Taxes, taxes, taxes and LESS TAXES... wait, what?!?!?

[HoughMade]

What's all this talk of reasoning and willing support in a thread about force and theft?

Then there's the talk about "taxes are theft". Talk. Lot's of talk.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well and septic a non-starter? It's what I grew up with and what I have now. It's a pretty inexpensive price to pay to live in an area where the neighbors are not RIGHT THERE and are live and let live.

That's what I have (I live in the house I grew up in) and have neighbors. I'm dreading the day they make me hook up to city water and sewers. I know it's coming eventually. I can't imagine people actually want that unless their septic and/or well are not working properly. Pisses me off that I have to pay for sewers/storm drainage (via my property taxes) when we have neither.

 

[Hohn]

I would absolutely LOVE it if everyone could get together and decide that property taxes are immoral.

Do we really own anything if we have to pay the government to rent it?

People will say, "but how will we fund the schools? Won't someone think of the children?"

We're going to pay for it one way or another, whether it's income tax, sales tax, or property tax. I'm fine with moving it to the income and/or sales tax.

I view any and all taxes on ownership or income as immoral. Ownership taxes are immoral because it's a violation of property rights. Income taxes are immoral because it taxes someone's labor, not their harvest. It's like taxing the seed rather than the fruit-- so sorry about you losing your crop this year, but that's YOUR problem, says the gubmint-- they got theirs on the front end.

The only defensible taxes are sales and excise taxes, IMO. Don't tax someone for working hard, tax them for living high.

And I personally think that rewarding fertility creates all kinds of perverse incentives. Imagine a world where all the people with kids actually were sacrificing to rear them rather than expecting everyone else to do that on their behalf.

 

[jamil]

That's what I have (I live in the house I grew up in) and have neighbors. I'm dreading the day they make me hook up to city water and sewers. I know it's coming eventually. I can't imagine people actually want that unless their septic and/or well are not working properly. Pisses me off that I have to pay for sewers/storm drainage (via my property taxes) when we have neither.

Well. It's probably not gonna happen in my area any time soon. But if it does. I hope it happens about the time I have to replace my system. I think hookup fees are like ~8K. Because of the perk characteristics, underground springs, and whatnot, limestone that had to be removed, I had to pay ~15K for the size/type of septic system I have. Probably would be cheaper to replace it, but it'd still likely be more than the hookup fees. I think I'll prolly get a couple more decades out of it though.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well. It's probably not gonna happen in my area any time soon. But if it does. I hope it happens about the time I have to replace my system. I think hookup fees are like ~8K. Because of the perk characteristics, underground springs, and whatnot, limestone that had to be removed, I had to pay ~15K for the size/type of septic system I have. Probably would be cheaper to replace it, but it'd still likely be more than the hookup fees. I think I'll prolly get a couple more decades out of it though.

My dad actually built our septic tank ~ 1952 and it's still going strong. That's about right for the hookup fees here too from what I've heard from folks in surrounding areas where they've run the water and sewer lines.

 

[jamil]

I view any and all taxes on ownership or income as immoral. Ownership taxes are immoral because it's a violation of property rights. Income taxes are immoral because it taxes someone's labor, not their harvest. It's like taxing the seed rather than the fruit-- so sorry about you losing your crop this year, but that's YOUR problem, says the gubmint-- they got theirs on the front end.

The only defensible taxes are sales and excise taxes, IMO. Don't tax someone for working hard, tax them for living high.

And I personally think that rewarding fertility creates all kinds of perverse incentives. Imagine a world where all the people with kids actually were sacrificing to rear them rather than expecting everyone else to do that on their behalf.

That sounds to me like an arbitrary moral. If we're going to say that, we should also say that any rate based taxation is immoral. Why should someone be punished for buying stuff?

The fairest tax would be to estimate the usage of government services, and then the government would just send everyone a bill for their portion. In such a system, income is not taxed. Property is not taxed. Spending is not taxed. You owe for the expense of what you consume.

So, for example, military spending. Since most everyone consumes the benefits of the safety we have from the foreign invasion the military protects us from, it's fair to split that cost evenly across the population. Same kind of thing for police and fire protection. Schools would be an interesting to think about. Certainly the people who have their kids in public schools should primarily pay for the schools, but there is a non-zero beneficial value to having an educated populace. So, it's fair that citizens who benefit from the economic benefits of an educated populace should help pay for an education system, at least a little.

I'd bet there would be far less government with such a system than we have now. But seriously, that's impractical. Fair, but impractical. Some people could not possibly afford for the government services they use. No matter how much government you think we need, if it's > 0, someone has to pay for it, and we have to figure out a practical way to fund it. Income tax is a way. Property tax is a way. Consumption tax is a way. None are really all that inherently more immoral than another.

 

[ATM]

ATM, BugI describes the dynamic above.

Many parents with children want good schools AND are willing to pay the property taxes necessary to support such schools. Once said "good" schools are established, it attracts others to that school district. The increased demand raises property values. Some, wishing to have their house as investments, are likewise attracted to those districts due to rising house values versus other locations nearby.

Perhaps you're thinking of private schools.

