The Debate Thread: Taxes (and beyond...)

Let's be honest, the NLSC cannot handle this topic. 90% of PhD's can't, what chance does this place have?

We're going back to numbered questions. For so many reasons. Prediction: More than half of "normals" will not even respond. This is clearly going to be the worst of all of these far, and every single one of you will be gone within two posts if that. We know how this works, and I hate it even though I actually want to explore and talk about things with people.

1. What justification for taxes is there?
2. If someone doesn't want to pay for what others want, why should they be forced to?
3. How far does a social contract extend?
4. Can someone opt out of a social contract?
5. All nations on Earth claim that one cannot opt out without significant financial penalties to where only the hyper-rich can, you good?
6. How is tax not theft?
7. Why should people pay higher rates because they do better?
8. What claim does anyone else have to the fruits of another?
9. Is it moral for a majority to claim the riches of the minority?
10. Is establishing a tax regime that punishes minorities valid even if a future regime uses it to their nefarious ends?
11. Is the benefit of the majority greater than any ill that befalls the minority?
12. If one group can claim the riches of another, why cannot another group?
13. At what point has a society overstepped in claiming the riches of its people?
14. What should be subject to tax and what should not?
15. Pretend no taxes existed, what % of your total riches would you give up?
16. What do you think is the lowest and highest tax rates society could operate at?
17. Consider the last two, what should someone be forced to give up?
18. Why should taxes be collected?
19. What should taxes be used for?
20. Why must taxes be used?

I numbered them for you, do your worst.

1. What justification for taxes is there?

Don't 18, 19 and 20 cover this?

2. If someone doesn't want to pay for what others want, why should they be forced to?

Depends how you define 'want' and for what purposes taxes are used.

7. Why should people pay higher rates because they do better?

Because it makes worse people feel better, and having a high self-esteem is scientifically proven to make people awesomely successful, which is why everyone should feel entitled.

They shouldn't.

8. What claim does anyone else have to the fruits of another?

The country has to function. Everyone benefits from taxes, so this isn't necessarily occurring (assuming an ideal hypothetical scenario, at least).

11. Is the benefit of the majority greater than any ill that befalls the minority?

Any? No. Some? Perhaps. The benefit of all at some cost to all is more reasonable.

13. At what point has a society overstepped in claiming the riches of its people?

When it has more than it needs to spend.

19. What should taxes be used for?

Allowing the country to function: Police, military, any other necessary protections of its citizens. Can't think of anything else at present, doesn't mean nothing else should be on this list.

20. Why must taxes be used?

The government can't make money of its own. The protection of the rights of others being necessary to the functioning of the country, charity can't really be relied on.

Social responsibility as a citizen, Isn't that the whole concept of paying tax. Countries like Canada with mixed economy obviously needs to collect more taxes to somewhat enforce equality between citizens while USA is more generous on corporations taxing as well as individual income taxing. Either way, there's a loophole so politicians and some assholes always can get rich. That's the reason why people complain on paying tax as much of it doesn't seem to be used in the right direction.

Anyways, not totally sure what's to really discuss here as we all know tax must be collected for a country to provide service to their people and to conduct any types of business globally.

lol at the last statement of the last post implying that this thread is useless (which it really is?).
benji should start introducing the idea of thought experiments to NLSCers if he wants to talk about things with people.
I'll try some different answers. Might be wrong, might be right, might open a possibility of discussion. Simple moronic answers.

1. What justification for taxes is there?
The idea that people can't be relied upon to inherently do good to the community/society they belong to so they must be forced to pay for it according to law just so for the greater good.

2. If someone doesn't want to pay for what others want, why should they be forced to?
They shouldn't. Though they shouldn't be also enjoying the benefits of what the others paid for.

