Uh no guy. Objectivism supports voluntary taxation, just like libertarianism. Ayn Rand says, “in a fully free society, taxation – or, to be exact, payment for governmental services – would be voluntaryâ€. So long as it is a voluntary tax, such as user fees or excises, then it is moral. Any taxes on personal income is coercive, and not even necessary.
I'll address only private fire departments in this post. I can address roads later if you wish. Fire protection is a service like anything else. It is a service because some see it as essential to their safety. Because of that those things can, and are, sold on the free market. There are already a number of successful private fire departments in this country. AIG maintains (or did until it went belly up) a private fire department which protected it's clients from California wild fires. Aircraft giant Boeing also has a private fire protection service, which is in fact one of the largest private fire protection companies in the world. The Herritage Foundation has recently blogged about private fire departments citing a study conducted by the Reason Foundation entitled "Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety." This study cited many different real life examples of how private fire departments are saving cities money every year. One example I really like, and the one the Herritage Foundation article references, is that of Savannah, Georgia. The study notes that the Southside Fire Department, a private fire department in Savannah, saves the city some $2.5-$3 million in capital expenses and $1 million in annual operating expenses every single year. Those are significant savings. The study also cites how much money consumers are saving each year by having subscribing to their services. The study notes: "Residents subscribe because doing so saves them money. The owner of a typical $100,000 house in Chatham County, for instance, will save about $300 to $350 on insurance per year. Since the cost of a subscription (on a $100,000 home) is only $113, that means the homeowner will save a net total of about $200 to $250, or 60 to 65 percent on his insurance" (pp. 13-14). Many municipalities are starting to see the benefits of private fire protection and more and more places are starting to open up to the idea. The major flaw I see in many of these places is that cities will contract out the service to a private company. While the private company must deliver at a cheaper rate I believe that simply allowing a completely free market in the fire protection would deliver an even better service and a lower rate. Allowing multiple companies to compete would further reduce the price of this service as they fought for control of the market. It is also important to eliminate the taxes paid to fund public fire departments, allowing taxpayers more money to be spent how they please. Without a government monopoly on fire protection I can envision a world wherein everyone is covered by some form of private fire protection. It could be mandated that you subscribe to a fire protection company by your mortgage company, just the same as they require that you carry home owners insurance. But at least you can shop around and choose the company you like the most to provide that service. I'm sure there will be some that do not subscribe to such a service, as would be their right, yet you and I might not be endangered by them. Since the role of a private fire department is to ensure the safety of your home if your neighbors home catches on fire they could be called out to ensure that your home does not burn down. The fire department isn't really attempting to "save" a house from burning down. They are in reality attempting to contain the fire to a single dwelling so it doesn't spread. That being the case your company might simply sit back and monitor your neighbors fire. I would suspect that if it looked as though the fire might spread they would act to either contain your the fire in your neighbors house or put it out completely. Government isn't needed to have adequate fire protection. The market can provide it better and cheaper.
You said it yourself... even private fire departments are paid for using public funds. What happens when someone can not afford to get fire insurance or pay to clean up their house after it has burned? Hypothetically... you are my neighbor. You 'choose' not to have any fire insurance. You have no savings to speak of, so when your house burns down, you can't pay for a private fire department to come and it. Because of your choice, I have to -PAY someone- to come and make sure -YOUR fire- doesn't burn -MY HOUSE- to the ground? We've already established that you can not afford to do it (hypothetically). Am I understanding that correctly?? After I've paid for someone to come and monitor your burning house, who's going to clean up your mess? You owe more money then it's worth (remember, there used to be a house there), so you can't sell. So now your neighbors are going to have to pay to clean it up themselves, or risk their property values going down. What gives you the right to put your neighbors property in danger? Not only in value, but in physical danger? Why should they have to clean up your mess? Not everyone is going to have the forethought to save up for such events, and not everyone is going to be able to afford it. Thus, we all chip in so we don't have to live in neighborhoods with burnt, charred houses collapsing around us.
