Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    No as i believe there should be a democratically elected government to preserve law and order and defend the country. I just accpet that compulsory tax is not needed to do this. On the social cohesion point, theres nothing anarchist about that, in fact Thatcher said something farily similar.
    So you are advocating a minimalist state ("night watchman state" as referred to by Libertarians) - Thatcher was a self contradictory person who did indeed say "There is no such thing as society" yet believed in a very strong society that had an iron fist on law and order, very authoritarian - to the extent that she blamed the rise in crime on single mothers. Her ideology was neoliberalism (economically) + neoconservatism (politically/socially) = Thatcherism.

    So if there is no tax, how does the government fund police, the army etc to preserve law and order and defend the country? How will the government run in the first place - you need money for government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you are advocating a minimalist state ("night watchman state" as referred to by Libertarians) - Thatcher was a self contradictory person who did indeed say "There is no such thing as society" yet believed in a very strong society that had an iron fist on law and order, very authoritarian - to the extent that she blamed the rise in crime on single mothers. Her ideology was neoliberalism (economically) + neoconservatism (politically/socially) = Thatcherism.
    Correct, im more thatcherite than thatcher on economics though not thatcherite on social issues, for example her support for section 28.

    So if there is no tax, how does the government fund police, the army etc to preserve law and order and defend the country? How will the government run in the first place - you need money for government
    Ive told you how the government will be funded. If someone wants there contracts to be legally recognised they must insure them by giving the gov a fee. They dont have to so its not compulsory but it would be so risky to not do it most would. Also given that SO many contrcts are signed in this country the income would be immense, especailly given that in a coutry without compulsory taces business would emerge more and more and locate here, thus increasign the number of contracts made further. Furthemore today we dont need much for defence due to alliances for example. However such discussions are concerned with practicalities as opposed to morals.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So basically you're advocating voluntary tax, whoever wants protection should pay sort of thing. Ok, but this is assuming everybody starts on a level playing field which is obviously not correct and nor is it morally correct to expect people to who earn less to pay the same as those who earn more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    So basically you're advocating voluntary tax, whoever wants protection should pay sort of thing. Ok, but this is assuming everybody starts on a level playing field which is obviously not correct and nor is it morally correct to expect people to who earn less to pay the same as those who earn more.
    Why not? Surely that is the most correct and fair system?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Why not? Surely that is the most correct and fair system?
    Expand. Do you think everyone is on a level playing field and pay a flat tax, as opposed to being taxed in accordance to earnings?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    So basically you're advocating voluntary tax, whoever wants protection should pay sort of thing. Ok, but this is assuming everybody starts on a level playing field which is obviously not correct and nor is it morally correct to expect people to who earn less to pay the same as those who earn more.
    I never said that it would cost say 100,000 to insure or 200,000 etc. Your assuming only a few would be able to insure due to it costing so much. It could quite easily be dependant on persoanal wealth or it could be a few hundred pounds for all. Either way the income would be great due to encouraging businesses with zero compulsary taxes, and with more businesses the more contracts. Furthermore peoples general wealth would be alot more due to not having so much of their income taken in taxes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Expand. Do you think everyone is on a level playing field and pay a flat tax, as opposed to being taxed in accordance to earnings?
    Yes. It seems fairer to pay either the same, or in accordance with how much you use the system. The state is the only organisation that you have to pay for in accordance with your means. What is the difference between car insurance and health insurance?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    we can look at john rawls interpretation of justice in a society. he defines justice as fairness and he tries show what a just society ought to be. he creates a hypothetical "original position" by grabbing a bunch of individuals and asking them to form a society. These individuals are randomly selected and are asked to form a just society which they shall be put into. rawls also puts them behind "a veil of ignorance" when they are attempting to create a society and this basically means that non of the individuals shall know anything about themselves and there position in the society which they are creating and are suppose to live in later. i.e. they wont know there sex, age, gender, social class, race, religion, wealth, family background, intelligence and etc. because of this veil, a just society shall be formed (because no one shall want slavery because they might have a chance of becoming a slave in the future society) this results in the creation of 2 principles that are inherent to a Just society: 1. The liberty principle, which guarantees an adequate set of basic liberties to all of the citizens
    2. The difference principle, which requires that social and economic
    inequalities be arranged so as the benefit the least well-off group in society.

