Question to Statists: How is Taxation Not Theft?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mr.Deez, Dec 1, 2011.

  1. considering that 60% of all basic infrastructure in the USA has been given the grade of D-, i don't think those toll booths are going to do the trick and certainly won't give motivation to the corporations who are already failing to keep up with their billion$+ investments on interstates & so forth
     

  2. Why are you advocating extorting money from me? Im forced to pay for the roads just because I work for a living. I'd only be hurting myself by not using them.


    Hint: regulations. Also, it's hard to compete against someone who is legally allowed steal from everyone. Block goes over all of this & more in his book (I linked it earlier).
     
  3. #43 Zylark, Dec 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2011
    Taxes by and large isn't theft. One need to remember that taxes buy you the ability to do business. By means of education, infrastructure, security and a common and enforced rulebook.

    But excessive taxation do exist, where money are squandered on idle or useless priorities and projects. Examples are to many to mention. Such use of tax-money _is_ theft, as those money could be used much better by the individual or by business.

    The biggest problem as I see it is out of control beurocracies. They don't use taxes as a means to provide services for the common good, but rather to employ themselves, grow even more beurocracy, and provide genereous amounts of benefits to ensure even more are sucking on the state-tit making more prone to vote for those promising more funds to the state-tit, at the expense of the productive, and invariably private, sector.

    As I see it, there should be a hard limit on taxation. Say 25% on income, capital gains and sales tax. That's it. Then our politicians and beurocrats would have a hard limit to keep within. No taking up debt to fund whatever. Live within ones means on a state level, just as any household should do.

    There is no magic to it. Income must at the end of the year exceed expenses, even for government. And if the taxes get to high, funding will after a while decline, as there are better places to do business than within an oppressive tax-regime.

    I am sure most western societies would get by just fine with half the administrative staff it currently employs. Some of the money saved could even be used for something usefull, like more funding for universities and research, general education. Better infrastructure. More police in the streets rather than paper-pushers at the police-station. More nurses and doctors rather than bean-counters and sociologists. And so on and so forth.

    Get down to the basics of public services, actually providing a service...

    edit: a little actual anectode; A couple of years ago the police here in Norway was granted enough funds to employ a couple of hundred new people within the police, seeing as it was deemed that crime was on the rise and more police needed on the streets. What actually happened, was that near 90% of the new positions happened to be administrative. And only about half of graduated recruits from our police-acadamy actually got a job. Despite a desperate need...

    The situation is not much better with our public health service. Not to mention within education or infrastructure.

    As for a fictional anectode, I am reminded of the episode of "Yes Minister" (UK sitcom, mid 80s') where the Minister of Administrative Affairs get wind of a new hospital being completed. And fully staffed by some 500 administrators... Not one on the medical staff though, as there were no funds for that, and in either case such personell would just be in the way for the run-in period. Besides, that hospital had just won the Florence Nightingale award for most hygienic hospital, and that got to count for something, right?
     

  4. Where can I go to not pay taxes and be exempt from government?
     

  5. no lol what regulation makes it so you can't start a company that builds roads? you cant start a private road building business because the capital expenditures vs returns is not sustainable for anyone who is actually trying to make money.

    as a matter of fact the government contracts with private companies to build roads. so you just defeated your own ideology by saying private sector institutions couldnt compete with publicly funded ones.

    even though the roads are built by private contractors, they arent paid by individual customers.
     

  6. somewhere with no government... obviously.
     

  7. Cool. Where's that?
     
  8. #48 mbfm, Dec 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2011
    international ocean or on another planet.

    you can live on the country i claimed on an island in the pacific... theres no tax but you must suckle my penis daily or death penalty
     
  9. You're cute, but it's more like this.

    Bankers manipulate the currency --> public sector receives artificial credit
    Bankers offer easy access loans --> public sector is fooled into malinvestment
    Bankers contract easy access loans --> public sector transfers wealth to bankers
     

  10. so your solution is what? nationalize banking?
     
  11. H.R. 1098: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

    The people will choose a currency of honest weights and measures, not one that which is manipulated by banking interests, for banking interests, the rest of us be damned.

    Competition benefits the consumer, so it will also serve us well in the effectiveness of currency.
     
  12. #54 Zylark, Dec 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2011
    Riders are not free. The artist pays for it on a 1:1 measure, if not more.

    I got some experience in the concert-business, from club level to stadium gigs. And trust me, the promoter will deduct both hospitality as technical rider from the gross income. So unless the artists management have set a fixed sum only (as opposed to fixed sum + percentage of net), all expenses down to the last bottle of beer comes out of the artists pocket, plus a premium called overhead.

    And most operate with fixed sum + percentage of net. Those that don't are usually those that are so friggin huge with an apparatus to suit that they do all the legwork themselves. Except sweep the venue afterwards :D

    And that includes the beer-stands proceeds, which when you come right down to it is the milk and butter of any concert profits :)

    So our dear magnetically challenged Mentally Retarded Insane Clown Posse might as well wonder where the money comes from for their hospitality rider. Just don't tell them its their own wallets... :smoke:
     
  13. Financial situations aside, most countries have limits to how long you can stay, and if you can even work in that country....it is not as easy as picking up and moving.
     

  14. Wouldn't you still be forced to pay money if it was a "voluntary" fee to use a road?

    I see your point about the competition.
     
  15. Forced in the sense that you are choosing to use that road at that point in time, yes. But the choice to use that road is your choice to make, under a private system the consensus is that the best way of raising revenue for maintenance of roads is the toll booth, some sort of user fee.

    With what we have now you're money goes towards all state & federal managed roads, whether you will ever use them or not, or anyone else for that matter.

    Less bureaucracy and labor to pay, end result is cheaper. We've all seen the DOT guys doing road maintenance, how many times do you see a bunch of them just chilling on the side while one guy or otherwise small minority are doing the manual labor?

    Makes you want to take a 20k a year job that only requires you to say Stop, Go ahead, Stop. :laughing:
     
  16. I wouldn't be threatened with violence or fraud to pay for a road in a voluntary system if I didn't want to.
     
  17. #59 [0[eagjo, Dec 3, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN6dHe9cfYM&list=PL360420093529BA15&index=5&feature=plpp_video]Anarcho-Capitalism - YouTube[/ame]

    Could somebody please refute this? Especially 12:35
     

  18. I actually do think roads should be made private so it isn't the best example. And i think people should be taxed based on usage. Its only when people use it and complain about being taxed where im like "come on man".
     

Share This Page