6 ms·

Governments that have fuel excise taxes will do anything to keep their income flowing, including sabotaging EVs and public transport. This is why I would always

by dsq 6y ago

Governments that have fuel excise taxes will do anything to keep their income flowing, including sabotaging EVs and public transport. This is why I would always snicker when reading Tom Friedman's harping on a fuel excise tax: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20friedman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20friedman.html Every new tax always leads to increased spending then to more tax ad nauseum.

moralsupply 6y ago
Also: taxes are arbitrarily imposed through coercion, therefore they are not legitimate under an ethical standpoint, no matter how one wants to cut it. The idea of a "social contract" to justify taxation is absurd, to say the least (did you ever sign it voluntarily?). If the government can print its own money (which you're forced to use), why does it need to make you work and pay taxes to get that money back? The money the government "prints" has no value on itself, it needs your work to "value" its money. Taxation is nothing but the imposition the government puts on you to work "for free" so that it can print as much money as it wants and increase its own size. Never "defend" taxes of any sort, they are unethical and essentially constitute slavery.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Because inflation is considered to be bad (not sure whether it's worse than the tax system though), but more importantly, an inflation tax is regressive in that richer people can afford to store their wealth in things that do not inflate away (and even deflate due to this kind of speculation). Also, taxes are probably a smarter way to deal with negative externalities than regulation.
  - moralsupply 6y ago
    Inflation is taxation on your savings. It's effectively the same thing as any other tax. Laws and regulations are the reason as to why taxes exist in the first place. The government holds the monopoly of force, therefore it can issue any laws and regulations it wants. Because of that it can have a monopoly on the currency and tax its people.
    - loufe 6y ago
      You're completely missing his point. It's not the exact same thing. If I made a million a year as a company owner or shareholder (ignoring tax evasion schemes) I would receive a salary or dividends (ignoring choosing to hold it alone) then reinvest that money into other assets. That can be effectively an instant transfer. I don't lose any money because my capital is in interest-adjusting money earning places, rather than sitting in accont become ever less valuable. The system has some merits but in the end it's not a tax on the rich (who would minimize cash savings) or the poor (who, unfortunately, by definition have no capability to amass any) but instead on the middle class. I'd argue that's far, far less fair than standard progressive income taxes.
      - moralsupply 6y ago
        My point is that taxation is unjustifiable ethically. That includes direct taxation and inflation (under a monopolistic currency dictated by the government). You can only justify taxation under an authoritarian standpoint (eg. "we must tax people so that..."). Going that way, whoever has more guns wins the argument. Making a relative assessment of which taxation scheme is more "fair" seems to be pointless to me, in the same way it would be pointless to discuss what crime would be preferable given the choice of rape or murder.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > My point is that taxation is unjustifiable ethically. That's entirely dependent on your ethical axioms, on which there is no universal consensus. There are certainly frameworks within which some taxation is justifiable. > You can only justify taxation under an authoritarian standpoint (eg. "we must tax people so that...") (1) that's not true, and (2) that's an instrumentalist/utilitarian argument, not an authoritarian one. An authoritarian argument for taxation would be that the existence of government, itself, justified taxation to the extent government ordered it, not that taxation was necessary to serve some social benefit.
        moralsupply 6y ago
ffggvv 6y ago
how is that sabotage? it’s just not exempting them from a road tax
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The problem with all these taxes is one of 'pain' and political cost. If fuel taxes and, say, VAT, were abolished and personal income tax adjusted to make up the revenue that would create a political shitstorm and public outrage even if people end up paying exactly the same amount per year. Governments like relatively "stealthy" taxes. At the same time people want public spending so it's a political game of giving people what they ask for without making them feel too much that they need to pay for it...

by dsq 6y ago

moralsupply 6y ago

Also: taxes are arbitrarily imposed through coercion, therefore they are not legitimate under an ethical standpoint, no matter how one wants to cut it. The idea of a "social contract" to justify taxation is absurd, to say the least (did you ever sign it voluntarily?). If the government can print its own money (which you're forced to use), why does it need to make you work and pay taxes to get that money back? The money the government "prints" has no value on itself, it needs your work to "value" its money. Taxation is nothing but the imposition the government puts on you to work "for free" so that it can print as much money as it wants and increase its own size. Never "defend" taxes of any sort, they are unethical and essentially constitute slavery.

BlueTemplar 6y ago
Because inflation is considered to be bad (not sure whether it's worse than the tax system though), but more importantly, an inflation tax is regressive in that richer people can afford to store their wealth in things that do not inflate away (and even deflate due to this kind of speculation). Also, taxes are probably a smarter way to deal with negative externalities than regulation.
- moralsupply 6y ago
  Inflation is taxation on your savings. It's effectively the same thing as any other tax. Laws and regulations are the reason as to why taxes exist in the first place. The government holds the monopoly of force, therefore it can issue any laws and regulations it wants. Because of that it can have a monopoly on the currency and tax its people.
  - loufe 6y ago
    You're completely missing his point. It's not the exact same thing. If I made a million a year as a company owner or shareholder (ignoring tax evasion schemes) I would receive a salary or dividends (ignoring choosing to hold it alone) then reinvest that money into other assets. That can be effectively an instant transfer. I don't lose any money because my capital is in interest-adjusting money earning places, rather than sitting in accont become ever less valuable. The system has some merits but in the end it's not a tax on the rich (who would minimize cash savings) or the poor (who, unfortunately, by definition have no capability to amass any) but instead on the middle class. I'd argue that's far, far less fair than standard progressive income taxes.
    - moralsupply 6y ago
      My point is that taxation is unjustifiable ethically. That includes direct taxation and inflation (under a monopolistic currency dictated by the government). You can only justify taxation under an authoritarian standpoint (eg. "we must tax people so that..."). Going that way, whoever has more guns wins the argument. Making a relative assessment of which taxation scheme is more "fair" seems to be pointless to me, in the same way it would be pointless to discuss what crime would be preferable given the choice of rape or murder.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > My point is that taxation is unjustifiable ethically. That's entirely dependent on your ethical axioms, on which there is no universal consensus. There are certainly frameworks within which some taxation is justifiable. > You can only justify taxation under an authoritarian standpoint (eg. "we must tax people so that...") (1) that's not true, and (2) that's an instrumentalist/utilitarian argument, not an authoritarian one. An authoritarian argument for taxation would be that the existence of government, itself, justified taxation to the extent government ordered it, not that taxation was necessary to serve some social benefit.
        moralsupply 6y ago

ffggvv 6y ago

how is that sabotage? it’s just not exempting them from a road tax

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The problem with all these taxes is one of 'pain' and political cost. If fuel taxes and, say, VAT, were abolished and personal income tax adjusted to make up the revenue that would create a political shitstorm and public outrage even if people end up paying exactly the same amount per year. Governments like relatively "stealthy" taxes. At the same time people want public spending so it's a political game of giving people what they ask for without making them feel too much that they need to pay for it...