8 ms·

Honestly, I'm down for paying taxes. It pays for my lifestyle and is propostional to my lifestyle. If I own land, that land is only valuable due to the society

Honestly, I'm down for paying taxes. It pays for my lifestyle and is propostional to my lifestyle. If I own land, that land is only valuable due to the society that land exists in. It's protected, and safe, due to public services like roads, which law enforcement, fire control folks, postal service, and ambulances drive upon. I've earned my income from a lifetime of education, starting from my public school kindergarden all the way to me state university attendance, which in of itself is only useful to attend because there are bright minds teaching what they research via government grants. All of that costs money, and paying taxes is more or less funding my lifestyle as it is now. If you want to not pay taxes, then stop paying taxes and give up everything you purchase with them. Go subsistence farm in the woods or something, or deal with bartering instead of money (which itself is only useful because there is some regulation to keep it useful).

9c8675a8 7y ago
> It pays for my lifestyle No it doesn't. You're deluded, a hypocrite or a liar.
- mcv 7y ago
  What's hypocritical about this? I suppose if you honestly believed SolaceQuantum was wrong[0], you might indeed believe they were either deluded or a liar, but even then, what's hypocritical about it? [0] They're not wrong of course; everything claimed in that comment is entirely (or 'mostly', at least) correct. I'd love to see you try to refute any of it.
cascom 7y ago
I suspect few people here think they should pay no tax, however I’m quite sure that most would disagree about what the “right” amount would/should be. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by the quality and quantity of public goods different people use (e.g. there are plenty of people that have never set foot in any type of public school/university)
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "however I’m quite sure that most would disagree about what the “right” amount would/should be." I currently spend a little over 30% of my income as the sticker price to living in a first world country. Compared to the price of renting an apartment in my city, I think this is a steal. People who never set foot in any type of public school or university benefit from everyone else being educated, because everyone else designs their clothes, their cars, their planes, their buildings, roads, computing devices, etc. No one is self sufficient in the society I live in. It's totally possible to go and be self sufficient. This reduces your income so you don't pay taxes, since you're not interacting with government-protected, government-manipulated currency. Seems reasonable to me.
  - cascom 7y ago
    I'm glad you feel like you are a net beneficiary - but my comment really boils down to "reasonable people can disagree" and "not everyone has the same experience"
ne0flex 7y ago
I think most people would be down for paying taxes, however their main gripe, in my opinion, is that the quality of services (infrastructure, tax dollars being used for NSA spying on citizens, etc.) we're getting back for our tax dollars is dropping while taxes increase.
- moccachino 7y ago
  Taxes on regular people increases and the quality of services they provide decreases, precisely because of the tax-evading [0] behavior of the multinational corporations. [0]: If you feel the need to point out the difference between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion then please watch this first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Yes, I agree. We should vote appropirately, organize appropriately, and fully fund the IRS to be able to go after people who aren't paying their fair share in society.
appleiigs 7y ago
A consumption tax (a tax on sales) is proportional to your lifestyle. If someone chooses to buy a gas guzzler v8, they should pay taxes on the gallons they burn to pay for roads and emissions. Consumption tax is also easier to be set to a geographic location, and harder to shift to different tax jurisdiction. Harder to play games in comparison to an income tax. But nobody wants it. Very unpopular in a vote because, people rather have someone else pay such as rich people and corporations.
- snsr 7y ago
  Consumption taxes are regressive, serving to further exacerbate income inequality.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    It's not regressive. It's flat.
- khyryk 7y ago
  Rich people rarely buy stuff in proportion to their greater income (earning 100x more but not buying cars worth 100x more, etc). This would mainly affect the not-so-rich people, who, given fixed purchase budgets, would probably respond by consuming less, which is likely to hurt businesses with lower demand for just about any product.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    > This would mainly affect the not-so-rich people, who, given fixed purchase budgets, Certain items can be excempt from sales tax, such as groceries. > Likely to hurt businesses Since when is the HN crowd worried about hurting businesses. Most people here want higher taxes for corporations.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  Consumption taxes are also regressive in that in the lower your income, the harder those taxes become to pay. I would prefer a tax scheme in which you're ability to pay the tax is proportional to the taxes you owe.
exabrial 7y ago
That's fine if you want to pay them. But you should not and cannot ethically force others to consent to pay them.

