Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I am always against violence, and therefore I am always against coercive measures for funding – of anything.
Taxation is not voluntary and therefore is, by it's very nature, done at the point of a gun. Either you pay, or someone with a gun will come and visit you.
Some people say that those wishing to not be forced to pay for things (many of which they do not want) are “greedy.”
OK, so how is it possible to be“greedy” to not want to be coerced to give up what one has, and somehow not tremendously greedy – let alone being outright armed robbery - to take what someone else has at the point of a gun?
Anyways I already discussed this for 3 days in the brew and wine forum. So I ain't interested, but thanks.
I learned that people just don't agree on this issue.
Plus I am more than right than you by infinity times infinity. And you are wronger than me too. :: sticks out tongue ::
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I am always against violence, and therefore I am always against coercive measures for funding – of anything.
Taxation is not voluntary and therefore is, by it's very nature, done at the point of a gun. Either you pay, or someone with a gun will come and visit you.
Some people say that those wishing to not be forced to pay for things (many of which they do not want) are “greedy.”
OK, so how is it possible to be“greedy” to not want to be coerced to give up what one has, and somehow not tremendously greedy – let alone being outright armed robbery - to take what someone else has at the point of a gun?
I assume you want roads to drive on and a military to protect your country. Government is just the institution we use to do the things we value together as a society. Sure its ugly and has its flaws but so does "everyone for themselves", sometimes the grass isn't greener on the other side.
Speaking only for the US, stop spending money like it grows on trees and then you won't need to take money from people's paychecks. Tax on labor IS robbery! At least the way is is applied in the US. I personally feel that the US should operate the way it was originally designed to operate, which means before the 16th amendment. I don't think it is so black and white, ie: taxes are robbery, taxes are not robbery. I think it is more like: Some kinds of taxes are robbery, some are not.
People say that the tax rates for the lower and middle class are too high and tax rates for the wealthy are too low. The proper solution is to lower the tax rates for the lower and middle class and stop spending money like it grows on trees. The government is not supposed to be operating like it has an unlimited amount of money...
I am always against violence, and therefore I am always against coercive measures for funding – of anything.
Taxation is not voluntary and therefore is, by it's very nature, done at the point of a gun. Either you pay, or someone with a gun will come and visit you.
Some people say that those wishing to not be forced to pay for things (many of which they do not want) are “greedy.”
OK, so how is it possible to be“greedy” to not want to be coerced to give up what one has, and somehow not tremendously greedy – let alone being outright armed robbery - to take what someone else has at the point of a gun?
I assume you want roads to drive on and a military to protect your country. Government is just the institution we use to do the things we value together as a society. Sure its ugly and has its flaws but so does "everyone for themselves", sometimes the grass isn't greener on the other side.
Some states already have fees for using the roads, in addition to taxes. I think if everyone could pick and choose where they wanted their tax money to go, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. And the bureaucracy required would eat up some of the tax money.
So you want fees for individual services instead of taxes?
Fine. Let's see how you feel about the police refusing to investigate a robbery which happened to you because you can't pay the investigation fee. Or the fire department refusing to fight the forest fire threatening to engulf your neighborhood in 6 hours because you and your neighbors can't afford to pay for the service. Or the coast guard refusing to save you or your loved ones from drowning because you didn't pay the rescuing fee.
Look, we all don't like taxes. But if you are going to remove taxation and institute fees instead, it's going to be much more of a headache.
Yeah the debate is over, I posted what you had said though. I gave up when they couldn't comprehend Thomas Jefferson quotes and thought they were in their favor.
So you want fees for individual services instead of taxes?
Fine. Let's see how you feel about the police refusing to investigate a robbery which happened to you because you can't pay the investigation fee. Or the fire department refusing to fight the forest fire threatening to engulf your neighborhood in 6 hours because you and your neighbors can't afford to pay for the service. Or the coast guard refusing to save you or your loved ones from drowning because you didn't pay the rescuing fee.
