[mimx]

(Original post by chefdave)
As land values are enhanced when the government does it's job well (think of the way house prices are boosted in areas with good schools for example) it seems fair to ask land owners to pay the going rate for the government privileges they receive.

So only some taxes are theft. Wha-?

[chefdave]

(Original post by mimx)
So only some taxes are theft. Wha-?

This guy will explain it a lot better than me:

[Astronomical]

(Original post by TheHansa)
The rich get the most from society. They benefit the most from infrastructure, they get corporate welfare, you could argue they get the most from the defence budget because they have the most to defend, need I continue? The relationship between what a person gets from the government and how a rich a person is, is clearly non-linear, the tax system should reflect this.

Amusing.

Wealthier people don't use the NHS (they have private healthcare), and don't receive benefits. That is what a large fraction of the money raised from taxes is spent on, and is also what the poorer people use a lot.

Ergo the wealthier you are, the less you "get back" from what you put in. It's ludicrous.

[Sternumator]

What tax rate raises the most revenue shouldnt be of much interest because tax should be way bellow that. I was shocked at this 'When the increase to 50% was introduced in the March 2010 budget the forecast was that it would raise an additional £2.6bn in 2012/13. That was based on the idea of an extra £7.5bn tax liabilities minus £4.9bn of tax lost due to the individuals affected either being able to restructure their tax liabilities, move abroad etc.' How can they think it is worth creating 7.5bn more tax liabilities for 2.6bn? There must be better things to tax that don't cause such massive distortions.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by mimx)
I remember when I was 17 years and 364 days old. Some hefty looking guy came round with a big book and asked me to sign it.

Because you know, there's no such thing as an implicit contract....

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by chefdave)
Ok then, so if Tescos arranged it so they could forcefully take any % of your income they wished provided they gave you an arbitrary amount of food in return (you may get next to nothing or you may get a luxury hamper every day) you'd be happy that this transaction wasn't rooted in theft?

Once again, the difference between Tescos (and the Mafia) is that they don't absolutely own the area you live in so they have no mandate to take money from you in return for you living on the land.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by mimx)
Theoretically, but in the modern world of immigration laws and border controls you are not truly free to renounce citizenship and leave at will.

Except you can largely emmigrate to another country, certainly within the EU. There are over 300 countries you can potentially migrate to - a venerate free market!

Moreover, if we use the house rental analogy, it's not easy to switch houses at a moments notice and wherever you move you are either homeless or you pay rent.

(Original post by mimx)
Regardless, moral fact doesn't arise from the mere presence of a valid contract. I agreed to it therefore it ought to be done does not follow.

I'd rather just say might makes right and be done with it than the pseudo-rational justification that is the social contract.

Initially it was might makes right. The individual with the strongest power over a area became the monarch and state of the area. However, with democratic reform we have removed the power from a single individual and transferred it to the people who pay the taxes and live in the area, thus giving the state a legitimacy beyond 'might is right'.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by chefdave)
This guy will explain it a lot better than me:

I need a man inside the council planning department

[chefdave]

(Original post by Callum828)
Libertarians at an economic discussion are like teetotallers at a house party.

In fact, that analogy is unfair to teetotallers, at least they can not drink without being dicks about it.

Why do Marxists arrogantly assume they know how to spend my money better than I do?

If you want to live like that then move to North Korea or China, be sure to send us a postcard though letting us know just how liberating it is to have most of your income taken away by the state.

[Mbob]

(Original post by chefdave)
But we're not talking about that right now. Ignore the NHS for a moment and just concentrate on the practicalities of government taxation, the reality of the situation is that they take YOUR money away from you without permission and then spend it on whatever they please. As this transfer of wealth is involuntary any impartial analysis would recognise is as theft.

But as soon as you leave your house, you are walking on a road payed for out of taxation. If you weren't paying taxes then you would be 'stealing' use of that road. Similarly, you are constantly making use of our military, in that you are being defended against foreign powers, or the police, in that you are being defended against criminals. The very fact that you are living in the country means that you are using those services and hence 'stealing' them. The taxes you are asked to pay are therefore not theft but a 'fee' for using those services.

Of course the question then arises of how you can possibly 'opt out' of those services - the answer being that you can't unless you leave the country. The fact that we live in a democracy goes some way to legitimizing the situation though. If you don't accept the principle that a democratic government can levy taxes then you presumably would also not accept that a government can pass laws, or establish a currency. In which case 'property' and 'theft' have no practical meaning; your money and property can simply be taken from you by anyone.