    therefore taxes ought to be looked to as a essential in a just society

    Furthermore birth is random and is like a random lottery, there is no way i can control where i was born. this basically means that someone being born into royalty or in a starving african country is just caused by chance. this obviously is not fair so taxes can be used to mitigate these natural inequalities within a society.

    also we have to realize that property cannot be a natural right and must be equally distributed through taxes. hypothetically speaking, if i was part of the first human race (9000 years ago), i should have the ability to claim any land on earth. and according to modern libertarians, this land is my "entitlement" and cannot be taken away from me since i earned it. Yet all you really did was claim it since no one else was around back then. but if i was born lets say 8000 years later when all the lands are already claimed, i shall get no such right to claim any land because all of the lands are already gone. therefore it would be unfair for property to be kept in the hands of the few. this causes me to be permanetly disadvantaged because of my later birth and this is simply not just and taxes mitigate this inequality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Their misfortune does not give them the moral right to steal.

    Also if people werent forced to hand over so much of their income chairty giving would increase. Government takes away any natural virtue humans have. In those coutries without welfare states people have organised friendly societies to help them out in need, a type of private insurance for them and their families.

    Also if people had not been taxed so much the elderly would have been able to put away wealth for their retirement instead of having to rely on state hand outs.

    Also more wealth would be created in society as more businesses would emerge and locate here, thus more welath woud be in the economy and with that the trickle down effect.




    social cohesion? As long as they do not attack my or my property or anyone else's i dont care about social cohesion. Theres no such thing as society after all.
    And that's why your politics will remain a pipedream like communism. It just won't work.

    Social cohesion is what protects you and your property.

    In a land of survival of the fittest what makes you think you would survive?

    What makes you think you would be able to employ sufficient resources to protect you and your family?

    Do you really believe those with wealth who wish to instigate a system that protects their interests at all costs regardless of the consequences is going to get sufficient support from all the other individuals that make up the population that some call society?

    Prepare yourself for a life of opposition.

    z
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Put it this way...if taxation is theft, so it your use of hospitals, roads, security services...i could go on....
    Basically - if you dont want to pay taxes, you should leave the country as you are a leech to the system otherwise - some of these services are just something that morally you cannot be legislated for opting out of.
    If you look at the american health system - not treating people without revision. Imagine if the police in this country operated under a similar system - not pursuing any miscreants until you had coughed up...
    It is just a ridiculous idea - and whoever "gave birth" to this thread thinking they were smart really isn't. go play philosophy elsewhere - this is politics.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The theft is inheritance tax cos you already paid tax on it.

    Also those cheats who try and scab off the system, we gotta dob em in and put huge pics of them in papers

    But wiser spending would help, we pay too much as it is
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE]
    (Original post by jimmydoerre3)
    we can look at john rawls interpretation of justice in a society. he defines justice as fairness and he tries show what a just society ought to be. he creates a hypothetical "original position" by grabbing a bunch of individuals and asking them to form a society. These individuals are randomly selected and are asked to form a just society which they shall be put into. rawls also puts them behind "a veil of ignorance" when they are attempting to create a society and this basically means that non of the individuals shall know anything about themselves and there position in the society which they are creating and are suppose to live in later. i.e. they wont know there sex, age, gender, social class, race, religion, wealth, family background, intelligence and etc. because of this veil, a just society shall be formed (because no one shall want slavery because they might have a chance of becoming a slave in the future society) this results in the creation of 2 principles that are inherent to a Just society: 1. The liberty principle, which guarantees an adequate set of basic liberties to all of the citizens
    2. The difference principle, which requires that social and economic
    inequalities be arranged so as the benefit the least well-off group in society.
    I am not a fan of Rawls mainly because of Nozick's arguments however there are also strong criticisms from the left.
    1. Libertarian – Nozick. Distributive justice can only be sustained by a political order of totalitarian dimensions that fails to take people seriously and second guesses all their choices.
    2. Communitarianism. Rawls theory is not neutral but presupposes an impartialist moral theory. Why is impartiality and universalism prior to particularism? Choice behind the veil of ignorance is impossible because of the idea of the unencumbered self. Selves are constituted by projects and plans, hence the good must be prior to the right.
    3. Egalitarianism: Rawls fails to distinguish between choice and chance – inequalities that are the result of exp-expensive choices cannot merit redistribution.


