Tax Time (again)

[bitermer]

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

1) taxation is theft

Roads, schools and other infrastructure is nice though

[Allant]

Originally Posted by Immerael

Totally should have posted this at like beginning of the year broski. I did mine forever ago it seems. xD

Totes in the last LL

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

1) taxation is theft

All your cash is belong to us

[Regent Pancras]

It's an interesting idea Tom but taken to the nth degree it simply couldn't work. The function of the state is to provide basic services and infrastructure. It appears to me that the basic difference in philosophy between socialist and capitalist governments is to what degree should these services be provided; to whom; and would the delivery of the services be better placed in the hands of a private company rather than by the state themselves.

As an example: Fire and Rescue department. Even in some tax free utopia no one would suggest you don't need a fire department. The moment you were trapped in a car wreck or your house caught fire you would need them.

So an amount of local taxes provides this. That's not to say if you don't crash your car or your house catches fire the tax to pay for this function is 'theft', but the service is provided as a safety blanket if you do.

So without tax how would this be paid for and by whom? Do you work on the user pays scenario? If so the cost of the fire service would probably be loaded into house or car insurance premiums - which would be paid by everyone anyone anyway meaning no saving. Or do you pay nothing in the hope that you never need the fire service, but when you do they need your credit card number before they attend?

This is the sort of decisions with healthcare. In the UK (and most of Europe) healthcare is provided free at the point of use by the state for most non-elective procedures, whereas in the USA it is generally not - and private insurance covers costs. I'm not really sure what arrangements exist - presumably you can get a 'gold standard' everything covered policy or a basic urgent care one or everything inbetween?

The risks of this system mean that poor people can't afford insurance so go without treatment or people with complex medical conditions can't get cover for their needs or it is at a prohibitive cost.

So the user pays system isn't as good as it seems...

[bitermer]

To put it in CN terms: if we don't collect taxes, how are the nations bills going to be paid?

You can plunder a bit through war but nukes and military upkeep make it generally not cost effective.

[Immerael]

Originally Posted by Regent Pancras

It's an interesting idea Tom but taken to the nth degree it simply couldn't work. The function of the state is to provide basic services and infrastructure. It appears to me that the basic difference in philosophy between socialist and capitalist governments is to what degree should these services be provided; to whom; and would the delivery of the services be better placed in the hands of a private company rather than by the state themselves.

As an example: Fire and Rescue department. Even in some tax free utopia no one would suggest you don't need a fire department. The moment you were trapped in a car wreck or your house caught fire you would need them.

So an amount of local taxes provides this. That's not to say if you don't crash your car or your house catches fire the tax to pay for this function is 'theft', but the service is provided as a safety blanket if you do.

So without tax how would this be paid for and by whom? Do you work on the user pays scenario? If so the cost of the fire service would probably be loaded into house or car insurance premiums - which would be paid by everyone anyone anyway meaning no saving. Or do you pay nothing in the hope that you never need the fire service, but when you do they need your credit card number before they attend?

This is the sort of decisions with healthcare. In the UK (and most of Europe) healthcare is provided free at the point of use by the state for most non-elective procedures, whereas in the USA it is generally not - and private insurance covers costs. I'm not really sure what arrangements exist - presumably you can get a 'gold standard' everything covered policy or a basic urgent care one or everything inbetween?

The risks of this system mean that poor people can't afford insurance so go without treatment or people with complex medical conditions can't get cover for their needs or it is at a prohibitive cost.

So the user pays system isn't as good as it seems...

I was taking his point while extending farther than the original point the refunds we receive when we pay taxes are from where we overpaid the government in the first place. It was essentially the government taking an interest free loan from the American people against their will and then giving it back to them under the guise of refunds. Even in capitalist America (though I believe we're inching more and more towards socialism every election cycle) the conservatives among us will never be we don't need schools etc. However the refunds are theft, legal theft, but one all the same. I think I read we estimate around 2 Billion dollars in refunds are available (only half are fully claimed I think) that is two billion dollars the government overcharges the American people. They then have such a complex tax code that these same American people have to go to another party and pay more money to have their taxes prepared so they can get the money the government took back.

If any private entity attempted this on the same scale it would be mass fraud and the class action lawsuit leveled against them would truly be something to behold.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by Regent Pancras

It's an interesting idea Tom but taken to the nth degree it simply couldn't work. The function of the state is to provide basic services and infrastructure. It appears to me that the basic difference in philosophy between socialist and capitalist governments is to what degree should these services be provided; to whom; and would the delivery of the services be better placed in the hands of a private company rather than by the state themselves.