3. How far does a social contract extend?
As long as all parties concerned mutually agree.
If person A wants to live in town B which requires taxes from its residents. Person A doesn't want to pay taxes but person A happens to be the best pimp in the land and brings along his caravans of escorts to town B. Town B agrees to his residency without paying taxes as long as he provides prostitutes to the whoremongers with a 50% discount, which person A and the whole town wholeheartedly agree because it's a damn good deal.

4. Can someone opt out of a social contract?
Possibly.
Town B already gets a taste of all the good things pimp A has to offer and is now demanding taxes from him, after all he is in their town.
Pimp A sees it as a bad business deal as time goes on.
In either case, pimp A leaves town B to opt out of that social contract and move in to a new town or establish his own Disneyland of whores.

5. All nations on Earth claim that one cannot opt out without significant financial penalties to where only the hyper-rich can, you good?
Tried thinking about this where a 'farmer Ben' is extremely self-sufficient with his soybean crops and living on tofu, soy, and other soy-based products but there are certain actions for his self-sufficiency where he's bound to some social contract like following environmental laws for irrigation, etc. That's just land based, sea-based (international waters) is a big possibility but only if one is hyper-rich to establish a residence in the open seas and prevent pirate attacks.
So yeah, not haven't thought too much into this.

6. How is tax not theft?
It some cases it is - double taxation.

7. Why should people pay higher rates because they do better?
I have the impression that they also have greater options for tax breaks/exemptions because they are better than the rest. So even if they pay higher, they also get higher discounts, which doesn't make sense.

8. What claim does anyone else have to the fruits of another?
Since Adam and Eve ate that forbidden fruit from the tree that God owned. If a man can claim from God, what more so a man claiming from another man. Wait...that didn't sound right...

9. Is it moral for a majority to claim the riches of the minority?
10. Is establishing a tax regime that punishes minorities valid even if a future regime uses it to their nefarious ends?
11. Is the benefit of the majority greater than any ill that befalls the minority?
No.

12. If one group can claim the riches of another, why cannot another group?
Because her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and they're like it's better than yours. Damn right it's better than yours, she can teach you but she has to charge.

13. At what point has a society overstepped in claiming the riches of its people?
Double taxation instances. In the Philippines' case, quadruple taxation. Just look at the electricity cost.

14. What should be subject to tax and what should not?
Voting should be taxed. That way only the true patriots who show genuine love for their country are rewarded with the privilege.
What if no one votes? Then no one wins. No one is 'in charge'.
Plastic guitars should also be taxed.
Prostitution should not be taxed. Ever. Whores already have a hard time meeting quotas from their pimp, no need to make it harder. Unless the prostitues are self-managed, then tax them.

15. Pretend no taxes existed, what % of your total riches would you give up?
The percentage required of me for the services that I actually need and use.

16. What do you think is the lowest and highest tax rates society could operate at?
I found a good balance in Sim City but I forgot the value. Didn't get any improvements though but managed to stay break-even.

17. Consider the last two, what should someone be forced to give up?
Damn too many people today have too damn many plastic guitars and drumsets.

18. Why should taxes be collected?
Because people are too busy to come to a meeting point and give out their hard earned money. Answer in #1 related.

19. What should taxes be used for?
Romans have a good basic to do's. Top of my head are roads and sanitation systems/services.

20. Why must taxes be used?
Just so to give people the impression that something 'good' is being done with their money. Why have maintenance and save the budget when we have all this money to build a new one!

lol at the last statement of the last post implying that this thread is useless (which it really is?).

Wasn't entirely saying 'useless' but whatever, grinch.

Don't 18, 19 and 20 cover this?

No.

The country has to function. Everyone benefits from taxes

Elaborate.

When it has more than it needs to spend.

When is that?

any other necessary protections of its citizens.

Vague.

The government can't make money of its own.

It can't?

The protection of the rights of others being necessary to the functioning of the country, charity can't really be relied on.

So the government should do things people don't want. For their benefit of course.