    Furthermore birth is random and is like a random lottery, there is no way i can control where i was born. this basically means that someone being born into royalty or in a starving african country is just caused by chance. this obviously is not fair so taxes can be used to mitigate these natural inequalities within a society.
    Rawls has moved from the contention that the category of desert does not apply to natural endowments to the much more controversial claim that these endowments are undeserved. The latter implies, as the former does not, that people should not benefit from them. Flew notes "The reason why this argument appears to go through is that the word ‘undeserved’ does indeed usually carry overtones of outrage, calling for redress. What is needed now is to introduce a third category of the not-deserved to cover what is neither, meritoriously, deserved, nor scandalously, undeserved"


    also we have to realize that property cannot be a natural right and must be equally distributed through taxes. hypothetically speaking, if i was part of the first human race (9000 years ago), i should have the ability to claim any land on earth. and according to modern libertarians, this land is my "entitlement" and cannot be taken away from me since i earned it. Yet all you really did was claim it since no one else was around back then. but if i was born lets say 8000 years later when all the lands are already claimed, i shall get no such right to claim any land because all of the lands are already gone.
    Thats why, according to Locke, money was invented. You can be rich but hold no land simply by holding shares for example.

    therefore it would be unfair for property to be kept in the hands of the few.
    Its not in the hands of a ew, in fact in the UK 70% of people are owner occupiers.

    this causes me to be permanetly disadvantaged because of my later birth
    Tell that to the millions around the world who are self made.

    and this is simply not just and taxes mitigate this inequality.
    Inequality? You approach the issue all wrong, you should be concerned with increased wealth for all, not increased wealth for the poorest as wealth for the rich results in wealth for all due to the trickle down effect. Those who are obsessed with eqaulity hate wealth, when they should hate poverty. What is best - for some to be rich and others to be poor or for us to all be poor?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And that's why your politics will remain a pipedream like communism. It just won't work.
    Does that make it immoral?

    Social cohesion is what protects you and your property.
    No the government does. Respect for individualism would further ensure safety.

    In a land of survival of the fittest what makes you think you would survive?
    I specifically said i am not an anarchist. There would be a government, people would give to charity (we give now, imagine how much we'd give without public services). I would survive because i have ambition and drive, with no tax others would get these as they would come to rely more on themselves.

    What makes you think you would be able to employ sufficient resources to protect you and your family?
    As i have said the government maintains law and order and defence. I have merely offered a different method of funding than compulsory taxation.

    Do you really believe those with wealth who wish to instigate a system that protects their interests at all costs regardless of the consequences is going to get sufficient support from all the other individuals that make up the population that some call society?
    If this idea is shown to be the most moral yes and even if its not i dont see what they could do about. If the government refuses to offer welfare, it refuses welfare. However you are ignoring the morality of the argument with these claims, suggesting you accept it is morally better, though has practical problems. However who would have thought the idea of a polis or state would have came about? After all men are selfish and suspicuous of one another,t hus what were the chances of them willfully subordinating themselves to the authority of another.

