Profit in a market economy is derived from a voluntary exchange of goods/services for currency. I buy a Ribeye because I obtian more value from the Ribeye than I do the $18 in my bank account, However if that ribeye goes to $25 I now value the $25 more than the Ribeye so I dont buy it instead I buy a Chicken Breast.
These are choices I make in a free(ish) market. Companies offer their goods, I choose to buy or not
Similar with labor, I go to the market offer my knowledge and labor for a Wage, if I set my price to high companies will refuse to hire me, if I set my price to low I am missing out on profit.
Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like that, the government with the full authority to initiate violence injects itself with a demand that for every hour of labor I sell I must provide the government with a 10-40% cut of not only my profit from the sell but the gross transaction price. They do so under the threat of violence (aka imprisonment) if I refuse their order.
The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life...The government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
> Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like that
Take a weekend off and calculate how much 'fees' you would have to pay for 'private defense services', infrastructure, judiciary, police and all the other things if they were made private.
> The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life
What religious delirium.
> But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The dastarty act of providing military, police, firefighting, law, justice, social services - all the things that make you live in a modern society instead of living in the former late feudal society where you wouldn't even have the social rank in order to be able to talk against your feudal lord in public like this.
There is no magical, divine, extraterrestrial or supernatural force that provides this modern society that you live in, and all the rights and freedoms that you have in that society. We, the people, have managed to make that happen through the mechanisms we invented. And one of those mechanisms is the state that is owned by its people.
> The dastarty act of providing military, police, firefighting, law, justice, social services - all the things that make you live in a modern society instead of living in the former late feudal society where you wouldn't even have the social rank in order to be able to talk against your feudal lord in public like this.
If I don't support these things, or wish to take away their funding due to my displeasure with the service received I could do that if they were private. I cannot do that when every year the government puts a gun to my head and tells me to pay them 30% of my gross.
You've fallen into the classic socialist false dichotomy. Either you support taxes or you will be a serf.
The truth is taxes are the payment you're giving your lord (the government). You don't even own your own property. Try not paying your property tax (maybe it's too expensive?) and they take it away. Try not paying your taxes and they will start to take everything you own. This is the definition of theft. Coercing someone to part with their property through threats of violence.
All taxes are evil. A good compromise is the ability to take 5 extra minutes on my 1040 to put percentages where I want my money to go. I dont care if this overcomplicates the situation. We take in trillions in taxes a year and yet the only people who seem to benefit are the Nancy Pelosis. Somehow despite being a public servant is worth more than many top-tier entertainers. If I could put most of my money into school, hospitals, firefighters, and EMTs I would. Why would I fund police who drive around in veritable APCs treating every honest hard working American as a potential "insurgent" in their own land? Why are my tax dollars being shipped overseas to Ukraine when there's uncountable suffering here? Because we don't control it, our money is stolen, and the ill gotten gains are used to do whatever the kings and queens in congress decide. We are serfs, they've just managed to hide it.
Ask yourself do you feel good about where your taxes go?
>What religious delirium.
Like all socialists, you are the delirious one. It's just socialist indoctrination has better tasting koolaid with less assumption of responsibility.
> If I don't support these things, or wish to take away their funding due to my displeasure with the service received I could do that if they were private
Yeah, you could just 'take away its funding' and just do away with the military in a private environment. Which brings us to...
> Like all socialists, you are the delirious one
...the delirium of thinking that you would be able to keep your freedom and agency at the moment which you lose that socially-funded, democratically controlled military after you take its funding away in a private market environment. Which will make you immediately a subject of the richest man who did not take away the funding of the military outfit he supports.
> All taxes are evil.
The people from the country that kills its people when they cant pay for healthcare is telling us that all taxes are evil, even as their very infrastructure collapses.
>Take a weekend off and calculate how much 'fees' you would have to pay for 'private defense services', infrastructure, judiciary, police and all the other things if they were made private.
This assumes alot of things, like that I reject all forms of taxation which I dont just income based. You know this because you already replied to a comment where I layout my preferred public finance model which you also ignored in that comment in favor of a semantic logical fallacy debate. so i question if you actually want to have an honest conversation
Also it assumes that the cost to private those services would be the exact same under a more private / direct model then our current system (for which my point of view would the the US model). I find that highly suspect and the few times were we have direct attempts at it has proven the current US model has inherent fraud, corruption, and waste that often raises the cost of providing these services by 2x or more.
>What religious delirium.
That is a bit of projection there. Like an adherent to a theocratic religion proclaiming Atheism is a religion. If anything Statism is more akin to a religion than being anti-state or libertarian.
Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher power", in your case this higher power is "the state" having replaced a god or gods
>ll the things that make you live in a modern society instead of living in the former late feudal society
False dilemma fallacy, as if the only option is a extreme over bearing high taxation state or feudalism...
> force that provides this modern society that you live in
Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free individuals, not government.
> all the rights and freedoms that you have
neither rights nor freedom is provided by government, the entire US model of government is build on the fact that freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM government, the US Constitution is document to ensure government does not infringe upon the people as our founder knew that a government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.
Government is to be subservient to the people, not a master of them. At all times the people need to be suspect of government power, and keep very tight control upon it.
> This assumes alot of things, like that I reject all forms of taxation which I dont just income based. You know this because you already replied to a comment where I layout my preferred public finance model which you also ignored in that comment in favor of a semantic logical fallacy debate. so i question if you actually want to have an honest conversation
If non-income based taxation worked, societies would be using it. Every single form of taxation was tried throughout history. This is the one that works.
> That is a bit of projection there.