Anyways, not totally sure what's to really discuss here as we all know tax must be collected for a country to provide service to their people and to conduct any types of business globally.

No, we don't.

They shouldn't. Though they shouldn't be also enjoying the benefits of what the others paid for.

But if the benefit is "the functioning society" then everyone benefits and therefore anything is justified?

As long as all parties concerned mutually agree.

What if one party declares everyone to be a party to the contract and does not allow them to escape?

I have the impression that they also have greater options for tax breaks/exemptions because they are better than the rest. So even if they pay higher, they also get higher discounts, which doesn't make sense.

Would it not follow then, that the entire point of such provisions is the prevention of others joining or displacing them?

Since Adam and Eve ate that forbidden fruit from the tree that God owned. If a man can claim from God, what more so a man claiming from another man.

But was that not theft? As God strictly forbid them to do so, they trespassed and stole his apple. He punished them accordingly by withdrawing their access to Eden. That was the terms of the contract they agreed to.

If any man has a claim to any man (which is the logical progression of no property) then do we not live in a "might makes right" state with no other moral code?

Plastic guitars should also be taxed.

At 10000%. Plastic instruments of any kind really.

The percentage required of me for the services that I actually need and use.

So fee based?

I found a good balance in Sim City but I forgot the value. Didn't get any improvements though but managed to stay break-even.

It's about 2-3%. The worst part is that you can't set taxes over 20%. One time I loaded up some of the giant pre-made cities in 2000, jacked up their taxes and saw how long it took the population to disappear. Then eliminated all taxes to see how fast they'd come back.

It's a pretty good Laffer Curve simulation though.

Romans have a good basic to do's.

Endless wars? Poorly running vast empires? Homosex?

Just so to give people the impression that something 'good' is being done with their money. Why have maintenance and save the budget when we have all this money to build a new one!

I like the cut of your jib, sir. Would you like to be part of the planning council?

But if the benefit is "the functioning society" then everyone benefits and therefore anything is justified?

As long as everyone in the functioning society contributed their share. Whether that be monetary (taxes), painting my fence and gardening for free, or Mel Gibson getting free blow because he deserves it.

What if one party declares everyone to be a party to the contract and does not allow them to escape?

Revolt is the way to go if they can't get out or improve the conditions. That or accepting it and being subservient until death comes along.

Would it not follow then, that the entire point of such provisions is the prevention of others joining or displacing them?

If somehow others have managed to join or displace them (the better group), I guess the provisions are some sort of reward for their cunning and breaking into such a group. I never thought if it that way. Can't hate a playa' fo' playin' da game!

But was that not theft? As God strictly forbid them to do so, they trespassed and stole his apple. He punished them accordingly by withdrawing their access to Eden. That was the terms of the contract they agreed to.

They were fooled by the snake! Adam and Eve can sue for gross negligence because of that dangerous snake being allowed to roam freely.

If any man has a claim to any man (which is the logical progression of no property) then do we not live in a "might makes right" state with no other moral code?

Conan the Cimmerian managed to survive through it, why can't we?

So fee based?

Yes. I enjoy those things.

Endless wars? Poorly running vast empires? Homosex?

I think those are on the second scroll. With homosex being the last item on the first scroll.

I like the cut of your jib, sir. Would you like to be part of the planning council?

As long as the pay is equal to the effort I put into my work, which will be no effort as planned.

What's their share? And why isn't their share more than mine because they aren't me?

The share that they agreed or willing to contribute.
Their share isn't more than yours because of two reasons:
a) they are not as good as you so they are required to give a lesser share that befits their competence
b) they are better than you, since they are better than you their reward is your punishment for being not good enough and that is you having to give more share and them giving relatively less.

Why would you let them agree to it? Or let them decide what they'll contribute? They'll just keep it to themselves if they get to decide, best that I possibly as their better and certainly as an unbiased party decide what they contribute. Let's not even start on how many ways they might waste it on things I don't want them to.