    Prepare yourself for a life of opposition.
    I dont do things to get consensus, i propose such things to debate and thing, you make it sound as if thats a bad thing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Put it this way...if taxation is theft, so it your use of hospitals, roads, security services...i could go on....
    They are the results of theft yes. Just because there used for supposedly morally good ends does not make the act of theft right. After all if someone mugs you but says it will go to a charity, would you not bother to report it?


    Basically - if you dont want to pay taxes, you should leave the country as you are a leech to the system otherwise
    No those who want us to pay taxes are leeches on individuals. They take away our hard earned money in order to redistribute it on what they see as morally good ends. Leave the country? Does that excuse a crime? If i live in a crime ridden street and i leave, are those crimes now acceptable?

    - some of these services are just something that morally you cannot be legislated for opting out of.
    Morally? Who are you force your morals on me? By all means tell me to give to charity as its the moral thing to do but force someone to give which is what tax does. Persuade people to donate instead.


    Imagine if the police in this country operated under a similar system - not pursuing any miscreants until you had coughed up...
    Who said anything like that? Who implied that? Go read my past post on the vol tax and court/contract insurance scheme. The police, defence and courts would still operate but with vol tax as opposed to compulsory tax.

    It is just a ridiculous idea - and whoever "gave birth" to this thread thinking they were smart really isn't. go play philosophy elsewhere - this is politics
    Our economic system in interlinked with politics. Surey you can see that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Flood defences? Insurance companies exists, also those who are flooded could gome together to invest in a defence scheme of their own after all if they wernt being taxed they'd certainly have alot more money (same with street lights). I accpet defence must be the resposibilty of the state as well as law and order. They would be funded though a contract scheme - if you do a deal and want that insured (i.e if someone goes back on the deal, you can sue them) than you must pay the state to insure it. You dont have to so its not compulsion, but the risk of not doing so would be so great, that people would. And given so many people make contracts the revenue would be immense.
    You completely fail to see the point, the goods that I mentioned are non-excludable, that is if a group of people got together and decided to provide said good, there would be nothing to stop somone else from having the benefit of its supply without contributing to it, in every community there would be a number of people who refused to sign up to the insurance scheme or whatever, and would prefer to take their chances, no market would exist to supply these goods, thus it is necessary for the government to compel everybody to contribute to their provision. The same goes for police, they would not be able to operate under a system of choice, any person could refuse to pay for the provision of a police force and they would still have the benefits of criminals being in prison thanks to those who did pay - non-excludability again.

    Additionally the alternative you suggest is practicably no different to the current system, people are compelled to pay some of their money to the provision of law and order... what exactly would the benefits of such a contract system be (please note I am not conceding that it would in any way be viable - see the previous paragraph)

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Like what? If there is a demand people will pay.
    I covered the kinds of goods that must be provided publicly earlier in my post, please feel free to reread it.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Market failures are caused by too much govt intererance, govts dont help they hinder.
    That is a huge and sweeping generalisation, even the most market-orientated of politicians would hesitate to make such a comment - yes there are probably numerous examples of government failure in the world, but to sugest that merket failure does not occur naturally is simply ridiculous.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Also if people werent forced to hand over so much of their income chairty giving would increase. Government takes away any natural virtue humans have. In those coutries without welfare states people have organised friendly societies to help them out in need, a type of private insurance for them and their families.
    That's pure thatcherite rubbish, or reaganomics, if you prefer. Trickle-down thoery has long been discredited as simply out of step with the realities of human nature, so much so, that it was "rebranded" into Margart Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's "supply-side" economic arguments in the 1970s and 80s. When Reagan cut the top rate of income tax from 70 to 28%, many on the right expected the Laffer Curve to have its effect and for the budget to balance in a mattr of years; in fact during Reagan's presidency, the Federal deficit grew from $900b to $3trillion.

    As for the benevolence of the rich, charitable giving by those earning over $500,000 a year fell by 65% between 1980 and 88, the period directly following one of the biggest cuts in the top tax rate in American History.

