Voluntary tax: How much would you pay?

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Netopalis ...tax is a necessary evil...

If tax is used for the good of the whole, is it necessarily evil?

On topic, I would pay none, given the choice. Sure, the first few years I'd give, but then issues would crop up that require my money more than I would feel the government does.

[Netopalis]

Shawmutt - it wouldn't be necessary if everyone could agree to live in harmony. As it is, however, people insist on being idiots, trying to steal from each other, trying to start wars over ridiculous things, etc. Therefore, we need a government with money. Unfortunately, that means taxes. Therefore, they are a necessary evil.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: sdbest If forced taxation is unconstitutional, as some have argued, how much--or what percentage of your income--would you pay voluntarily for services provided by the government?

Zero. And so would everyone else, so long as they could still get the services. Why pay for something you can get for free? See: Communism. See also: Illegal MP3 downloading.

Quote by: sdbest Clearly, you weren't clear.

Let me just say that law school makes you hate the word "clearly" - it's just something our R&W profs KILL us about. That sentence gave me a headache remembering first year R&W class. LOL

What taxes would you suggest? A 17.5%-21% consumption tax like that in some EU countries?

The problem most tax theorists have with consumption taxes is that they are felt to be regressive, i.e. poor people end up paying a larger percent of their income in taxes. This is debatable since rich people buy more goods, but that is the issue raised at least.

Quote by: sdbest I wonder would agree to a 15% tax on the purchase of stock in companies?

There is already a tax on the sale of and dividends of a stock. Capital gains (usually 15%) on the gain upon sale, and ordinary income tax on dividends.

Would agree to a 15% tax on a loan?

I'm not clear what you mean here.
The income received by the creditor (the interest) is already taxed as ordinary income.
The debtor is not receiving any gain by taking out a loan. How would you assess the fairness of taxing a transaction which results in the debtor being poorer then before they started?

Would you agree that person should pay a 15% tax on any gifts they receive?

Currently our system taxes the giver of the gift on certain occasions to prevent tax arbitrage.

Quote by: Kame Fifteen percent of the price of a gift is zero, so I don't know what you're getting at here.

Well the gift has some value and could certainly be taxed based upon the value.

If I receive a car as a gift, the car has a marketable value, and my basis (cost to receive that item) is zero - therefore when I sell it, I have taxable income. In many cases, however (like an estate), I can get "carryover" basis from the donor.

Quote by: another day Americans, don't forget that your federal income tax is completely illegal and is not written in a book of law anywhere.

The 10-pound volume on my shelf entitled "Selected Statutes in Federal Taxation" and contains a portion of the tax code, as well as my unabridged version at work, would disagree with you...

It is 100% fraudulent...compared to other taxes that you pay, the federal income tax is literally theft.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[christibe]

Yes it is, Another Day. Decided by FDR.

I like the question though, and I would pay taxes according to my principles. Meaning- I would only allow the government to use my tax money to pay for services I agree with. So, I would apportion it like this:
40% to Public Health Care, federalized only because it could create unequal systems if the states had control over their own model
40% to Education- K-University federalized for similar reason- as in, some states may value Creationism over Evolution.
10% funneled to the states for Research purposes, however the states saw fit
10% towards Diplomatic Relations with the rest of the world



hmm.... no military? say it aint so.

[Autolykos]

The phrase "voluntary tax" only makes sense if one defines "tax" simply as "a contribution to the government for its services". This definition does not take into account the means by which the contribution is made, leaving both voluntary and involuntary contributions as possibilities.

However, even if the government were to (try to) fund its services entirely from voluntary contributions, it would still (attempt to) reserve for itself an exclusive right to provide those services. In other words, the government would not allow (all other things being equal) separate, private agencies to provide the services in question.

If the government suddenly decided to rely only on private contributions, I would give it nothing. On the other hand, I would use my tax savings to contribute more generously to private welfare organizations (i.e., charities) and the like. Also, when private companies take over the building and maintaining of infrastructure, due to the government itself going bankrupt, I will gladly pay those companies for their services -- when I use them.