If you don't think I can make that decision, perhaps we can ask everyone and then pick the winner? After all, only a few people will be hurt, and they owe us anyway for not killing them and taking it by force in the first place.

Why would you let them agree to it? Or let them decide what they'll contribute? They'll just keep it to themselves if they get to decide

They'll soon learn the error of their ways if that's the case.
As the established and solid prostitution economic model has shown, it's sometimes a good thing to give (to your pimp).

unbiased party

Is there such a thing?

Let's not even start on how many ways they might waste it on things I don't want them to.

Plastic guitars. Again. Some people never learn and still buy it.

If you don't think I can make that decision, perhaps we can ask everyone and then pick the winner?

This is the "and beyond" part which the thread title refers to.
I'll sail this ship to the edge of the world at a later time.

Maybe you should instead elaborate on the electricity quadruple taxation.

I shall. Once I find that file. Which happens to be a year ago...

Don't 18, 19 and 20 cover this?

No.

Do elaborate. They seem the same.

Elaborate.

Everyone benefits from having their rights protected, do they not?

When is that?

I don't have the slightest clue what it costs to run a military and police force, so I can't really give a dollar figure.

Vague.

Perhaps. I'd rather be vague (it wouldn't include things it currently doesn't, so to actually apply such a system would be a matter of going through a list and striking things off it) than miss something out.

It can't?

No. It conceivably could, if it were to run businesses and whatnot, but it shouldn't be doing that.

So the government should do things people don't want. For their benefit of course.

Pretty sure everyone wants criminals put in jail and whatnot. Except the criminal in question, of course. It'd be easier to tax everyone than keep track of who donates what to the running of the country and making sure they are the only ones who can have their rights infringed.

Anyways, not totally sure what's to really discuss here as we all know tax must be collected for a country to provide service to their people and to conduct any types of business globally.

No, we don't.

Something called the fiscal policy requires money. Thus taxing is inevitable. I hate tax rates in Canada but hate our fiscal policy even more since it requires high tax rates.

Anyways, not totally sure what's to really discuss here as we all know tax must be collected for a country to provide service to their people and to conduct any types of business globally.

No, we don't.

Something called the fiscal policy requires money. Thus taxing is inevitable. I hate tax rates in Canada but hate our fiscal policy even more since it requires high tax rates.

I'm pretty sure North Korea has taxes.

NK's economy sucks. To survive in today's capitalism world, NK better learn to how to boost their economy like SK did. When they do, they'll be imposing much more tax on citizens. This leads me to say that under today's monetary system, the government needs to implement their fiscal policy well to compete against other countries economically. This makes tax inevitable unless we change the system.

I don't have the slightest clue what it costs to run a military and police force, so I can't really give a dollar figure.

It costs whatever they've got plus whatever they don't have.

No. It conceivably could, if it were to run businesses and whatnot, but it shouldn't be doing that.

The government makes money every single day, it prints the money and controls the supply.

Pretty sure everyone wants criminals put in jail and whatnot. Except the criminal in question, of course. It'd be easier to tax everyone than keep track of who donates what to the running of the country and making sure they are the only ones who can have their rights infringed.

Ah, so there's no possible situation where people will willingly pay into a system they may not benefit from more than anyone else.

Something called the fiscal policy requires money. Thus taxing is inevitable.

Again, taxing is not required for something to function.

I'm pretty sure North Korea has taxes.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't. The incomes and economic capabilities of the people are so low I doubt you could collect anything worthwhile in taxes. It'd actually be a pretty worthless endeavor for the government to undertake. The state can seize anything it wants whenever it wants, and if you allow a weak black market the people won't become burdened enough to care. Especially when the concept of property is not supposed to exist, so what are you taxing? That's nasty Western Capitalist American thinking.