    You seem to be under some serious illusions about the generosity of the average person.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Also if people had not been taxed so much the elderly would have been able to put away wealth for their retirement instead of having to rely on state hand outs.
    Another blanket statement, how can you be so sure? What makes you think that the average person would have enough self-control to put away a certain amount of their income every year, banking on the (uncertain) prospect that it will give them some sort of guaranteed living standard, if they were not compelled to do so by the government. Even today, the dtandard of living provided by a state pension is appalling, if people were of a mind to put away more of their income to provide for their retirement, why don't they now?


    (Original post by objectivism)
    Also more wealth would be created in society as more businesses would emerge and locate here, thus more welath woud be in the economy and with that the trickle down effect.
    I wish I shared your level of economic foresight and certainty. Surely the normal rules of uncertainty in economics would apply, taxation or none?

    It is my view that the economic policies pursued by Thatcher are more or less a (very) watered down version of the kind of stuff you're advocating, the result - 3 million unemployed and a widening in the gap between rich and poor.

    I notice that in some of your later posts you again quote the trickle-down theory as a justification for a policy to make the rich richer and leave the rest to the ravages of the free market, or at the mercy of the goodwill of the wealthy in society. Please stop this, trickle-down theory has no basis in fact, it is just that - a theory and there is no empirical evidence that I have ever come across that supports its predicitions.

    Some other issues that you may like to address:

    Expand on how far you think charitable giving would go towards providing any kind of protction against absolute poverty and how it would make up for the redistribution of income that (most) people today see as a necessary part of society, that comes through (a regrettably shrinking) number of progressive taxes.

    Negative externalities - taxation is surely the most effective way at keeping these under control. For clarification a negative externality is an outcome of economic activity that has a detrimental effect on society, but is not included in the basic calculation of the cost of carrying out said activity. For example the pollution caused by air travel might be considered a negative externality. under a system without taxation, how would these be limited?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    No those who want us to pay taxes are leeches on individuals. They take away our hard earned money in order to redistribute it on what they see as morally good ends. Leave the country? Does that excuse a crime? If i live in a crime ridden street and i leave, are those crimes now acceptable?
    The point is that it is not a crime. By living in this country you effectively sign a contract to obey its rules in return for it's protection, legally and physically, of yourself and your property. If you don't want to pay taxes, follow laws etc then you can leave the country. It's a choice... you enter into it freely, and so it cannot be theft. As long as you remain a British citizen you are under obligation to obey its rules in return for the protection and opportunities it gives you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    that is if a group of people got together and decided to provide said good, there would be nothing to stop somone else from having the benefit of its supply without contributing to it,
    Doesn’t that happen already? My parents pay thousands in taxes, yet we’ve never used state schools or hospitals, yet some pay no taxes but get free healthcare, education, libraries etc. At least my proposal minimises such injustices. Furthermore your point is only relevant to such cases as flood defences, I’m not going to allow my views on morality be swayed by such minor instances.


    in every community there would be a number of people who refused to sign up to the insurance scheme or whatever, and would prefer to take their chances,

    Than that would be their fault and would rightly face the consequences if they had made the wrong choice. I happen to believe in personal responsibility.

    The same goes for police, they would not be able to operate under a system of choice, any person could refuse to pay for the provision of a police force and they would still have the benefits of criminals being in prison thanks to those who did pay - non-excludability again.

    Firstly many more people would be making contracts than today and so contributing to law and order. You are looking at the situation in today’s context, when in fact if there was no tax businesses would increase dramatically. Your argument is self defeating you claim that others benefit who didn’t contribute, but still want this to happen under a welfare state. How can you use such an argument to defeat my proposal yet support yours? Today the UK benefits from its climate as opposed to the sub-Saharan area, yet we didn't contribute to this, does this mean it’s wrong to benefit from our climate? All benefit from criminals being in prison, however this idea that those who didn’t contribute are getting unfair treatment is wrong, because even those who did contribute did it to insure their contrasts, not to put people in prison. Thus they have got the benefit they wanted. Convicting criminals is merely a good side effect for all.



