5 ms·

I wish people were a little bit more patriotic about paying taxes. Well, provided the taxes go towards good things. It's so frustrating to see businesses gettin

I wish people were a little bit more patriotic about paying taxes. Well, provided the taxes go towards good things. It's so frustrating to see businesses getting rich on the back of a country's resources and infrastructure, only to abandon it when it's time to pay back.

paulhauggis 14y ago
Taxes are one thing. Greater than 50% is theft.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  50% is just a number, and without reference to what is received in return has no meaning. $500,000 for a car could be considered theft, until you see it is an italian supercar. Then it may not seem so out of kilter, depending on your values and point of view.
  - paulhauggis 14y ago
    "50% is just a number, and without reference to what is received in return has no meaning." Paying more than 50% of the money I earn to the government is theft. It doesn't matter what I get in return because I really have no choice in the matter. "$500,000 for a car could be considered theft, until you see it is an italian supercar" You aren't forced to purchase that sports car, so I would hardly call it theft.
    - cookingrobot 14y ago
      50% is just a number. By even your own definition paying 1% would be theft if it's done against your will. But this is a democracy, so you do have a kind of choice in the matter. Also - a way to think about high tax full-service countries is to think of them like an all inclusive resort. It costs more, but the drinks are free.
      - ericd 14y ago
        It's significant because that's the point at which the govt is getting more than you for your work. That's why it feels wrong to many, and is not just like any other number.
    - obstacle1 14y ago
      50% is an arbitrary number, not an actual threshold demarcating theft. Why is 49% not theft but 50% is?
- ap22213 14y ago
  How can it be theft, when the rules are agreed upon beforehand? Or, choose a country with low tax rates before setting out to make a fortune. Then, there's no conflict.
- NickM 14y ago
  http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
DigitalJack 14y ago
A company must compete for earnings. They must provide something at a good value, or the earnings won't come in. Governments have no such competition, except for the single case that a citizen can leave if they feel the value proposition is insufficient for the price (aka tax). Of course, in some countries, even that is not an option. I'm curious what infrastructure Belgium lacks that is unique to France to justify the difference in rates.
- purplelobster 14y ago
  I know that, and that's why I'd likely make a terrible entrepreneur. Businesses have to take every advantage they can, because their competition will. People and businesses don't leave a country because "they feel the value proposition is insufficient". They leave because they've already used all the resources and infrastructure the country has to offer, and now it's payback time. Only problem is, payback time is voluntary, so of course most of them go elsewhere. I don't know enough about the difference in tax rates between Belgium and France, but somehow I doubt that Belgium is some sort of tax free haven where public utilities are made with fairy dust and bunny kisses. Public service costs money, and sure there is much waste in most systems and there are differences, but in the end it will cost.
  - DigitalJack 14y ago
    But it isn't as if they hadn't been paying all along. It's a complete mischaracterization to say these people have "used all the resources and infrastructure and now it's payback time." It's been payback time all along. It's a pay as you go system. He is moving, and thus won't be using anymore of the resources, and thus shouldn't have to pay for what he is no longer using. Just fyi, from what I've read, Belgium's top rate is 50% vs France's soon to be 75%. I don't recall if the tiers occur at the same earnings level. I assume that what I've read is accurate but I haven't cared enough to follow up on it.
    - purplelobster 14y ago
      In another post I likened the government with an investor. It invests in you and everyone else, and thus owns part of what you create with that investment. The difference is, if I receive venture capital for a share of my business, I don't get to decide one day that I've paid enough to them and take my business elsewhere. Why should it work differently in society? Society invests in everyone, but not everyone makes it big. For the system to function, you need to hold up your end of the bargain. Instead, we get a race to the bottom. It's particularly apparent in the US, where even individual states try to steal businesses from other states with lower tax rates and perks.
blhack 14y ago
American's aren't patriotic about paying taxes because it doesn't feel like we're getting anything back for them. Let this be a marketing lesson, I suppose. I know that I'm getting things for my tax dollars, but I don't see them. For instance, I want to go to Mexico right now, and getting a passport is ~$130. Why? Why am I paying money for something that feels like a "government thing that I have to have". Isn't this what taxes are for? -- We have public schools, sure, but they're awful. We have police...but the majority of people I know see them as predators, not protectors. We have awesome national forests, and state parks...but you have to pay every time you want to use them. Some of them are just plain closed. etc. America is an awesome, awesome place. But we're bad at marketing to our members.
- chris11 14y ago
  I'd say that it is also affected by our military spending. Wikipedia puts our military spending for 2012 at between 1 and 1.4 trillion dollars. When you are spending 20 to 30 times the amount of money for your military, you can't offer the same social benefits as other countries.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    And yet we spent around 3 trillion. You'd think that other 2 trillion could do some good too. There have been several people in this thread suggest that the government has been largely responsible for their success so they should be happy to pay tons of taxes, and then given examples like roads and police as their reasoning. I really like having roads too. Guess what, roads and police are a tiny tiny portion of our current spending levels, so no I'm not happy to pay huge amounts of taxes (note i'm not in the top tax bracket and have no worries of my taxes going up further). If we stopped spending absurd amounts of money on so many ridiculous things we'd probably have more people not complain about their taxes. On the other hand, if we stopped spending the absurd amounts of money, our current tax revenues would be more than enough.
- philjohn 14y ago
  Don't know what the deal with passports is in the US, but if it's anything like the UK, the fee isn't profit making and covers the cost of running the passport service and a premium to cover the costs of providing consular assistance. In this way, it's the epitome of "getting value". You don't need a passport, and if you don't have one, you're not paying for people who do have one to receive consular assistance.
jacoblyles 14y ago
Being a patriot doesn't mean I can't complain about horrible service at a high price. I live in the worst run state in the US, with the highest income tax rate, bad public services, and a massive budget deficit. Are you saying I should be proud to send that tax check in every year to a broken system? I wish pro-tax types would stop providing a smoke screen for bad governance.

paulhauggis 14y ago

Taxes are one thing. Greater than 50% is theft.