EDIT, checked Wiki:

the payment of taxes has been abolished since April 1, 1974

From the source (KNCA, the best news source in the world): http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... kcna03.htm

The people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea enjoy a happy life, not knowing what the tax is like. It is the reality of Korea that people do not know the rent while living in modern houses built at the state's expenses and even receive scholarships from the state while studying at universities, far from paying fees. Though the country is undergoing difficulties today, there is no change in the policies of the Party and the state typically represented by free medical care and free education. On the contrary, new popular measures are taken.
This is unthinkable apart from the people-centered Korean style socialist system. The tax system in the DPRK was totally abolished on April 1, Juche 63 (1974). The law of the Supreme People's Assembly "On Totally Abolishing the Tax System" was promulgated at the third session of the Fifth Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK held in Pyongyang on March 21 that year.
The tax system has been in force in all the countries for thousands of years with the appearance of states. Its complete repeal in the DPRK was the first of its kind in human history.
With the enforcement of this law, the DPRK has earned the proud name "the only country without tax".
On the 32nd anniversary of its promulgation, the Korean people retrospect the immortal feats of President Kim Il Sung, the supreme incarnation of love for the people. As far back as the days of the anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle, Kim Il Sung stipulated the establishment of a just tax system in the Ten-point Programme of the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland.
After the liberation of the country, he abolished the predatory tax system of the Japanese imperialists and established a popular and democratic one. He also reduced the tax burdens of the people step by step while consolidating the economic foundation of the country.
In 1955 the income tax upon the workers and office employees was cut sharply, the tax levies upon the handicraftsmen, businessmen and merchants were cut down by a wide margin and agricultural tax in kind was trimmed back to 20.1 percent on an average. Later, the agricultural tax in kind that had remained partially and the negligible income tax of the workers and office employees were scrapped.

If I lived in North Korea, working for KNCA would be my life goal I think. Well, I wouldn't know how darkly hilarious it is and instead think it's the truth, but whoever writes these things are awesome and would probably be great successes in the freer world if they were as lucky as the rest of us.

Seriously, read a few of these stories. I liked this one:

Pyongyang, November 5 (KCNA) -- The great army-people unity is an ever-victorious weapon of the DPRK holding the great illustrious commander of Songun in high esteem and an engine of bringing about leaping progress and innovation.
Rodong Sinmun today says this in an editorial. It goes on:
Today the DPRK is vigorously advancing with the might of the great unity between the army and the people.
They are working shoulder to shoulder in every important site of building a thriving nation in one mind and with one intention.
All the servicepersons and people are firmly rallied behind the headquarters of the revolution with the same ideology and will, the spirit of assisting the army and the people are being fully displayed and a high-pitched drive for effecting the great revolutionary surge is prevailing in the DPRK. It is the true picture of the era of Songun.
The great unity between the army and the people serves as a powerful treasured sword and a foundation of the society of the DPRK which helps overcome all sorts of ordeals to emerge victorious as it was consolidated in the whole course of the protracted revolution and further strengthened in the tempest of the Songun revolution.
The might of the great unity between the army and the people is inexhaustible as all the servicepersons and people share the destiny with the same ideology and fighting spirit.
They are now bringing about great innovation and leap forward in every site of effecting a great surge in order to translate into reality the plan and determination of General Secretary Kim Jong Il for building a thriving nation.
The Korean People's Army is creating a new Chollima speed in the era of Songun in the important fields for building a thriving nation and fully demonstrating its might as the pillar and the main force of the revolution and all the people are effecting a great upswing in the production and construction in the revolutionary solider spirit. It is the heroic stamina of Songun Korea.
The epoch-making changes and the great auspicious events in the DPRK under the banner of Songun are priceless fruitions of the devoted efforts exerted by the servicepersons who take the lead in making a breakthrough in the great revolutionary surge and the heroic struggle waged by all the people with the same spirit, disposition and mettle as displayed by the soldiers.
Korean-style socialism is impregnable as all the servicepersons and people are united around the headquarters of the revolution as firm as a rock and the DPRK is sure to build a thriving nation as it is advancing with the might of the unity.

