Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should there be no taxes?

minervx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:38:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The role of government, at the very least, is to protect people from coercion. Of course some suggest voluntary sources of revenue, but that won't be nearly enough to cover it. A government cannot both have no taxes and protect people from coercion.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:50:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The government is just an insurance company that forces you to pay into it. Except they never accept liability for your property or life...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:50:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:38:58 PM, minervx wrote:
The role of government, at the very least, is to protect people from coercion. Of course some suggest voluntary sources of revenue, but that won't be nearly enough to cover it. A government cannot both have no taxes and protect people from coercion.

I agree on a small tax for defence, policing and courts, and if you don't wanna pay that, you lose many privileges. Of course, user fees for already pre-existing gov't services would be in place.

inb4 ragnar and Cody
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No taxes beyond what is required to pay for national security would increase my income by about 40% but how would I feel walking over the rotting corpses of the financially disadvantaged who couldn't afford to pay for private health care?

Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:00:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You would be like - man I have all this money to give people and I can help a lot more of them because government burns up 80% of welfare dollars in overhead.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:09:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
No taxes beyond what is required to pay for national security would increase my income by about 40% but how would I feel walking over the rotting corpses of the financially disadvantaged who couldn't afford to pay for private health care?

Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.

Well, if everyone had a 40% increase in income they could afford healthcare.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:13:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 1:09:59 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
No taxes beyond what is required to pay for national security would increase my income by about 40% but how would I feel walking over the rotting corpses of the financially disadvantaged who couldn't afford to pay for private health care?

Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.

Well, if everyone had a 40% increase in income they could afford health care.

Agreed. I don't like federal taxation in the first place. I'd rather see a State tax and then the State pays the feds. That way if folks like Brian want to pay for health care he can do it and not effect everyone in the country. Didn't the US start out with tariffs or something?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:14:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.

"Let's see if I get our Holmes-boy straight: Money taken from people under the threat of property seizure, arrest, imprisonment – or even death if the subject being taxed resists – constitutes a perfectly civilized way of human beings dealing with one another. Pardon me, Holmes (and I'm obviously not talking Sherlock here), but your particular brand of logic doesn't pass muster. If that's your definition of a "civilized society," then brother I'll take anarchy any day." - Alex Knight III
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:19:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 1:14:50 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.

"Let's see if I get our Holmes-boy straight: Money taken from people under the threat of property seizure, arrest, imprisonment – or even death if the subject being taxed resists – constitutes a perfectly civilized way of human beings dealing with one another. Pardon me, Holmes (and I'm obviously not talking Sherlock here), but your particular brand of logic doesn't pass muster. If that's your definition of a "civilized society," then brother I'll take anarchy any day." - Alex Knight III

That is why I like State Rights. You could have State like that. Probably Alaska or something. You wouldn't even have to pay taxes, when someone attacked you we could all just wave and say "good luck". I think it would be great for everyone.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:22:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 1:00:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
You would be like - man I have all this money to give people and I can help a lot more of them because government burns up 80% of welfare dollars in overhead.
But then he realizes it is his money, and that he worked hard to earn it.
Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't greed usually in human nature?
While it is socially 'correct' to give money to the poor, people usually don't give any money to charity, and if they do, it is usually in very small amounts.
I miss the old members.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 1:27:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 1:22:41 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:00:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
You would be like - man I have all this money to give people and I can help a lot more of them because government burns up 80% of welfare dollars in overhead.
But then he realizes it is his money, and that he worked hard to earn it.
Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't greed usually in human nature?
If that were true, no one would support welfare except uber poor people.
While it is socially 'correct' to give money to the poor, people usually don't give any money to charity, and if they do, it is usually in very small amounts.
There are actually regressions showing that government welfare crowds out private charity... http://www.jstor.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:01:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 1:27:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:22:41 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:00:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
You would be like - man I have all this money to give people and I can help a lot more of them because government burns up 80% of welfare dollars in overhead.
But then he realizes it is his money, and that he worked hard to earn it.
Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't greed usually in human nature?
If that were true, no one would support welfare except uber poor people.
'Usually'. People support it because it is deemed socially correct to do so.
While it is socially 'correct' to give money to the poor, people usually don't give any money to charity, and if they do, it is usually in very small amounts.
There are actually regressions showing that government welfare crowds out private charity... http://www.jstor.org...
The article states that private charities don't try as hard when given gov't grants. That said, the question remains on how will private charities receive enough money to support the poor, etc. without a government grant? They can try as hard as they want, but it really depends on the people themselves. Sure, they may make themselves more well-known, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to give. They also need to support themselves.
Another question that has been bugging me:W/O taxes, how will we be able to fund schools and other basic facilities? Private charity cannot do everything.
Sure, people will give more in time, when they realize the quality of schools are deteriorating, but by then, won't the new generation not have received the proper education?

