4 ms·

> This seems like a very strange model for taxes It’s been the basis of taxes for all time. You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return th

> This seems like a very strange model for taxes It’s been the basis of taxes for all time. You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return they try to protect you, such that you keep paying them. Beyond that, you probably wouldn’t pay taxes. You’d buy something. It would be much more efficient to buy some shared solution to a problem, as opposed to let someone take your money by force to solve some problem that may or may not impact you.

saurik 5y ago
Oh, "because I am forced to at gunpoint" is not at all how I read "I pay taxes to protect myself" in the context of public safety / war expenditures.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  Classic Libertarian argument. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force that they employ to obtain tax revenue. The proof of the statement lies in what happens if you don't pay taxes. Eventually, someone with guns will place you in custody or garnish your wages or seize your property.
  - saurik 5y ago
    I am not claiming I haven't heard that argument before or that I don't understand it: I am claiming that I don't think this is what the person I was replying to meant when they said they pay taxes to help themselves and not other people, particularly given the explicit explanation "don't tax people in one country to help another".
- HKH2 5y ago
  Being forced to buy protection doesn't mean you wouldn't buy it anyway; you just can't shop around.
Retric 5y ago
That line of thinking breaks down when you consider people can generally move somewhere else. Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.
- donw 5y ago
  "Moving somewhere else" lies between "extremely difficult" and "downright impossible" for most people. When you move, you leave your friends behind. And your family. Everybody that you've grown to know. Not to mention all those familiar haunts and places. If you're moving to another country, you have to deal with immigration, and get a handle on new laws, new customs, and more than likely, a new language as well. I was born in the US, and presently live in Japan. The cost of moving here was high in terms of all of the above, and I got to play on easy mode: Japan is massively accommodating to English speakers and I have highly-demanded job skills. So, no, one does not just "move somewhere else".
  - Retric 5y ago
    Large countries are a very modern invention. Currently the only area outside of any countries is Antarctica but our ancestors had a real choice here and countries won at least until the “winners” became capable of large scale conquest. The modern equivalent of moving outside a city for lower taxes still exists. It’s not framed as a willingness to pay more taxes but rather as access to better schools or parks etc. Still once again people are choosing to pay taxes for access to what taxes provide.
    - csee 5y ago
      Disagree with this. The people paying the tax for the most part aren't choosing to pay the tax. They just have no practical choice. Taxes have massively increased over the last hundred years everywhere in the West. As the poster above said, there are large network effects and switching costs (border control and visas as well as actual relocation costs and language/culture barrier and losing family and friends) which practically prevent moving for most people, even if hypothetically they'd prefer to move to a lower tax location. This, coupled with the small number of countries, makes for a dire situation for international competition between countries to lower tax burdens. It's the same reason crypto exchanges can get away with exorbitant fees. Nobody wants fees but the network effects are too sticky. So everyone pays the fees.

saurik 5y ago

Oh, "because I am forced to at gunpoint" is not at all how I read "I pay taxes to protect myself" in the context of public safety / war expenditures.

wombatpm 5y ago
Classic Libertarian argument. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force that they employ to obtain tax revenue. The proof of the statement lies in what happens if you don't pay taxes. Eventually, someone with guns will place you in custody or garnish your wages or seize your property.
- saurik 5y ago
  I am not claiming I haven't heard that argument before or that I don't understand it: I am claiming that I don't think this is what the person I was replying to meant when they said they pay taxes to help themselves and not other people, particularly given the explicit explanation "don't tax people in one country to help another".
HKH2 5y ago
Being forced to buy protection doesn't mean you wouldn't buy it anyway; you just can't shop around.

Retric 5y ago

That line of thinking breaks down when you consider people can generally move somewhere else. Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.

donw 5y ago
"Moving somewhere else" lies between "extremely difficult" and "downright impossible" for most people. When you move, you leave your friends behind. And your family. Everybody that you've grown to know. Not to mention all those familiar haunts and places. If you're moving to another country, you have to deal with immigration, and get a handle on new laws, new customs, and more than likely, a new language as well. I was born in the US, and presently live in Japan. The cost of moving here was high in terms of all of the above, and I got to play on easy mode: Japan is massively accommodating to English speakers and I have highly-demanded job skills. So, no, one does not just "move somewhere else".
- Retric 5y ago
  Large countries are a very modern invention. Currently the only area outside of any countries is Antarctica but our ancestors had a real choice here and countries won at least until the “winners” became capable of large scale conquest. The modern equivalent of moving outside a city for lower taxes still exists. It’s not framed as a willingness to pay more taxes but rather as access to better schools or parks etc. Still once again people are choosing to pay taxes for access to what taxes provide.
  - csee 5y ago
    Disagree with this. The people paying the tax for the most part aren't choosing to pay the tax. They just have no practical choice. Taxes have massively increased over the last hundred years everywhere in the West. As the poster above said, there are large network effects and switching costs (border control and visas as well as actual relocation costs and language/culture barrier and losing family and friends) which practically prevent moving for most people, even if hypothetically they'd prefer to move to a lower tax location. This, coupled with the small number of countries, makes for a dire situation for international competition between countries to lower tax burdens. It's the same reason crypto exchanges can get away with exorbitant fees. Nobody wants fees but the network effects are too sticky. So everyone pays the fees.