Not really, German didn't invade Switzerland becuase of its tradition of neutrality. They invaded Scandanavia which has a long tradition of a citizen army and they and the Russians paid for that. Read up on the Winter War between the Finnish and the Soviet Union. The citizen army didn't dissuade the Soviets and Germans from invading Scandanavia but it did cause them a lot of "annoyance".
Income v. Consumption taxes
- Thread starter misterme
- Start date
A more straightforward argument is that some goods are what economists call “public goods”. One property of such goods is that you cannot exclude people who don’t pay from consuming the good. Hence, no one has an incentive to contribute. Nonetheless, I have always found that people who honestly believe that voluntary contributions would be able to fund government believe what they do they way a religious person believes in god. Facts don’t matter so there is not point in debating them.
Given your handle, it seems to me that you should be the one arguing Markvee’s position. Lol. If you don’t see why I say this, you might want to google “Leviathan theory of government”.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Actually I just used the traditional forumla of ADJECTIVE + NOUN to generate my username.
Why is duplication inefficient for security providers but not for cell phone providers? I think that a free market is capable of determining the most efficient number of competitors. I think it is the government forcefully suppressing competitors and forcefully collecting payment for its services that drives inefficiency.
I can voluntarily pay the admission price to a carnival. Why is the admission price to civilized society not volutnary?
The government must pay for the services it provides. If the government is less efficient than the free market then the total service package available from government is less than the same priced total service package available from the free market.
In terms of providing for who can not afford services, I think the government is also less efficient in the distribution of charity than free individuals who are not forced to part with some of the fruits of their labour.
I think that the Swiss have less cime and fewer invasions because of a well-armed citizenry. If the Germans would turn on an ally (Russia), I don't see why they would give more respect to a neutral country. In any case, you have agreed that a well-armed citizenry effectively annoyed invaders in the case of the Finnish. I have similarly used Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq as examples of the effectiveness of well armed citizens in mounting an insurgent defence.
I maintain that the state's army has more capability for abuse in terms of offensively invading outer countries than it has utility in mounting a defence within its own borders.
Again, based on my opinion that a free market is more efficient than a coercive monopoly, there are ultimately less total availability of public goods than there would be availability of the same goods under a free market. And I do not think that the government can more efficently conduct charity than free individuals.
Seems like you protest to much,
What is wrong with a flat tax for everybody with a bottom limit on lower income earners for example 20,000.00 as a bottom line if you make less than 20 grand you pay no taxes if you make over 20 grand you pay the flat tax . No deductions allowed period
Cell phones are not a necessary service and are much simplier to set up than a police startion.
The admission price to civilized society is voluntary. Nothing is stopping you from going out into the middle of the woods and building a log cabin and living off the land, or flying to Somalia and living in a society without a government.
It's not about delivering these services as efficiently as possible, it's about delivering them as effectively as possible. The government makes sure that everyone of their citizens can get access to water, electricity, police and fire services wherever they live. Private companies have no incentive to do so. Look at the various times people have complained that Rogers or Bell wants X amount of dollars to run cable or phone lines to their house. That's why in a lot of rural areas there's no cell phone coverage, it doesn't make financial sense.
The Germans turned on Russia becuase Russia was Communist and is the enemy of Facism. It had more to do with ideology than Hitler's felings towrds treaties. Hitler stated true to Italy and Romania both of which were Facist allies. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are different cases becuase you have an emeny that can blend in with the locals, different climate from what we're used to, and of course guerrilla warfare. Those three things make it very difficult to combat the enemy via traditional means.
There's also the isue of outside influences providing, logistical support, weapons, trainging, and troops in all those cases as well so it's simply not the "average Joe" fighting back.
That stil doesn't work becusae then the people who are earning just over $20,000 end up earning less than $20,000 after the tax.
The best solution is still the progressive tax rate at it distributes the tax burden among all levels of wage earners as opposed to lower income earners bearing the brunt.
Food distribution is an essential service provided by a market more free than the one that provides policing. What is the test of which services are too complicated to be provided by a free market? I don't see what is complicated about people carrying weapons for their own protection.