Note:I have not seriously studied this, so if I am completely wrong, pardon my lack of experience.
I miss the old members.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:03:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 2:01:48 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:27:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:22:41 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 9/22/2010 1:00:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
You would be like - man I have all this money to give people and I can help a lot more of them because government burns up 80% of welfare dollars in overhead.
But then he realizes it is his money, and that he worked hard to earn it.
Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't greed usually in human nature?
If that were true, no one would support welfare except uber poor people.
'Usually'. People support it because it is deemed socially correct to do so. While there may be the few who support it because they genuinely believe it is a good cause, I don't think these few are enough.
While it is socially 'correct' to give money to the poor, people usually don't give any money to charity, and if they do, it is usually in very small amounts.
There are actually regressions showing that government welfare crowds out private charity... http://www.jstor.org...
The article states that private charities don't try as hard when given gov't grants. That said, the question remains on how will private charities receive enough money to support the poor, etc. without a government grant? They can try as hard as they want, but it really depends on the people themselves. Sure, they may make themselves more well-known, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to give. They also need to support themselves.
Another question that has been bugging me:W/O taxes, how will we be able to fund schools and other basic facilities? Private charity cannot do everything.
Sure, people will give more in time, when they realize the quality of schools are deteriorating, but by then, won't the new generation not have received the proper education?

Note:I have not seriously studied this, so if I am completely wrong, pardon my lack of experience.
I miss the old members.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:26:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 2:03:06 PM, Atheism wrote:

'Usually'. People support it because it is deemed socially correct to do so. While there may be the few who support it because they genuinely believe it is a good cause, I don't think these few are enough.
How much is enough?

The article states that private charities don't try as hard when given gov't grants. That said, the question remains on how will private charities receive enough money to support the poor, etc. without a government grant? They can try as hard as they want, but it really depends on the people themselves. Sure, they may make themselves more well-known, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to give. They also need to support themselves.
So, are you asking me how charities get money? Because that can be googled.

Another question that has been bugging me:W/O taxes, how will we be able to fund schools and other basic facilities? Private charity cannot do everything.

Private schools are way cheaper man... http://www.cato.org...

Sure, people will give more in time, when they realize the quality of schools are deteriorating, but by then, won't the new generation not have received the proper education?

There are countless educational presentations on youtube. There are digital textbooks that are practically free. There are forums where people post their math problems. Online courses with a live professor and office hours cost a couple hundred bucks...

Note:I have not seriously studied this, so if I am completely wrong, pardon my lack of experience.

Don't rely on state run schools for education. They win you're stupid.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:40:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:38:58 PM, minervx wrote:
The role of government, at the very least, is to protect people from coercion. Of course some suggest voluntary sources of revenue, but that won't be nearly enough to cover it.
Certainly will. You simply have to make sure NOT to offer protection from coercion to those who refuse to pay.

(This is different from engaging in coercion. It means that if you don't pay your fees, your 911 calls are blocked, you cannot sue someone who takes your stuff or breaks a contract or rapes you, etc. And you don't get the nifty cards/wristbands/signs/whatever to indicate to people that the police will be after them if they mess with you, so, naturally, criminals have an excellent reason to go after the people who don't pay).

