Irrational Attitudes to Taxation?

[Purple]

Simply by its method of collection. An arbitrary amount is taken, with menaces, whether you agree with what it is spent on, or not. This, in my mind is theft.

If someone robs me at knifepoint, and gives the money to charity, it's still theft.

So how do you think it should be collected?
The system we have now is the one the majority of people want, as expressed through our democratic government.
Do you think I should pay and you shouldn't or do you think we should all decide how much we should give (no prizes for guessing where that would end up)?

Your views are understandable but when the implications of their mass acceptance are examined they are illogical in that they would result in a negative impact on everybody.

 

[z103]

So how do you think it should be collected?
The system we have now is the one the majority of people want, as expressed through our democratic government.

Ah, the old democracy chestnut! What about people that don't want to vote, or partake in the democratic process? I have my doubts that it even is what the majority want.

Your views are understandable but when the implications of their mass acceptance are examined they are illogical in that they would result in a negative impact on everybody.

Would they? - how do you know?

 

[Purple]

Would they? - how do you know?

I have already outlined what taxes pay for and by extention what would happen if they were not collected and you have ignored my points.

 

[z103]

I have already outlined what taxes pay for and by extention what would happen if they were not collected and you have ignored my points.

Yes, the problem is obvious - how do we pay for fire engines etc.

The current system of taxation is grossly unfair, there must be a better system of paying for public services. I don't know what it is, but that doesn't mean the solution is not out there. Until we adopt a better system, in my view, tax is still theft.

 

[Purple]

Yes, the problem is obvious - how do we pay for fire engines etc.

The current system of taxation is grossly unfair, there must be a better system of paying for public services. I don't know what it is, but that doesn't mean the solution is not out there. Until we adopt a better system, in my view, tax is still theft.

I think the system we have is very fair. Those who can pay do pay and the funds are used to provide public services, public infrastructure and to encourage social and economic equity. The way these things are delivered (or the efficiency of how they are delivered) is a different issue.

There is, in my opinion, too much indirect taxation. I dislike this as I regard it as socially inequitable, with poorer people paying proportionately more, but that’s hardly theft.

The attitude that “they” need to come up with better rules (but you can’t think of what they are) and ‘till then you will use emotive language like “theft” is, quite frankly, juvenile.
The state needs money to run the country. If you don’t like the way it gets it now then suggest a better method but don’t use meaningless sound bites to put a moral blanket on theft.

 

[InfoSeeker]

Finance Act 2006 introduced a restriction on the amount of specified reliefs that could be claimed by high earners, this only applies to individuals earning >250k but in essence it should ensure that people earning over this amount will be subject to an effective tax rate of close to 20%.

FA07 introduced more amendments to this area.

 

[z103]

I think the system we have is very fair. Those who can pay do pay and the funds are used to provide public services, public infrastructure and to encourage social and economic equity. The way these things are delivered (or the efficiency of how they are delivered) is a different issue.

There is, in my opinion, too much indirect taxation. I dislike this as I regard it as socially inequitable, with poorer people paying proportionately more, but that’s hardly theft.

You first describe the system as 'very fair', and then go on to illustrate that it is 'socially inequitable'. Which is it to be?

The attitude that “they” need to come up with better rules (but you can’t think of what they are) and ‘till then you will use emotive language like “theft” is, quite frankly, juvenile.

Some people might accept that the current system of taxation is the best system available. Maybe the government is happy with this because of the power it gives them. I'm suggesting that there are better systems that haven't been explored. (I'm also pretty sure there's cure for AIDS out there, but I don't know what that is either.)

Describing my choice of language as 'juvenile' is adding nothing to this discussion.

 

[Purple]

You first describe the system as 'very fair', and then go on to illustrate that it is 'socially inequitable'. Which is it to be?

OK, I’ll clarify. I think the current PAYE system is very fair.

Some people might accept that the current system of taxation is the best system available. Maybe the government is happy with this because of the power it gives them. I'm suggesting that there are better systems that haven't been explored. (I'm also pretty sure there's cure for AIDS out there, but I don't know what that is either.)