Private schools have to earn their fees from those willing to pay for their services, they can't just take from whomever lives nearby.

 

[ATM]

Then there's the talk about "taxes are theft". Talk. Lot's of talk.

I suppose government is not force, either?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Perhaps you're thinking of private schools.

Private schools have to earn their fees from those willing to pay for their services, they can't just take from whomever lives nearby.

Location, location, location. Applies both to taxes and services, which are generally in proportion, lot's of services and good schools, high taxes... unless you choose to live in a big city that's Dem controlled, then pay high taxes for horrible services.

 

[ATM]

Location, location, location. Applies both to taxes and services, which are generally in proportion, lot's of services and good schools, high taxes... unless you choose to live in a big city that's Dem controlled, then pay high taxes for horrible services.

Good schools would survive without taxes, only the bad ones need funding stolen from somewhere beyond the actual value of their services.

 

[hoosierdoc]

My effective tax rate went down 3.5%. Yay.

 

[KLB]

We ended up paying about $3500 less this year that last with a slight increase in income.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Good schools would survive without taxes, only the bad ones need funding stolen from somewhere beyond the actual value of their services.

Okay........ how's that working for you in your neck of the woods?

 

[Trigger Time]

I would absolutely LOVE it if everyone could get together and decide that property taxes are immoral.

Do we really own anything if we have to pay the government to rent it?

People will say, "but how will we fund the schools? Won't someone think of the children?"

We're going to pay for it one way or another, whether it's income tax, sales tax, or property tax. I'm fine with moving it to the income and/or sales tax.

Yep. Its theft.
Sales tax should pay for everything. What it doesn't pay for you dont need. Stop the cash cow for government. I dont even believe the government should ever touch your paycheck. If the founding fathers could have predicted how criminals would have invaded public office, courts and government they would have written congresses tax powers much more strict im sure.

 

[ATM]

Okay........ how's that working for you in your neck of the woods?

It's just truth.

We actually found that home schooling worked best for us despite the ease and availability of government theft-funded indoctrination centers.

 

[KLB]

Yep. Its theft.
Sales tax should pay for everything. What it doesn't pay for you dont need. Stop the cash cow for government. I dont even believe the government should ever touch your paycheck. If the founding fathers could have predicted how criminals would have invaded public office, courts and government they would have written congresses tax powers much more strict im sure.

And to think that the states gave the fed the power to collect income tax early last century. Our history seems to be one of slowly handing power to the federal government, piece by piece.

 

[JettaKnight]

For you, ATM.

[video=youtube;IIT3xnYbmzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIT3xnYbmzQ[/video]

 

[JettaKnight]

And the psychology of the refund:
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/02/20/economy/history-and-psychology-behind-tax-refund

 

[jamil]

Just filed mine electronically. Payment due is only about $20 more than last year, so basically a wash. But, tax burden was less, even though I made considerably more than last tax year. Effective rate is 1% lower. Probably would have gotten raped for the extra income with the old tax brackets.

 

[Hohn]

That sounds to me like an arbitrary moral. If we're going to say that, we should also say that any rate based taxation is immoral. Why should someone be punished for buying stuff?

The fairest tax would be to estimate the usage of government services, and then the government would just send everyone a bill for their portion. In such a system, income is not taxed. Property is not taxed. Spending is not taxed. You owe for the expense of what you consume.

So, for example, military spending. Since most everyone consumes the benefits of the safety we have from the foreign invasion the military protects us from, it's fair to split that cost evenly across the population. Same kind of thing for police and fire protection. Schools would be an interesting to think about. Certainly the people who have their kids in public schools should primarily pay for the schools, but there is a non-zero beneficial value to having an educated populace. So, it's fair that citizens who benefit from the economic benefits of an educated populace should help pay for an education system, at least a little.

I'd bet there would be far less government with such a system than we have now. But seriously, that's impractical. Fair, but impractical. Some people could not possibly afford for the government services they use. No matter how much government you think we need, if it's > 0, someone has to pay for it, and we have to figure out a practical way to fund it. Income tax is a way. Property tax is a way. Consumption tax is a way. None are really all that inherently more immoral than another.

Sure it's somewhat arbitrary. I don't deny that.

And you are exactly correct that any rate-based taxation might similarly be.

I'd agree that it's potentially a moral issue that someone pay more tax just for buying more stuff. My point is only that *if* you grant the legitimacy of rate-based taxation, it is less morally defensible to tax their income or property that their consumption. And it is less economically desirable also.

Maybe it's not a compelling argument, but I will argue just the same income taxation in particular is morally less justifiable compared to other forms of taxation. You could argue that a property tax is like a sales tax, only paid on installments. Instead of taxing the transaction that grants ownership, you tax the ownership afterwards.

But when you tax income, the government is making itself a party to your employment contract and via withholding demanding you work for the government FIRST.

I'd agree to some extent that fee-for-service is generally a better model. Uncle Sam builds a new $5B aircraft carrier and each of 400 million American households gets a bill for $12.50 as they will all presumably each benefit the same from it.


I won't stipulate the legitimacy of any particular taxation scheme save consumption. However, I will say certain things are preferable to others within a given framework-- whether I like that framework or not.