this thread doesnt have to get deep with the ideaologies behind your opinion, but post away. do you think that if tomorrow a first world country stopped collecting any taxes of any kind, the richest in a country would provide financial support to maintain a government? i think they would, as the alternatives are fairly grim.
why would they do that? wouldn't you think they would like to keep their money? they are already taxed at the highest level out of anyone else in a given country.
Hell no. Why would anyone willingly support corruption and violence? On second thought, maybe. If there still was a government, just no taxes, they might still "pay", or more accurately buy, the government much the same as they do now to maintain control of it.
the super elites already ppay the government in the form of bribes and they still benefit from wielding power. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Lets think about this sociologically. If there's no tax, the gov has no source if income. Without income, the gov can't operate because they cant pay employees. If the gov doesn't exist, there's no agency to enforce laws Without laws, nothing stops the poor from robbing the rich of their wealth...this is survival instinct here because there would be no more schools, public hospitals, welfare or food stamps. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
No, and neither would the people that call for higher taxes on them. By the way, part of the legal definition (not just that of libertarians) of a tax includes the term "involuntary". So regardless, they wouldn't be paying "taxes", but maybe I'm just splitting hairs.
I'm not sure they could afford it. In America for example, the budget of the federal government for 2013 was 3.8 trillion. The top fifty richest people in America are only worth a little over a trillion dollars, I dont think it would be supported. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Yeah if we go by incomes, it doesn't look good either. American Population 313000000.00 1% 0.01 Number of People in Top 1% 3130000.00 Average income of 1%er $ 717000 Total Wealth of Top 1% $ 2,244,210,000,000.00 That's assuming the top 1 percent worked just as much and just as hard, and gave every last dime away. It wouldn't cover it.
What happens to the Federal Reserve if the government isn't able to enforce the monopoly it has on money creation?
Their board members go back to their respective places in academia and banking (a now less profitable sector).
How much is the law and order budget, tho? That's all that would really matter in the OP's implied scenario. That's kinda how I'm reading it. I could be wrong.
Well, yes, the alternatives for these super rich are pretty grim without government protection. Proper governance does not necessarily require taxes. Abolition of government may lead to smaller, self-sufficient "governments" that are more decentralized. Without a central planning power, communities would have to come together and decide a course of action. In short, the alternatives are actually the opposite of grim for the people. What alternatives come to mind that you view as grim?
right. im imagining basic social services being supported and not much else. a basic law enforcement and minimal health care. idk. a country without a police force, fire department, or medical services to say the least.
If there were no taxes government would charge a fee for all services then the Supremes would consider that fee a tax and we'd be right back here where we are now. Or maybe we'd have no government and would regress to earlier times when wealthy people lived behind big walls and kept private armies. No matter what happens, the wealthy wouldn't selflessly fund government. That would make them suckers.
The richest would only provide financial support if they become the government. And then they would re-introduce taxes.