When there was more unsettled land, people had the option to move to a more free location, as was the case with Europeans moving to the United States. But today, the state does not exclude secluded woodlands from its ownership, taxes, and regulations. The problem with Somalia, apart from the attention it gets from the interventionist foreign policies of competing empires, is that while it may have rid itself of the coercive monopoly of central government, its people are still subject to coercion by feuding warlords. With diminished prospects of moving to a more free place, I hope that people will make a stand for their freedom where they live. It may be natural for humans to seek to rule one another, but as a member of the ruled, I hope for a time of more freedom.
I would rather have a bigger pot of resources to divide without loss to government inefficiency and let the free market chose how to divide these resouces, free from government rationing.
None of this takes away from my point that a well armed citizenry mounts a better defence than a state army, which is more inclined to offensive activities of the state.
Google the term “public good” before you make dump responses as you clearly have no understanding of the issue.
Mathematically it can definitely work. It is just a matter of defining your revenue requirement and setting the upfront deduction and tax rate at budget balancing levels. Whether or not people would want it is a different question.
Technically, a flat tax with an upfront deduction is a progressive tax by modern definitions. Back in the 1930s there was some debate on how the term should be used and bank then some economists thought it should refer to marginal tax rates. However, today almost all economists use it to refer to average tax rates. A flat tax with an upfront exemption does lead to increasing average tax rates (the upfront exemption is worth less as income increases) and hence is progressive by modern definitions of the phrase progressive tax. It may not be as progressive as you would like that is another issue.
Somalia may not have a traditional government but I am sure the war loads provide some of the functions of a traditional government in exchange for involuntary fees that amount to taxes. Pure anarchy is so rare I cannot think of any real examples that have lasted more than very short periods of time.
Also, even if you live in the Words you benefit from an Armed forces that keeps the borders secure.
Last edited:
a true believer...
WOW...while I don't agree with any of it (and don't believe for a moment it could work..receipt for anarchy--no prisons?)...got to admit you do certainly sound like a true believer!! Read Ayn Rand much?
Last edited:
Everybody thinks that THEY are paying TOO MUCH tax and the other guy is paying too little. THEY think that THEY would bennefit if tax laws were changed because THE OTHER GUY would have to pay more and they would pay less.
Ba ha ha.
The bottom line is that the gov't needs X dollars per year. The value of X is not going to change anytime soon. So whether you pay by one tax or another is irrelevent because in theory, you need to pay the same. So it's a wash.
BTW, I read an article recently that stated that the top 1% of wage earners pay fully 22% of all taxes collected in the country. (Think about that.) And the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of all income taxes in the country. (Think about that.)
Ba ha ha.
The bottom line is that the gov't needs X dollars per year. The value of X is not going to change anytime soon. So whether you pay by one tax or another is irrelevent because in theory, you need to pay the same. So it's a wash.
BTW, I read an article recently that stated that the top 1% of wage earners pay fully 22% of all taxes collected in the country. (Think about that.) And the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of all income taxes in the country. (Think about that.)
Does matter as taxes are not all distributed evenly..some are progressive, some are regressive and others are even more regressive....so yeah even if you assume a zero sum game---how you do it does matter
For example--property taxes are quite regressive...so someone like me--high income, low property value gets off quite easy---whereas all those land rich widows get screwed...
For example--property taxes are quite regressive...so someone like me--high income, low property value gets off quite easy---whereas all those land rich widows get screwed...
I won't return insults as a form of counter-argument, but I have tried to find an economist to reference regarding the point I was trying to make.
Exerpts from an essay on public goods by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://www.vforvoluntary.com/wiki/PublicGoods
Definition of public goods:
"Certain goods or services, and among them, security, are said to have the special characteristic that their enjoyment cannot be restricted to those persons who have actually financed their production. Rather, people who have not participated in their financing can draw benefits from them, too. Such goods are called public goods or services (as opposed to private goods or services, which exclusively benefit those people who actually paid for them). And it is due to this special feature of public goods, it is argued, that markets cannot produce them, or at least not in sufficient quantity or quality, and hence compensatory state action is required."
