4 ms·

I am 100% opposed to this model. I am even opposed to Automatic Deductions People should have some "skin" in the game of taxation, if we allow the process to

by syshum 5y ago

I am 100% opposed to this model. I am even opposed to Automatic Deductions People should have some "skin" in the game of taxation, if we allow the process to become seamless overtaxation becomes a real problem. Even today people do not treat their Gross income as their income, they look at net. This is the wrong way to look at it. I believe people should have to physically pay the government every month just like you do your water bill, your groceries, etc. If people had to write a check, or trigger an electronic payment to their local taxing authority every month there would likely be more focus on where that money is going, and why the government things they deserve a huge chunk of my income (hint they do not) This prevents the government from just raising taxes and hiding these increases.

gpderetta 5y ago
If their take home goes down because of increased taxation, people will notice.
- syshum 5y ago
  depends but I would say they would notice less, and would not have as strong reaction to it as they would if they had to write the check themselves. We have history of this as well in the US, a prime example of this is property taxes. When a state raises the income tax rate there are a few grumbles but hardly anyone actively protests, however if property taxes go up people can be found literately in the street protesting because it causes their mortgage to go up (as most people pay property taxes via escrow with their lender) This is direct payment of taxes monthly where the person received the money, then has to pay it out, has a vastly different psychological effect than if the money is seized before ever being received by the person I maintain that the ONLY way the government can get way with the MASSIVE amounts of taxation everyone pays is for 2 primary reasons 1. Distributed collection 2. Automatic Collection If either was not in place the government would have huge amounts of civil unrest because by an large most people would instantly recognized they are being fleeced by the government no different than a mugger on the street
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by syshum 5y ago

gpderetta 5y ago

If their take home goes down because of increased taxation, people will notice.

syshum 5y ago
depends but I would say they would notice less, and would not have as strong reaction to it as they would if they had to write the check themselves. We have history of this as well in the US, a prime example of this is property taxes. When a state raises the income tax rate there are a few grumbles but hardly anyone actively protests, however if property taxes go up people can be found literately in the street protesting because it causes their mortgage to go up (as most people pay property taxes via escrow with their lender) This is direct payment of taxes monthly where the person received the money, then has to pay it out, has a vastly different psychological effect than if the money is seized before ever being received by the person I maintain that the ONLY way the government can get way with the MASSIVE amounts of taxation everyone pays is for 2 primary reasons 1. Distributed collection 2. Automatic Collection If either was not in place the government would have huge amounts of civil unrest because by an large most people would instantly recognized they are being fleeced by the government no different than a mugger on the street

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]