- Rob

[freefallife]

Quote by: another day Americans, don't forget that your federal income tax is completely illegal and is not written in a book of law anywhere. It is 100% fraudulent...compared to other taxes that you pay, the federal income tax is literally theft.

Um, the 2007 tax bill was signed into law by the President of the United States just like every other federal tax law on the books. It was submitted as a bill, voted on by both houses and sent to the President to sign...and he did, thus transforming it from a BILL into LAW. Thats how it works. How you think its not a law is beyond me.

[Chris the Chees]

Why pay for something you can get for free? See: Communism.

This is a common myth surrounding communism. It does not sugegst that you get stuff for 'free'. The basis of the society is that any produce you make belongs to the community as a whole. Thus everyone gets a little piece of what society produces according to their need, as long a they input into the community. So the idea that communism is a 'free ride' is ridiculous and totally misses the point of what communism actually is.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chris the Chees This is a common myth surrounding communism. It does not sugegst that you get stuff for 'free'. The basis of the society is that any produce you make belongs to the community as a whole. Thus everyone gets a little piece of what society produces according to their need, as long a they input into the community. So the idea that communism is a 'free ride' is ridiculous and totally misses the point of what communism actually is.

Yes... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I hereby declare that my ability is nothing more than sitting on my butt, and my need is a flat screen plasma TV. What is the motivation for me to try harder if there is no reward?

[christibe]

If you contributed nothing, you would get nothing. There is no free ride whatsoever in true communism.

[Mia]

What about for the disabled?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Yes... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I hereby declare that my ability is nothing more than sitting on my butt, and my need is a flat screen plasma TV. What is the motivation for me to try harder if there is no reward?

To try and understand communism you first have to see that there is more to life than your own greedy selfishness.

If the only reward you can contemplate to working is what is in it for you then capitalism will not work either.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: SoylentGreen To try and understand communism you first have to see that there is more to life than your own greedy selfishness.

Well it's great that communism works "in theory". As soon as I move to the Planet Theory I'll be sure to try it out.
I agree with your premise, however it is unrealistic and irrational to use an economic system that to be successful relies on a fundamental shift in human nature.
You deny Scott Adams' immutable law of human nature: People will always be stupid, selfish, and horny.

If the only reward you can contemplate to working is what is in it for you then capitalism will not work either.

Say what? Capitalism is entirely based on people acting as if the reward of working is "what's in it for me" - the primary driver is the desire for personal economic gain.

[SoylentGreen]

tivodan1116 Say what? Capitalism is entirely based on people acting as if the reward of working is "what's in it for me" - the primary driver is the desire for personal economic gain.

What a great theory I will have to move to planet theory and try it out to.
Perhaps you describe only your own community when you say "You deny Scott Adams' immutable law of human nature: People will always be stupid, selfish, and horny"

People also can act kindly ,intelligently and think with their brain instead of their dick.
Such thoughts as working for a better community and providing for those less able and sharing the wealth are not alien concepts.
And like communism. capitalism is only a theory. Can you point out a true capitalist economy?
If you are going to say that .Capitalism is entirely based on people acting as if the reward of working is "what's in it for me" then I guess it can also be said that communism is entirely based on "whats in it for us"

However there is much more to both than just that simple idea.

[ibm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen What a great theory I will have to move to planet theory and try it out to. Perhaps you describe only your own community when you say "You deny Scott Adams' immutable law of human nature: People will always be stupid, selfish, and horny" People also can act kindly ,intelligently and think with their brain instead of their dick. Such thoughts as working for a better community and providing for those less able and sharing the wealth are not alien concepts. And like communism. capitalism is only a theory. Can you point out a true capitalist economy? If you are going to say that .Capitalism is entirely based on people acting as if the reward of working is "what's in it for me" then I guess it can also be said that communism is entirely based on "whats in it for us" However there is much more to both than just that simple idea.

