Also this...

http://bit.ly/QtSaD

have you read dan ariely's book?

yea good luck abolishing government.

How to win an argument in one sentence: "Let's face it, (x) is because of (y)."

Are you alright, dude? This is starting to seem slightly unhinged.

"Taxpayer" is not something you're charged with; it's not a crime. It's not even an accusation. If you live here, own property and/or make money, you owe federal taxes, and probably state as well. The only "evidence" required is that you meet those requirements and, if you do, there are plenty of records that would show that you do: a W2 and/or property deed pretty much covers it.

As for whether not not the government can do what it does, it's right there in Article 1 of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

>> ^blankfist:

Also this...



I do, however, support "getting the sweet booty".

I plan on using this argument next time I rent an apartment. Sure, I moved there intentionally, but if my son is born there then he should be able to benefit from it indefinitely for free.

Charging my kid rent after I die, regardless of age, would be theft... when did he ever sign a lease? He didn't choose to be born there and it's a really nice building so why should he be expected to move? If anyone demands payment then he can just request "evidence" and "the facts" about what a "rentpayer" or "rentable occupancy" is.

Sure, it takes money for the "landlord" to keep the place in good condition, but that isn't my kid's problem. If anyone else thinks they aren't paying enough rent to keep the building running then they're more than welcome to pay extra.

>> ^Psychologic:

I plan on using this argument next time I rent an apartment. Sure, I moved there intentionally, but if my son is born there then he should be able to benefit from it indefinitely for free.
Charging my kid rent after I die, regardless of age, would be theft... when did he ever sign a lease? He didn't choose to be born there and it's a really nice building so why should he be expected to move? If anyone demands payment then he can just request "evidence" and "the facts" about what a "rentpayer" or "rentable occupancy" is.
Sure, it takes money for the "landlord" to keep the place in good condition, but that isn't my kid's problem. If anyone else thinks they aren't paying enough rent to keep the building running then they're more than welcome to pay extra.


My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't gauge the real mood of this comment! However, it brings to mind a thought experiment I have been playing with recently about government systems that are maintained only by volunteering funds. It's existence would be akin to the salvation army, or a church in the way funding is captured. The benefits are you directly support elements of government that you elect to. For instance, I don't agree with social welfare programs, but if I saw the government was doing a better job than salvation army, I could give more (or less if they do poor, less to the order of none). Same goes for NASA, I hate that taxes are co-opted from people, but I would willing give many dollars to this particular cause.

The counter argument to this is, of course, if people aren't forced to do something, they won't. A dubious argument, that has elements of truth...but is mostly inaccurate IMO. I think one of the inherit flaws in government entities is their immunity to the demands of the people. Our demands get trickled though representatives that then get diluted among other representatives. In a system of direct finance, you vote with your dollar, and every vote counts its weight in gold. It would be a first in the world that a government ever exists completely by voluntary funding. It sounds wacky and unrealistic because it has never been done before, ever. With that said, I know it can work because we see things like it work around us all the time. Perhaps it can't work for everything the government needs to do, like national defense, or international affairs, but for literally everything else, I think it has merit.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

-it brings to mind a thought experiment I have been playing with recently about government systems that are maintained only by volunteering funds. [...]
-I hate that taxes are co-opted from people [...]
-In a system of direct finance, you vote with your dollar, and every vote counts its weight in gold. [...]

I would love to see such an experiment actually play out if it were possible. I say give a large sample of people a choice between a voluntary payment system and a tax-based representative system (not that those are the only two types available).

Firstly, it would be interesting to see how many people choose each. Who would choose absolute choice/liberty over (hopefully) consistent income/ownership based taxation? The voluntary system could seem more Darwinian with a higher achievement cap, but the taxation system could be seen as more stable.

Secondly, it would be wonderful to see both systems play out with the people who choose each. Which system really would be more stable? How much unrest is there at the low-income end of each? Which one provides a better environment for technological innovation? As time goes on, how many people (and who) choose to relocate from one system to the other? (Each system could perhaps determine its own penalties/rewards for those leaving or joining the system.)


Sadly, I don't see a good way to carry out such an experiment, but perhaps we could try some pilot programs. I wonder how many wars we would wage if funding them was voluntary...

@GeeSussFreeK, @Psychologic, this experiment was tried. It was called "the United States" until about 1932.

Basically the answer was that voluntary donation for humanitarian purposes, and ecological purposes wasn't zero, but it was trivial compared to the money that goes towards those causes now, and the increased funding and universalized benefits made massive improvements in human welfare.

This is kinda the problem I have with even moderately libertarian arguments. The US wasn't a pure libertarian ideal at any point, but a lot of the big changes libertarians want were in place (no Social Security, Medicare, public schools, income tax, Federal reserve, labor laws, food safety laws, environmental laws, etc.) in the US for a long time, and the result wasn't pretty, even if you overlook stuff like slavery. Hell, you even had an extended period of lawlessness in the West, where "police brutality" was never an issue -- just holdups, kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. Lynchings in the public square were what made for justice back in those times.

Instead of giving rise to a perfect libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/whateverist society that had no need of government, it gave rise to the country that we live in now.

So, you're really one of these people who constantly whinges that people are 'stealing' all of your hard earned dollars and you see nothing back for it.

I have absolutely ZERO time for this bullshit line of thinking. What the fuck happened to living as part of a community and everyone contributing towards making it a fair and just place for all to live. What bullshit that you think you should never pay any taxes even though you benefit from them. It's this ME ME ME ME fucking attitude that I fucking detest in people.

I am in the highest tax bracket here in Australia because I earn good money. Before I was earning that sort of money I always supported the sliding tax scale and the richer paying more because they can afford it. And you know what, I'm in that top bracket now, I could do with more money to be sure, but I am MORE than happy to pay the top tax amount because I firmly believe in the good that taxes do.

As a quick and super tangible example, our first son was born with a host of complex heart problems (to be specific: Transposition of the Great Arteries,
Hypoplastic Right Ventricle,Hypoplastic Tricuspid Valve,Large VSD,Dominant Left Ventricle,Severe Pulmonary and Subpulmonary stenosis). These required him to be in intensive care for the first month of his life, and he has been back in hospital for open heart surgery twice since to continue the operations that allow him to live a close to normal life.

How much are we out of pocket for this world class care and hospital time?

$0

Well, actually the parking at the hospital is a bit steep at $6 or so a stay.

So yeah, that and the many, many other things we benefit from for our tax dollars are GOOD THINGS

Tax is a GOOD THING

You can argue all you like about HOW the money is spent, and rally against bad spending of it, but trying to suggest you should never pay tax is a-grade self centred and ridiculous bullshit.

Taxes shmaxes.

The real problem with thugverment has been its devolution from guardian of the rule of law to an indefensible, unaccountable gangster leviathan with none of the charm of the real mafia.

Taxes are wonderful? So is NOT losing 60 billion EVERY year to Medicare fraud, then demanding even more money from taxpayers at the end of a gun.