All People Should Be Tax-Exempt

[Autolykos]

I thought about putting this in as a reply to Zhavric's thread "All teachers should be tax-exempt", but felt that it would take things too far astray. So I decided to start a new thread.

Anyways, Zhavric thinks that all teachers should be tax-exempt. Well, I have a better idea. Why not make all people tax-exempt? Before you fall off your rockers, please try to think seriously about the idea and what it would mean.

- Rob

[PatrickHenry]

That's what I told Zhavy in the thread. He gave me a little lecture on it being off topic...

The Founders didn't forsee the Sixteenth Amendment. They levied taxes on other stuff, not people's incomes. If they were around today there would likely be some sparks, but not from THIS generation of sheeple...

[Jack]

Before I could consider the idea seriously, I'd need to know how, if we abolished taxation (or are we only discussing payroll tax?), we'd pay for the national infrastructure. Once I know the viable alternatives, I might be able to comment on the other methods.

I haven't read Z's comment on not taxing teachers, but I'm not sure how he could justify it. Teachers in many states are failing to properly do their jobs as it is. I'd hardly support anything that encouraged more unqualified people to take up that profession.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood Before I could consider the idea seriously, I'd need to know how, if we abolished taxation (or are we only discussing payroll tax?), we'd pay for the national infrastructure. Once I know the viable alternatives, I might be able to comment on the other methods.

Then again, how do you define "national infrastructure"? And why does it have to exist? Basically I'm calling into question the idea of "national infrastructure" here.

Here's a hint: no taxes means (surprise, surprise!) no government, which means no nation-state. Hence there would no longer be such a thing as "national infrastructure", for how can there be when there's no nation?

Quote by: Isherwood I haven't read Z's comment on not taxing teachers, but I'm not sure how he could justify it. Teachers in many states are failing to properly do their jobs as it is. I'd hardly support anything that encouraged more unqualified people to take up that profession.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. You're aware of the Peter Principle, aren't you? It is the de facto law of government jobs.

It's interesting that we don't seem to "cross paths" much, Isherwood, but I thank you for the reasoned response. :)

- Rob

[Jack]

how do you define "national infrastructure"?

The most obvious example would be the inter-state freeway system and the monetary system. The states receive federal funds, from our taxes, in order to maintain the freeways so that there's some consistency to the quality of the roads. If the freeways were solely state roads, some states maight decide to not even keep up their stretch of freeway.
If each state could mint and accept only its own coinage, we'd be back to where we were before Lincoln's time.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood The most obvious example would be the inter-state freeway system and the monetary system.

Fair enough; but are those the only examples? In other words, can you give a precise and systematic definition for "national infrastructure" as you see it?

Quote by: Isherwood The states receive federal funds, from our taxes, in order to maintain the freeways so that there's some consistency to the quality of the roads. If the freeways were solely state roads, some states maight decide to not even keep up their stretch of freeway.

So what? Those states' governments would be free to decide so, as far as I can see.

Quote by: Isherwood If each state could mint and accept only its own coinage, we'd be back to where we were before Lincoln's time.

Again, so what?

I am not trying to be obtuse here. Rather, I'm honestly trying to draw out your reasons as to why there should be "national infrastructure" at all.

- Rob

[PatrickHenry]

Autolycos, there are rationales for a nation state and the structure provided by it.

Here are some of the things I feel are appropriate for government to do.

• coordinate national defense
• restrict borders
• prevention of epidemics
• diplomacy
• regulate trade
• protect the environment

So, not all taxes should be eliminated, just those which fund unnecessary expenses.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Autolycos, there are rationales for a nation state and the structure provided by it. Here are some of the things I feel are appropriate for government to do. coordinate national defense restrict borders prevention of epidemics diplomacy regulate trade protect the environment So, not all taxes should be eliminated, just those which fund unnecessary expenses.

That, of course, begs the question -- why do you feel that those things (and those things alone) are appropriate for government to do?

- Rob

[5010]

The things that make up national infrastructure, such as security forces, power grids, roads and rails, comm lines, etc, don't necessarily require a national government. They can be provided by state-to-state relationships. Consider NATO and international energy trade, travel/transport, and telecom.

So the question isn't whether or not national infrastructure should exist, but whether or not the quality of infrastructure is best administered by a national government or by state-to-state relationships.

Another point to consider is that national infrastructure does not necessarily require direct individual taxation. Alternatives could be user fees or charity. So the existence of taxation doesn't determine the existence of infrastructure, just a source for funding it. A question realted to this topic would be "can sources of funding other than direct individual taxation fund infrastructure equally or better".

Of course, if "equal or better" isn't the point of exempting individual taxation, then the thread is really about reducing government.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Autolykos That, of course, begs the question -- why do you feel that those things (and those things alone) are appropriate for government to do? - Rob

Fair question. Legitimate government is collectivism. And I favor individualism. Personal responsibility. Self-motivation.

So why would I favor any government at all? Because there are some things that are impossible to do for ourselves by ourselves...

Will you resist the organized armed forces of another powerful nation by YOURSELF?

Will you engage in personal DIRECT ACTION against the polluters of water and sky?

Can you abate an epidemic by yourself?