Very well thought and written. I entirely agree.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: SoylentGreen People also can act kindly ,intelligently and think with their brain instead of their dick.

They can, but human nature is selfish - i.e. the drive towards self preservation.

Such thoughts as working for a better community and providing for those less able and sharing the wealth are not alien concepts.

Certainly not, but humans do not generally work with no hope of a return on their investment - a specific return that is.

Capitalism is entirely based on people acting as if the reward of working is "what's in it for me" then I guess it can also be said that communism is entirely based on "whats in it for us"

True, which is why it won't work. Because when there is a job to do, and "everyone" is responsible for its completion, ultimately no one is responsible.

Let's take an industrial example - cattle. Each farm cow belongs to a specific farmer, who has the ultimate responsibility not only to that cow but to ensure that their herd of cows is successfully maintained for their profit. I think we can agree that cows have not ever been in danger of extinction.
Compare the cows to buffalo. In the case of buffalo, they were community property - no one was ultimately responsible for the herd, everyone just shot as many as they could (each according to his ability) and took home however many they wanted (each according to his need - or want as the case may be). Buffalo were overhunted to the point of near extinction until - guess what - private farmers realized there was money to be made from buffalo farms. More then the endangered species list, private capitalist ownership has brought the buffalo back.

[ibm]

In capitalism, if an employee works hard and makes say $50,000 a year. Does that mean the value of goods and/or services s/he created during the year was that much?

[Alive]

It's fallacious to say that capitalism is about selfishness and communism about community or something to that effect. The truth of the matter is that capitalism provides for the community better than communism ever could, because capitalism produces the wealth that allows people to live better, more equal lives.

If you want to help other people more than yourself, support capitalism. If you want to help yourself more than other people, support capitalism. If you're poor, if you're rich, if you're middle class, support capitalism. It doesn't matter, because capitalism is good for everyone.

We might ask the question: should people use light bulbs or candles to illuminate their homes? Luddites might say candles, but most people will say light bulbs, no matter what their political affiliation--light bulbs are simply better than candles. It's the same with capitalism. Capitalism (not necessarily in it's purest form, mind you--but as the base) is simply better; it's not about ideology, it's about science and technology. The only reason to be against it is if you are against all efficiency and wealth because you think wealth is a bad thing in itself--if you want everyone to be poorer, rich and poor alike.

[christibe]

Quote by: Mia What about for the disabled?

The disabled wouldn't get a 'free ride' either. But, that is only because 'free-ride' only means something to selfish people... Also, there are many ways to provide and be a member of the community other than laboring. My point isn't being said very well, but I think my drift comes across? :)

[christibe]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Compare the cows to buffalo. In the case of buffalo, they were community property - no one was ultimately responsible for the herd, everyone just shot as many as they could (each according to his ability) and took home however many they wanted (each according to his need - or want as the case may be). Buffalo were overhunted to the point of near extinction until - guess what - private farmers realized there was money to be made from buffalo farms. More then the endangered species list, private capitalist ownership has brought the buffalo back.

So, you are basing your own theory on how communism cannot work because people are selfish on the premise that because the people who went West and killed all the buffalo were rednecks and killed all the buffalo, 'cuz they wanted to?
I can immediately point to the history immediately preceding White Man coming onto the Plains, shall we go there?
Prior to Europeans settling the Americas, indigenous tribes lived off the land in communal states. On the Great and high plains of the American mid-west, roughly the modern named Mississippi River on the east to the Rocky Mountains on the west, due to the dry climate and relative lack of tall vegetation, as in trees to be used for housing, the tribes followed nomadic lifestyles. As such, the people learned the value of understanding the great buffalo and came to hold this beast in the highest regard. They used this animal's flesh for food, which they treated for the long winter season, and found ways to use every part of the animal so that none of its life, and death, would be in vain. Also, practically, the hide of the buffalo could be used for clothing and shelter, the fur for the same, the tribesmen did not want to take the animal's life but it was essential to living on the plains. The people lived in relative harmony with one another, and it has been difficult to ascertain whether a currency was used, or a standard method of trade.

