I think it’s pretty obvious that Bloom is an amoral fatalist with a strong love of the state. He takes pride in having no backbone.
Technically the Income Tax is formally established in the 16th amendment, but yes you’re absolutely correct.
That’s weak flaming, you can do better.
This is something I would care about, but I cannot see how it’s possible. Most of the money I make is taxed as capital gains. Even if they raise it to twenty five percent, that’s way below the marginal rate on income. Either way, assuming I might be able to make 20-30k a year in income if I worked, I’d pay almost nothing in taxes compared to what someone making 250k and above pays. The progressive tax system shifts the tax burden onto high earners. I think that something like 86 percent of all federal income taxes are paid by the people in the top bracket. It’s absolutely in my interest to maintain the system as is.
The only taxes that have hit me hard are the estate and inheritance taxes which are actually state taxes and those I’d obviously be in favor of lowering.
You don’t think lowering taxes on other people might stimulate a plethora of economic activity, leading to better/cheaper technology?
If I were only interested in myself, I would rather see taxes lowered to 10% than have my net personal income tripled at the current tax rate. Its because as much as I’d like to buy a ton of fancy stuff now, the stuff we can’t buy has yet to be invented. Also reducing the tax burden on others cheapens goods in the short run, but also in the long run through capital investment. This is a little sci-fi, but the sooner I can get to post biological humanism, the better.
There’s probably a lot of other stuff we can’t imagine, but if you could go back and be king of england back in the 1500’s, you would be all like BUILD BUILD BUILD GO GO GO I’M MISSING THE SUPERBOWL to your subjects. Needs low taxes.
Again, I’m certainly in favor of lowering capital gains taxes or even eliminating them entirely. That would help to stimulate the investment you’re talking about plus (and more importantly for me) it would protect my main source of wealth generation from taxation.
“Either way we will never know.”
We will never know what? If people stop paying taxes once they become voluntary? In respect to you, I will not press you on this ridiculous argument you are about to make in order to support your initial assertion.
If we assume that all other things stary the same. Such as regulations and laws that make providing these pubilc goods very difficult if not impossible to be provided by the market. Then I believe a sizeable portion of the population would continue to pay taxes to support those things.
Now to be sure many would stop paying, whether it be because they think they can use the roads and not pay or because they beleive that the tax money is being spent on things they dont need. But there is a need for many things that tax money pays for and absent the ability of the market to provide there will be many who will bear the burden voluntarily. Whether it be immediately after the abolishment of taxes or after several years and the roads begin to fall apart.
This is just an opinion and I have no way of proving it.
It just seemed to me that the point of the OP was that people want taxes. Taxes = theft. Therefore people want to be stolen from. And the question was what can we do if people are so crazy as to want their stuff stolen? Obviously reason wont work on people like that.
Maybe I have misinterpreted the point being made. If I have, I appologize.
From a libertarian point of veiw I guess I can see that. But most dont see taxes as theft. They see them as a moral obligation because the money is used for public goods which benefit everyone. And they support force being used only against those who dodge that obligation because that means the dodgers are stealing from “society”.
So to me we started with an interpretation that does not really reflect most people veiw. But again I may be way off.
“ask any republican or democrat if we should abolish the income tax and the sales tax…they will say NO!”
Ask them if we should raise it, and most would say NO! Ask them if we should raise it on someone other than them, they will start saying YES! a lot more.
I don’t know any Americans abroad who still pay american taxes, even though they are not forced to (so long as they spend 11 months out of country).
Most likely these people dont see any benefit to paying. They dont use the services provided, so I can understand why they wouldnt. If the infastructure o the US fell apart because the government didnt have the resources to maintain it then it doesnt affect them much. While those who live here would be affected on a daily basis.
Even if they plan to return someday, or have family in America, or think that America is necessary for the continued international stability?
What about people in America who are tax exempt. Why don’t they just not claim their exemptions to support the state? Why don’t people regularly pay above their regular taxes if they’re so ideaologicaly motivated?
Even if they plan to return someday, or have family in America, or think that America is necessary for the continued international stability?
What about people in America who are tax exempt. Why don’t they just not claim their exemptions to support the state? Why don’t people regularly pay above their regular taxes if they’re so ideaologicaly motivated?
You are missing my point. I dont think that they would pay just because of intangible idealogical motivation. Many would be motivated because they need roads and bridges.
Like I said in another post if taxes were revoked tommorrow many maybe even most would stop paying. But after a few years, if we assume that the private market is not allowed to provide roads, bridges, etc., then many of those who stoped paying would start again because they would need the roads fixed.
I am not saying people would pay because they love taxes and the idea of government. I am saying they would pay because they want some of the things that taxes provide.
People give to charity all the time. Its not mandated by government.
**
If they paid more they could have more bridges and roads and police! People don’t write checks to the government when they run over a pothole or get mugged.
"Most people pay their taxes voluntarily. "
We’ll have to disagree…
I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that if the government had no consequences for not paying income and sales tax…most, if not all, would not pay it.
If they paid more they could have more bridges and roads and police! People don’t write checks to the government when they run over a pothole or get mugged.
Why would they pay more if the roads and bridges are sufficient for their needs. They dont want bridges and roads just for the sake of bridges and roads. They want them so they can get from point A to point B. If there is no problem getting around then they will have no motivation. If there is a problem getting around then they will.
Yet they would write a check to a private company so they dont have pot holes and to be protected from muggers? If the market is prevented from providing roads and protection then people would pay the governent for these things.
^So if people are forced to use the government to get what they want, they will use the government. Because they are forced. I don’t know if its a voluntary contribution in that case.
We’ll have to disagree…
I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that if the government had no consequences for not paying income and sales tax…most, if not all, would not pay it.
Most definitely some would not. Most people probably at first would stop. But if the services provided by government cannot be provided by the private sector (due to regulation or what ever) then eventually most would because they need certain things that government has a monopoly on.
^So if people are forced to use the government to get what they want, they will use the government. Because they are forced. I don’t know if its a voluntary contribution in that case.
Yes.
But there would be no theat of violence if you didnt pay.
Sure it is. If a private home owners association owns all the roads in a subdivision its a similar situation. If you want the roads maintained you would have to pay the homeowners association to get it done. Is that voluntary? Sure.
So wouldnt it seem that people dont have to threatened with violence to get them to pay up.
Im not saying that people won’t voluntarily fund voluntary institutions, I’m saying they won’t fund the state unless they have no other choice.
So, if I own a store, and then threaten you and say “if you go to any other store i’ll kill you” that’s different from “shop at my store or i’ll kill you”? I guess it is different in that you can still choose whether or not to purchase a product, but I am certainly threatening you with violence.