As an example: Fire and Rescue department. Even in some tax free utopia no one would suggest you don't need a fire department. The moment you were trapped in a car wreck or your house caught fire you would need them.

So an amount of local taxes provides this. That's not to say if you don't crash your car or your house catches fire the tax to pay for this function is 'theft', but the service is provided as a safety blanket if you do.

So without tax how would this be paid for and by whom? Do you work on the user pays scenario? If so the cost of the fire service would probably be loaded into house or car insurance premiums - which would be paid by everyone anyone anyway meaning no saving. Or do you pay nothing in the hope that you never need the fire service, but when you do they need your credit card number before they attend?

This is the sort of decisions with healthcare. In the UK (and most of Europe) healthcare is provided free at the point of use by the state for most non-elective procedures, whereas in the USA it is generally not - and private insurance covers costs. I'm not really sure what arrangements exist - presumably you can get a 'gold standard' everything covered policy or a basic urgent care one or everything inbetween?

The risks of this system mean that poor people can't afford insurance so go without treatment or people with complex medical conditions can't get cover for their needs or it is at a prohibitive cost.

So the user pays system isn't as good as it seems...

I'll start with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI Showing how free market healthcare actually worked.

The TLDW version is when fraternal lodges paid doctors directly, prices were much lower. The government in combination with unionized doctors "fixed" the problem of low healthcare costs by restricting supply and making sure everyone had to pay what the doctors demanded. On the matter of fire districts, in rural areas (at least in America) people do pay for service out of pocket. There is a reason private schools exist even when taxes pay for public education.




But none of this gets to the real issue. If I want to get my friends and neighbors together to form a community fund that we all agree to pay into for whatever, that's our business. You are safe to assume, in a vacuum, that we would pay for fire and police services. Voluntary association is fine because it is voluntary.

The issue with taxes is that you and your slightly larger group of buddies are forcing me and my smaller group of buddies to pay for things you think are a good idea which my faction objects to. As long as you can maintain a 50% +1 majority, we have no legal recourse to prevent your faction from extracting wealth from my faction and giving it to yours.

An even better approach has been taken in my home state, where state workers pushed for pensions (then) current voters would never have to pay for, while my faction was unable to object as we were as yet unborn. Not only are the taxes to pay for these pension legal, it has been repeatedly ruled ILLEGAL to in any way modify them (it is worth noting the people who made those ruling directly benefit from them). The same picture is playing out all across America: laws were written in such a way that later generations cannot reduce the cost of implementing them.

Having a badge or a piece of paper doesn't make it not theft.

[Watcher]

I need to finish mine bah.

[Sydarius Mar]

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

The issue with taxes is that you and your slightly larger group of buddies are forcing me and my smaller group of buddies to pay for things you think are a good idea which my faction objects to. As long as you can maintain a 50% +1 majority, we have no legal recourse to prevent your faction from extracting wealth from my faction and giving it to yours.

I am reminded of the following words of Robert Heinlein: There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.

[bitermer]

Eh, tyranny by majority is still better than straight tyranny or any other tried form of government. Obviously representational democracy has its issues, and the US healthcare is a bit of a trainwreck but it works well enough in most countries. Ultimately the jobs that we have and the standard of living we enjoy is heavily dependent on a stable government providing services. If you are unhappy with the tax demands the government is making, you can always protest, emigrate or employ some shysty tax haven firms to sort yourself out. These alternatives are often taken for granted, but are not available to most people on this planet.

tldr shit could be worse.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by bitermer

Eh, tyranny by majority is still better than straight tyranny or any other tried form of government. Obviously representational democracy has its issues, and the US healthcare is a bit of a trainwreck but it works well enough in most countries. Ultimately the jobs that we have and the standard of living we enjoy is heavily dependent on a stable government providing services. If you are unhappy with the tax demands the government is making, you can always protest, emigrate or employ some shysty tax haven firms to sort yourself out. These alternatives are often taken for granted, but are not available to most people on this planet.

tldr shit could be worse.

Cicero would disagree that tyranny of the majority is preferable to a dictator. A corrupt dictator will die sooner or later, but poisoning the body politic kills a republic.