6 ms·

Is it sad? I'm quite proud to pay taxes of many different kinds, and I think that the (admittedly quite imperfect) tax system is necessary to a functioning soci

Is it sad? I'm quite proud to pay taxes of many different kinds, and I think that the (admittedly quite imperfect) tax system is necessary to a functioning society. I'd also mention that it's been part of British society since the Roman occupation, so not sure when in time you allude to with your comment but if you're sad about it I suggest investigating a move to one of the functional libertarian nations with no taxes.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
sigh... do we really have to trot out the Somalia straw man every time someone criticises either compulsory taxation or socialism? Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory, and no, it doesn't have to fund socialism.
- Angostura 9y ago
  > Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory I think you may have to explain that to me
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    The necessity bit, or the not being compulsory bit? No snark intended; I'm unsure whether you're an anarchist asking for a defence of the State, or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation :)
    - orf 9y ago
      How about you just try and reconcile both contradictory points as best you can. I bet it will be some ideological Libertarian fantasy, but please do have a go.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        I imagine it'd be the same as every other vital service that's paid for voluntarily. Food, water, medicine, transport... none of which I think are figments of an elaborate Libertarian fantasy ;) Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - danmaz74 9y ago
      Not the OP, but I would be curious to know what "voluntary taxation" would mean - looks like an oxymoron to me.
    - richmarr 9y ago
      > ...or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories. Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        > Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. It's a side issue to the one we're discussing, but ... that's what we have right now, and the incentives are in fact all wrong. > By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. So, roughly: 1) It's morally wrong to initiate force. Compelling someone to pay for something is as wrong when performed by the Government with a majority mandate, as it is when performed by a mugger. 2) Many other vital services are already paid for voluntarily, by those who benefit from them, and provided for those who can't afford them through private charity. There's nothing special or unique about Government services as opposed to, say, medicine or food. 3) Core Government services are actually pretty cheap - we worked out around NZ$2,500 / adult / year in NZ back in 2000 or so. I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either. Rothbard goes into a bit more detail ;) here: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/pp/1402 https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...
        arethuza 9y ago
        So how would you go about acquiring evidence that this approach actually works?
    - Angostura 9y ago
      If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        > If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it. What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?
        vertex-four 9y ago
        All those things are funded for at least some subset of the population, and heavily subsidised for the rest, by the Government. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that "voluntary payment" for healthcare didn't work for many, many people, and has resulted in thousands of deaths and significant needless pain and suffering every year.
        Angostura 9y ago
        In that case you are arguing that taxation isn't necessary.
  - lanestp 9y ago
    The lottery is the best known/most common voluntary taxation. The early United States used the lottery to fund the government.
    - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
      Which seems like the poor primarily end up paying for. http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-2012-4?op=1&r=US&IR=T&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- coffeedoughnuts 9y ago
  well if we're talking about straw men, I didn't actually say it needed to fund a political ideology of any kind. Or say anything about it being compulsory, though in fact I do think it should be. Moreover, my comment was on the slightly silly notion that 'it's sad this is a thing now' when it has been a thing in Britain since Roman times. Perhaps the original commentator is harking back to the good old days of pre-Roman occupation? Back when we were truly free. Never had it as good as we did ~30AD. It's gone to the dogs since then ;)
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Yeah that bit made no sense. But the overall sentiment certainly does.
    - coffeedoughnuts 9y ago
      "That bit"? That was their whole comment! I'm afraid you accused me of 'trotting out a line' when in fact the 'overall sentiment' was implied entirely by yourself. My advice for next time - less pouncing on comments to shoe-horn in some great ideological stance. Specific discussion is better than generic argument in my book. Good day to you :)
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        This is the line I was criticising: "I suggest investigating a move to one of the functional libertarian nations with no taxes." If I've misinterpreted you, feel free to correct me. (Also, +1m Internet Points for your pleasant tone, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.)
        urbanj 9y ago
        Passive aggressive whining from a libertarian who has been schooled. What a surprise
  - Cozumel 9y ago
    Yeah, what did the Romans ever do for us?
monort 9y ago
Imagine you are a Roman and arguing that slave owning is necessary to a functioning society. You are probably even correct and Roman state wouldn't be possible without slaves. Nevertheless, we know that it wasn't an ethical state order. Taxes are similar - they are involuntary, they are required to have a modern state and they are status quo. Looking at the past, we see that more and more ways to force people do things against their will were discovered as unethical - e.g. slavery, feudalism, divine rights of kings, coverture. I think there is a non-zero chance, that future people will consider modern taxation (and probably the idea of Westphalian sovereignty) unethical too.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  That said, taxes in their various forms are as old as slavery and it took several centuries for nongovernmental ownership of slaves to become something that society did not approve of. We still have various forms of slavery even without getting into philosophical debates about free will and false choices. While taxation may change dramatically in the future that type of fundamental change is not really one that can be forecast so far in advance.
- irb 9y ago
  I don't think taxes will disappear until money does.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

duncan_bayne 9y ago

sigh... do we really have to trot out the Somalia straw man every time someone criticises either compulsory taxation or socialism? Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory, and no, it doesn't have to fund socialism.

