Nostr Web Client

Replying to

Dakota

Unless you don’t believe in value for value. I thought that’s why we were all here.

Nate 2y ago

One example of very many:

Biden passed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill in 2021 with $7.6 BILLION set aside for electric car chargers.

A grand total of 0 new chargers were built with that funding.

Where did all that money go?

Any free market value-for-value business that attempted this would go out of business almost immediately.

Compulsion removes the free-market feedback.

Also, when 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 legalizing income taxes in USA, taxes were initially 2%. So your metric for measuring whats appropriate is a subjective ever-shifting goalpost.

Lastly, society was thriving before income taxes. The gold standard between the civil war and WWI produced most of our technologies today such as internal combustion engine, electricity, cameras, television, telephone, etc etc. All that without compulsory taxes.

Put down the philosophy books and pick up a history book

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Dakota 2y ago

That is a great example. It’s a great thing to critique the squandering and inefficient use of taxes, and also to highlight whatever possible corruption might be happening. I think that example highlights that it’s a question of how much, what it’s spent on, and is it being used effectively; it’s not an argument to say that taxes shouldn’t exist. The fact that taxes currently get misused is not an argument against taxes, it’s an argument against the misuse of taxes. I’ll finish reading Human Action, but when I’m done, what history book would you recommend I pick up to learn more about taxes?

Nate 2y ago

I never said taxes shouldnt exist - I said they should not be compulsory under threat of state-sanctioned violence.

If [any subject] requires forceful compulsion, it is only because it cannot persuade in a market of free choices. People want quality public services - they do not want to be stolen from.

Tax revenue received would then reflect political performance (or lack thereof) instead of enabling consistently gross abuse of public resources. It would make tax revenue dynamic and truely value-for-value, just like how a private business receives revenue only by offering quality service.

Dakota 2y ago

That is interesting. I had not heard of a non compulsory tax. If the tax is non compulsory, at what point is it paid?

Secretary Janet Yellen 2y ago

If there's no compulsory tax and you're living in a village and the village board want to build a road, they have to present this idea to all villagers. People who feel like a good idea will contribute to it.

But if the village board tells them they want to send a couple of soldiers to a country, you've never heard of, how many people will contribute?

Income tax in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_income_tax_in_the_United_States

Dakota 2y ago

I don’t think that that would work though. People could choose to not contribute to build the road but still benefit from the road after it was built. It would become a game of chicken to see who could get away without contributing. And it’s terrible for poor people; they have the least to contribute but the most to gain from it. In this road example, rich people could afford to continue to pay their way around the inconvenience of not having a road, while the poor could not do that. If taxes are collected from everyone, then everyone pays for the service that they all benefit from.

Nate 2y ago

You are assuming that if taxes arent forced then no one will pay them.

Lots of philanthropists today donate to causes they wish to support, as was normal before compulsory taxes. You vote with your consumer dollar, why not also vote with your tax dollar?

Dakota 2y ago

Yeah, I don’t think the philanthropist argument is really strong.

Nate 2y ago

Compare an employment model where you are guaranteed to never be fired no matter what, to a model where your compensation entirely depends value-for-value on your performance.

Which produces the better performance and life for you and others?

If 100 years of compulsory taxes led to the current unsustainable financial situation and debt spiral, then of what use is it to double down on the same failed approach?

To be clear, you are supporting state violence against any citizen for simply disagreeing over financial management. Shoplifting under $1k is de facto legal in California, but if I withhold my property taxes you'll look the other way while I get evicted, imprisoned or shot by police.

The 'civilized society' in America is beholden to the people, not vice-versa.

Dakota 2y ago

I don’t think that is an analogous comparison though. If the government fucks up, they get voted out of office, so their incentive is to not fuck up. If the issue keeps getting worse among all political options, eventually riots and civil unrest happens until the fuckiness unfucks itself.

You know it’s possible there could be other causes to our current unstable financial situation besides tax collection, right? Corruption, terrible financial planning, terrible trade agreements, terrible regulation, deficit spending… it’s possible to collect tax and run a balanced budget. What evidence do you have that it is only taxes that are entirely the cause of the current financial situation?

And to be clear, no, I am not supporting state violence against citizens who disagree with financial management. I disagree with a lot of the things that the state does, and they are not committing violence against me.

I have yet to hear a compelling alternative to tax collection.