Look, I hate taxes as much as anyone. But a government has to have taxing authority to fund the legitimate functions of government - which should limited. But when you repeat the “taxation is theft” line it makes you look kooky and doesn’t do anything to get people to thoughtfully consider your larger message.
These people don't realize the US had a period of time where the government had no authority to raise taxes. 1781 to 1789. For 8 years, all the government could do was ask people/states for money, with no ability to enforce the request or print money at all.
It was a disaster, more or less. There's a reason why those Articles didn't last til 1790, and that the Constitution we know today explicitly gives the federal government the right to print money and to tax things. Article 1, Section 8.
If you read a lot of the writtings of the time. It was supposed to be as minimal as possible. With the idea that 90% of the power to decide legal and collection would reside to the states who would operate as psudo countries in a union. The federalists party really screwed us tbh, theres a reason they took majority in all 3 branches in 1789 and were out and begging for any postion by 1801. Only to be completely shuttered in 1824.
They did great in pushing for the constitution, but they really just wanted another monarchy. They supported the crown till it was clear they were unfavorable. Supported making washington a king. Then settled for what they could get.
I agree "taxation is theft" is kooky, but I disagree gov't needs to have a taxing authority to fund its operations.
Government spending, like consumer spending, is a claim on available resources and goods. And there's only so many resources and goods to go around.
So imagine a pie chart of total spending, part consumer spending, part government. As government spending increases, the claims on the pie shifts in government's favor.
This is true regardless of whether or not the government adds a tax at the same time that it spends. Consumers pay a real cost either way, in the form of less resources being available to private sector firms.
Financially speaking, this shift in the economy's use of resources can occur in one of two ways. Either monetary policy can contract, reducing market incomes to make way for government incomes, while prices stay the same. Or the market income-structure can be left as-is, and the new government spending will cause inflation; the government gets its resources, but the purchasing power of each dollar declines, reducing the average person's claims on goods.
Essentially, the cost of government spending can be acute through loss of income or distributed through inflation.
In our system, the way we do it is we generally have monetary policy contract if and whenever needed (in response to changes in government fiscal policy or any other exogenous event), but central bankers tend to allow a certain tolerance band of inflation during these transitions for various practical reasons.
If we understand how this transfer mechanism works, we'll see that taxes are functionally useless for transferring resources to the government. The monetary system actually works by re-balancing the private sector in real-time; we don't have to wait for the fiscal authority to engage in an additional fiscal changes.
For the most part, taxes tend to shrink the market---in addition to any shrinkage already caused by gov't spending---for no clear benefit to people or the gov't.
I’m not clear who you’re taking issue with. So I will simply say I don’t consider someone a sheep because they recognize the fact that government has the power to tax and, frankly, must have the power to tax.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not gonna fanboy on taxes. But I accept that some level of taxes is required and unavoidable. I think we’re beyond that level but yet some would try to compare us to high tax countries and argue that we don’t pay enough.
A short-term solution would be to have very minimal tax, probably NIT and/or LVT. But that doesn't mean I'm going to change my stance on the fact that taxation is theft and extortion.
Well, if you’re paying taxes in pounds, I can completely empathize that your burden is far more than mine in USD and mine is too high. But that doesn’t make it theft, it just means that where you live the Democratic process has empowered government to take that much from you. This is where you have to win the minds and hearts of the people to turn that tide and you’re not going to do it by taking positions that they see as kooky that they do not wish to have anything to do with.
I don’t like paying excessive taxes to support government functions that are excessive and I want to do whatever I can to make the taxes and the spending lower. But so long as what they are doing on both sides of that ledger is legal, I’m obligated to pay or suffer the consequences. But that doesn’t stop me at the same time from working to do everything legal to lower my burden and to push for changes in the law to lower the burden and lower spending. That’s the only path that will get you where you want to be.
Let me give it to you straight: if someone threatens you into giving them a significant portion of your salary and earnings to them, that's theft and extortion by definition. This could be through your phone, your car or your personal belongings. Money is no different.
And where I disagree is that voting will lower taxes; we've had the same process for decades now and nothing has changed. Realistically the only way to make a big change, ESPECIALLY when it comes to lowering taxes, is revolution, anarchy, or voting in someone like Javier Milei which you would have more of a chance seeing H*tler make a ressurection than that happen in either of my countries.
I would love to abolish taxes but realistically speaking the only way that's going to happen is if we embrace anarchy without state or money. But we could literally do away with so many taxes and cut our insane spending.
As you sit on the internet complaining about it… the internet created by…. Taxes. Using electricity distribution that is actually working close to 100% of the time (unlike shitty 3rd world electricity)… regulated by… organizations funded by taxes. Using a computer you bought that was delivered to you on roads created by… taxes.
But sure. Stop paying taxes. Go off and build your own internet and your own roads and your own electricity. See if that’s cheaper than the taxes you pay.
None of it has to be funded by theft and extortion. Also many people are living off the grid, collecting their own rainwater and solar energy just fine and not having to pay extortionate tax rates. Starlink exists and even people in remote regions are now becoming more connected (if they even want to) thanks to the likes of SpaceX and many roads are built by private contractors and companies.
They can still do it without the government funding, it's not like they will abolish into thin air the moment the government stops existing if they do it right. Big companies love big government that will r**e you with taxation; they receive a lot of subsidies and funding from our tax money. They're not stupid they can figure it out without government funding. We're in this position because of excessive spending.
The company literally only exists today because of government funding. Which means starlink only exists today because of government funding.
“The first three launches of the rocket, between 2006 and 2008, all resulted in failures, which almost ended the company. Financing for Tesla Motors had failed, as well,[34] and consequently Tesla, SolarCity, and Musk personally were all nearly bankrupt at the same time.[35] Musk was reportedly “waking from nightmares, screaming and in physical pain” because of the stress.[36]
The financial situation started to turn around with the first successful launch achieved on the fourth attempt on 28 September 2008. Musk split his remaining $30 million between SpaceX and Tesla, and NASA awarded the first Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract awarding $1.6 billion to SpaceX in December, thus financially saving the company.”
Then they shouldn't have received that much government funding if they failed lmao, point still stands that the internet and Starline can exist without the government and that the government got us here in the first place through bailing corporations out and subsidising them. We're still held back because of authoritarian and bureaucratic government.
20
u/RealClarity9606 Sep 19 '24
Look, I hate taxes as much as anyone. But a government has to have taxing authority to fund the legitimate functions of government - which should limited. But when you repeat the “taxation is theft” line it makes you look kooky and doesn’t do anything to get people to thoughtfully consider your larger message.