In some places, yes. The point was that private fire departments are more efficient. The case of Southside Fire Department in Georgia is one in which residents pay for it, not the city. It is funded through a subscription program. The fact that some cities opt to pay a private company for this services doesn't negate the fact that a private company is more efficient. And there are good examples of how these companies operate off of a subscription basis. Are you talking about now or under privatization? If you had bothered to read anything I wrote you will see that the cost associated with private fire protection is more than off set by savings on your homeowners insurance. Since most people carry home owners insurance your question is invalid. If we had total privatization you'd see the price for this service come down even more as companies compete for customers. As for cleaning up the house it would still be your responsibility as it is now. The city doesn't pay to clean up your house after it burns down. That is your responsibility. For most people insurance pays for this. Others rent dumpsters and do it themselves. No, you've paid a fire protection company to protect your house from fire. You aren't paying them to put out your neighbors house. You are paying them to ensure that your house does not burn down. The company can make a call one way or the other. They might just sit back and let the house burn if it is not threatening your house or they would either contain the fire and let it die out or actively seek to put it out. If putting your neighbors fire out is in the best interest of protecting your home then that is what they would do. The service you pay for is the protection of your home and that is what you get. If you "owe more money then it's worth" then likely you'd have insurance. If that is the case then, depending on your policy, either you would pay to clean up the mess or your insurance company would. It would be no different than it is today. Cities do not clean up the mess. That responsibility falls on your shoulders. Even under a private system it would still be your responsibility to clean it up. Perhaps you should talk to your local insurance agent to fully understand the simple concept of home owners insurance. It's not a hard thing to grasp. How about next time instead of simply arguing your socialist agenda you take the time to read what is written and check the references. Also, try to have some understanding of what you are arguing because it is clear you do not. If you did have even the slightest understanding of this issue you would already know that A) the city isn't going to clean up the mess after your house burns down and B) a fire department isn't trying to save a house from a fire. By the time they get there it is usually too late. They are trying to contain the fire so that it doesn't spread to other structures. It would be no different with a private system.
I agree that private enterprise is always more efficient than the public equivalent. Why do you think that is? It's because private enterprise can pick and choose who it does business with. When it comes to life-threatening, necessary services, this does not benefit the public. It benefits the private enterprise. They aren't 'competing' for business. Our houses are going to burn down regardless. We aren't going to start burning them down at a faster rate in order to get in on the 2-for-1 discount. Supply and demand. The demand isn't going to go up, and it will be a HIGHLY competitive industry with few survivors. In a small town, where there might only be one fire a month, just how much competition can there be? So we're left with a monopoly anyway. Except now they can charge us whateverthefuck they want to. OR, more realistically, they can charge our insurance companies whatever they want, which will make the cost of our policies go up (hmmm... does this sound like another private industry) Uh.. no. It doesn't work this way. If a fire on YOUR property damages MY property, you are 100% responsible. I don't need to pay someone to protect me from YOUR responsibility. Even if they "sit back and watch", you think someone is going to do that for free? I will pay for insurance to cover MY mistakes, but you pay for YOUR mistakes. You're fucking crazy if you think I'm going to pay for both. I could maybe get behind the idea of a private fire department if people were forced to have fire protection, so that people CAN'T just let their houses burn down and risk other people's houses and lives in the process. No one else should have to pay to protect themselves from your fire. But forced insurance? That's not very free market either.
Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron that exists only in your head. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax, if it were voluntary then it would be called something else.
Are you serious? What do you think taxes on certain goods are? Gasoline tax is voluntary. You don't want to pay it, then don't buy gas. Cigarette tax, you don't want to pay, don't smoke.
Grocery taxes are voluntary. You don't want to pay it then don't buy food Consumption taxes not voluntary. It is no easier to avoid all consumption, then it is to avoid all income. For a tax to be voluntary, you must be able to both opt in and out. If you can not choose to purchase the product and opt out of the tax, there is nothing voluntary about it. I think consumption is a great way to go about taxing, never the less taxes are not voluntary.
Hang on, I hate to bring this thread back tot his tangent, but if someone doesn't have to pay for it, doesn't that make it a donation, and not a tax? How would this sort of thing work for a fire department in a town that hasnt had a fire in three weeks?
The gasoline tax factors in to the price of everything. Goods don't just magically appear in stores. If I want to buy food, I'm paying for the gas it took to get there. There is no such thing as "voluntary" taxes. That's a political term if I ever heard one. Vote for me! I'll only force you to pay voluntary taxes!
Exactly, you don't need to buy food. You can trade with local growers, or grow your own food. Anyways, in my dream system, bare necessities would not be taxed, such as food. I guess the term is confusing, it just means a tax that you aren't directly forced to pay. As is, most fire departments are paid through sales and property taxes. Another tax that isn't truly coercive, but taxes revenue, is the corporate income tax. The difference between that and personal is the person is incapable of "profiting", as they are only paid in the value of their labor. Corporations can be taxed on profits. I guess you're right, but what would you call taxes that a self-sustained survivalist wouldn't need to pay?