[chefdave]

(Original post by TheHansa)
I need a man inside the council planning department

They'd be no advantage to such an arrangement because the state would simply up your tax bill proportionately. You own a lot of valuable land? You pay more tax. No more free rides.

[Pkysam]

This thread is hilarious, and reminds me of a great Scott Adams quote, which went something along the lines of "I hear people are stockpiling food and cash in case the millennium bug leads to the breakdown of society.. personally, I'm stockpiling guns and ammunition so I can take the cash and food from those people who have failed to properly appreciate the meaning of breakdown of society".

We have created a system in which we live together, share things, but allow some people to have more than others in order to motivate people to work hard, contribute, strive for success. Ultimately this model won out over other models, like forcing people to work hard or throwing them in the gulag. However, ultimately any model like this is a fudge and relies on popular support. If the wealth gap gets too large, and some people have vastly more than others, support is withdrawn and you end up with a revolution. Moaning about tax because you think you have some kind of entitlement to have vastly more resources than everyone else because you feel you are particularly special strikes me as a little arrogant. I suspect most of the super wealthy in this country, including the OP who seems to think he is likely to make great contributions to everyone else's lives that make him worthy of having more resources than everyone else, would fair poorly in an anarchic system where it was each man for himself and allocation of resources was decided at the barrel of a gun.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Once again, the difference between Tescos (and the Mafia) is that they don't absolutely own the area you live in so they have no mandate to take money from you in return for you living on the land.

Ok, well imagine that the country turned on the government in the fit of civil war and Tescos ended up owning a large part of the South East. Would they then be entitled to charge as much as they liked for services they had no obligation to provide?

[Pkysam]

(Original post by chefdave)
Ok, well imagine that the country turned on the government in the fit of civil war and Tescos ended up owning a large part of the South East. Would they then be entitled to charge as much as they liked for services they had no obligation to provide?

In your example, what do you mean by "owning"?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Pkysam)
In your example, what do you mean by "owning"?

Ask captain crash. He said the state has the right to tax whatever level they please because they "absolutely own" the area I live in. I just want to know whether he'd support an identical arrangement if Tescos managed to wrestle ownership rights away from the gov't.

[Aj12]

(Original post by chefdave)
The optimum rate of income tax is actually 0%. If the "independent" OBR recognised that the income tax is legalised theft they'd realise why we need as little of it as possible.

So how would you fund the state?

[bishbash72]

(Original post by chefdave)
Why do Marxists arrogantly assume they know how to spend my money better than I do?

If you want to live like that then move to North Korea or China, be sure to send us a postcard though letting us know just how liberating it is to have most of your income taken away by the state.

A Marxist? Because I believe in taxes? Not quite.

But while I'm there, please do visit Somalia and tell me how you're enjoying living in a country with no government.

P.S. Cuba would have been a better example than China. China is only nominally communist today.

[Pkysam]

(Original post by chefdave)
Ask captain crash. He said the state has the right to tax whatever level they please because they "absolutely own" the area I live in. I just want to know whether he'd support an identical arrangement if Tescos managed to wrestle ownership rights away from the gov't.

My point was just that ownership only exists with the co-operation of everyone, where we all agree to respect it and to uphold and protect it. To do that, we have to agree it is fair. Perhaps "Captain Crash"'s point was that we all share the country, and therefore we all as a collective society can choose to tax the rich because they live within that society. If we decide that there are some things we all need (like roads, police and security, education, health, old people not to be left to die, etc.) and that it is fair to allocate resources in such a way that some of those things we all need are paid by those who have lots of resources, and that those who have very little will be expected to pay less, then that seems absolutely reasonable to me. Comparing that with one person arbitrarily deciding on their own that they are entitled to your things and taking them, without the agreement of anyone else, is not comparing like with like at all. Society collectively insisting that some resources are going to be shared is not the same as one individual taking things from another.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Callum828)
A Marxist? Because I believe in taxes? Not quite.

But while I'm there, please do visit Somalia and tell me how you're enjoying living in a country with no government.

P.S. Cuba would have been a better example than China. China is only nominally communist today.

I don't advocate zero government though, you're jumping to the conclusion that because I'm prepared to state that taxation as it stands is legalised theft I'm therefore opposed to all forms of government. You couldn't be further from the truth.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Aj12)
So how would you fund the state?

With a land value tax. Have a look at the video I posted above because it explains very clearly why this would be a good idea.