So called public goods that have been provided privately:
"… historical evidence shows us that all of the alleged public goods which states now provide had at some time in the past actually been provided by private entrepreneurs or even today are so provided in one country or another. For example, the postal service was once private almost everywhere; streets were privately financed and still are sometimes; even the beloved lighthouses were originally the result of private enterprise; private police forces, detectives, and arbitrators exist; and help for the sick, the poor, the elderly, orphans, and widows has been a traditional field for private charity organizations. To say, then, that such things cannot be produced by a pure market system is falsified by experience one hundredfold."
Why public goods are a waste of resources:
"Since money or other resources must be withdrawn from possible alternative uses to finance the supposedly desirable public goods, the only relevant and appropriate question is whether or not these alternative uses to which the money could be put (that is, the private goods which could have been acquired but now cannot be bought because the money is being spent on public goods instead) are more valuable—more urgent—than the public goods. And the answer to this question is perfectly clear. In terms of consumer evaluations, however high its absolute level might be, the value of the public goods is relatively lower than that of the competing private goods, because if one had left the choice to the consumers (and had not forced one alternative upon them), they evidently would have preferred spending their money differently (otherwise no force would have been necessary). This proves beyond any doubt that the resources used for the provision of public goods are wasted, as they provide consumers with goods or services which at best are only of secondary importance."
Markvee, clearly Hans-Hermann Hoppe knows little more about these issues that you do if he thinks the post office is a public good. Likewise with his other examples. I suggested that you google the term “public good” to try to learn something about the concept. Clearly, you are not a good judge of sources (hell even Wikipedia would have been better). I would take the time to educate you if I had not wasted far too much time doing so in the past. You have your beliefs and I have facts. Sort of like the difference between a religious person and a non religious person. By all means keep your beliefs. However, if you ever do decide to educate yourself, there are plenty of sources you could start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good. If you decide not to, that is your business.
World without public goods
Imagine a world with public goods/services...
You wake up in the morning in your house, better hope it is all OK, because of course their are no building codes and no building inspectors to make sure they are ok when build. You go to have your shower--oh no, the company you hired to supply you water had a main break down the street and the neighbour whose land it is under won't come to terms with your water company to allow them access to the pipes to fix it.
Wander downstairs for breakfast, get your food ready but you ponder how safe the food is, after all there is no government authority to regulate the food industry. You did get horribly sick once so you exercised your property rights and sued the big food company, of course with the inbalance in you resources you got crushed in court. A court that you had to pay a substantial fee to bring a lawsuit in front of. You always wondered whether the corporations paying significant retainer fees to the courts has any influence on how they make their decisions?
Well get dressed and hop in the car...man the drive to work is expensive as you electronic toll negotiator blimps everytime you enter the property of each landholder along your path. Some of the stretches are getting very hard to negotiate since their owners have really neglected the upkeep of those stretches. The intersections where the owners can't come to terms on right of way are quite dangerous.
But speaking of danger, the roaming bands of thieves, rapists and murders are quite troublesome. You are quite angry that although you have signed up for an annual prison retainer fee very few of the other people have so there is nowhere for people convicted to go. Course there are very few people convicted these days, what with the cost to the victim of pursuing a criminal trial through the private court system. Of course you can then sue the criminal for the cost through the private civil courts---surprisingly very few of the criminals end up having the money to reimburse the cost of the trial or the financial settlements order for infringement of your property rights to your body, property and rights.
Oh well, you manage to get your job. You hear the company is unilaterally changing the work conditions again. You do miss the days when you had some sense that your workplace was safe, but at least their are no interfering government bureaucrats meddling in the affairs in your company. And you feel comfort in knowing if you are killed on the worksite your heirs can sue the company for compensation, but oh yeah again that problem of the inbalance in the court system
Well maybe better killed than seriously injured--then you really would have problems. The very high costs of completely private health system really worry you and course there is no support for you if you have no income for any period.
You ponder taking a vacation some day. But the airports have all shut down since the airspace all become private property over each individual piece of land, there was really no way to negotiate fees for millions of acres the planes fly over. Well with no regulation, inspection and rules the planes started to have serious rate of crashing anyway. Maybe a get away to just the local mountains--very expensive drive but you need it. Then you remember your buddy who went hiking but suffered a fall. You understand he passed away while talking on his cell phone negotiating with the different search and rescue companies to get one of them to come to his aid at a price he could afford.