    Additionally the alternative you suggest is practicably no different to the current system, people are compelled to pay some of their money to the provision of law and order...

    People would not be compelled, if they don’t want it to be insured, fine it’s just that if someone does not keep their side of the deal, the courts will not take action. Thus it is voluntary. Today if you don’t pay taxes, you go to prison, they are not voluntarily given.


    what exactly would the benefits of such a contract system be (please note I am not conceding that it would in any way be viable - see the previous paragraph)
    It gives choice and freedom and that is morally right. I have explained this in past posts.



    That is a huge and sweeping generalisation, even the most market-orientated of politicians would hesitate to make such a comment - yes there are probably numerous examples of government failure in the world, but to sugest that merket failure does not occur naturally is simply ridiculous.
    Wrong. Depressions are the result of capital mal-investments and these can only occur on such a large nationwide scale by the government over-riding the checks and balances provided by the free market, i.e., making money "cheap" (forcing banks to lower the rate of interest) by "expanding the money supply". This "cheap" money results in irrational investment into industries that would appear unprofitable if the government did not intervene into the money supply.



    That's pure thatcherite rubbish, or reaganomics, if you prefer. Trickle-down thoery has long been discredited as simply out of step with the realities of human nature, so much so, that it was "rebranded" into Margart Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's "supply-side" economic arguments in the 1970s and 80s. When Reagan cut the top rate of income tax from 70 to 28%, many on the right expected the Laffer Curve to have its effect and for the budget to balance in a mattr of years; in fact during Reagan's presidency, the Federal deficit grew from $900b to $3trillion.

    Human nature is egotistical, thus people want to make more money, and thus they invest so create more jobs which lead to more wealth in the economy and so on. When India's 1991 economic reforms were proposed people said they were putting 'blind faith in the trickle down' effect, now they are a rising economic power.

    As for the benevolence of the rich, charitable giving by those earning over $500,000 a year fell by 65% between 1980 and 88, the period directly following one of the biggest cuts in the top tax rate in American History.
    Murray shows this to be wrong. He looks at the US from 1950 -1985, so a much larger period than your eight years and shows that in 1960 2% of personal income was given to charity when the messages was 'if you don’t do it, nobody will', but by 1970 when the message was 'if you don’t do it, the government will' , this had fallen, in the 1980s when the message was the govt is cutting back charity giving increased overall. If people have more money they can afford to give more, your 'fact' covers 8 years and a very small number of people. It is not representative.

    Also it humans can be both egotistical and giving as seeing others happy feeds their egos, for example soldiers show this - they risk life for being seen as honorable.

    You seem to be under some serious illusions about the generosity of the average person.
    People aren’t generous because it’s nice to be, they do it to feed their egos. Read Hobbes' Leviathan.

    Another blanket statement, how can you be so sure? What makes you think that the average person would have enough self-control to put away a certain amount of their income every year,
    why should others be punished for someone else’s failures?

    banking on the (uncertain) prospect that it will give them some sort of guaranteed living standard, if they were not compelled to do so by the government. Even today, the standard of living provided by a state pension is appalling, if people were of a mind to put away more of their income to provide for their retirement, why don't they now?
    Because the government acts as a distinctive to save due to its interfering economic policies. Furthermore there is a dependency mindset that exists with the great number of benefits available thus people think they will be fine. This dependency mindset is due to the welfare state.




    It is my view that the economic policies pursued by Thatcher are more or less a (very) watered down version of the kind of stuff you're advocating, the result - 3 million unemployed and a widening in the gap between rich and poor.
    Thatcher saved Britain from rising inflation that was destroying Britain to the extent that we had to crawl to the IMF. Thatcher ruled at a time when the whole first world was witnessing a decline in manufacturing and so unemployment. If this had not been the case there would not have been such unemployment. Why were companies relocating? Cheaper labour. Having no taxes would lead to massive investment from businesses, what they would pay in labour they would gain back more in not having to pay tax.

