5 ms·

I used to have a similar viewpoint. I grew up close to poverty, and only through landing a great job in technology have I significantly changed my standard of l

by pm90 9y ago

I used to have a similar viewpoint. I grew up close to poverty, and only through landing a great job in technology have I significantly changed my standard of living. So it does seem painful when a quarter of my compensation is taken away in taxes. However, I do think taxation serves a very useful purpose. After a certain level of income/wealth, there is conceivably no need for even more income/wealth. But the cruel irony is that its the very wealthy that keep making a ton of money, due to investments and such. So it certainly makes sense for that money to be taken by the Government and used to try and ensure a basic minimum standard of essential services, such as healthcare, education, nutrition for the destitute etc. I want the community and society that I live in the improve somehow, and am willing to pay for it.

golergka 9y ago
If you, personally, are freely willing to pay for it, wouldn't it be better if you could be able to do it of your own free will and not forced to do it?
- ashark 9y ago
  Voluntary action and overcoming coordination problems don't mix well. Best case is the volunteers overpay tremendously for things that benefit a ton of free-riders (those who benefit, and could pay, but choose not to). Worst case it all falls apart and we invent government to compel cooperation and then crush/conquer any societies that don't follow suit and remain awful, disorganized messes.
- ProfessorLayton 9y ago
  Thats not at all how taxes work, nor should they.
  - golergka 9y ago
    And that's exactly my point – taxes are money taken by force, while the parent comment somehow talks about how he doesn't mind this money well-spent. If you don't have a choice about something, it's not your free decision, even you happen to like the outcome.
    - rosser 9y ago
      You absolutely should have a choice. But if you did, and don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get to benefit from the things those taxes pay for. "Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire..."
      - munk-a 9y ago
        You should not a) Because people are selfish idiots b) Because society functions on compromises c) Because your house being on fire increases the probability of your neighbor's house being on fire.
        rosser 9y ago
        My position is that people who think "taxes are theft" should have to face a world where the things those taxes pay for aren't available to them. I'm pretty sure, with, as Einstein put it, "a probability approaching unity", that they would change their minds very quickly about whether those things are worth supporting. It's a purely rhetorical position, of course; I do not actually advocate anyone suffer that experience — because it would be a thing they could only suffer. EDIT: I'm reminded again of the rural, dues-based fire departments. You're free not to pay your dues. If your house catches fire and you haven't paid, the fire crew will come out, stop at your property line, keep the fire from spreading, and otherwise watch your shit burn. Libertarian paradise, or something...
        munk-a 9y ago
        My apologies if my comment was abrasive, my objection, though, is that pandering to this libertarian slice of the populace ends up costing society more. On a small scale that dues-based fire department might work fine "Oh, it's at frank's house, yea... he'll be surprised" but when you reach a state or country level tracking any sort of voluntary pay-in programs gets complicated and a sane efficient state would find it cheaper to just save frank's house anyways, because the cost of tracking who is who is more expensive than occasionally paying out fraudulently. This is one of the good motivations for universal basic income, a lot of our social programs have grown to the point where their overhead is getting ridiculous but the solution isn't ending the program, it's cutting any inefficiencies we can find and simplifying the program in a fair manner to get more money to where it needs to go.
- pm90 9y ago
  No, because If I'm completely honest, I want my society to improve but I don't want to spend all my free time looking through a catalog of projects which require funding and choose that. I would rather delegate that job to people who can do that full time.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Then let's talk about a law that would allow you to voluntarily raise your personal taxes. Instead, we're talking about forcibly taking money from people.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      Did that money come into their hands completely voluntarily? Likely not. When you buy something you need to survive, can that be said to be a "voluntary" purchase? So when that money ends up in the hands of the owners of the productive machines, they get rich, but are they doing so because of purely "voluntary" participation in the economy? So then why do I have to pay private individuals for things I need to live, and they don't have to pay back into the system that gave them the infrastructure to earn this money in the first place?
      - golergka 9y ago
        These arguments would be true if most of our economy and transactions would indeed be centered on things we absolutely need to survive, and the difference between being able to pay and not would be life and death. It's not. Surviving in any modern first (or even second) world society is laughably easy. So I think we can safely describe most of the transactions as being "voluntary", yes.
      - mcbruiser3 9y ago
        > Did that money come into their hands completely voluntarily? Yes, if it's in the form of an investment. An investment is a risk, and like it or not, investments are a vital part of any economy. In may cases investments are how small businesses and entrepreneurs get capitalized because banks are much more risk averse. So why punish such a critical segment of the economy? You'll only end up moving the money into other areas that have less benefit for the rest of society.
- SigmundA 9y ago
  I never got the taken by force argument. Is your mortgage or rent taken by force? There are places in this world that to do not collect tax and you are free to go there. So long as you are allowed to leave, you have a choice otherwise you have implicitly agreed to the social contract to pay taxes by staying and benefit from being within the protected borders of the government and all service provided therein.
  - tooltalk 9y ago
    Sure, and our current social contract says you pay less in taxes if you are super wealthy. There are places in this world where the rich are taxed to death, you are free to leave and settle in such utopia. Is that what you are saying?
    - SigmundA 9y ago
      I made no statement about the "super wealthy". I was simply arguing that taxes are not in fact taken by force (at least in the US where citizens are free to emigrate). Your hyperbolic example of places "where the rich are taxed to death" also seems to confirm the argument that choice is available.
ge96 9y ago
Isn't the "magic number" like $70K which I'm not sure if that is before or after taxes. Yeah I like roads/schools/police etc... And making more while you lose more you have more... Yeah I'm trying to land a tech job myself tough.