Oh well back home. Man there is a lot of garbage around! Sure there are plenty of private garbage pickup firms, but surprisingly many of your neighbours haven't signed up with any and just leave the garbage laying around. None better fall on your property or you will sue! Oh oh...what's this bad cough you are developing? What with the garbage piles and the open sewers (your area couldn't find a new company to install a new one after the last company failed and people want to much to dig under their property.) you have heard that the Black Plague has returned. Too bad there is no public health anymore to track and fight off these such things. Well at least as you begin to slip away into the "big sleep" you feel comfort in knowing that old, antiquated, inefficient ideas of government, taxes and public goods was abolished...
Imagine a world with public goods/services...
You wake up in the morning in your house, better hope it is all OK, because of course their are no building codes and no building inspectors to make sure they are ok when build. You go to have your shower--oh no, the company you hired to supply you water had a main break down the street and the neighbour whose land it is under won't come to terms with your water company to allow them access to the pipes to fix it.
Wander downstairs for breakfast, get your food ready but you ponder how safe the food is, after all there is no government authority to regulate the food industry. You did get horribly sick once so you exercised your property rights and sued the big food company, of course with the inbalance in you resources you got crushed in court. A court that you had to pay a substantial fee to bring a lawsuit in front of. You always wondered whether the corporations paying significant retainer fees to the courts has any influence on how they make their decisions?
Well get dressed and hop in the car...man the drive to work is expensive as you electronic toll negotiator blimps everytime you enter the property of each landholder along your path. Some of the stretches are getting very hard to negotiate since their owners have really neglected the upkeep of those stretches. The intersections where the owners can't come to terms on right of way are quite dangerous.
But speaking of danger, the roaming bands of thieves, rapists and murders are quite troublesome. You are quite angry that although you have signed up for an annual prison retainer fee very few of the other people have so there is nowhere for people convicted to go. Course there are very few people convicted these days, what with the cost to the victim of pursuing a criminal trial through the private court system. Of course you can then sue the criminal for the cost through the private civil courts---surprisingly very few of the criminals end up having the money to reimburse the cost of the trial or the financial settlements order for infringement of your property rights to your body, property and rights.
Oh well, you manage to get your job. You hear the company is unilaterally changing the work conditions again. You do miss the days when you had some sense that your workplace was safe, but at least their are no interfering government bureaucrats meddling in the affairs in your company. And you feel comfort in knowing if you are killed on the worksite your heirs can sue the company for compensation, but oh yeah again that problem of the inbalance in the court system
Well maybe better killed than seriously injured--then you really would have problems. The very high costs of completely private health system really worry you and course there is no support for you if you have no income for any period.
You ponder taking a vacation some day. But the airports have all shut down since the airspace all become private property over each individual piece of land, there was really no way to negotiate fees for millions of acres the planes fly over. Well with no regulation, inspection and rules the planes started to have serious rate of crashing anyway. Maybe a get away to just the local mountains--very expensive drive but you need it. Then you remember your buddy who went hiking but suffered a fall. You understand he passed away while talking on his cell phone negotiating with the different search and rescue companies to get one of them to come to his aid at a price he could afford.
Oh well back home. Man there is a lot of garbage around! Sure there are plenty of private garbage pickup firms, but surprisingly many of your neighbours haven't signed up with any and just leave the garbage laying around. None better fall on your property or you will sue! Oh oh...what's this bad cough you are developing? What with the garbage piles and the open sewers (your area couldn't find a new company to install a new one after the last company failed and people want to much to dig under their property.) you have heard that the Black Plague has returned. Too bad there is no public health anymore to track and fight off these such things. Well at least as you begin to slip away into the "big sleep" you feel comfort in knowing that old, antiquated, inefficient ideas of government, taxes and public goods was abolished...
Logic tells me that if you make it voluntary for me, I will not pay & neither will most others.
I do not like the monopoly aspect of the service delivery as that has lead to wasteful spending and fat-cat unions gouging the public purse while they are protected from competition
I think we should open up more services to competition
However, voluntary remittance of taxes, just plain will not work
Thats pie in the sky thinking, ignores human nature / behaviors and is not practical