    Also your point about inequality? Why does this matter, everyone would be getting richer just some more richer. To be preoccupied with equality is to hate wealth, when you should hate poverty.



    Expand on how far you think charitable giving would go towards providing any kind of protection against absolute poverty and how it would make up for the redistribution of income that (most) people today see as a necessary part of society, that comes through (a regrettably shrinking) number of progressive taxes.
    Thanks to advanced technology and greater competition all would have their nutritional needs met. It’s not in the interest of business to have a massive market and than not bother with it. Its not just charity which people would get to provide their needs, rather people would work. The dependency
    culture that we see today would be greatly lessened, as people work they bring in money and so meet their own needs. They will have jobs because businesses will obviously locate to a tax free zone. Charity would be sufficient for the mentally ill, for example but I would not want it to be the be all and end all for most of society. They must take responsibility for themselves and they would be given this chance.

    Negative externalities - taxation is surely the most effective way at keeping these under control. For clarification a negative externality is an outcome of economic activity that has a detrimental effect on society, but is not included in the basic calculation of the cost of carrying out said activity. For example the pollution caused by air travel might be considered a negative externality. under a system without taxation, how would these be limited?

    As people would have much great disposable incomes they would be able to afford to go on eco holidays for example. If businesses can persuade people it is best to travel green than people will do it as they will now be able to afford it. There are other possibilities, for example, issuing fine to those who do not use green technology, this is not a tax, they have the choice to not pay it by making their technology more green. However I am hesitant about such an idea and prefer the former as this may lead to a decline in the aero plane industry; however this belongs in a different thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skevvybritt)
    The point is that it is not a crime. By living in this country you effectively sign a contract to obey its rules in return for it's protection, legally and physically, of yourself and your property. If you don't want to pay taxes, follow laws etc then you can leave the country. It's a choice... you enter into it freely, and so it cannot be theft. As long as you remain a British citizen you are under obligation to obey its rules in return for the protection and opportunities it gives you.

    This argument has been made before and countered before. Legally of course its not a crime, but morally it is wrong and therefore should be illegal as what is the point of laws if they are immoral?

    Tacit consent is not sufficent. Terriorty and government are different. As i've explained we dont need compulsory tax to defend property, people etc.

    Its not a choice as a choice should have meaning to it. Our choice is either pay or have your freedom taken away. If the mafia said give us X amount of money per week to 'protect' your shop, if not well set you and it on fire, would you consider this a true choice? If so you have a rather warped view of what a choice should be.

    I know im under an obligation, but does that make such an obligation right?
    The fact that you resort to legal arguments suggests you lack a moral case for opposing the claim that tax is theft.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    okay firstly I suggest that you clear up your previous post both in terms of making it more clear where ytou have quoted me as well as in terms of the appalling spelling and grammar that makes your points very difficult to fathom in parts.

    I'll probably reply to that tomorrow if I have time, I have to go out now, but you have again, missed the point about non-excludability and the inability of market forces to provide certain goods. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    okay firstly I suggest that you clear up your previous post both in terms of making it more clear where ytou have quoted me as well as in terms of the appalling spelling and grammar that makes your points very difficult to fathom in parts.
    Those who know they are losing the argument concentrate on something else.

    I'll probably reply to that tomorrow if I have time, I have to go out now, but you have again, missed the point about non-excludability and the inability of market forces to provide certain goods.
    And you have missed the point about the importance of morality. You are obsessed with this non-excludability argument which i have shown is weak, but even if it was strong it pales in significance to the fact that it is immoral to take someones money without their consent. Your avoidance of the issue shows the weakness of your case. If there is a demand someone will supply, even if its a very small demand because its not unprofitable to provide it as there are no taxes to pay unlike today.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,170

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.