spending. I dont know why anyone have to demonize anyone. People are looking after their own self-interest. And successful after their own by evading taxes.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
lacampbell 10y ago
I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. I think this is very erroneous thinking. Just because a government currently does something, does not mean it cannot be done any other way. Nor does it mean someone against income tax is in favour of it not being done at all. Imagine if someone proposed nationalising all food production to you, and you recoiled in horror, then they accused you of being OK seeing people starve on the street. It's dishonest. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. The very richest people do not pay income tax proportional to their wealth. The progressive taxation system is largely a myth - when you are very rich you have the means to find ways around byzantine tax rules and you will tend to tie up your wealth in assets. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate. You could literally say that about anything a government does. If you don't like being sent to gulags, I am sure you can leave North Korea, etc etc. It's not much of an argument.

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. Also, I wonder how local non profit organize against a nation wide invasion (not saying it's impossible, but you have to prepare for it, which costs money). I live in a country where we're not ok seeing people in the street and we're not ok seeing sick people who can't pay for medecine. I'm ok with paying taxes for those. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate.

Chris2048 10y ago

What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? > people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes But tax is not flat rate. The poorest often pay the least tax, but use public facilities the most; how is that "pay[ing] for their part"?

oelmekki 10y ago
> What country do you live in that's solved the healthcare and unemployment problem? What has unemployment to do here? Are you saying that with no taxes, there is no unemployment? (for reference, I live in France) > how is that "pay[ing] for their part"? This is exactly paying for their part: everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor. And if you're about to say that poor people are abusing that and stay poor on purpose: find me a poor person that refuses a billion dollar if you offer them. Or even who refuses to earn more than currently, for the matter.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I'm linking "people in the street" to unemployment, because you didn't mention how it relates to taxes. Make statements like "I live in a country where we're not OK seeing" only if the solutions to these problems in your own country is stable - many European countries aren't clearly so, so the idea that these are just matters of public choice isn't fair. Choice WP snippets: "The French healthcare system was named by the WHO as the best performing system in the world" "the rising cost of the system has been a source of concern" The latter seems to be a common problem, and is what I mean by "stable". > everybody feel their effort as the same as their neighbor If this is true, do the rich use public services proportionally more wrt their tax contributions? What does "feel" the same as their neighbor mean - a service costs $10, my neighbor pays $1.50, I pay $8.50, which is fair because I earn more? Who says I didn't work harder in order to earn more; Where does my neighbor share the burden in that? Maybe I contribute more value to society, which is why I earn more; Why is my reward for that reduced? Aren't the fixed tax band fairly arbitrary? Let's actually work to reduce corruption and un-fair money-making, but otherwise tax people in proportion to the value they get from society.
eschaton 10y ago
The poorest often pay the proportion of their income they can least afford to lose in taxes: A person who makes a million a year paying 50% is more able to afford it than a person making $10000 a year and paying 10%, because there's a nonzero floor to the cost of living. Learn some about diminishing marginal utility. (Also note that you need to consider all taxes, not just income taxes, when considering tax burden.)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What does "able to afford it" mean? If we assume a fixed, minimum cost of living, a richer person can always afford more since they have more money. What can be afforded, and what is fair payment for public services used are different things. OP was talking about "paying fair share" of public services used. Also, comparing the very bottom with the very top is extreme. There are plenty more in the middle. > diminishing marginal utility What relevance it this to fair tax on individuals?
- wav-part 10y ago
  I will learn about your stupid riddles when its perfectly clear to me what you are doing. You are stealing from me. If I buy I loaf of a bread I am more than happy to pay for it but dont think I am ok with you extorting percentage of my income for it. Fk Off man.