Note that my list is not exhaustive and I am willing to debate the functions I did mention...

[grandpa]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Fair question. Legitimate government is collectivism.

A collectivism of sorts. I think a legitimite government would be one that does not apply force merely to operate, but such a thing would involve re-defining government.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

Income taxes are involuntary no matter what they say to the contrary. You don't pay income taxes, you go to jail. Furthermore, the consequences of taxing income is to discourage productivity. All income taxes, as well as the IRS, should be abolished yesterday.

The body of the US Constitution frames the national infastructure and provides for the maintenence of it, but NOT through income taxes. Taxation should follow the body of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment should be repealed because it is contrary to Article 1 Section 8. If the framers wanted to include the exact wording of the 16th Amendment, they could have done so. In fact the first sentence of the 16th Amendment is a rip off of Article 1 Section 8.

The framers allowed for taxation and in the body of section 8, they specifically write:

..."but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

I say the current form of income tax in the US is not uniform throughout the US.and is therefore unconstitutional.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: grandpa I think a legitimite government would be one that does not apply force merely to operate, but such a thing would involve re-defining government. Grandpa h.

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

A serious redefinition would be required, Grandpa. Without force, there is no government...

[5010]

Quote by: brien All income taxes, as well as the IRS, should be abolished yesterday.

I agree they should be abolished, but would rather see it done in an orderly fashion. Think of it as a drug and the fed as an addict. The fed can't kick it. It needs rehab.

The 16th Amendment should be repealed because it is contrary to Article 1 Section 8.

And Article V says go for it, as long as 2/3 of both houses or a 2/3 convention of state leg's prefer Article 1 Section 8 and get 'r' done.

[grandpa]

Quote by: PatrickHenry “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” —George Washington, 1797 A serious redefinition would be required, Grandpa. Without force, there is no government...

But, at least many people I talk to understand that, even those who openly support the system. They have this bizarre theory that even though the system hurts some, it needs to be maintained. Then I point out how it actually hurts many, and ask "what if it ends up hurting you?" That's when they usually shrug. The system renders people hopeless. It denies our potential to be independent.

The point is, we need a system that rarely hurts any, if ever (if we are to have a system, that is).

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: 5010 I agree they should be abolished, but would rather see it done in an orderly fashion. Think of it as a drug and the fed as an addict.

The question is: Can it happen in an orderly fashion? Changes can happen relatively peacefully, but what is the best guarantee of this?

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

I could live with a sales tax only approach (IE the Fair Tax).

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Autolykos I thought about putting this in as a reply to Zhavric's thread "All teachers should be tax-exempt", but felt that it would take things too far astray. So I decided to start a new thread. Anyways, Zhavric thinks that all teachers should be tax-exempt. Well, I have a better idea. Why not make all people tax-exempt? Before you fall off your rockers, please try to think seriously about the idea and what it would mean. - Rob

How do you propose that roads get maintained, streets are cleaned, the country is defended, towns are planned and built, standards and practises are enforced, etc?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: 5010 The things that make up national infrastructure, such as security forces, power grids, roads and rails, comm lines, etc, don't necessarily require a national government. They can be provided by state-to-state relationships. Consider NATO and international energy trade, travel/transport, and telecom. So the question isn't whether or not national infrastructure should exist, but whether or not the quality of infrastructure is best administered by a national government or by state-to-state relationships.

If "national infrastructure" is not administered on the national level, can it really be considered "national"?

Quote by: 5010 Another point to consider is that national infrastructure does not necessarily require direct individual taxation. Alternatives could be user fees or charity. So the existence of taxation doesn't determine the existence of infrastructure, just a source for funding it. A question realted to this topic would be "can sources of funding other than direct individual taxation fund infrastructure equally or better". Of course, if "equal or better" isn't the point of exempting individual taxation, then the thread is really about reducing government.

No, "equally or better" is not the point. The point is to make people think by asking an obvious question. I figured that many people would react by asking, "Well, who's gonna pay for all this stuff, then?" To which I would reply, "What stuff?" And they would then have to think about what exactly they mean. So the point is to try to break people out of their "mental inertia" in this respect.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Fair question. Legitimate government is collectivism. And I favor individualism. Personal responsibility. Self-motivation.

I don't mind collectivism, as long as it's voluntary on the part of its members. Unless use of force is an integral part of how you define "collectivism", but I doubt that.

Quote by: PatrickHenry So why would I favor any government at all? Because there are some things that are impossible to do for ourselves by ourselves...

"No man is an island." An oft-quoted sentence, that. Notice, however, that it says nothing about the necessity of coming together in groups where some can use force against the rest without serious fear of reprisals (i.e. government).

Quote by: PatrickHenry Will you resist the organized armed forces of another powerful nation by YOURSELF?

Probably not. Then again, why would they bother to come after me and me alone?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Will you engage in personal DIRECT ACTION against the polluters of water and sky?

Perhaps. At the moment, I choose to do other things with my time.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Can you abate an epidemic by yourself?

Possibly. If I withdrew from civilization and became a hermit.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Note that my list is not exhaustive and I am willing to debate the functions I did mention...

The point I'm trying to make is that there is nothing that, by necessity or by definition, must be done by political means (which ultimately means use of force).

- Rob