Gee, efficiency doesn't have anything to do with constraining cost at all does it. Let's turn on our brains for once, shall we? Fire protection is a service, whether you like it or not. A government monopoly over doesn't negate the fact that it is and always will be a a service. The companies that offer private fire protection will offer it at a price people would want to pay. Why? Because they are in the business of making money. The only way to make more money is to have more customers. Example. If ABC Fire Company sets up shop in Seattle and starts making money selling subscriptions to their customers for the low, low rate of $400 a year then XYZ Fire Company will also do so. Since the Seattle city council just did away with their publicly funded fire department there is now a vacuum in fire services which the XYZ and ABC companies step in to fill. They sign CONTRACTS with their customers to provide fire protection. Because of these CONTRACTS signed with their customers they are obligated to come out and protect their customers structures from fire. In order to compete and get a larger share of the market XYZ Fire Company starts offering their service for $350 a year. In order to compete ABC lowers their price to match. Maybe Bob's Fire Company starts up to offer discount services for even less undercutting the prices of XYZ and ABC. But there is more than just that going on. All of these companies must deliver on their promises. Failure to do so has very dire market consequences. If you are paying for ABC Fire Company to protect your home from fire and they do not dispatch units to your home to protect your home then they are liable for breaking the pre-arranged contract. That opens them up to lawsuits which could severely affect their business. More importantly their reputation is damaged. Customers will hear about their failure to honor their agreements and will start switching to other companies. What you need to do is starting thinking for once in your life. In no industry where there is free competition do you find abusive monopolies. It doesn't matter if it is nuts and bolts, computers or food production or sales. Food is essential so why doesn't the government take over food production? Why aren't all farms run by the government? Why doesn't the government nationalize grocery stores? Isn't food more important than fire protection? But food is cheap and plentiful in this country. My point is that competition does not create monopolies. What it does create is responsible companies that listen to their customers and honor their agreements. Because if they don't do those things they will in short order be facing bankruptcy. And why wouldn't a private fire department set up shop in a small town? The company doesn't make money off of putting out fires. They make money off of selling subscriptions. Their hope is that the cost of maintaining a fire department and putting out fires is less than the revenue they receive. It's a real simple formula. Gross revenue minus expenses = profit. A town of 500 people could still support part time private fire departments. And why not? The likely hood of having a large number of fires to put out every year is low which means more profits for the company. I suggest taking some time to learn about how business operates. Perhaps some more reading would do you well. Most private fire departments sell subscriptions directly to the consumer. The consumer sees an ad and then signs up. Insurance has nothing to do with it. Insurance only steps in when your house actually burns down. At that point the insurance will do what you paid them to do -- clean up the mess and build you a new house. Also, explain how a private monopoly is any different than a public one? Do they not charge us whateverthefuck they want to? Do you actually have any say in how much of your tax dollars go toward fire prevention? No, you don't. But when you have free competition you'll have multiple companies competing for the same limited number of customers. In order to win a larger share of the market they will have to offer low prices and quality service. That is how the market works. A free market never creates an abusive monopoly. But government seems to do a great job of doing just that. You're absolutely right about that! Wow! Good job! Oh...wait a second...what did you say? "I don't need to pay someone to protect me from YOUR responsibility." But isn't that what a public fire department is? You're paying for someone else's responsibility? No, they are going to do that based off of the fees you have already paid. They aren't their for your neighbor. They are there for you. If sitting there and watching your neighbors house burn down is what they feel is best then they will do it. The private company has already been paid BY YOU to watch that fire to make sure it doesn't damage your property. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. Are you even reading what I'm writing or are just arguing for arguments sake? Why is this a difficult concept for you to grasp? You are basically agreeing with me but refusing to acknowledge it. Do I really need to break this down again, or could you just take the time to re-read what I wrote and actually process it before you start freaking out? Why does everything come down to force with you? Why do you feel like you have the right to force people to do anything? Let's go through this one more time, and hopefully you'll get it this time. First, you subscribe to private fire protection. You pay $150 a year for it. Not a bad price. Second, your neighbors house catches on fire. They do not have private fire protection so they are up shit creek (likely they will have it because their mortgage company will require that they do or they will find one for them, just like with home owners insurance). Third, you see the fire and say "Hey, that house might burn down my house. I need to call my fire company!" ring ring. "Hey privately funded fire company, my neighbors house is on fire and I'm afraid it might burn down my house. Would you dispatch a truck out to my property to ensure that this fire does not burn down my house as well, per our mutually agreed to contract?" "Sure!" says the voice on the other end. Fourth, a few minutes later Bob's Local Fire Company shows up to monitor the situation. Bob's has a number of customers on your block and is going to evaluate the fire to ensure that it doesn't get out of control and damage their customers property. Fifth, the captain of that truck determines that the fire is a threat to the rest of their customers and determines the best course of action is to contain the fire. So they pull out their hoses and start dosing the flames and puts out the fire. They did this because their customers, you included, paid them to protect their homes. In the opinion of the truck captain putting out that fire was in the best interest of the customers. Alternatively Bob's Local Fire Company might have a policy of going ahead and putting out the fire anyway knowing that doing so is good publicity and will get them many more customers in the long run. Sixth, Bob's sends out mailers to all of your neighbors a few days later saying "We did a great job protecting your neighbors from that fire. How about signing up with us and get the same level of protection?" Wow...that's really a bad thing isn't it.
