3 ms·

> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England

> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England taking money from Google would mean less infrastructure and research out there in the world, meaning common citizens would be forced to pay more for services instead of Google's free services, or make do with less. > I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. I believe it should be. Really, I mean that, I think taxes on productive labor are evil. Really, actually, unmitigated evil. I'm not against taxes, I'd actually be in favor for high property taxes divided split between federal, state, and local, which would encourage economy of space, reduce waste, and discourage real estate speculation while encouraging development. High taxes are okay. But taxing earned income, no way. Demanding a percent of honest labor to me seems no different than claiming ownership over a percent of a man. I think it's tyranny, and that in the future people will look horrified at income taxes the way we look at feudalism, serfdom, slavery, and other forced claims over a man's labor. But I understand I'm currently in the minority on that point of view.

dbingham 16y ago
What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services? To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Edit: Fixed, sorry had a bad copy and paste. You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (banks, phone lines), or even workers or customers educated by the public school system. Ask yourself why would IBM pay for such a thing? Well they have customers that use land and an educated workforce. And what about your bank? How do they keep from being robbed? Heck, what’s to stop your bank or IBM from simply shooting you vs. letting you keep the money? Face it, without a government service there is no way to generate extract and keep 250 million in value. Because even Drug Lords depend on governments banning their drugs. PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more: Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes. Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be government provided as that causes all sorts of problems like we've recently seen, but that's a side discussion), schools - those are all local-based services. You'd pay for where you were using them, when you were using them. > PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship. Totally unnecessary and counterproductive to a decent reasonable discussion.
      - Retric 16y ago
        Yea, sorry I messed up the comment in editing and had the "After all you" stuff twice. Anyway, I wonder what your thoughts are on the central idea. Mainly our ability to generate value is directly related to the value the government provides us. The ability to walk the streets unmolested is hard to quantify but the economic value is directly related to our income. Also, murder investigations are independent of the amount of land we own. And things like food safety and public vaccinations are cheap and valuable so bundling all of that stuff up and simply taxing income seems more reasonable than trying to have individual taxes on every transaction with the government. As to leaving I think that's an important option. It's what separates slaves of the state from people that can accept the deal or move on. A young talented American can has many options for relocation to another area, the fact that so few do suggests our system has many benefits even if they are not all obvious.

dbingham 16y ago

What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?

lionhearted 16y ago
> What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services? To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
- Retric 16y ago
  Edit: Fixed, sorry had a bad copy and paste. You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (banks, phone lines), or even workers or customers educated by the public school system. Ask yourself why would IBM pay for such a thing? Well they have customers that use land and an educated workforce. And what about your bank? How do they keep from being robbed? Heck, what’s to stop your bank or IBM from simply shooting you vs. letting you keep the money? Face it, without a government service there is no way to generate extract and keep 250 million in value. Because even Drug Lords depend on governments banning their drugs. PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more: Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes. Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be government provided as that causes all sorts of problems like we've recently seen, but that's a side discussion), schools - those are all local-based services. You'd pay for where you were using them, when you were using them. > PS: If you disagree you can always leave and renounce citizenship. Totally unnecessary and counterproductive to a decent reasonable discussion.
    - Retric 16y ago
      Yea, sorry I messed up the comment in editing and had the "After all you" stuff twice. Anyway, I wonder what your thoughts are on the central idea. Mainly our ability to generate value is directly related to the value the government provides us. The ability to walk the streets unmolested is hard to quantify but the economic value is directly related to our income. Also, murder investigations are independent of the amount of land we own. And things like food safety and public vaccinations are cheap and valuable so bundling all of that stuff up and simply taxing income seems more reasonable than trying to have individual taxes on every transaction with the government. As to leaving I think that's an important option. It's what separates slaves of the state from people that can accept the deal or move on. A young talented American can has many options for relocation to another area, the fact that so few do suggests our system has many benefits even if they are not all obvious.