Look, we all don't like taxes. But if you are going to remove taxation and institute fees instead, it's going to be much more of a headache.
all those can be part of public services fees, paid to municipalities. this will make the government less centralized. if someone don't pay for those fees, then the sidewalk will not be mantained and garbage will not be taken away. this will make pressure from neighboors, so that everyone pays this fees.
Speaking only for the US, stop spending money like it grows on trees and then you won't need to take money from people's paychecks. Tax on labor IS robbery! At least the way is is applied in the US. I personally feel that the US should operate the way it was originally designed to operate, which means before the 16th amendment. I don't think it is so black and white, ie: taxes are robbery, taxes are not robbery. I think it is more like: Some kinds of taxes are robbery, some are not.
People say that the tax rates for the lower and middle class are too high and tax rates for the wealthy are too low. The proper solution is to lower the tax rates for the lower and middle class and stop spending money like it grows on trees. The government is not supposed to be operating like it has an unlimited amount of money...
the income tax is optional; search for it.
I have volumes on it, literally. Too bad they will send you to jail over those views though...
So you want fees for individual services instead of taxes?
Fine. Let's see how you feel about the police refusing to investigate a robbery which happened to you because you can't pay the investigation fee. Or the fire department refusing to fight the forest fire threatening to engulf your neighborhood in 6 hours because you and your neighbors can't afford to pay for the service. Or the coast guard refusing to save you or your loved ones from drowning because you didn't pay the rescuing fee.
Look, we all don't like taxes. But if you are going to remove taxation and institute fees instead, it's going to be much more of a headache.
all those can be part of public services fees, paid to municipalities. this will make the government less centralized. if someone don't pay for those fees, then the sidewalk will not be mantained and garbage will not be taken away. this will make pressure from neighboors, so that everyone pays this fees.
This seems like it's inviting chaos, Vincenzi. I think dorje makes a very good point. In localities where there is no fire or police service (aside from county sherif) those who can afford to do so, pay for private service. So when there's a fire, only the house where the family is part of a private service gets saved, the private firemen allow the rest to burn. It's supposed to be a democracy that we live in, that's what public services are about.
Taxation & robbery are entirely different. The former was rumoured as robbery because of insentive towards adjustment of tax. To understanding finance, it is wise to know the origin of currency which was used to replace bartering trade. It developed to become investment etc that causes inflation because of manipulation towards personal gain. When tax increase, income of low-middle earners has to increase, especially the low income group because their wealth are reduced substantially. In the law of cause & effect, increase tax unwisely will reduce the wealth of the group & executors in their future life, and the negative sentiments generated is one of the main contribution against the well beings of world eco system. :cool:
I propose that all defence expenditures be paid through a separate tax that applies only to incomes greater than $100,000, and is steeply progressive. That should reduce the military to the minimum necessary for defence. ;-)
Taxation is robbery only if you're EXTREMELY greedy, have absolutely NO compassion or care for your fellow citizens, and (frankly) are a complete moron. If you don't want to pay taxes and thus have no government, that's called anarchy. Somalia would be a great place for them to go.
I propose that all defence expenditures be paid through a separate tax that applies only to incomes greater than $100,000, and is steeply progressive. That should reduce the military to the minimum necessary for defence. ;-)
Nice, with the name calling... If that's the way it is, then you'll be counting a a bunch of us as “just another one” of those “extremely greedy,” “no compassion,” “complete moron,” anarchists.
