Questions For Libertarians Regarding Taxes

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
I know there are a couple of Libertarians here and I would like for you guys to answer some questions about taxation and the role of government.

What Do you think of taxation? If you think it is morally wrong, why do you think that?

What Do you believe the role of government should in society? Should it exist at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados
D

deleted873528

Guest
My answer is blended together because I am not sure you can answer one of these without overlapping into the other.

I don't think taxation itself is morally wrong, I think the twisted way in which it is used/advocated for is wrong. The idea that someone owes a larger percentage of their income based on nothing more than the idea of "well they can afford it" is idiotic in my opinion. From my perspective there does need to be a government for common needs that need a defined source. Examples would be interstates, a military, police, fire, a basic level of education and a few other items that i think 99% of people would agree the government should be responsible for.

My issues come in with the ever expanding bucket of items the government feels it should be involved it. I think an ultimate example of this would be the fact that the congress of the Unites States spent a large amount of time and money holding hearings on the MLB steroid scandal. Congressional hearings were held on something that amounted to a personnel matter in a private business. I understand that is a 1 off item but feel it shows my point of the Government involving itself in far to many matters.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My answer is blended together because I am not sure you can answer one of these without overlapping into the other.

I don't think taxation itself is morally wrong, I think the twisted way in which it is used/advocated for is wrong. The idea that someone owes a larger percentage of their income based on nothing more than the idea of "well they can afford it" is idiotic in my opinion. From my perspective there does need to be a government for common needs that need a defined source. Examples would be interstates, a military, police, fire, a basic level of education and a few other items that i think 99% of people would agree the government should be responsible for.

My issues come in with the ever expanding bucket of items the government feels it should be involved it. I think an ultimate example of this would be the fact that the congress of the Unites States spent a large amount of time and money holding hearings on the MLB steroid scandal. Congressional hearings were held on something that amounted to a personnel matter in a private business. I understand that is a 1 off item but feel it shows my point of the Government involving itself in far to many matters.
I think your critique of one part creates problems in the other.


You want to tax everyone equal, sounds fair but is far away from it.
Let's make an easy example.

Person A earns 30k in a year, person B 3 million. Both have to pay 20%.

Person A pays 6K and has 24k left.
Person B pays 600K and has 2.4 million left.

Person A lives in a small apartment and pays 10k/year for it. Another 4K/year for food, 4K for clothing, 4K for mobility. The final 2K are left for communication and "fun". Then nothing is left.
If this person gets a child, or gets sick he either can't afford it, or will need financial support.

Person B owns a large house and pays 100K/year for it. For food 20K/year and clothing 50K. Mobility, holidays and communication costs another 100K/year. For "fun" the person spends 400K/year.
Left are 1.73 millions. He could afford healthcare and children without any support and still over a million would be left.

If you tax both equal, you will have to support the one with a lower income.



-----


You pay VAT? It's also not fair.
If person A consumes 100% of your imcome (what he has to) he would pay another 10% of your income for taxes.

If person B only spends around 40% of his income (as in the example) he only would have to pay 4% of his income for taxes.
 
D

deleted873528

Guest
I think your critique of one part creates problems in the other.


You want to tax everyone equal, sounds fair but is far away from it.
Let's make an easy example.

Person A earns 30k in a year, person B 3 million. Both have to pay 20%.

Person A pays 6K and has 24k left.
Person B pays 600K and has 2.4 million left.

Person A lives in a small apartment and pays 10k/year for it. Another 4K/year for food, 4K for clothing, 4K for mobility. The final 2K are left for communication and "fun". Then nothing is left.
If this person gets a child, or gets sick he either can't afford it, or will need financial support.

Person B owns a large house and pays 100K/year for it. For food 20K/year and clothing 50K. Mobility, holidays and communication costs another 100K/year. For "fun" the person spends 400K/year.
Left are 1.73 millions. He could afford healthcare and children without any support and still over a million would be left.

If you tax both equal, you will have to support the one with a lower income.



-----


You pay VAT? It's also not fair.
If person A consumes 100% of your imcome (what he has to) he would pay another 10% of your income for taxes.