The nonpayment rates will be rather low, just as the nonpayment rates are on car insurance when people who are not insured are not allowed to drive on the government's roads.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:42:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 2:26:15 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/22/2010 2:03:06 PM, Atheism wrote:

'Usually'. People support it because it is deemed socially correct to do so. While there may be the few who support it because they genuinely believe it is a good cause, I don't think these few are enough.
How much is enough?
The article states that private charities don't try as hard when given gov't grants. That said, the question remains on how will private charities receive enough money to support the poor, etc. without a government grant? They can try as hard as they want, but it really depends on the people themselves. Sure, they may make themselves more well-known, but there is a limit on how much people are willing to give. They also need to support themselves.
So, are you asking me how charities get money? Because that can be googled.
Yes, I know, they advertise their charity itself and recieve donations. May receive grants from gov't as well.
Another question that has been bugging me:W/O taxes, how will we be able to fund schools and other basic facilities? Private charity cannot do everything.
Private schools are way cheaper man... http://www.cato.org...
Very nice, thank you. However, does the amount of pupils who go to private schools affect the price? Google is being annoying when I try to find it.
Sure, people will give more in time, when they realize the quality of schools are deteriorating, but by then, won't the new generation not have received the proper education?

There are countless educational presentations on youtube. There are digital textbooks that are practically free. There are forums where people post their math problems. Online courses with a live professor and office hours cost a couple hundred bucks...
Very well.
Note:I have not seriously studied this, so if I am completely wrong, pardon my lack of experience.

Don't rely on state run schools for education. They win you're stupid.
I wouldn't say they are bad at teaching. I would say, however, that they are teaching the wrong things, I.E. Test Prep strategies. The NCLB Act sucks.
I miss the old members.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 2:54:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 2:42:06 PM, Atheism wrote:
So, are you asking me how charities get money? Because that can be googled.
Yes, I know, they advertise their charity itself and recieve donations. May receive grants from gov't as well.

I don't know how to respond to this. You can always come up with some "what ifs" that haven't been researched, probably because they are non-issues. What if the government is really giving grants to private charity? What if the government tells its employees to give charity? etc etc

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...

There, a very large chunk of aid sent to the third world is from private companies. I don't know how they got their money. I would assume they got it through donations. But it COULD all be a government grant, which raises the question of why it's called "private aid".

Another question that has been bugging me:W/O taxes, how will we be able to fund schools and other basic facilities? Private charity cannot do everything.
Private schools are way cheaper man... http://www.cato.org...
Very nice, thank you. However, does the amount of pupils who go to private schools affect the price? Google is being annoying when I try to find it.
You mean, like what if we got rid of public schools and the number of students going to private schools increased 10x over? I'd suspect that prices would go down. Private schools could buy public school facilities from the government on the cheap, and the added competition would lower prices, with higher industry activity spurring more innovation.

I wouldn't say they are bad at teaching. I would say, however, that they are teaching the wrong things, I.E. Test Prep strategies. The NCLB Act sucks.
You're being taught by someone who majored in education at a community college 20 years ago and has never held a real job.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 3:04:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:38:58 PM, minervx wrote:
The role of government, at the very least, is to protect people from coercion. Of course some suggest voluntary sources of revenue, but that won't be nearly enough to cover it. A government cannot both have no taxes and protect people from coercion.

In your ideal world, maybe. In reality, it's primary role seems to be to prolong its own existence.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 3:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The government exists to carry society over from one generation to the next. Similarly, taxes exist in order to ensure that projects lasting longer than a lifetime will have funding.

Who would be willing to contribute money to an endeavor in which the payout or profit only comes several decades later?

Without taxes, civilization could not have started and could not have been stabilized. Right now, people may think that taxes aren't necessary because we take things for granted, we assume that everything we see around us is here just because it always was.

Capitalism needs a launching pad in order to be a suitable self-sustaining machine. That launching pad was the system of taxation. Removing the system of taxation could cripple society if not done right, but it would be magnificent if it could be removed correctly.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 3:32:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 3:25:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The government exists to carry society over from one generation to the next.

False. The government is the executive committee of the ruling class.

Similarly, taxes exist in order to ensure that projects lasting longer than a lifetime will have funding.

Taxes exist so that a group of men can live off the labor of others.

Who would be willing to contribute money to an endeavor in which the payout or profit only comes several decades later?

Plenty of people will, given a high enough interest return.

Without taxes, civilization could not have started and could not have been stabilized.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Capitalism needs a launching pad in order to be a suitable self-sustaining machine.

Capitalism needs a launching pad, yes, but it is not self-sustaining. It requires continued intervention in the market to keep the system going.

That launching pad was the system of taxation.

