6 ms·

Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of income taxes. You should be taxed for owning things, because the government enforces your property rights, not jus

by Straw 6y ago

Personally, I disagree with the whole idea of income taxes. You should be taxed for owning things, because the government enforces your property rights, not just for labor, for which the government doesn't directly contribute at all. I should be able to earn money for my labor without the government taking a fraction every time it moves around. Even if you move to the woods, you're still taking military protection from the surrounding government- even if you somehow avoid using any other service like roads, public education, etc. I don't understand this widespread belief that you have a right to permanent ownership. Someone has to enforce that ownership, and that has costs. What does seem wrong in principle is taxing transfers of money, which are virtually free with modern computer systems, not to mention the increased economic friction in the labor market. You raise a good point with liquidity. Personally, I wonder, how could we set up a system of fractional ownership that delays repossession in such cases? Of course, if you never pay tax on that heirloom, then you'll eventually lose a controlling interest- and I think this makes sense, especially for fundamentally limited resources like land.

apta 6y ago
Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it! It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway). However, as I explain in my other post, there is no forcing to liquidate a fixed portion of any holdings you have. For example, if you own property and rent it out, the property value itself is not taxed, only the money you make out of rent if you hold on to it for over a year (and it's above a minimum threshold). Similarly if you owe shares in a company, the taxation is not a direct percentage of that ownership, it depends on things like debt and the amount of produce or products the company owns each year. Income tax is unethical and predatory as far as I'm concerned, not to mention continues to fail even at absurdly high taxation rates.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Which period was this? Because when I see what people with bank accounts in PK do now when Zakat is levied...
  - apta 6y ago
    It was during the time of Omar Ibn AbdulAziz. I looked up the reference, and it was actually not just income from Zakat, but the entire fund in Iraq was overflowing, so much so that it was not only sufficient for the needy, but it also paid off people's debts, and married whomever wanted to get married. [1] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B2-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A3%D8%B9%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85 https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-...
tacitusarc 6y ago
Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.
- Straw 6y ago
  You kept the house and the land- probably by far the most valuable assets. Without enforcement of property rights, what stops me from coming in with a bigger gun and just taking the land? Of course, there are limits to the protection they provide- you can always buy more.
  - tacitusarc 6y ago
    Clearly if the police could get away ignoring the fact that you came in and took the land, they would. I would make a strong delineation between the adjudication of property rights and the enforcement of property rights. Those are two different things, and it has ever been the case that individuals frequently must act in an enforcement capacity. Potentially, if you tried to take someone's land, they will shoot you. That is enforcement. Adjudication happens when a judge says they were in the right.
    - Straw 6y ago
      Adjudication requires enforcement at the end of the day. Otherwise, whoever has the biggest gun wins.
- topher515 6y ago
  The point being made above about property rights is much bigger than “does my local police do a good job finding burglars?”. The point is that the government maintains an entire system for tracking, resolving disputes, and enforcing ownership. Think about who has the final say in a dispute over whether you own your car or your house or your company. The government adjudicates ownership disputes and then enforces that adjudication via people with guns. It’s easier to notice this system if you imagine the counter-factual: if you lived in a failed state, and you wanted to keep your your home or car you would probably need to hire some guys with guns. (When you think about it this way, you notice that the “value” of the government’s “service” is much higher for people who own a lot rather than for those that own a little.)
cperciva 6y ago
Personally, I disagree with the whole ideas of both wealth and income taxes. You should be taxed for consuming things, since that's the point where you're actually imposing a burden on the rest of society. (Note that this includes consumption of housing, and VAT + imputed rent is basically a property tax.)
- Kinrany 6y ago
  Owning wealth imposes a burden on the society to the degree that it needs to be protected.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Isn't that priced into the cost of wealth already through insurance?
    - legolas2412 6y ago
      Not at all. You rely on the law enforcement and the courts to hold your rights over property, not insurance companies.
  - mdtusz 6y ago
    Which is typically a function of sale price.
    - RestlessMind 6y ago
      I don’t think sale price of a big mansion sold 100 years ago and passed down from generation to generation would cover maintenance cost (road, sewers, electricity, police etc) for 100 years.
  - tertius 6y ago
    How so?
    - RestlessMind 6y ago
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
i disagree with all forms of tax. we should only be taxed for consumption. it would raise the cost of living but it would also create ways to govern ourselves better, improve quality of life and take care of those who cant through charity rather than punitive forced taxation. it's charity because someone has to take care of your financial needs because you are incapable of managing it yourself. someone has to take over another in need and take responsibility out of the kindness of their heart. it cant be demanded. the notion that we deserve a portion of another person's hard word makes a mockery of their hard work and dedication. assets become valuable over time and the value of some assets is completely relative. if jeff bezos sold all his wealth in amazon shares, first, it wouldnt be the billions it is now..(even if he could sell it..), secondly, it would take it with it millions of dollars of income for hundreds of thousands of people. the notion of 'wealth' is a man made construct. wealth is what we consume. everything else is a resource. you cant tax resources. it is an asset that hasnt been realised yet.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  Well, everyone consumes public infrastructure directly (driving on roads, suing someone, calling police) or indirectly (be assured of a safe investment environment for wealth building in the US vs Syria/Zimbabwe). How will you measure and tax this consumption to pay for the underlying infrastructure and labor?
  - fuzzfactor 6y ago
    All taxes are parasitic on the prosperity of the subjects. The least parasitic is taxing commerce. Anything else is stupid, like taxing people or property where the parasitic effect grows to be unbearable even when rates remain constant. You can't fix stupid but it can get elected to decision-making positions and leverage the foolishness.