Describing my choice of language as 'juvenile' is adding nothing to this discussion.

You did not say that the current system is theft, you said

My opinion is that tax is theft

You then expanded by saying that the method of collection was what rendered it theft. You did not at any stage question the morality or fairness of how the burden is spread; simply it’s method of collection. Making such statements without offering any alternative is hardly conducive to an informative or thought provoking debate.

 

[shnaek]

I don't think you could argue that tax is theft - rather it is the charge to live in a particular country. We are lucky these days in that we can choose, to a large extent, the country in which we live. If we like the services they provide (health, roads, police, education etc) we can choose to live there, but must contribute to those services in the same fair manner as everyone else.
If we wish to change how we contribute to those services in the country in which we live, then we can vote to change government, stand for election on a different taxation platform, or arrange with a large group to overthrow the government and install some kind of communist (or not) dictatorship.
Our taxes in Ireland are reasonably fair at present. I would hate to see the tax burden increase to fund public sector pay and pensions - and if the increase were large enough then I may choose to move my domicile. But I cannot accept that the taxation (or increase) is theft. There has to be money to run the country, and it has to come from the people.

 

[z103]

OK, I’ll clarify. I think the current PAYE system is very fair.

In my opinion it isn't. For example, someone who decides to set up a limited company and become an 'S' class director, suddenly gets their tax credits halved. (These people could be on very low pay while they try to set up the company, and the majority of start up companies will fail.) What's fair about that?

You did not say that the current system is theft, you said Quote:
My opinion is that tax is theft
You then expanded by saying that the method of collection was what rendered it theft. You did not at any stage question the morality or fairness of how the burden is spread; simply it’s method of collection. Making such statements without offering any alternative is hardly conducive to an informative or thought provoking debate.

Not sure I'm following you here. Yes, I said all of the above.

With regards to making a statement without offering alternatives is how research and debate begins. Someone comes up with a problem, and others try to find a solution. Recognition of the problem is the first step.

I would hate to see the tax burden increase to fund public sector pay and pensions - and if the increase were large enough then I may choose to move my domicile.

The way the economy is being handled, you may be moving sooner rather than later!

 

[Purple]

Not sure I'm following you here. Yes, I said all of the above.

You have been clear that you have an issue with the fact that tax collected (and how it is collected).
I have pointed out that no country can function without funds being collected by government.
If you have a problem with value for money or the way the tax burden is spread that’s a different issue.

 

[z103]

You have been clear that you have an issue with the fact that tax collected (and how it is collected).

Yes.

I have pointed out that no country can function without funds being collected by government.

Yes, you have pointed this out. However, you have not backed up this claim. I am suggesting that there are alternatives that need to be researched.

If you have a problem with value for money or the way the tax burden is spread that’s a different issue.

Yes, I do have a problem with this as well, and it is a different issue.

 

[Purple]

Yes, you have pointed this out. However, you have not backed up this claim.

Yes I have, I have pointed out that government needs funding and shown what this funding is required for.

I am suggesting that there are alternatives that need to be researched.

You have not suggested any alternatives. Without such suggestions your argument is pointless.

Yes, I do have a problem with this as well, and it is a different issue.

Good

 

[z103]

Yes I have, I have pointed out that government needs funding and shown what this funding is required for.

There are two parts to your claim;
1. Governments should collect the funding.
2. All countries need such funding to operate.

You've highlighted what Ireland uses the funding for.
You haven't considered the following;
- how did countries operate before the tax system was intoduced? - what problems were there? - can these problems be addressed with modern technology?
- why should governments collect funding? - are there any other means of doing this, like pay for what you use etc?
- some jurisdictions do not have income tax, how do they operate?
- is there an alternative to currency?

You have not suggested any alternatives. Without such suggestions your argument is pointless.

I've suggested that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by further investigation and study.

