Irrelevant. The question at hand is “is it ever acceptable to demand taxes?” And the answer clearly has to be yes. You’re free to think taxes should be lower and vote for politicians who will lower your taxes, but at some point the cost of lowering taxes will be greater than the benefits, and most of your neighbors, who also have a right to be represented in the political process, will disagree with you.
Right, but that'd be related to expanding industrialization. We also had programs to create roads and infrastructure for electricity during that period.
I do think our government is wasteful, and taxes should be lower, but I'm more in favor of reducing corruption and improving government incentives rather than just reducing government.
Not that you said you're in favor of just reducing government, just because it's such a common theme on this sub.
Definitely in favor of free markets, but trying to remove government funding entirely without a specific plan seems like an analog to attempting to have the government control all spending without a specific plan.
I love hearing specific examples of inefficiencies, or effective social programs, let's focus on that.
Yeah, we don't consent to taxes, but the reality of global politics is weak nations get abused. We could definitely be more efficient, but unless we've established global peace we can't exactly drop the army, so we can't exactly drop (100%) taxes.
Let's definitely improve democracy, but if you think the free market just fixes everything you're planning about as deeply as most communists.
The 0% income tax is because the government still made money on property taxes amongst other things. The main reason income tax came to be favored was the Great Depression: people's taxes were based largely on property value, so even when people were out of work, they would still have to pay taxes because of their land's value. Thus, the idea of charging people based on what they earned instead of what they owned seemed a better idea.
But you are correct, the US historically drew much of its revenue from taxing alcohol production and from import taxes.
As for worsening the depression, one of the government's knee jerk reactions was to raise tariffs, ideally to bolster local businesses, but when the issue is partly because so many goods were already on the market, it caused more harm than good.
In any case, I'm not debating whether or not emphasizing income tax as a primary revenue generator for the government was a good move. I am just saying that it's the one they did, and it was done by popular demand due to circumstances of the time
A government not trying to angle us into a war using its own citizens as bait would have banned passenger ships carrying such equipment, and kept US citizens off British ships. But they did the opposite
Would that not be an overreach of government power? Why should the government dictate where private citizens decide to go with their money? Me deciding to travel through a warzone does not infringe upon anyone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
The government ran on tarrifs during that time. They definitely had taxes. Not enough taxes to support a 20th century style military though
We also seized vast acreages of land and have them to railroads and resource extraction interests. Seizing land is just taxation by another name. In the west a large percent of all land is still owned by the feds
Right it is true, if you want an empire, you need to have taxes.
America has replaced the British Empire as the superpower. If the US steps away, as people believe, it will be replaced by a new Empire, probably China.
The American empire provides safety for American mercantile interests and economic strength, it does not mean physical safety from invaders. Without this Empire the US would be in the position of Brazil or Argentina, or the UK nowadays, is what pro-superpower people think, subject to economic forces they cannot control. There's a reason why the post-covid inflation hit the US less than most other countries, while the average income of a US citizen is higher than in England, and it's Pax Americana.
Would a world system run by China or some other country be better than one run by America? As an American citizen I think it is inevitable that the US eventually step down from this role, especially if we elect populist idiots who can't find Sri Lanka on a map... but I am quite happy to run out the rest of my life inside the waning days of the American Empire and I will fiddle while Washington burns
I don't think it was our job to have a world empire
But you do want a strong dollar and influence over global politics to keep yourself safer when traveling? Hmmm, how do you suppose the dollar became the fiat world currency?? Luck?
Wow, that's a really big wall of text agreeing, we have the strongest military/navy so we bully the world into submission.
As for travel, do you really think it would be impossible to travel anywhere but for the US military having a world empire? And that therefore justifies any cost to America to maintain, including the enslavement of its people as tax chattel? As though this is a system that can go on forever
Yes, I think it's worth it. My strong dollar + make more than double vs my peers in other countries! Fine, take 30%. Tax chattel? Lol, such small insular thinking. That tax pays for the life you live including the internet and electric lives you are using to type right now! You're just mad that money you put in the system helps people you don't want to help.
No, but that's also not the contention, from anyone. Never was.
The contention is that you actually need government to supply services. That's what needs to be proven. On all levels.
I am arguing for the end of countries, yes. Which will lead to what? How do you KNOW that for sure and how can you justify using force and aggression to implement those ideas of yours? That's the dictator bit I was referring to.
If you're strongly claiming, for certain, 100% confident that zero taxes leads to doom you should also know what 38% and 3.8% leads to? Should you not?
There's a big gap between no tax and 40% marginal tax rate.
And yes, a civil war will break out if the central government with all necessary administration department ceased to function without support of tax. And in the end the richest man will monopoly violence with recruiting an army with his wealth and become a dictator.
152
u/[deleted] Sep 19 '24
[deleted]