3 ms·
Taxing things makes them less likely to exist. That’s the fundamental nature of taxes, and why I am opposed to every single tax. Whatever we like in this world,
by monero-xmr 2y ago
Taxing things makes them less likely to exist. That’s the fundamental nature of taxes, and why I am opposed to every single tax. Whatever we like in this world, the government imposes a tax, and then we get less of it, and more of the government. A shameful result caused by a shameful society
- econ 2y agoHow did they even run government so "efficiently" before computers?
- monero-xmr 2y agoThe government barely existed in the US before the 20th century. When a war happened, yes. But otherwise it was mostly inconsequential
- nativeit 2y agoHasn't it generally grown with the rest of the population? I think it existed in roughly the same proportion as the rest of society.
- nickff 2y agoMost of the federal budget is wealth transfers from income earners to the poor and elderly; these were not federal functions until the 20th century. The US federal government spends didn’t have a standing army until well after the founding.
- grandempire 2y agoRunning organizations is more about people making decisions than it is rows in a database. Tasks just take longer. Leaders respond by doing fewer of them (high impact focus), or do more planning, etc.
- hayst4ck 2y agoGovernments exist as a response to the tragedy of the commons. Pragmatically, if you don't pay taxes to a government that has a military, then your neighbor will invade you and impose whatever taxes they deem fit or outright exterminate you, or historically directly enslave you.
- monero-xmr 2y agoI am happy to fund a military, and that’s basically it, and it could certainly be done without income, capital gains, or corporate taxes
- cyberax 2y agoHow about Social Security? Or Medicare? Do you think you'll be able to buy an insurance once you're old? But wait, there's more! Without government, what stops me from dumping a couple of tons of cadmium in your water supply?
- monero-xmr 2y agoI would find it near impossible that someone dumping a truckload of cadmium down a sewer or into the river is caught today, even with our insane taxes and panopticon state. In fact I know someone who makes a shitload of money in “waste disposal” who is regularly dumping illegally! However if a factory was doing it as a matter of regular business, a law could ban this practice, and then citizens could sue just like they do now.
- cyberax 2y ago> I would find it near impossible that someone dumping a truckload of cadmium down a sewer or into the river is caught today Oh, I won't do it covertly. I'll just build my solar panel producing factory and dump the waste stream in your water supply. > However if a factory was doing it as a matter of regular business, a law could ban this practice, and then citizens could sue just like they do now. How quaint. Now you need laws? That's a big-government talk right here. And how would you find out that I'm dumping cadmium? Do you have proof? Of course, we won't let you just visit our property. And without an injury, you have no standing in a civil court.
- blargey 2y agoAside from the quibbles over how much of government activity is useful and won't get done otherwise so we have to have less of something to have more of that stuff, there are also a good number of taxable things that most people don't like, or otherwise consider prosocial to have less of. Extreme wealth / income, pollution, alcohol/tobacco/gambling, etc.
- dullcrisp 2y agoSomeone must like them though. Are you not ashamed denying them more of that thing that they like in exchange for frivolities like roads, sanitation, etc.?
- monero-xmr 2y agoWe live in a democracy, and when you have conditioned society to assume everything is taxed, then yes, taxing vices like alcohol and tobacco are easier to stomach. I would be less opposed to it if every single dollar extracted from the vice was put to whatever society decided to do about the vice (police, treatment, etc.). But taxing the vice is a source of revenue for the ever-expanding state, and therefore society doesn’t actually want the vice to stop, rather they want it to grow in order to expand their revenue. I don’t want the government to fund anything a citizen wouldn’t fund themselves. If it’s useful, then someone will make a business to provide it. If it’s desirable without the profit motive, then allow a charity to develop. I see charity funded by free citizens as a form of market solution. What drives me crazy are giant government bureaucracies that are totally removed from the democratic process that fund things no one voted for, that we can never seem to defund.
- toast0 2y agoThat's why we should tax things we dislike. Taxing death should be universally apprechiated.
- bruce511 2y agoIf not taxes, how do you suggest public infrastructure is funded? That road you drive on for example? What about public service workers? Teachers, Firemen, Police etc? What about external costs? If I'm dumping rubbish in the local stream who cleans that up? Who incentivises me to stop doing that? I agree that unbounded taxes, and unbounded govt are a drag, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you see the alternatives playing out.
- grandempire 2y agoHow much tax revenue do we need for roads, fireman, and police?
- distortionfield 2y agoA shocking amount, and it’s well spent, because it literally underpins everything else. The stability it provides (or rather, provided in the past) is what made America so appealing to build and invest in in the first place.
- grandempire 2y agoAccording to ChatGPT. < 4% of federal budgets goes to these things and about 16% of state budgets. That was also generous and includes all transportation - not just roads. So yeah, I’m thinking defending current tax level or tax increases using these examples is not in good faith. You’re picking only The most popular programs (do we like police now?) and ignoring the other 85%.
- bruce511 2y agoThe largest 3 blocks of the budget are military, social security and Medicare. Personally I'd happily decimate the military budget. Social security however is very popular. As is Medicare.
- grandempire 2y ago
- hgomersall 2y agoI'm interestingly in agreement with you. A learned understanding of our monetary system [1] makes it clear that taxes are primarily about freeing resources that the state can use to provision itself, not raising money. In such a system it is much easier to point out unintended consequences as well as understand what makes a tax effective or not, assuming one chooses to understand it. The question then is only how much government you want, which is a political question. [1] relevant to the UK, but equivalent systems exist in any monetarily sovereign country: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683
- ben_w 2y ago> Taxing things makes them less likely to exist. That’s the fundamental nature of taxes, and why I am opposed to every single tax. And government spending makes things more likely to exist in exactly the same proportion (on the margin) and for exactly the same reason. And government spending without balanced (taxation + borrowing) leads to inflation, which is functionally a tax on holding cash. (Thanks to the dollar being a reserve currency, the USA gets to cheat a bit with borrowing, compared to everyone else — but even that's not unlimited).