5 ms·

Don't know about the US, but in the UK we're forced to pay road tax (if you have a car) in addition to income tax, national insurance and council tax. So by not

Don't know about the US, but in the UK we're forced to pay road tax (if you have a car) in addition to income tax, national insurance and council tax. So by not paying income tax, we're still paying for road maintenance via road tax and we'd still be paying for the NHS too. I don't mind tax as long as it's optional, I'll pay road tax, I don't want to pay income tax.

justincormack 12y ago
Road tax does not pay for roads. In the UK there is no hypothecation there is just one big tax pool.
arethuza 12y ago
Actually, quite a lot of different classes of vehicles, notably electric cars, are exempt from Road Tax in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax
leoedin 12y ago
Don't want to pay road tax? Don't have a car on the roads. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't have an income!
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or medicine! The SCotUS struck down poll taxes because the exercise of a right--in that case, voting--cannot be taxed. By that reasoning, if you support a tax on something, you must believe that no one has a right to that thing. Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in voluntary commerce. You have no right to earn or spend money. Property taxes imply you have no right to own property. Naturally, if this principle were carried out to its logical extreme, the government has a revenue incentive in denying people their rights. And that leads to the question: so how do people who love their freedoms pay for a government? And there is no single, objectively correct answer to that question. And there is also no good reason to mock and ridicule either the people that ask it, or the people who answer it differently.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The SCotUS struck down poll taxes True... > because the exercise of a right--in that case, voting--cannot be taxed. False. The Supreme Court struck down poll taxes because "A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" because "[o]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination", "[f]ee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process", and "[t]he interest of the State, when it comes to voting registration, is limited to the fixing of standards related to the applicant's qualifications as a voter", finding that "[t]o introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor." Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) It did not at any point make the argument that "the exercise of a right cannot be taxed". It only made the argument that poll taxes were an unacceptable burden on the right to vote because they impose a burden on a fundamental right that is not sufficiently justified by any state interest relating to the exercise of that right. > Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in voluntary commerce. No, they don't. The Supreme Court tolerating them when it has struck down poll taxes for the reasons described above indicates that the burden that such taxes pose on the right to voluntary commerce, presuming such a right exists, is not unjustified by legitimate government interests related to commerce, it does not imply that the right does not exist (or even that it is not a fundamental right like voting.)
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      As you say, the SCotUS didn't explicitly say the exercise of a right cannot be taxed, but that doesn't obviate the fact that I am making that argument, absent any appeal to authority, right now. The issue was that poll taxes were being used to prevent poor black people from voting, denying their rights. That establishes definitively that taxation does infringe upon rights, and necessarily limits the ability of some people to exercise them. Poll taxes are not the only such example. There are several examples of backdoor prohibitions by outlawing something without possession of a proper tax stamp, then allowing the revenue authority to limit the quantity of stamps, or refuse to sell them outright. It works for drugs, guns, taxicabs, unsavory businesses, or anything else you don't want in your town, but can't manage to outlaw directly. The SCotUS is not staffed by supermen or gods. We can reason as well as they can, but we are not bound by their tradition or political expedience. We can more safely make decisions that might impede the flow of money into the treasury or even collapse the existing government entirely. I say that a right cannot be taxed. Any external impediment to the exercise of that right, of which taxation is but one, is an infringement. You can disagree, if you like. Now, a Supreme Court justice, paid in part by the collection of taxes, would obviously say, "Whoa, now. Let's not be too hasty, there, fella." If I were in that position, I too might want to establish some form of guideline or balancing test, such that the infringement be "in the public interest" and "overtly nondiscriminatory, while still greatly advantaging rich people". Taxing someone's speech by the word is unethical. Taxing someone's religion by the prayer is unethical. Taxing someone's trade by the amount of coin that changes hands is unethical. We tolerate some level of unethical behavior in government, but it can go too far. If, for instance, someone raised the income tax rate to 101%, there is nothing inherent to the substance of the law preventing that. But you can be certain that it would go to the SCotUS, and they would find a way to say "you can't go that high" without also saying "you can't have that tax at all." It is very likely that they would carefully avoid establishing anything lower than 101% as an upper limit, thus inviting further decisions for 100% and 99% and so on until everyone got tired of trying the same case repeatedly. Also, I do allege that voluntary commerce is a basic human right. The ability to buy and sell is a necessary and critical element of participation in civil society, and essential to securing our survival needs. It is derived from and intimately related to the right to own property. Unless we are communist, and openly disavow any right to own property, I think we can safely presume that we also have the right to buy and sell that property. But let's not just appeal to authority and let it lie without addressing the substance of the argument.
nicholassmith 12y ago
No such thing as road tax I'm afraid, it was removed in the 1930s. As a car user you pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which could go to the roads (but probably doesn't), based on the emissions of your vehicle.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  These days VED is sent directly to the Queen, who gets to spend it all on hats. New government directive 27b/6.