delegate 10y ago

>I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? I live in Spain, there's no such thing here. What I propose is for people to have the ability to specify what their taxes are spent on. I dislike it when government wastes tax money on useless or corrupt projects, military, police, surveillance and other such things, which I personally would not support if I had the choice. I would invest that money in more schools, hospitals, etc. This would change what we now call 'government' from raw money spenders into project managers who seek public funding. Citizens can fund public projects from their phones and get involved in the debates, votes, etc. That's real-time democracy - no need for elections or politicians, just technocrats who monitor the needs of society and ask people for funding. Think about it for a while and you'll notice lots of positive consequences of such a system.

oelmekki 10y ago
I like the idea of being able to choose where taxes are spent, but maybe not in totality. If people choose for the whole attribution, they'll certainly spend everything in healthcare when them or one of their family member will be sick, then on infrastructure when they'll want to make a road trip, etc. But totally agree that people should have a bigger role to play in governments decisions. That being said, thinking having a central government is the problem is extreme. Your examples and suggestions simply demonstrate we need more democracy, not less government. EDIT: yeah, thinking about it twice, it definitely needs to be only a part of the taxes you can choose where to allocate, and thus some kind of administration to decide about the rest. Think about this scenario: You live in a country where unemployment is high and sickness are low. People will naturally spend most of the budget in reforms allowing for more jobs, because they, or people they know, are unemployed. But there are sick people, with no budget. If the amount sick people pay in tax is enough to heal them, that's ok. Now, imagine it costs more, like, you need expansive medicine to cure a virus. People will still invest in job reforms, until they hear about a big epidemic that threatens them. Only then will they start to allocate taxes to healthcare, which will cost way more because the epidemic will be already there. With no fixed budgeting failsafe, such a system will naturally create a lot of epidemics, and other problems caused because small problems are not fixed early enough. Also, those who have rare problems are screwed and will fall first, so you'll probably having a less creative and risk taking society.

mindcrime 10y ago

I'm ok with paying taxes for those. Your being OK with taxes is completely irrelevant to anything outside of yourself. As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft, and it's immoral, no matter how noble the purported objective(s). Eliminating taxation does not, however, preclude the idea of voluntary, collective funding for important causes, including the idea of a "social safety net". If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate That is also irrelevant. There's no reason the people being robbed should be the ones to move. A better idea would be to construct a social system based purely on voluntary exchanges and interactions altogether.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>As long as taxation is practiced the way it is here in the US (eg, enforced at the end of a gun barrel) it's theft How so? The government is collecting the money you owe them. And you owe them money because every single day you use and benefit from things the government has funded, such as as infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, military protection and much, much more. It's true that there is no way to "opt-out" of those things but that's simply because it would be impossible to create a system where people can do so that is not massively and incredibly complex. Besides, do you really want to live in a world where your house burns down because your neighbor has "opted out" of fire protection and their house fire spread to yours?
- wav-part 10y ago
  Then give me exact amount I owe ? Why does it have anything to do with my Income ? Do you pay 5% for your iPhone ? Why is police protection any different ? Why am I not allowed to opt-out of it ? Admit it. Its socially-excepted extortion from successful where people always increasing welfare spending. I dont know why anyone have to demonize anyone. People are looking after their own self-interest. And successful after their own by evading taxes.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago

lacampbell 10y ago

I take it you live in a country where people are ok to see other people living off the street because they presumably "failed"? That's the only reason I can think of which would make it possible for charities to fit government action scale. I think this is very erroneous thinking. Just because a government currently does something, does not mean it cannot be done any other way. Nor does it mean someone against income tax is in favour of it not being done at all. Imagine if someone proposed nationalising all food production to you, and you recoiled in horror, then they accused you of being OK seeing people starve on the street. It's dishonest. What I'm not ok with is having people who use what we all pay for, then try to not pay for their part by evading taxes. The very richest people do not pay income tax proportional to their wealth. The progressive taxation system is largely a myth - when you are very rich you have the means to find ways around byzantine tax rules and you will tend to tie up your wealth in assets. If taxes is a problem for you, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of countries where you can move and that you will find adequate. You could literally say that about anything a government does. If you don't like being sent to gulags, I am sure you can leave North Korea, etc etc. It's not much of an argument.