Angostura 9y ago
> Yes, taxation is necessary for a civilised society. No, it doesn't have to be compulsory I think you may have to explain that to me
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  The necessity bit, or the not being compulsory bit? No snark intended; I'm unsure whether you're an anarchist asking for a defence of the State, or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation :)
  - orf 9y ago
    How about you just try and reconcile both contradictory points as best you can. I bet it will be some ideological Libertarian fantasy, but please do have a go.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      I imagine it'd be the same as every other vital service that's paid for voluntarily. Food, water, medicine, transport... none of which I think are figments of an elaborate Libertarian fantasy ;) Perhaps you could explain why you believe the provision of Government services is an exception that requires compulsion?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Not the OP, but I would be curious to know what "voluntary taxation" would mean - looks like an oxymoron to me.
  - richmarr 9y ago
    > ...or a Statist asking for a defence of voluntary taxation Calling the vast majority of people "statist" seems to imply a (false) equivalence between voluntary and compulsorary taxation as competing theories. Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      > Voluntary taxation is a fringe theory with some fairly serious flaws... the primary one in my opinion being that it erodes democracy by pushing even more influence over government into the hands of people with deep enough pockets to pay more (but only when they're happy). The incentives in that kind of system would be all wrong. It's a side issue to the one we're discussing, but ... that's what we have right now, and the incentives are in fact all wrong. > By all means have a go at defending voluntary taxation, I'd be interested to hear your opinion. So, roughly: 1) It's morally wrong to initiate force. Compelling someone to pay for something is as wrong when performed by the Government with a majority mandate, as it is when performed by a mugger. 2) Many other vital services are already paid for voluntarily, by those who benefit from them, and provided for those who can't afford them through private charity. There's nothing special or unique about Government services as opposed to, say, medicine or food. 3) Core Government services are actually pretty cheap - we worked out around NZ$2,500 / adult / year in NZ back in 2000 or so. I hope the vast majority of people would stump up that kind of cash in the absence of any other taxation. If not, I suspect that society is broken in ways that can't be fixed by compulsory taxation, either. Rothbard goes into a bit more detail ;) here: https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/html/pp/1402 https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...
      - arethuza 9y ago
        So how would you go about acquiring evidence that this approach actually works?
  - Angostura 9y ago
    If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. If it's not compulsory it is charitable giving, not taxation.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      > If it is a necessity (I think it is), it's not clear to me how it can not be compulsory. But you wouldn't make that claim of any _other_ vital service, would you? Food, water, transport, medicine ... all these and more are provided by voluntary payment - or by charity for those who can't afford it. What's special about Government that it requires compulsion to fund?
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        All those things are funded for at least some subset of the population, and heavily subsidised for the rest, by the Government. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that "voluntary payment" for healthcare didn't work for many, many people, and has resulted in thousands of deaths and significant needless pain and suffering every year.
      - Angostura 9y ago
        In that case you are arguing that taxation isn't necessary.
- lanestp 9y ago
  The lottery is the best known/most common voluntary taxation. The early United States used the lottery to fund the government.
  - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
    Which seems like the poor primarily end up paying for. http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-2012-4?op=1&r=US&IR=T&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/lottery-is-a-tax-on-the-poor-...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
coffeedoughnuts 9y ago
well if we're talking about straw men, I didn't actually say it needed to fund a political ideology of any kind. Or say anything about it being compulsory, though in fact I do think it should be. Moreover, my comment was on the slightly silly notion that 'it's sad this is a thing now' when it has been a thing in Britain since Roman times. Perhaps the original commentator is harking back to the good old days of pre-Roman occupation? Back when we were truly free. Never had it as good as we did ~30AD. It's gone to the dogs since then ;)
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  Yeah that bit made no sense. But the overall sentiment certainly does.
  - coffeedoughnuts 9y ago
    "That bit"? That was their whole comment! I'm afraid you accused me of 'trotting out a line' when in fact the 'overall sentiment' was implied entirely by yourself. My advice for next time - less pouncing on comments to shoe-horn in some great ideological stance. Specific discussion is better than generic argument in my book. Good day to you :)
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      This is the line I was criticising: "I suggest investigating a move to one of the functional libertarian nations with no taxes." If I've misinterpreted you, feel free to correct me. (Also, +1m Internet Points for your pleasant tone, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.)
      - urbanj 9y ago
        Passive aggressive whining from a libertarian who has been schooled. What a surprise
- Cozumel 9y ago
  Yeah, what did the Romans ever do for us?

monort 9y ago

Imagine you are a Roman and arguing that slave owning is necessary to a functioning society. You are probably even correct and Roman state wouldn't be possible without slaves. Nevertheless, we know that it wasn't an ethical state order. Taxes are similar - they are involuntary, they are required to have a modern state and they are status quo. Looking at the past, we see that more and more ways to force people do things against their will were discovered as unethical - e.g. slavery, feudalism, divine rights of kings, coverture. I think there is a non-zero chance, that future people will consider modern taxation (and probably the idea of Westphalian sovereignty) unethical too.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
That said, taxes in their various forms are as old as slavery and it took several centuries for nongovernmental ownership of slaves to become something that society did not approve of. We still have various forms of slavery even without getting into philosophical debates about free will and false choices. While taxation may change dramatically in the future that type of fundamental change is not really one that can be forecast so far in advance.
irb 9y ago
I don't think taxes will disappear until money does.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]