If person B only spends around 40% of his income (as in the example) he only would have to pay 4% of his income for taxes.


While I understand the position you are advocating I would strongly disagree that what your saying is "Fair" Now I will concede that this hinges on what your definition of "fair" is. You see your system as Fair because in your example the person who is struggling financially is being helped while the person with a surplus of money is providing the assistance. However I would argue that that is "Kindness" not "Fairness"

While you are correct in the numbers you use that person B is able to afford many more things, it also makes my point that what you are basically saying is that person owes more money simply because they can afford it. I don't see how that is "fair"

To your point about VAT...I would argue that currently not only is person B in your scenario paying a higher % of taxes but they are then paying sales tax on 20k of food, 50k of clothing, 400k of "fun" if we assume a sales tax rate of 7% then person B paid almost 33k in Sales Tax alone. So just from their purchases they paid more in taxes that person A made.

To be clear I 100% agree with helping people who need help and in your Scenario I would absolutely agree with someone who has a family income of 30K should pay zero income tax. But if you are suggesting that I owe someone something for the simple reason I have it and they don't.... Then we absolutely disagree.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
While I understand the position you are advocating I would strongly disagree that what your saying is "Fair" Now I will concede that this hinges on what your definition of "fair" is. You see your system as Fair because in your example the person who is struggling financially is being helped while the person with a surplus of money is providing the assistance. However I would argue that that is "Kindness" not "Fairness"
I only used the word "fair" in case of VAT, not in case of the general tax system.

I tried to show you the flaws of your demand.

Equal taxation and less support doesn't really work.
While you are correct in the numbers you use that person B is able to afford many more things, it also makes my point that what you are basically saying is that person owes more money simply because they can afford it. I don't see how that is "fair"
like I said, I never used the word fair in this case.

But if you want to talk about fairness, what justifies that one person earns 100 - 400 times as much as another person?
To your point about VAT...I would argue that currently not only is person B in your scenario paying a higher % of taxes but they are then paying sales tax on 20k of food, 50k of clothing, 400k of "fun" if we assume a sales tax rate of 7% then person B paid almost 33k in Sales Tax alone. So just from their purchases they paid more in taxes that person A made.
it's not important how much in total one person pays, but the percentage...
Just like the average tax system. You demand that everyone pays the same percentage on income. That's what you call "fair". You didn't demand that everyone pays the same amount.

If so, it should count for VAT as well. But the current system taxes consume of low income way higher as consume of high income (at least percentage)
To be clear I 100% agree with helping people who need help and in your Scenario I would absolutely agree with someone who has a family income of 30K should pay zero income tax. But if you are suggesting that I owe someone something for the simple reason I have it and they don't.... Then we absolutely disagree.
Then tell me, how do you finance the support of the 30k family? - if you don't owe it, no one will pay it and they don't get support.

You want a safe society?
A stable democracy?

Make sure that everyone gets what he needs.
 

IntactMale

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Posts
2,757
Media
17
Likes
7,907
Points
493
Location
Asheville (North Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
To be clear I 100% agree with helping people who need help and in your Scenario I would absolutely agree with someone who has a family income of 30K should pay zero income tax. But if you are suggesting that I owe someone something for the simple reason I have it and they don't.... Then we absolutely disagree.

Isn't a family with 30K income not being required to pay tax as unfair in your eyes as someone making more money paying more taxes? Why is it okay in this scenario? In this case the person making more than 30K is paying more taxes than the person making 30K simply because the person making more has it and the other person doesn't.

This seems like a contradiction to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
While I understand the position you are advocating I would strongly disagree that what your saying is "Fair" Now I will concede that this hinges on what your definition of "fair" is. You see your system as Fair because in your example the person who is struggling financially is being helped while the person with a surplus of money is providing the assistance. However I would argue that that is "Kindness" not "Fairness"

Instead of "kindness" or "fairness," how about going with what works?

Extreme income/wealth inequality has been the death knell of civilizations for centuries, and we see extremes of it now both in the U.S. and around the world. Progressive taxation is one of the less bloody ways to address (though not solve) the issue. But there's always room for additional creative solutions.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Instead of "kindness" or "fairness," how about going with what works?

