|
If you want to make certain taxes optional, choose the correct ones. For starters, I don't want to pay the portion of my taxes that goes to the DoD.
|
United States5162 Posts
On February 02 2011 03:34 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 03:03 Krikkitone wrote:On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other. I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society. I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it. Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths. Actually governments are beneficial, at least in terms of killing. In ancient or isolated, primitive societies with no real government the level of deaths by other humans are a lot higher. Now arguably some governments are worse than no government, but governments generally are better than no government. However More government is not always better... some is good, more is bad. (you state that basically saying you would like violence for "self defense"+"retaliation") but not other things. How do you keep violence limited to self-defence and retaliation? And how do you keep 'retaliation' limited... I'm guessing "I kill you and your family after raping your wives and daughters for accidentally bumping into me" is not the type of retaliation you think society should have. So how do you limit violence... you set up a specific Limited structure for violence... a government. That "violence" in defense or retaliation is what government is for. And it needs to be limited so that it does not misuse it. So you really think primitive societies have killed more people than nearly all wars combined + all sorts of other horrendous shit? Really?
There is no doubt that more people died due to war in the modern era compared to before. However, I have seen studies that say the percentage of people that live in peace now(as in the last century or two) is larger due to the much larger global population and smaller number of wars, despite some of them having humongous casualty numbers.
|
Optional taxes? Maybe if it was implemeneted a 100 years ago, but no way in hell we can ingrain it into our current society while expecting people to respond postively.
|
On February 02 2011 02:33 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 01:42 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other. I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society. I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it. Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths. The world that you advocate is a beautiful utopia where every person is a rational intelligent persn that has transcended byeond petty human traits such as greed, jealousy and out-group hatred. Oh how I would love to live in that world and how I would fear to be unworthy of it. The simple fact is that we are, as a species, not ready for this idea of, lets call it rational anarchy in the words of Robert A. Heinlein. Popular science has - in the recent years - shown us over and over again how irrational humans are and until that changes fundamentally, I am afraid that states under the rule of law are the best alternative we have, especially if they are founded on a constitution that limits the power of the state. It has nothing to do with a utopia or every single person being rational and intelligent. Quite the opposite, the more irrational and ignorant people are, the more reason NOT to prop up huge organizations of immense power that will inevitably be composed of those very same humans. In fact your so called popular science only points to the the very idea of government being irrational, which it can already be proven to me. It's very foolish to think "hey, humans are irrational, so we can't trust each other...so lets let other humans lord over us with immense power, that will fix it!".
If no government exists, there is nothing preventing a stronger external enemy from swooping in and conquering the community. A community without a leader, is far from a stable equilibrium. Eventually the strongest individual or group, with self-interest as motivation, will be able to subjugate the rest and take leadership. Similarly, on a larger scale, the strongest community will eventually be able to take advantage of weaker communities similar to how a bully will steal a kid's lunch money. If there is no overarching arbitrator, the strong will conquer the weak completely unless there is an overwhelming incentive not to.
China's history is a good example of how unstable anarchy is. When the central government grows weak, individual warlords begin annexing territories. Weak counties look to join the strongest warlords for protection from neighboring counties. When the central government is no longer strong enough to contain the warlords, the government dissolves, and the country splinters. The individual warlords fight between themselves for territory and influence. For a short length of time when the states are relatively equal in power, there is an uneasy peace. But whenever one side senses weakness, war erupts, and states are vanquished. This continues until a state becomes stronger than all the remaining states combined. This state will reunite the country and reinstate a central government, and the cycle continues.
While central government is not perfectly stable, it is much closer to equilibrium than anarchy, and this is reflected in the length of dynasties compared to warring states. True anarchy cannot survive indefinitely; a government will always form from the ashes of anarchy.
Central government arises out of the basic human desire for protection. An individual seeks to protect himself from others looking to take advantage of his work. A community seeks to protect itself from other communities, and a country aims to shield itself from other countries. After all, a country is simply a macro representation of an individual.
EDIT: wow... 2 pages of posts by the time I finished mine.
|
|
|
On February 02 2011 03:32 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 03:12 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 02:40 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:43 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 01:33 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 01:20 MiraMax wrote:On February 02 2011 00:52 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 00:49 texasjoe1983 wrote:
This is similar to what is being debated about the health care control act in the U.S..