DigitalJack 14y ago
50% is just a number, and without reference to what is received in return has no meaning. $500,000 for a car could be considered theft, until you see it is an italian supercar. Then it may not seem so out of kilter, depending on your values and point of view.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  "50% is just a number, and without reference to what is received in return has no meaning." Paying more than 50% of the money I earn to the government is theft. It doesn't matter what I get in return because I really have no choice in the matter. "$500,000 for a car could be considered theft, until you see it is an italian supercar" You aren't forced to purchase that sports car, so I would hardly call it theft.
  - cookingrobot 14y ago
    50% is just a number. By even your own definition paying 1% would be theft if it's done against your will. But this is a democracy, so you do have a kind of choice in the matter. Also - a way to think about high tax full-service countries is to think of them like an all inclusive resort. It costs more, but the drinks are free.
    - ericd 14y ago
      It's significant because that's the point at which the govt is getting more than you for your work. That's why it feels wrong to many, and is not just like any other number.
  - obstacle1 14y ago
    50% is an arbitrary number, not an actual threshold demarcating theft. Why is 49% not theft but 50% is?
ap22213 14y ago
How can it be theft, when the rules are agreed upon beforehand? Or, choose a country with low tax rates before setting out to make a fortune. Then, there's no conflict.
NickM 14y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

DigitalJack 14y ago

A company must compete for earnings. They must provide something at a good value, or the earnings won't come in. Governments have no such competition, except for the single case that a citizen can leave if they feel the value proposition is insufficient for the price (aka tax). Of course, in some countries, even that is not an option. I'm curious what infrastructure Belgium lacks that is unique to France to justify the difference in rates.

purplelobster 14y ago
I know that, and that's why I'd likely make a terrible entrepreneur. Businesses have to take every advantage they can, because their competition will. People and businesses don't leave a country because "they feel the value proposition is insufficient". They leave because they've already used all the resources and infrastructure the country has to offer, and now it's payback time. Only problem is, payback time is voluntary, so of course most of them go elsewhere. I don't know enough about the difference in tax rates between Belgium and France, but somehow I doubt that Belgium is some sort of tax free haven where public utilities are made with fairy dust and bunny kisses. Public service costs money, and sure there is much waste in most systems and there are differences, but in the end it will cost.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  But it isn't as if they hadn't been paying all along. It's a complete mischaracterization to say these people have "used all the resources and infrastructure and now it's payback time." It's been payback time all along. It's a pay as you go system. He is moving, and thus won't be using anymore of the resources, and thus shouldn't have to pay for what he is no longer using. Just fyi, from what I've read, Belgium's top rate is 50% vs France's soon to be 75%. I don't recall if the tiers occur at the same earnings level. I assume that what I've read is accurate but I haven't cared enough to follow up on it.
  - purplelobster 14y ago
    In another post I likened the government with an investor. It invests in you and everyone else, and thus owns part of what you create with that investment. The difference is, if I receive venture capital for a share of my business, I don't get to decide one day that I've paid enough to them and take my business elsewhere. Why should it work differently in society? Society invests in everyone, but not everyone makes it big. For the system to function, you need to hold up your end of the bargain. Instead, we get a race to the bottom. It's particularly apparent in the US, where even individual states try to steal businesses from other states with lower tax rates and perks.

blhack 14y ago

American's aren't patriotic about paying taxes because it doesn't feel like we're getting anything back for them. Let this be a marketing lesson, I suppose. I know that I'm getting things for my tax dollars, but I don't see them. For instance, I want to go to Mexico right now, and getting a passport is ~$130. Why? Why am I paying money for something that feels like a "government thing that I have to have". Isn't this what taxes are for? -- We have public schools, sure, but they're awful. We have police...but the majority of people I know see them as predators, not protectors. We have awesome national forests, and state parks...but you have to pay every time you want to use them. Some of them are just plain closed. etc. America is an awesome, awesome place. But we're bad at marketing to our members.

chris11 14y ago
I'd say that it is also affected by our military spending. Wikipedia puts our military spending for 2012 at between 1 and 1.4 trillion dollars. When you are spending 20 to 30 times the amount of money for your military, you can't offer the same social benefits as other countries.
- clarky07 14y ago
  And yet we spent around 3 trillion. You'd think that other 2 trillion could do some good too. There have been several people in this thread suggest that the government has been largely responsible for their success so they should be happy to pay tons of taxes, and then given examples like roads and police as their reasoning. I really like having roads too. Guess what, roads and police are a tiny tiny portion of our current spending levels, so no I'm not happy to pay huge amounts of taxes (note i'm not in the top tax bracket and have no worries of my taxes going up further). If we stopped spending absurd amounts of money on so many ridiculous things we'd probably have more people not complain about their taxes. On the other hand, if we stopped spending the absurd amounts of money, our current tax revenues would be more than enough.
philjohn 14y ago
Don't know what the deal with passports is in the US, but if it's anything like the UK, the fee isn't profit making and covers the cost of running the passport service and a premium to cover the costs of providing consular assistance. In this way, it's the epitome of "getting value". You don't need a passport, and if you don't have one, you're not paying for people who do have one to receive consular assistance.

jacoblyles 14y ago

Being a patriot doesn't mean I can't complain about horrible service at a high price. I live in the worst run state in the US, with the highest income tax rate, bad public services, and a massive budget deficit. Are you saying I should be proud to send that tax check in every year to a broken system? I wish pro-tax types would stop providing a smoke screen for bad governance.