No. The ones who BELIEVE that things will 'just' be 'okay' if they just leave things to 'the market' are repeating the Christianity's format of faith. That there is a 'good god' that will just make everything 'okay'. That's why it is faith.
> Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher power", in your case this higher power is "the state" having replaced a god or gods
Organized, well equipped and trained authoritarian forces do not give zit about the rejection of their authority by the individual people. The moment you lose the guarantor of your freedom and rights - the democratically owned and controlled society - is the moment you are a subject of the strongest armed bunch nearby.
> Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free individuals, not government.
The modern society was built by literally the organized French Revolutionaries deposing the aristocracy, making everyone equal and creating a social and legal system that ensured that. There hasn't been any 'voluntary exchange' of power on the side of armed, organized minority tyrants.
Neither the society was formed in American Wild West, where if you were upset with your local environment, you could just kill some more Indians and steal their land and prop yourself up on the stolen land in the most libertarian fashion.
Such philosophy is great while there is free land to take. The moment the free land runs out, things change. Just like how it happened at the end of 19th century in the US.
> the entire US model of government is build on the fact that freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM government
Yes. And that's why the US is in knee-deep sh*t. Becaue large slaveowners who had gigantic amount of land, wanted to protect their land from redistribution like how it was done to the deposed English nobility. Hence you got 'checks and balances' to prevent the democratic majority from asserting their will, with an openly declared intention by the architect of your constitution, John Adams, that the 'opulent' (rich) must be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority' (the people).
And as a result, you are killing your people when they cant pay for healthcare, 42 million working families are suffering hunger, you are still paying the $4 trillion Iraqi war debt that you accrued for the privilege of murdering 1 million Iraqis, and your infrastructure is failing.
But hey - the rich are far richer. So that is 'okay'.
>If non-income based taxation worked, societies would be using it.
They do, very successfully and most of the government services you and others have aurgued with me about income tax providing are not infact provided for by income taxes in the US. Roads, Schools, Police, Fire, etc almost none of that is funded by Income Taxes, it is funded by Property Taxes, Sales Taxes,and excise taxes.
In the US income Taxation is used for 4 main things. Social programs, National Defense, Science (Nasa, etc) and Administration / regulation
>the democratically owned and controlled society
Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner. This idea that democracy "provides" rights is laughable for anyone that understands anything about history which clearly you do not
>you are still paying the $4 trillion Iraqi war debt that you accrued for the privilege of murdering 1 million Iraqis, and your infrastructure is failing.
It si very ironic that you defend income based taxation, most likely because your socialist mind believes that is the way to "eat the rich" never realizing that income based taxation is the fuel for the engine of the war machine, and absent income based taxation the government would not have the ability to use the war machine in that manner. You are defending the very tool they use to murder people but you are soo blinded by your jealousy of the rich you believe would get ahead under a non-income based system you fail to understand that the rich WANT an income based system of taxation, that income based taxation is regressive (not progressive like proponents of the so called progressive income tax claim), and that a single tax system could be used to create universal income, and would actually help reduce income inequality
Smash the State, Eat the Rich[1]. The freed market, without all the distortions and giveaways by the state such as price and wage controls, licensing and safety requirements, limited liability, costly regulation, capitalization requirements, quantitative easing, financial regulation, zoning requirements, protectionist trade policy, intellectual property laws, and various other barriers to entry all promote centralization and cartelization, is truly an equalizing force
> They do, very successfully and most of the government services you and others have aurgued with me about income tax providing are not infact provided for by income taxes in the US. Roads, Schools, Police, Fire, etc almost none of that is funded by Income Taxes, it is funded by Property Taxes, Sales Taxes,and excise taxes.
US police is not an example of anything. They are literally fining people to fill their quotas to support the budget, leave aside their murderous practices. American schools neither are - the quality of American education has gone downhill since state-subsidized education was done for. Your roads are literally disintegrating, brigdges are falling down as people drive on it.
No. Those schemes just do not work. They never worked in history for any society, and they don't seem like working in the US.
> Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner.
That's your endemic American problem thanks to your two party system due to FPTP and your anti-government indoctrination. Government and democracy pretty much work well anywhere else in the world.
> the rich WANT an income based system of taxation
The rich don't want any taxation. The rich want the late 19th century environment in which they could just buy and own anything. The only way that they were reined in was after T. Roosevelt brought all those pesky antitrust regulations and FDR piled up the taxes and social programs. Otherwise it was a Dickensian world.
> is truly an equalizing force
The free market handed over ENTIRE US to ~12 robber barons to own when it was as free as possible in the late 1800s.
Randian 'free cities' and environments ended up in hellholes.
The decline of central state allowed local feudal lords to rise and own everything and everyone toward the end of Roman empire.
Chinese history is full of examples repeating the same, the 'free' market giving way to warlords who stomped down people like you when they had the chance.
We have been there, done that. And yet here you are, still PREACHING the same thing from a country that KILLS its people if they cant pay for healthcare.
That's why it is called a belief, a religion. For there isn't anything other than your faith backing it.
These are choices I make in a free(ish) market. Companies offer their goods, I choose to buy or not
Similar with labor, I go to the market offer my knowledge and labor for a Wage, if I set my price to high companies will refuse to hire me, if I set my price to low I am missing out on profit.
Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like that, the government with the full authority to initiate violence injects itself with a demand that for every hour of labor I sell I must provide the government with a 10-40% cut of not only my profit from the sell but the gross transaction price. They do so under the threat of violence (aka imprisonment) if I refuse their order.
The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life...The government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.