justincormack 12y ago

Road tax does not pay for roads. In the UK there is no hypothecation there is just one big tax pool.

arethuza 12y ago

Actually, quite a lot of different classes of vehicles, notably electric cars, are exempt from Road Tax in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax

leoedin 12y ago

Don't want to pay road tax? Don't have a car on the roads. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't have an income!

logfromblammo 12y ago
Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or medicine! The SCotUS struck down poll taxes because the exercise of a right--in that case, voting--cannot be taxed. By that reasoning, if you support a tax on something, you must believe that no one has a right to that thing. Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in voluntary commerce. You have no right to earn or spend money. Property taxes imply you have no right to own property. Naturally, if this principle were carried out to its logical extreme, the government has a revenue incentive in denying people their rights. And that leads to the question: so how do people who love their freedoms pay for a government? And there is no single, objectively correct answer to that question. And there is also no good reason to mock and ridicule either the people that ask it, or the people who answer it differently.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The SCotUS struck down poll taxes True... > because the exercise of a right--in that case, voting--cannot be taxed. False. The Supreme Court struck down poll taxes because "A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" because "[o]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination", "[f]ee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process", and "[t]he interest of the State, when it comes to voting registration, is limited to the fixing of standards related to the applicant's qualifications as a voter", finding that "[t]o introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor." Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) It did not at any point make the argument that "the exercise of a right cannot be taxed". It only made the argument that poll taxes were an unacceptable burden on the right to vote because they impose a burden on a fundamental right that is not sufficiently justified by any state interest relating to the exercise of that right. > Sales taxes and income taxes imply that there is no right to engage in voluntary commerce. No, they don't. The Supreme Court tolerating them when it has struck down poll taxes for the reasons described above indicates that the burden that such taxes pose on the right to voluntary commerce, presuming such a right exists, is not unjustified by legitimate government interests related to commerce, it does not imply that the right does not exist (or even that it is not a fundamental right like voting.)
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    As you say, the SCotUS didn't explicitly say the exercise of a right cannot be taxed, but that doesn't obviate the fact that I am making that argument, absent any appeal to authority, right now. The issue was that poll taxes were being used to prevent poor black people from voting, denying their rights. That establishes definitively that taxation does infringe upon rights, and necessarily limits the ability of some people to exercise them. Poll taxes are not the only such example. There are several examples of backdoor prohibitions by outlawing something without possession of a proper tax stamp, then allowing the revenue authority to limit the quantity of stamps, or refuse to sell them outright. It works for drugs, guns, taxicabs, unsavory businesses, or anything else you don't want in your town, but can't manage to outlaw directly. The SCotUS is not staffed by supermen or gods. We can reason as well as they can, but we are not bound by their tradition or political expedience. We can more safely make decisions that might impede the flow of money into the treasury or even collapse the existing government entirely. I say that a right cannot be taxed. Any external impediment to the exercise of that right, of which taxation is but one, is an infringement. You can disagree, if you like. Now, a Supreme Court justice, paid in part by the collection of taxes, would obviously say, "Whoa, now. Let's not be too hasty, there, fella." If I were in that position, I too might want to establish some form of guideline or balancing test, such that the infringement be "in the public interest" and "overtly nondiscriminatory, while still greatly advantaging rich people". Taxing someone's speech by the word is unethical. Taxing someone's religion by the prayer is unethical. Taxing someone's trade by the amount of coin that changes hands is unethical. We tolerate some level of unethical behavior in government, but it can go too far. If, for instance, someone raised the income tax rate to 101%, there is nothing inherent to the substance of the law preventing that. But you can be certain that it would go to the SCotUS, and they would find a way to say "you can't go that high" without also saying "you can't have that tax at all." It is very likely that they would carefully avoid establishing anything lower than 101% as an upper limit, thus inviting further decisions for 100% and 99% and so on until everyone got tired of trying the same case repeatedly. Also, I do allege that voluntary commerce is a basic human right. The ability to buy and sell is a necessary and critical element of participation in civil society, and essential to securing our survival needs. It is derived from and intimately related to the right to own property. Unless we are communist, and openly disavow any right to own property, I think we can safely presume that we also have the right to buy and sell that property. But let's not just appeal to authority and let it lie without addressing the substance of the argument.

nicholassmith 12y ago

No such thing as road tax I'm afraid, it was removed in the 1930s. As a car user you pay Vehicle Excise Duty, which could go to the roads (but probably doesn't), based on the emissions of your vehicle.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
These days VED is sent directly to the Queen, who gets to spend it all on hats. New government directive 27b/6.