So. Unless you disagree with anything I just said, which I imagine you will because you seem to disagree with everything I say, which is fine, I don't care, but unless you disagree with something FACTUAL that I have just stated, I assume I can go on to making my analysis?
.....
Ok, ah the joy of internet-communication. :)

It seems to me that communism was being practiced by these great tribes of native americans, and had been the case for quite a while. Then, however, European Americans came into the picture and destroyed that way of life, because they wanted to own all of the land between the two great oceans. They used currency, and had the notion that not only could land be owned, but animals and even other people as well. To nomadic tribes, this idea was completely confounding, it was just something nobody ever thought of before. Then, the Americans killed almost all of the great buffalo, for no reason, many they just left rotting. It was as if they hunted for sport. And now, the communist natives had no way to support their lifestyles anymore. And the Americans killed them, as well.


So, I have considered the history of this tragedy and have found that communism is more ideal to me than capitalism. It seems funny to me, having come to that conclusion, that you intended the opposite to occur. Thoughts?
----------
Actual Thread-at-hand response:
Also, I still stand by the way I divvied up my tax contribution. As to the amount, it is hard to say. Many things would need to change structurally in the U.S. before this could happen. But, I will allow myself to think that now the U.S. is not focused on continued expansion and cares about higher values. Because of this, I probably have a job that matches my skills and I probably make a pretty decent salary. Assuming that health-care is no longer a concern, because it has been socialized, I have more income available. Because, probably, our methods of farming have become more sustainable, food prices have gone down. Because, probably, less of my energy comes from expensive fossil fuels, the amount I budget for this has decreased. Probably, life in general costs alot less because our Institutions have shifted motivation slightly, after all, tax has become voluntary.

So, if this is the case in this hypothetical America, I would probably have about 35-40% of my income free. So, whatever is left after my budget, and my wants (since now I can actually spend money on those, since all my money doesn't go to gas and the doctor), and whatever I feel like saving (since probably my retirement prospects also look a little better, with that shifting of priority by the government), then the rest I'd give to taxes. Because I would have spent ALL of that on those things before, only now that same amount will actually provide for all of my needs. And I still have income left over. Where do I catch the plane to this Planet Theory?


...ohh, it's Canada? Hey, any Canadians want a roommate?

[christibe]

Quote by: Alive It's fallacious to say that capitalism is about selfishness and communism about community or something to that effect. The truth of the matter is that capitalism provides for the community better than communism ever could, because capitalism produces the wealth that allows people to live better, more equal lives. If you want to help other people more than yourself, support capitalism. If you want to help yourself more than other people, support capitalism. If you're poor, if you're rich, if you're middle class, support capitalism. It doesn't matter, because capitalism is good for everyone. We might ask the question: should people use light bulbs or candles to illuminate their homes? Luddites might say candles, but most people will say light bulbs, no matter what their political affiliation--light bulbs are simply better than candles. It's the same with capitalism. Capitalism (not necessarily in it's purest form, mind you--but as the base) is simply better; it's not about ideology, it's about science and technology. The only reason to be against it is if you are against all efficiency and wealth because you think wealth is a bad thing in itself--if you want everyone to be poorer, rich and poor alike.

Doesn't the theory of capitalism actually require lack, which requires unemployment, which requires suffering? I fail to see how this better provides for those who in the capitalist society would be homeless because the equation relies upon it, whereas those same people in the communist community would be living in the same quality of life as the rest of the community. Also, there hasn't been an actual example of 'Capitalism' as there hasn't actually been an example of "Communism' in practice, so anything we can here is hypothesize. Also, 'richer and poorer' do not mean anything to the communist.

But, what does this have to do with the topic?