A song written some years ago is normally introduced by talking about how most people who use the throw-away lines, “If you don't like it here...” and, “If you don't vote...” are usually just bullying, and that they are simply trying to make the other people feel isolated or alone. What is often meant - but not being said – is, “Our democratic gang” is much bigger than your, little, puny, non-violent anarchist gang, so go away with those little, tiny minority ideas, because we - the powerful majority – always get to tell everyone what to do. Here is the beginning of the song:
On the Road to Freedom
Some people say if you don't like it here why don't you leave, And if you don't vote then you cannot complain But if they have all the answers, And I guess they think they do, Then could you tell me how this country went insane
They're searching grandma at the airport, and our children in the schools They've got cameras and roadblocks on the streets They've got their no-knock warrants and they're kicking in the doors It sure looks like a police-state to me
But now we're on the road to freedom, and we're trying something new Non-cooperation is the key You can keep on trying all the things you've tried before, But when you're ready, you can come with me ...
all those can be part of public services fees, paid to municipalities. this will make the government less centralized. if someone don't pay for those fees, then the sidewalk will not be mantained and garbage will not be taken away. this will make pressure from neighboors, so that everyone pays this fees.
armamentism will take a nice hit with this ^^
The very definition of tax is "fees paid to the government for public services". Pressure from society is already present in the form of legal punishment.
My philosophy of government is fairly positive. The way I see it, civil society is the establishment of a cohesive social structure in which the interests of the community as a whole are weighed against that of the individual in an effort to maintain social stability. Government, then, is the physical manifestation of community interests. It creates stability through the establishment and enforcement of laws, and acts as a mediator in disputes between groups and individuals within the community.
Of course, I think it's preferable if a balance can be struck where individual freedoms aren't too restricted and the continued survival of the community is reasonably assured, but allowing unlimited freedom amounts to anarchy and lawlessness, which often leads to increased social conflict and instability. How far the government should go in meeting the needs of the community, however, is an open question.
The main problem I see with the current structure is that, for the most part, our government is a manifestation of ruling class interests; that is to say, those who own and control the means of production, finance, natural resources, etc., and not that of the entire community. In fact, the interests of the ruling class, the interests of capital, are often in conflict with those of average citizens. Although this isn't anything new, I think it's something that needs to be changed for us to truly flourish as a society.
Personally, I can understand people who are critical of the government's management of the system, including tax revenue, since I believe that it can definitely be improved. I can also understand people who take the position that taxes are stealing, because for those who don't wish to pay them, I suppose they are in that it's not voluntary. That said, I don't see how a complex, modern civil society can function without taxes, especially considering how interconnected everything is.
The way I see it, our income is made within the context of a complex and highly-organized society, and we use and rely on a common infrastructure that has to be supported and maintained via revenue, everything from the roads we use and our water/sanitation systems, to local law-enforcement and legal system. One could just as easily say that by not paying taxes, one is stealing whenever they utilize said infrastructure without contributing to its maintenance in some way, and the easiest (and arguably fairest) way is via taxes.
I think a type of fee-system could be one alternative that would make collecting revenue less coercive, and make how the money's spent more transparent, but I can also see how this could create some difficulties, not to mention slippery slopes, as well. For examples, taxes are used to help maintain roads and sidewalks. In a fee-based system, you could make every road more or less a toll road in order to pay for repairs, but what about the sidewalks? Drivers aren't using them, so using their fees to fix them would be unpopular. So they'd have to institute a fee for using sidewalks too, and now you can't even move about freely without having to cough up some cash every time you do.
Taken to the extreme, such a system would essentially privatize everything. If services are fee-based, one could just as easily give their money to a corporation who will perform a particular service more cheaply (which isn't necessarily better if they cut corners). And after time, you could end up with private, Walmart-esque corporations in charge of municipal services instead of an elected government. And corporations, by their very structure, are far less accountable to the people than elected officials.
Moreover, a fee-based system which increasingly privatizes services could have other dangers, e.g., making people with low incomes that can't afford to pay all the fees not get all the services they need, things like proper education, road construction and maintenance, sanitation, etc. This could conceivably create huge slums (areas even more poor and neglected than they already are), further segregate society, and seriously lower the standard of living for lower income families. The redistribution of wealth via taxes helps prevent something like this from happening.
Also, whenever you do something like start a job or purchase property, you're essentially agreeing to pay taxes since that's an upfront part of agreeing to work for a particular company or the acquisition of property; although, the way the system is set up, you don't have much choice in the matter.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think a fee system is an awful idea. The whole US government is screwed up and the only way to make it better is by extensive reform. You need a somewhat populist administration that can enact reforms in many sectors. After that as years go by the system will become corrupted and distorted again...then reform again. Its the natural cycle of success....