Extreme income/wealth inequality has been the death knell of civilizations for centuries, and we see extremes of it now both in the U.S. and around the world. Progressive taxation is one of the less bloody ways to address (though not solve) the issue. But there's always room for additional creative solutions.
Not only guarantees the survival of the society, it also guarantees higher economical growth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Klingsor

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
A stable safe society? So the hard working very intelligent rich person has to pay for state sponsored extortion. Would it not be easier to pay for private security? Isn’t that why people live in gated communities now?
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
A stable safe society? So the hard working very intelligent rich person has to pay for state sponsored extortion. Would it not be easier to pay for private security? Isn’t that why people live in gated communities now?

But that doesn't lead to a stable, safe society. That leads to a stable, safe rich person.

At least, so long as he stays inside the gate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,555
Media
0
Likes
625
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
I know there are a couple of Libertarians here and I would like for you guys to answer some questions about taxation and the role of government.

What Do you think of taxation? If you think it is morally wrong, why do you think that?

What Do you believe the role of government should in society? Should it exist at all?

I do not believe taxes are morally wrong. The "why" is tied into the the answer to your second question, which is what should the role of government be in society. (Government needs to exist, in some form, unless you plan to have a private army guarding your house, since anyone can simply come and take it.)

The questions that must be answered first are:

1. What role does each layer of government have? What services should be provided? (They need to be prioritized.)
2. How much do each of these services cost?
3. How will they be funded?

There are a LOT of things I'd like to see in my Utopia. Unfortunately, they are not attainable without money (taxes); people don't work for free; overhead is a real cost. The biggest problem I see is that nobody EVER gets the cost right. It's always underestimated. Advertise the real price (and the impact to John Q Taxpayer) and he votes you out of office next election.

It's very easy to pass laws to force a few to pay everyone else's tab, and it's a good way to get votes. When you do the opposite, and spread the cost around to every citizen, and they realize how it hurts their bottom line, they may no longer be in favor of all of these programs, since they realize they need to pay. The problem is those few are few, and can adjust their holdings accordingly. If the government really really wants to raise revenue, they'll need to tax something everyone pretty much uses every day.

The current problem (at least in the States) is that:
1. The rich will just right a check.
2. The poor don't care, because they don't pay into the tax system anyway, yet qualify for welfare.
3. The middle class gets the shaft. They are too rich to qualify for welfare, but yet not rich enough to just write a check...
 

bar4doug

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Posts
1,555
Media
0
Likes
625
Points
333
Location
United States
Gender
Male
"Rich" doesn't necessarily mean hard working or successful.

But then how do you write a tax code that discerns between "hard working" and thus deserved income, and "passive self-generated" income from investments (which themselves may have originally earned from "hard work") or a golden-parachute?
 

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
"Rich" doesn't necessarily mean hard working or successful.

For 95% yes it does. The idea that rich people just got lucky is a non starter. I was just with. bunch of very very rich guys, and they did not just fall into wealth. They worked to become wealthy. Certainly there are some trust funders but that is the exception, not the rule.
 
D

deleted873528

Guest
I only used the word "fair" in case of VAT, not in case of the general tax system.


But if you want to talk about fairness, what justifies that one person earns 100 - 400 times as much as another person? it's not important how much in total one person pays, but the percentage...

Make sure that everyone gets what he needs.

What Justifies the difference in what people earn is the fact that talent like most things has value. I am willing to pay more to have someone operate on my heart than I am willing to pay for someone to make me a burger. It is also supply and demand, I can teach almost anyone to flip a burger and put it on a bun, I can not teach almost everyone the complexities of the human body.

I also disagree with your notion that dollar amount doesn't matter only percentage. Things cost a specific amount, when the government builds a road the contractors says the road will cost x dollars not "it will cost 1% of your budget"

If your Statement that people only pay what they are forced to were true then there would be no charities in the world, so i also respectfully disagree with that notion.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

Thikn2velvet1

Loved Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Posts
2,715
Media
0
Likes
748
Points
148
Let us use private equity people. They make investments based on their ideas. Every single investment they make has another very smart person against it who believes he is also right.

They don’t just fall into money.