by Straw 6y ago

apta 6y ago

Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it! It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway). However, as I explain in my other post, there is no forcing to liquidate a fixed portion of any holdings you have. For example, if you own property and rent it out, the property value itself is not taxed, only the money you make out of rent if you hold on to it for over a year (and it's above a minimum threshold). Similarly if you owe shares in a company, the taxation is not a direct percentage of that ownership, it depends on things like debt and the amount of produce or products the company owns each year. Income tax is unethical and predatory as far as I'm concerned, not to mention continues to fail even at absurdly high taxation rates.

selimthegrim 6y ago
Which period was this? Because when I see what people with bank accounts in PK do now when Zakat is levied...
- apta 6y ago
  It was during the time of Omar Ibn AbdulAziz. I looked up the reference, and it was actually not just income from Zakat, but the entire fund in Iraq was overflowing, so much so that it was not only sufficient for the needy, but it also paid off people's debts, and married whomever wanted to get married. [1] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B2-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A3%D8%B9%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85 https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-...

tacitusarc 6y ago

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has had his house smashed into an all of his stuff stolen, none of which was recovered and no meaningful attempt to do so was made, I don't particularly buy the argument that government enforces property rights. In certain cases, maybe. But mostly property rights exist because we all kind of agree they exist, and we generally don't go burglarizing each other.

Straw 6y ago
You kept the house and the land- probably by far the most valuable assets. Without enforcement of property rights, what stops me from coming in with a bigger gun and just taking the land? Of course, there are limits to the protection they provide- you can always buy more.
- tacitusarc 6y ago
  Clearly if the police could get away ignoring the fact that you came in and took the land, they would. I would make a strong delineation between the adjudication of property rights and the enforcement of property rights. Those are two different things, and it has ever been the case that individuals frequently must act in an enforcement capacity. Potentially, if you tried to take someone's land, they will shoot you. That is enforcement. Adjudication happens when a judge says they were in the right.
  - Straw 6y ago
    Adjudication requires enforcement at the end of the day. Otherwise, whoever has the biggest gun wins.
topher515 6y ago
The point being made above about property rights is much bigger than “does my local police do a good job finding burglars?”. The point is that the government maintains an entire system for tracking, resolving disputes, and enforcing ownership. Think about who has the final say in a dispute over whether you own your car or your house or your company. The government adjudicates ownership disputes and then enforces that adjudication via people with guns. It’s easier to notice this system if you imagine the counter-factual: if you lived in a failed state, and you wanted to keep your your home or car you would probably need to hire some guys with guns. (When you think about it this way, you notice that the “value” of the government’s “service” is much higher for people who own a lot rather than for those that own a little.)

cperciva 6y ago

Personally, I disagree with the whole ideas of both wealth and income taxes. You should be taxed for consuming things, since that's the point where you're actually imposing a burden on the rest of society. (Note that this includes consumption of housing, and VAT + imputed rent is basically a property tax.)

Kinrany 6y ago
Owning wealth imposes a burden on the society to the degree that it needs to be protected.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Isn't that priced into the cost of wealth already through insurance?
  - legolas2412 6y ago
    Not at all. You rely on the law enforcement and the courts to hold your rights over property, not insurance companies.
- mdtusz 6y ago
  Which is typically a function of sale price.
  - RestlessMind 6y ago
    I don’t think sale price of a big mansion sold 100 years ago and passed down from generation to generation would cover maintenance cost (road, sewers, electricity, police etc) for 100 years.
- tertius 6y ago
  How so?
  - RestlessMind 6y ago

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

i disagree with all forms of tax. we should only be taxed for consumption. it would raise the cost of living but it would also create ways to govern ourselves better, improve quality of life and take care of those who cant through charity rather than punitive forced taxation. it's charity because someone has to take care of your financial needs because you are incapable of managing it yourself. someone has to take over another in need and take responsibility out of the kindness of their heart. it cant be demanded. the notion that we deserve a portion of another person's hard word makes a mockery of their hard work and dedication. assets become valuable over time and the value of some assets is completely relative. if jeff bezos sold all his wealth in amazon shares, first, it wouldnt be the billions it is now..(even if he could sell it..), secondly, it would take it with it millions of dollars of income for hundreds of thousands of people. the notion of 'wealth' is a man made construct. wealth is what we consume. everything else is a resource. you cant tax resources. it is an asset that hasnt been realised yet.

RestlessMind 6y ago
Well, everyone consumes public infrastructure directly (driving on roads, suing someone, calling police) or indirectly (be assured of a safe investment environment for wealth building in the US vs Syria/Zimbabwe). How will you measure and tax this consumption to pay for the underlying infrastructure and labor?
- fuzzfactor 6y ago
  All taxes are parasitic on the prosperity of the subjects. The least parasitic is taxing commerce. Anything else is stupid, like taxing people or property where the parasitic effect grows to be unbearable even when rates remain constant. You can't fix stupid but it can get elected to decision-making positions and leverage the foolishness.