Also, whenever you do something like start a job or purchase property, you're essentially agreeing to pay taxes since that's an upfront part of agreeing to work for a particular company or the acquisition of property; although, the way the system is set up, you don't have much choice in the matter.
The only choice you have is re: where you choose to live. Oregon doesn't have property taxes. Some states don't have a state income tax, only federal income tax. Some states don't have capital gains tax. That's about the extent of the "choice".
You know what happened when Bolivia allowed privatization of the water supply, don't you? Water became unaffordable to the majority of residents (Indigenous people), and catching rainwater was illegal. (The company owned rainwater and groundwater rights.) The US company that bought the water supply was eventually run out of the country. Public services need to stay public.
The only choice you have is re: where you choose to live. Oregon doesn't have property taxes. Some states don't have a state income tax, only federal income tax. Some states don't have capital gains tax. That's about the extent of the "choice".
Actually, Oregon has fairly high property taxes. Perhaps you're thinking of sales tax?
Taxes make sure that garbages gets collected every weeks... I don't think people realise how important that is until they don't have that service.
As a Brit, I watch with bemusement the shenanigans of the US Congress around the budget. As the US is an experiment in Enlightenment government, it would be really interesting to see what happens when the budget remains unagreed for, say, six months, with all tax-funded activities suspended. Will the armed forces not be paid? Not a good idea as Roman history (an others) demonstrate)? Significantly more important than a credit agency recognising the reality that the US is the largest debtor nation in recorded history.
Having said that, I would suggest that Buddhism as such has precisely nothing to say about taxation - or about political/social freedom either for that matter.
@Simonthepilgrim is referring to the fact that the government of the USA is inspired and motivated by the philosophies formed during the Age of Enlightenment. It's also known as the Age of Reason, and gained momentum during the 18th Century.
Comments
Taxation is not voluntary and therefore is, by it's very nature, done at the point of a gun. Either you pay, or someone with a gun will come and visit you.
Some people say that those wishing to not be forced to pay for things (many of which they do not want) are “greedy.”
OK, so how is it possible to be“greedy” to not want to be coerced to give up what one has, and somehow not tremendously greedy – let alone being outright armed robbery - to take what someone else has at the point of a gun?
And which industrial civilization has no taxes?
This does not, however, change the nature of what it is. It is force --- at the point of a gun.
I learned that people just don't agree on this issue.
Plus I am more than right than you by infinity times infinity. And you are wronger than me too. :: sticks out tongue ::
PeacefulAssemblyChur has a point.
Fine. Let's see how you feel about the police refusing to investigate a robbery which happened to you because you can't pay the investigation fee. Or the fire department refusing to fight the forest fire threatening to engulf your neighborhood in 6 hours because you and your neighbors can't afford to pay for the service. Or the coast guard refusing to save you or your loved ones from drowning because you didn't pay the rescuing fee.
Look, we all don't like taxes. But if you are going to remove taxation and institute fees instead, it's going to be much more of a headache.
I'm not afraid of the tongue.
Peace.
Yeah the debate is over, I posted what you had said though. I gave up when they couldn't comprehend Thomas Jefferson quotes and thought they were in their favor.
if someone don't pay for those fees, then the sidewalk will not be mantained and garbage will not be taken away.
this will make pressure from neighboors, so that everyone pays this fees.
armamentism will take a nice hit with this ^^
it is not legal, it went to court.
the problem I have with taxes is that their use is mostly undefined. that's not democratic or just.
A song written some years ago is normally introduced by talking about how most people who use the throw-away lines, “If you don't like it here...” and, “If you don't vote...” are usually just bullying, and that they are simply trying to make the other people feel isolated or alone. What is often meant - but not being said – is, “Our democratic gang” is much bigger than your, little, puny, non-violent anarchist gang, so go away with those little, tiny minority ideas, because we - the powerful majority – always get to tell everyone what to do.
