3 ms·
> Trying to avoid taxation entirely would involve a complete lifestyle change for everybody; somehow, everybody would have to be small-scale producers and buy t
by snitko 12y ago
> Trying to avoid taxation entirely would involve a complete lifestyle change for everybody; somehow, everybody would have to be small-scale producers and buy things from other small-scale producers, while we're now used to the ease of buying things all from one place.
Not necessarily. If there was no IRS and taxes, everything would be almost the same, except cheaper.
And who do you suppose the IRS gets their biggest share of revenue from anyway? It's not the rich. It's the middle class. The rich can already afford expensive schemes for tax evasion. Now the middle class will also be able to hide some of their savings from the IRS.
And again, "not spending" is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, with a deflationary currency, it's a good thing, since it incentivizes thoughtful investment in things that are truly important. The point of having money and not spending it is a very important point: you have security for you and your family, you also have an opportunity to wait until something truly great comes up in which you can invest the money. With Bitcoin, you also don't have to fear inflation.
> What happens the next time everyone decides some minority is the root cause of all their problems?
Next time this happens, government uses your own money it collected from you in the form of taxes to satisfy the irrational attitude of those who hate this or that minority. People on their own hating blacks, or gay or mexicans cannot do much, but government provides them with instruments of oppression and the beauty of it is that those instruments are paid for by all the people, not just those with this irrational attitude. Market competition will simply eradicate those companies who discriminate against minorities, because their competitors would hire minorities for slightly less and provide cheaper products. Government has nothing to do with protecting the minorities. In fact, historically, it was government laws that prevented minorities from succeeding. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell books on that subject where he provides examples from all over the world on the subject of minorities.
- vertex-four 12y ago> If there was no IRS and taxes, everything would be almost the same, except cheaper. There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, for those who cannot afford to pay for them. There would be less in the way of a social safety net for those who fall from their job. And as I say, in order to avoid the IRS, or any other organisation which might seek to tax you, you'd have to plan out the social infrastructure so that there are no big targets to attack and demand money from. Otherwise, it's very easy for a new IRS to pop up. > People on their own hating blacks, or gay or mexicans cannot do much So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse (unless you're rich enough to pay for it)? Is this what you are saying?
- snitko 12y ago> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. > So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying? It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.
- vertex-four 12y ago> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.