If people could opt out of the system, a good portion of the healthy (who don't typically need health care) will opt out of the system and just pay out-of-pocket for things like checkups and screenings. The allowance of the unhealthy with pre-existing conditions (who need a good amounty of health care typically) will become part of the system. The disproportion in healthy to unhealthy policy holders would actually cause the whole damn thing to collapse because it would just be too expensive to have an insurance policy and pay for everyone else's problems.
That is why in order for it to not collapse, the system has to be mandatory for all. This mandate that you have to buy insurance goes against the spirit of the United States constitution.
When social security and Medicare/Medicaid were implemented, there was a similar debate going on about how it was an unconstitutional tax.
I know for damn sure that if I could opt out and have my retirement worked out privately, I would opt out. So basically unless we force people who don't need it to pay for it, it doesn't work, so we must force them. That sounds so good and fair. Well, since each of us could - at least in principle - be in a position of need it is fair under the so called veil of ignorance. I think you are a bit confused with regard to what you would like to advocate, however. It seems to me that your main gripe is that you face a situation where the largest part of inhabitable territory on this planet is actually owned by communal groups (or states), which mostly formed long before you were born. They force you into a contract which requires you to follow certain rules (like registering yourself, paying fees and taxes) whenever you engage into transactions with other members and punish you if you don't follow these rules. Notice however that none of that relies on the institution of a government and you could have - at least in theory - found yourself in the same situation in any anarchical society which has been stable enough for a sufficient time and therefore is subject to property or defacto claims of territory. The good news for you is that just by virtue of being born you are equipped with a basic share of the territorial property in exchange for you being forced into said contract. Your rights to this share are upheld by an institution called "the state" and while you cannot directly touch or exploit your share of property, it is made sure that you profit - within limits - from any benefit which is reaped. Notice that only this second part of the deal requires a formal institution to represent your rights. From your statements it seems to me that you rather object to the first paragraph. This leads me to conclude that you simply don't wish to live in a society or community, but rather be on your own. Is that the case? With regard to your comment about government vs government wars: Did it occur to you that these wars might be a direct result of the fact that there is no authoritative force on the level of countries/states which is able to internalize conflicts? On the level of governments there is actually a defacto anarchy, which consequentially leads to armed conflicts. A thoughtful post, like a breath of fresh air. I am quite sure what I advocate however, and it is that we live without initiating violence against each other. So you would not - under any circumstance - use violence if individuals don't follow the rules of a community? You realize that you could not enforce those rules then and that societies - by definition - develop rules (or codes of conduct), right? It seemed to me that you were rather against a certain rule ("every citizen with an income has to pay tax") than against the fact that rules need to be enforced (or otherwise are meaningless).
I do wish to live in a community, and it is quite possible for a community to exist without having to initiate violence against it's own. I fully support the idea of a violent self defense, and a violent retaliation when the time for self defense has passed. I do not support the idea of using violence, to accomplish a goal, to steal from someone "for his own good", or for the so called good of society.
I am glad the you do realize the anarchy is the true nature of our world, as it is the state in which governments exist with each other, and yes, sometimes fights do erupt. A "de facto anarchy" as you called it.
Mankind has built up these governments, and it has accomplished nothing. Instead of a few guys shooting each other in the streets, we have nations massacring each other. All we have done is increase the levels of power, control, and destruction, by funding government and creating these behemoths.
What exactly do you mean by "it has accomplished nothing"? Looking at the technological advances and the quality of living when compared to say 100 years ago, I come to a completely different assessment. Do you think it is mere coincidence that the most advanced (by technological and demographical standards) countries happen to be those with a stable political system in the form of a "state" (more specifically a democratic state in recent history)? There is a difference between rules in a community that can be agreed to, in a community that can be left, and drawing lines of ownership around the entire earth. You credit government for these accomplishments? The USA was a place of extreme innovation simply because it had by far the least restrictive government in the entire world. The less restrictive the government is, the better off a society will be in technology and advancement, all the way down to zerg. Now that the USA has a controlling, gargantuan government, it's innovation will also come to a halt. This is exemplified over and over and over again through out history, people innovate when they are free to innovate. When they are taxed nearly to death and can barely get by, they will barely get by. You have strange idea on how rules are agreed on in the community. Majority tells you(mostly not directly) what the rules are and you listen or be expelled (this is slightly simplified, because you can of course influence the rules at least somewhat, but then you become part of the majority). Frankly if you want to leave a state, you can, you don't even have to leave the territory, just go somewhere to the wild , you can be pretty sure no will come to collect the taxes. You simplify things too much and your knowledge of history is lacking. You won't find absolute correlation between innovation and economic freedom. Innovation depends on so many things. Also as personal freedom increases with time, economical one decreases as more regulation of economic behavior come to pass. So it is even hard to say if freedom is on the rise or otherwise, let alone measure those correlations. So illegally living in the woods alone is your solution to a violent government.