Here is the beginning of the song:
On the Road to Freedom
Some people say if you don't like it here why don't you leave,
And if you don't vote then you cannot complain
But if they have all the answers,
And I guess they think they do,
Then could you tell me how this country went insane
They're searching grandma at the airport, and our children in the schools
They've got cameras and roadblocks on the streets
They've got their no-knock warrants and they're kicking in the doors
It sure looks like a police-state to me
But now we're on the road to freedom, and we're trying something new
Non-cooperation is the key
You can keep on trying all the things you've tried before,
But when you're ready, you can come with me ...
In Peace.
How is your proposition different, then?
Of course, I think it's preferable if a balance can be struck where individual freedoms aren't too restricted and the continued survival of the community is reasonably assured, but allowing unlimited freedom amounts to anarchy and lawlessness, which often leads to increased social conflict and instability. How far the government should go in meeting the needs of the community, however, is an open question.
The main problem I see with the current structure is that, for the most part, our government is a manifestation of ruling class interests; that is to say, those who own and control the means of production, finance, natural resources, etc., and not that of the entire community. In fact, the interests of the ruling class, the interests of capital, are often in conflict with those of average citizens. Although this isn't anything new, I think it's something that needs to be changed for us to truly flourish as a society.
Personally, I can understand people who are critical of the government's management of the system, including tax revenue, since I believe that it can definitely be improved. I can also understand people who take the position that taxes are stealing, because for those who don't wish to pay them, I suppose they are in that it's not voluntary. That said, I don't see how a complex, modern civil society can function without taxes, especially considering how interconnected everything is.
The way I see it, our income is made within the context of a complex and highly-organized society, and we use and rely on a common infrastructure that has to be supported and maintained via revenue, everything from the roads we use and our water/sanitation systems, to local law-enforcement and legal system. One could just as easily say that by not paying taxes, one is stealing whenever they utilize said infrastructure without contributing to its maintenance in some way, and the easiest (and arguably fairest) way is via taxes.
I think a type of fee-system could be one alternative that would make collecting revenue less coercive, and make how the money's spent more transparent, but I can also see how this could create some difficulties, not to mention slippery slopes, as well. For examples, taxes are used to help maintain roads and sidewalks. In a fee-based system, you could make every road more or less a toll road in order to pay for repairs, but what about the sidewalks? Drivers aren't using them, so using their fees to fix them would be unpopular. So they'd have to institute a fee for using sidewalks too, and now you can't even move about freely without having to cough up some cash every time you do.
Taken to the extreme, such a system would essentially privatize everything. If services are fee-based, one could just as easily give their money to a corporation who will perform a particular service more cheaply (which isn't necessarily better if they cut corners). And after time, you could end up with private, Walmart-esque corporations in charge of municipal services instead of an elected government. And corporations, by their very structure, are far less accountable to the people than elected officials.
Moreover, a fee-based system which increasingly privatizes services could have other dangers, e.g., making people with low incomes that can't afford to pay all the fees not get all the services they need, things like proper education, road construction and maintenance, sanitation, etc. This could conceivably create huge slums (areas even more poor and neglected than they already are), further segregate society, and seriously lower the standard of living for lower income families. The redistribution of wealth via taxes helps prevent something like this from happening.
:bowdown:
You know what happened when Bolivia allowed privatization of the water supply, don't you? Water became unaffordable to the majority of residents (Indigenous people), and catching rainwater was illegal. (The company owned rainwater and groundwater rights.) The US company that bought the water supply was eventually run out of the country. Public services need to stay public.
Having said that, I would suggest that Buddhism as such has precisely nothing to say about taxation - or about political/social freedom either for that matter.
what is an "enlightenment government"?
@Simonthepilgrim is referring to the fact that the government of the USA is inspired and motivated by the philosophies formed during the Age of Enlightenment. It's also known as the Age of Reason, and gained momentum during the 18th Century.