4 ms·

The vast majority of taxes go to far, far less legitimate things than roads and schools. The tax system is a very, very crooked one (speaking for the US but pr

by javert 16y ago

The vast majority of taxes go to far, far less legitimate things than roads and schools. The tax system is a very, very crooked one (speaking for the US but probably everywhere), and nobody should be forced to sacrifice 35% (!!!) of their earnings to it. My point here is that you shouldn't go around telling people that they have a moral duty to pay taxes. People who believe that have to choose between guilt, and self-sacrifice.

JonnieCache 16y ago
There is a moral duty to pay taxes when you live in and benefit from a civilisation founded upon taxation, public services, and shared wealth. And self-sacrifice was a pretty good choice last time I checked.
- pufuwozu 16y ago
  I don't think anybody here is denying that. There's a big difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. I particularly like this quote on tax avoidance from Kerry Packer, 1991: I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
  - vixen99 16y ago
    Open cheque book for the State then? My impression is that an increasing number of people in the UK and EU and I suspect in the US, certainly do not accept there is a moral duty.to pay these taxes though they do so for fear of the consequences. Genuine needful social spending nothwithstanding, they beg to differ that the State can spend their money without seeming limit, borrowed money at that, better than they can. Just one illustration - the EU budget has not been passed by auditors for 13 years in a row. And when this was questioned from within the hierarchy, that person was sacked.
- javert 16y ago
  (a) I'm getting a raw deal; I'm putting into taxes far, far more than I get back in "benefits." (b) And, any system that sacrifices some people to others is barbaric, and ought to be ended. To elaborate on (b): The whole point of the rule of law (civilization) is to make it so that nobody can take what's mine from me by force, which is the very definition of barbarism (the state of nature). Yes, we need government force to protect us from arbitrary force (the state of nature), but it should not go beyond the minimal necessary application of force. It should not tax me for other people's education, for example. Let them pay it back once they get jobs. The market works in every sector where we've tried it. If I have any duty, it's to oppose continuing such a barbaric system.
  - jessewmc 16y ago
    Everyone else already paid for your education. You owe it back now that you 'have a job.'
    - jtheory 16y ago
      And if you don't have a "job" because you're working on making yourself rich by employing other people, try imagining for a moment that those "other people" you're hiring had no reliable access to education, or no assurance that they'd be able to pay to educate their kids. There are an awful lot of benefits to everyone in giving the general populace a passable education and access to basic health care. Once folks' basic needs in life are met, they are rather more likely to dedicate themselves to the causes you recruit them for (political, business, whatever). (So come on, USA, how about re-routing a fraction of the money you're burning in Iraq & Afghanistan into education & health care?)
  - corin_ 16y ago
    Society only works if some people pay higher tax than the value they get back, and some people pay less. If you're lucky enough to find yourself in a situation where you're having to pay more than average in tax, stop thinking solely about yourself and by glad that you're helping out people who pay significantly less than you in tax while living in poverty. There are plenty of issues with tax systems in most (all?) countries, but the fact that some people pay in more than they get back from it isn't one of them. Your argument of not wanting to be taxed for other people's education... just doesn't work. What if you had an education and then died, or never worked a day in your life, who pays for that? The only way that you got an education is because your parents and their generation were paying for it, and if your generation aren't paying for the education of those younger than you, no-one will get educated. "The market works in every sector where we've tried it." I'm not sure anyone who has experienced the health service in many European countries, even here in the UK where the NHS has many big problems, would consider the market solution in America to be better than a free health service covered by taxes. And where do you stop? Should police only investigate crimes for a fee, and leave anyone who can't afford the prices on their own?
Chrono 16y ago
35% isn't much to pay in taxes compared to other counties. If you earn enough in Sweden you will end up paying a total of close 70% of your income in taxes. (income tax capped at 56% if I recall correctly and the rest if VAT etc)

by javert 16y ago

JonnieCache 16y ago

There is a moral duty to pay taxes when you live in and benefit from a civilisation founded upon taxation, public services, and shared wealth. And self-sacrifice was a pretty good choice last time I checked.

pufuwozu 16y ago
I don't think anybody here is denying that. There's a big difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. I particularly like this quote on tax avoidance from Kerry Packer, 1991: I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
- vixen99 16y ago
  Open cheque book for the State then? My impression is that an increasing number of people in the UK and EU and I suspect in the US, certainly do not accept there is a moral duty.to pay these taxes though they do so for fear of the consequences. Genuine needful social spending nothwithstanding, they beg to differ that the State can spend their money without seeming limit, borrowed money at that, better than they can. Just one illustration - the EU budget has not been passed by auditors for 13 years in a row. And when this was questioned from within the hierarchy, that person was sacked.
javert 16y ago
(a) I'm getting a raw deal; I'm putting into taxes far, far more than I get back in "benefits." (b) And, any system that sacrifices some people to others is barbaric, and ought to be ended. To elaborate on (b): The whole point of the rule of law (civilization) is to make it so that nobody can take what's mine from me by force, which is the very definition of barbarism (the state of nature). Yes, we need government force to protect us from arbitrary force (the state of nature), but it should not go beyond the minimal necessary application of force. It should not tax me for other people's education, for example. Let them pay it back once they get jobs. The market works in every sector where we've tried it. If I have any duty, it's to oppose continuing such a barbaric system.
- jessewmc 16y ago
  Everyone else already paid for your education. You owe it back now that you 'have a job.'
  - jtheory 16y ago
    And if you don't have a "job" because you're working on making yourself rich by employing other people, try imagining for a moment that those "other people" you're hiring had no reliable access to education, or no assurance that they'd be able to pay to educate their kids. There are an awful lot of benefits to everyone in giving the general populace a passable education and access to basic health care. Once folks' basic needs in life are met, they are rather more likely to dedicate themselves to the causes you recruit them for (political, business, whatever). (So come on, USA, how about re-routing a fraction of the money you're burning in Iraq & Afghanistan into education & health care?)
- corin_ 16y ago
  Society only works if some people pay higher tax than the value they get back, and some people pay less. If you're lucky enough to find yourself in a situation where you're having to pay more than average in tax, stop thinking solely about yourself and by glad that you're helping out people who pay significantly less than you in tax while living in poverty. There are plenty of issues with tax systems in most (all?) countries, but the fact that some people pay in more than they get back from it isn't one of them. Your argument of not wanting to be taxed for other people's education... just doesn't work. What if you had an education and then died, or never worked a day in your life, who pays for that? The only way that you got an education is because your parents and their generation were paying for it, and if your generation aren't paying for the education of those younger than you, no-one will get educated. "The market works in every sector where we've tried it." I'm not sure anyone who has experienced the health service in many European countries, even here in the UK where the NHS has many big problems, would consider the market solution in America to be better than a free health service covered by taxes. And where do you stop? Should police only investigate crimes for a fee, and leave anyone who can't afford the prices on their own?

Chrono 16y ago

35% isn't much to pay in taxes compared to other counties. If you earn enough in Sweden you will end up paying a total of close 70% of your income in taxes. (income tax capped at 56% if I recall correctly and the rest if VAT etc)