this is awfully funny when the ones who are opting for a higher income taxation on everyone, are the ones who don't agree with voluntary taxes. They only like them to be mandatory and that the others expense.
Actually, its not so much they don't agree with voluntary taxes, it's that they claim that according to our philosophy taxation is inherently mandatory, therefore we can't distinguish between voluntary and mandatory kinds. What is funny is when the ones who justify almost all the forms of taxation in this country, and claim they aren't mandatory are the ones who are now telling us that we can't view any taxes as voluntary, and therefore, in effect can't agree with any forms of taxation. God forbid we agree on anything, regardless of whether you agree with the reasoning behind it.
Who are these self sustained survivalists, you? I doubt there is even 1% of Americans in that category. Regardless, those would still be called taxes. They would be, and are, called indirect taxes. The only other type of tax is a direct tax. One example of a direct tax is the corporate income tax you approved of in your post. You have now argued clearly for both direct and indirect taxes. What you fail to see is you are not forced to pay any taxes, but you are going to if you want to live prosperously in America. If you don't want to pay property tax, don't own a home or apartment. If you don't want to pay income taxes, work under the table. If you don't want to pay consumption tax, grow and make from scratch everything you need. You can go to the farthest extreme by leaving America to avoid taxation. You may need to move to a place with more plentiful resources then overpopulated America, because it's tough to thrive when you don't have a home to sleep in, you can't get a real job, and try to grow and make everything you need from scratch. I agree a consumption tax would be a good system and I agree we shouldn't tax food, regardless voluntary taxes are a figment of your imagination. GO ahead and use your patented "look away" if you can't admit your wrong, just comprehend the definition of taxes.
you see in the constitution, you working for another man and being paid a certain wage, isn't a corporate gain where you pay income tax on. It is your own personal property which you own, you are entitled too, and you trade that for a service "capital" in return. When you have a corporation and are hiring people to perform services under your business name, that's a corporate gain where income tax applies. Even if you make 200k a year and don't own your own business, you aren't obliged to income tax, because you aren't making the profits but are being paid for your services which you bring to the corporation.
So, if voluntary taxes don't exist, then all taxes are mandatory? Also, working under the table and not paying income taxes is illegal.
Regardless of what you want to call it, or how you want to define it, the point is that we aren't against all taxation. You're only trying to back us into this corner so that you can discredit our views by either saying we have flawed logic by supporting some and not other taxes, or forcing us to maintain a position of total opposition to all taxes. Well, let me reiterate, most of us aren't in total opposition to all taxes, even if we'd prefer an ideal system with NO taxes. And we can still logically justify some taxation while logically condemning other taxation without approaching it from the voluntary, or direct/indirect argument. You seem to think terminology gives validity to philosophical concepts, when its quite the opposite. Let me get this straight. Let's say the government gave you a choice to pay taxes for something or not. Let's use roads for example. Someone who pays taxes would then be able to use the roads and not pay any tolls. And then someone who doesn't would have to pay the tolls. Shit, that almost makes sense! The people who pay taxes would most likely be frequent drivers (truck drivers?) and therefore save money by paying taxes than if they had to pay the tolls, and those that pay tolls drive infrequently so they save money by paying tolls instead of taxes. And those that don't drive? They don't pay taxes on roads! You can make a similar analogy to any tax, yet it's still mandatory somehow, right, because by definition taxation is mandatory, even if people are given a choice about it. Ok.
you realize you are like the most arrogant kid in this forum, thanks for the private message or rollseyes, what is your point? If we don't give people the option to pay voluntary taxes and use the media as information booths to get people to support government programs which they'd like to see funded, instead of mandatory making people pay unfair amounts to sustain the federal reserve. I guess it's a lot easier when i have no choices, i choose else wise.