9c8675a8 7y ago

> It pays for my lifestyle No it doesn't. You're deluded, a hypocrite or a liar.

mcv 7y ago
What's hypocritical about this? I suppose if you honestly believed SolaceQuantum was wrong[0], you might indeed believe they were either deluded or a liar, but even then, what's hypocritical about it? [0] They're not wrong of course; everything claimed in that comment is entirely (or 'mostly', at least) correct. I'd love to see you try to refute any of it.

cascom 7y ago

I suspect few people here think they should pay no tax, however I’m quite sure that most would disagree about what the “right” amount would/should be. Furthermore, this is exacerbated by the quality and quantity of public goods different people use (e.g. there are plenty of people that have never set foot in any type of public school/university)

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"however I’m quite sure that most would disagree about what the “right” amount would/should be." I currently spend a little over 30% of my income as the sticker price to living in a first world country. Compared to the price of renting an apartment in my city, I think this is a steal. People who never set foot in any type of public school or university benefit from everyone else being educated, because everyone else designs their clothes, their cars, their planes, their buildings, roads, computing devices, etc. No one is self sufficient in the society I live in. It's totally possible to go and be self sufficient. This reduces your income so you don't pay taxes, since you're not interacting with government-protected, government-manipulated currency. Seems reasonable to me.
- cascom 7y ago
  I'm glad you feel like you are a net beneficiary - but my comment really boils down to "reasonable people can disagree" and "not everyone has the same experience"

ne0flex 7y ago

I think most people would be down for paying taxes, however their main gripe, in my opinion, is that the quality of services (infrastructure, tax dollars being used for NSA spying on citizens, etc.) we're getting back for our tax dollars is dropping while taxes increase.

moccachino 7y ago
Taxes on regular people increases and the quality of services they provide decreases, precisely because of the tax-evading [0] behavior of the multinational corporations. [0]: If you feel the need to point out the difference between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion then please watch this first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Yes, I agree. We should vote appropirately, organize appropriately, and fully fund the IRS to be able to go after people who aren't paying their fair share in society.

appleiigs 7y ago

A consumption tax (a tax on sales) is proportional to your lifestyle. If someone chooses to buy a gas guzzler v8, they should pay taxes on the gallons they burn to pay for roads and emissions. Consumption tax is also easier to be set to a geographic location, and harder to shift to different tax jurisdiction. Harder to play games in comparison to an income tax. But nobody wants it. Very unpopular in a vote because, people rather have someone else pay such as rich people and corporations.

snsr 7y ago
Consumption taxes are regressive, serving to further exacerbate income inequality.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  It's not regressive. It's flat.
khyryk 7y ago
Rich people rarely buy stuff in proportion to their greater income (earning 100x more but not buying cars worth 100x more, etc). This would mainly affect the not-so-rich people, who, given fixed purchase budgets, would probably respond by consuming less, which is likely to hurt businesses with lower demand for just about any product.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  > This would mainly affect the not-so-rich people, who, given fixed purchase budgets, Certain items can be excempt from sales tax, such as groceries. > Likely to hurt businesses Since when is the HN crowd worried about hurting businesses. Most people here want higher taxes for corporations.
jmcqk6 7y ago
Consumption taxes are also regressive in that in the lower your income, the harder those taxes become to pay. I would prefer a tax scheme in which you're ability to pay the tax is proportional to the taxes you owe.

exabrial 7y ago

That's fine if you want to pay them. But you should not and cannot ethically force others to consent to pay them.