by pm90 9y ago

golergka 9y ago

If you, personally, are freely willing to pay for it, wouldn't it be better if you could be able to do it of your own free will and not forced to do it?

ashark 9y ago
Voluntary action and overcoming coordination problems don't mix well. Best case is the volunteers overpay tremendously for things that benefit a ton of free-riders (those who benefit, and could pay, but choose not to). Worst case it all falls apart and we invent government to compel cooperation and then crush/conquer any societies that don't follow suit and remain awful, disorganized messes.
ProfessorLayton 9y ago
Thats not at all how taxes work, nor should they.
- golergka 9y ago
  And that's exactly my point – taxes are money taken by force, while the parent comment somehow talks about how he doesn't mind this money well-spent. If you don't have a choice about something, it's not your free decision, even you happen to like the outcome.
  - rosser 9y ago
    You absolutely should have a choice. But if you did, and don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get to benefit from the things those taxes pay for. "Why should I have to pay for a fire department? My house isn't on fire..."
    - munk-a 9y ago
      You should not a) Because people are selfish idiots b) Because society functions on compromises c) Because your house being on fire increases the probability of your neighbor's house being on fire.
      - rosser 9y ago
        My position is that people who think "taxes are theft" should have to face a world where the things those taxes pay for aren't available to them. I'm pretty sure, with, as Einstein put it, "a probability approaching unity", that they would change their minds very quickly about whether those things are worth supporting. It's a purely rhetorical position, of course; I do not actually advocate anyone suffer that experience — because it would be a thing they could only suffer. EDIT: I'm reminded again of the rural, dues-based fire departments. You're free not to pay your dues. If your house catches fire and you haven't paid, the fire crew will come out, stop at your property line, keep the fire from spreading, and otherwise watch your shit burn. Libertarian paradise, or something...
        munk-a 9y ago
        My apologies if my comment was abrasive, my objection, though, is that pandering to this libertarian slice of the populace ends up costing society more. On a small scale that dues-based fire department might work fine "Oh, it's at frank's house, yea... he'll be surprised" but when you reach a state or country level tracking any sort of voluntary pay-in programs gets complicated and a sane efficient state would find it cheaper to just save frank's house anyways, because the cost of tracking who is who is more expensive than occasionally paying out fraudulently. This is one of the good motivations for universal basic income, a lot of our social programs have grown to the point where their overhead is getting ridiculous but the solution isn't ending the program, it's cutting any inefficiencies we can find and simplifying the program in a fair manner to get more money to where it needs to go.
pm90 9y ago
No, because If I'm completely honest, I want my society to improve but I don't want to spend all my free time looking through a catalog of projects which require funding and choose that. I would rather delegate that job to people who can do that full time.
- golergka 9y ago
  Then let's talk about a law that would allow you to voluntarily raise your personal taxes. Instead, we're talking about forcibly taking money from people.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    Did that money come into their hands completely voluntarily? Likely not. When you buy something you need to survive, can that be said to be a "voluntary" purchase? So when that money ends up in the hands of the owners of the productive machines, they get rich, but are they doing so because of purely "voluntary" participation in the economy? So then why do I have to pay private individuals for things I need to live, and they don't have to pay back into the system that gave them the infrastructure to earn this money in the first place?
    - golergka 9y ago
      These arguments would be true if most of our economy and transactions would indeed be centered on things we absolutely need to survive, and the difference between being able to pay and not would be life and death. It's not. Surviving in any modern first (or even second) world society is laughably easy. So I think we can safely describe most of the transactions as being "voluntary", yes.
    - mcbruiser3 9y ago
      > Did that money come into their hands completely voluntarily? Yes, if it's in the form of an investment. An investment is a risk, and like it or not, investments are a vital part of any economy. In may cases investments are how small businesses and entrepreneurs get capitalized because banks are much more risk averse. So why punish such a critical segment of the economy? You'll only end up moving the money into other areas that have less benefit for the rest of society.
SigmundA 9y ago
I never got the taken by force argument. Is your mortgage or rent taken by force? There are places in this world that to do not collect tax and you are free to go there. So long as you are allowed to leave, you have a choice otherwise you have implicitly agreed to the social contract to pay taxes by staying and benefit from being within the protected borders of the government and all service provided therein.
- tooltalk 9y ago
  Sure, and our current social contract says you pay less in taxes if you are super wealthy. There are places in this world where the rich are taxed to death, you are free to leave and settle in such utopia. Is that what you are saying?
  - SigmundA 9y ago
    I made no statement about the "super wealthy". I was simply arguing that taxes are not in fact taken by force (at least in the US where citizens are free to emigrate). Your hyperbolic example of places "where the rich are taxed to death" also seems to confirm the argument that choice is available.

ge96 9y ago

Isn't the "magic number" like $70K which I'm not sure if that is before or after taxes. Yeah I like roads/schools/police etc... And making more while you lose more you have more... Yeah I'm trying to land a tech job myself tough.