 

[Purple]

how did countries operate before the tax system was intoduced?

Taxes were always paid in one from or another. They also had barter and war and plunder. I don't think that would suit us.

can these problems be addressed with modern technology?

No

why should governments collect funding?

I’ve covered that.

are there any other means of doing this, like pay for what you use etc?

Who pays to put the things you use there in the first place? What happens if, for example, a child’s parent’s die and that child has no living relative? Does that child then starve? Who pays for prisons? Who pays for the police?

some jurisdictions do not have income tax, how do they operate?

Indirect taxes. These benefit the rich and are socially inequitable.

is there an alternative to currency?

Not in a developed market economy.

I've suggested that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by further investigation and study.

 

[z103]

You seem to have closed your mind to this and accepted that there are no alternatives to taxation, and the current system of collection. You've written off all alternatives, that might be proposed by Anarcho-capitalists, Classical Liberals, Objectivists and many politics and ecnomics scholars.

You won't even accept that there could be viable alternatives. That's most unfortunate.

Most of your post above is largely incorrect, and I'm not going to bother to dissect it.

 

[rmelly]

Prior to glasnost & reforms etc (i.e. up to late 70's/early 80's), did the Soviet Union levy income taxes on its workers? Given that most/all industry was privately owned, and most employed people were state employed? *

How did the taxation system work?

Actually, I'm probably going to go off and try to find out, but if any one has a one or two line answer in the mean time...

* Am I overstating state control & involvement?

 

[BillyNoMates]

We have government in our society, as a consequence of having government we have taxation rules. These rules evolved to their current state in the presence of democracy under the supervision of elected governments. They represent the current best compromise between all known viable alternatives. There may be unknown alternatives or alternatives not widely understood by large numbers of people; but any viable alternative has to stand up to critical analysis and have to gain acceptance by enough people to change our current rules.

Our government is not perfect but its imperfections only reflect the imperfections of its people.
Our government will evolve and change in the future to better meet the needs of our society.

"Taxation is theft" is lazy thinking.

Compared to all the human beings that have ever existed we are extremely fortunate to live in the type of society that we do. We have economic freedom (property rights & capitalism) and intellectual freedom (science, technology, art, writing etc.) These freedoms have made our society prosperous. These freedoms have been hard won over history. Our democracy has chosen the type of government it has and our democracy has chosen the taxation rules it needs to achieve that government.

I believe the taxation we pay as citizens is a small price to pay for the enormous benefits that come from being a citizen of our society.

 

[Purple]

We have government in our society, as a consequence of having government we have taxation rules. These rules evolved to their current state in the presence of democracy under the supervision of elected governments. They represent the current best compromise between all known viable alternatives. There may be unknown alternatives or alternatives not widely understood by large numbers of people; but any viable alternative has to stand up to critical analysis and have to gain acceptance by enough people to change our current rules.

Our government is not perfect but its imperfections only reflect the imperfections of its people.
Our government will evolve and change in the future to better meet the needs of our society.

"Taxation is theft" is lazy thinking.

Compared to all the human beings that have ever existed we are extremely fortunate to live in the type of society that we do. We have economic freedom (property rights & capitalism) and intellectual freedom (science, technology, art, writing etc.) These freedoms have made our society prosperous. These freedoms have been hard won over history. Our democracy has chosen the type of government it has and our democracy has chosen the taxation rules it needs to achieve that government.

I believe the taxation we pay as citizens is a small price to pay for the enormous benefits that come from being a citizen of our society.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[potnoodler]

Hi Ubi


We have comparably very low income taxes and social security taxes in this country.

We get little benefit? There is, of course, some waste of money. But overall we get reasonable value for our taxes.



Brendan

While our direct taxation in the form of PAYE etc may be low, it is all the other form that make Ireland expensive such as VAT, stamp duty,DIRT, TV licence , credit card & ATM ,car the list goes on.
On the lines of value look no further than the health service and the never ending hole that it is.
It really annoys when the politicians use that term "low taxation economy"