There was taxation long before Capitalism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 3:35:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 3:25:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The government exists to carry society over from one generation to the next. Similarly, taxes exist in order to ensure that projects lasting longer than a lifetime will have funding.
This is an ad hoc justification... I don't believe you actually believe this.

Who would be willing to contribute money to an endeavor in which the payout or profit only comes several decades later?
NGOs. Even if there were a project which would not bear fruit for 100 years, it is still a valuable and worthwhile project because it can be transferred for its net present value.

Note you can't coherently argue that only government actors can plan for the future. They're human beings just like everyone else. At best, you have a monarchy where the king maximizes the take from his country by growing its resources as much as possible, and then passing it down to his heirs. In democracy, leaders have no incentive beyond their term limits or political careers.

Without taxes, civilization could not have started and could not have been stabilized.
Baseless assertion.
Right now, people may think that taxes aren't necessary because we take things for granted, we assume that everything we see around us is here just because it always was.

Straw man. No one argues that the federal highway system sprang out of nothing.

Capitalism needs a launching pad in order to be a suitable self-sustaining machine. That launching pad was the system of taxation. Removing the system of taxation could cripple society if not done right, but it would be magnificent if it could be removed correctly.
It is not the only launching pad. Taxation is a poor launching pad because it relies on a monopoly arbiter, and monopolies are always bad for consumers. It is also aggressive, and an expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:57:19 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
No taxes beyond what is required to pay for national security would increase my income by about 40% but how would I feel walking over the rotting corpses of the financially disadvantaged who couldn't afford to pay for private health care?

Taxes are what I pay for the privilege of living in a civilised country.

Presumably, forced contributions towards healthcare aren't the only way for the poor to have healthcare. The UK, US and Australia all had flourishing "friendly" or "mutual" societies as well as trade unions that would gather contributions towards healthcare.

Presumably, you don't think that pre-1948 UK and pre-1975 Australia were "uncivilised" societies.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 7:06:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do you mean current or historical?

Historical data is scarce for Australia. I could only glean this from wikipedia:

The early labour movement was much broader than trade unions. As there was no social welfare, many workers and their families were members of a Friendly society to insure against sickness, accident or unemployment. In fact, Unions had a far smaller membership than did Friendly Societies in Australia, according to Green and Cromwell. They explain that "At the turn of the (twentieth) century, when the friendly societies were serving well over 30 per cent of the population, fewer than one worker in ten (2.5 per cent of the total population) was a trade union member." (Mutual Aid or Welfare State. Australia's Friendly Societies). Reports of community events and labour processions regularly detailed the active participation of trade societies and friendly societies. Friendly societies were an important part of the Labour movement, but their contribution has mostly been ignored by Labour Historians, according to a researcher in this field, Dr Bob James." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The book "Mutual Aid or Welfare State. Australia's Friendly Societies" is in my uni library, I could look up some of the info for you if you really want it.

I presume you've already seen this: http://www.thefreemanonline.org...#
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 7:09:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thanks very much for the info on britain/usa. I still think the Australian friendly societies would be tons interesting because its a much more recent example. But if its inaccessible what can you do :(
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 7:19:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you give me a couple of weeks I could try and read the book (which looks authoritative) and flesh out the main points. I'll let you know how I go.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 8:23:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 3:32:54 PM, Reasoning wrote:
False. The government is the executive committee of the ruling class.

Non sequitor. Your argument states my previous one was false but what you did was provide a statement of definition and the definition is not followed by an explanation as to why it contradicts mine.

Taxes exist so that a group of men can live off the labor of others.

Stating a thesis with no arguments, such great debate prowess.

Plenty of people will, given a high enough interest return.

You mean yearly? Things don't generate revenue when they're being constructed.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Translated from your native language, does that mean "My libertarian BS and lack of practicality cannot conceive of a response?"

Capitalism needs a launching pad, yes, but it is not self-sustaining. It requires continued intervention in the market to keep the system going.

Intervention *from where*?

That launching pad was the system of taxation.

There was taxation long before Capitalism.

Yes, launching pads tend to be present before the rockets, unless in your fairy libertarian land, we launch launching pads into space while keeping rockets on the ground :)

Taxation makes specialized labor possible. Specialized labor leads to coinage. Coinage then leads to Capitalism.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 10:08:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:52:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'd rather just have a choice in my provider of security.

That does not work, and it will not work.