Really really really dark humor, I know, but still.

[

Something called the fiscal policy requires money. Thus taxing is inevitable.

Again, taxing is not required for something to function.

Of course not, but the government would implement alternate ways to take money from the citizens/business, which pretty much would be same thing as paying tax. Like more crown corporations can pretty much could generate incomes at will for the government. I figure the fairest and most efficient way the most of countries came up with is taxing people and corporations.

What's fair about claiming someone else's property against their will?

Social responsibility owed to the nation? Individual's wealth can only be obtained within the boundaries of nations that allows it anyways.

And in some senses, it may not be fair, but possibly is the most fairest way available.

So everyone must be subservient to the collective? And anytime the State or the majority want your life they have claim on it and that's that?

And the reason you should forfeit your natural rights is because of some nonsensical allegiance to arbitrary lines drawn on maps as decided by inbred elites?

Why'd we ever bother to pretend to get rid of feudalism and divine right if we're all just going to be granted access to work the land of the manor as long as the lord allows us to?

(Oh wait, Canada didn't, and has no concept of individual rights. Nevermind then, these Enlightenment-era concepts are too probably far advanced for you.)

Allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor and have control of their self. That, that's what would be madness!

So everyone must be subservient to the collective? And anytime the State or the majority want your life they have claim on it and that's that?

And the reason you should forfeit your natural rights is because of some nonsensical allegiance to arbitrary lines drawn on maps as decided by inbred elites?

Pretty much. Hasn't the government already taken basic rights away with Patriot Act. Lolz.

By the way natural rights to what? Property and belongings? In this case, I was just implying that the nation allows it to be yours and protects it to be yours.

Why'd we ever bother to pretend to get rid of feudalism and divine right if we're all just going to be granted access to work the land of the manor as long as the lord allows us to?

(Oh wait, Canada didn't, and has no concept of individual rights. Nevermind then, these Enlightenment-era concepts are too probably far advanced for you.)

Allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor and have control of their self. That, that's what would be madness!

To be fair the fruits don't always come from labor in today's world. The tendency in today's capitalism era are richers getting richer, wealth easily accumulating throughout generations to generations, and basic rights being violated in front of power and money. The tax isn't the problem to the concept of individual rights.

Pretty much. Hasn't the government already taken basic rights away with Patriot Act. Lolz.

No, not at all the PATRIOT Act was an ineffectual boogey-man. The U.S. government declared the end of individual rights and ripped up the Constitution well before then. But unlike Canada it never had authority to do that, people just want to punish those they don't like so they go along with the crime since it benefits them. (Well, at least they think it does. It doesn't.)

By the way natural rights to what? Property and belongings? In this case, I was just implying that the nation allows it to be yours and protects it to be yours.

But it doesn't. The fact you own yourself is what "allows" it to be yours. Nations infringe upon that natural right to own yourself to help them perpetuate further evil. The fact they do this does not grant them authority to do it. It's like saying I'm the one who "allows" you to live simply because I haven't killed you yet.

Without property rights you have no rights, you are simply a possession of the state/ruler/elite/etc..

To be fair the fruits don't always come from labor in today's world. The tendency in today's capitalism era are richers getting richer, wealth easily accumulating throughout generations to generations, and basic rights being violated in front of power and money. The tax isn't the problem to the concept of individual rights.

But government is, and central to that is governments claim to all the property of all its citizens. Because government uses this to increase its and other elites power, and does so while lying about its nefarious actions, is not reason to merely give yourself completely over in service to them.

That's what people mean with "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Just was saying that I don't consider tax as the major problem. But you are right, in conceptual ways.

I am also pretty much on the same page with you on thoughts of governments/authority. They probably have no choice but to impose taxes under today's system though. Thus, the monetary system or capitalism is probably more to blame in the bigger picture.