No it was just counterargument to your statement that you cannot leave a state and since noone would care, illegality is not really an issue, especially since you do not recognize the government that makes thing legal or illegal.
I have no need for solutions to violent government since my government is not violent towards me. If you are really oppressed (which you are not) you can always do what oppressed did in the history, start a revolution, that is the only way to depose/change the state/government.
|
People can't be trusted to invest in their future. They are too busy spending all their money on shamwows and billy mays products. In an ideal world it would be a better alternative because money gets lost in red tape.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.aworkinglibrary.com/images/covers/thaler-nudge.jpg)
Nudge is an interesting book on this subject. The basic hypothesis of the book is that you can set up social systems which default to a certain better-than-nothing choice if the user is lazy (ie most people) and allow those who actually care to choose exactly what they want to do.
The chapter on pensions is quite innovative.
|
On February 02 2011 03:31 Treemonkeys wrote:
You limit violence by not funding violent organizations (governments). You handle violence that does occur with a court system. Government does not limit itself, no matter how hard people have tried to right down on paper that it is supposed to. The very nature of it means that only another government can possibly limit it, and then you have a war. Of course it misuses violence all the time, why wouldn't it? It is in control.
Hm, you always state that governments are violent, yet fail to accept that individuals are violent, too. This makes your whole idea of a perfect world pointless. In the same manner in which you state that governments are irrational because people are irrational, governments are violent because people are. Basically, governments were invented because this way the violence is a little more predictable and excerted in a more just or justifiable way.
With regards to your notion that governments have a tendency to inflate themselves, I would agree that tis is the fact. But if it reaches a point where you dislike it, you can either vore a party that plans to reduce government or if all else fails, you can riot and hope a critical mass of others share your view.
Edit:
On February 02 2011 03:53 bonifaceviii wrote:Nudge is an interesting book on this subject. The basic hypothesis of the book is that you can set up social systems which default to a certain better-than-nothing choice if the user is lazy (ie most people) and allow those who actually care to choose exactly what they want to do. The chapter on pensions is quite innovative.
Read it and loved it. Highly recommended because it offers a middle way between libertarianism and forcing people to do the right thing.
|
Roflolmao. No offense but if any tax was voluntary I highly doubt anyone would pay them. The benefits and such, in a perfect world, seem great and all, but practically speaking... everyone is already trying to squeeze in as much as they can with what they have.
Two scenarios:
People would not pay the voluntary taxes with the mentality that others will pay for their benefits anyways. Pretty much how it is now for a lot of things.
Or even if anyone who didnt pay the taxes couldnt benefit from them, whats different from this and private health insurance, retirement funds, etc.
|
On February 02 2011 03:21 Xglutlewl wrote:Show nested quote +
Personally, I wouldn't. I've always seen Social Security as the government taking a percentage of your pay, and putting it away for you, so that when you retire you'll have income. I believe I'm responsible enough to manage my own finances, and don't need to government to do it for me.
Our government does NOT put that money away for you. That is not how it works. The money coming in is paying for the people who are drawing from it. Social Security is bankrupt. You may be paying money in to it but don't expect that it will be there when you retire.
What? Wait, what? Are you one of those people that only listens to the most extreme side of the anti-socialist argument that states "its going to start paying out in benefits more than it takes in from today's workers" and that's the end of it? No followup? No mention of a surplus? X is now bigger than Y and doom has struck our society?
We anticipated this. Its basic math. X would inevitably become bigger than Y because of the huge population spurt back then, so complaining about it is like complaining that the sun rose today. Enormous amounts of surplus is sitting in the system in preparation for baby-boomer retirements. Yes, it will slowly drain, but that's the whole point. Once the baby-boomers start kicking the bucket, it will normalize itself.
|
Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive?
In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
|
If they were optional (i'm not so fond of the term "voluntary"), I would pay for health insurance and probably nothing else.
I don't know if this happens elsewhere, but where I live there are alot of jobs where you don't have to pay any of those taxes (and you don't get the benefits either) because the payment system expliots some loopholes on the Law. And for some reason, most of those jobs are in the IT bussiness 
It's not what you'd call legal, but it isnt illegal either. Has anyone seen something like this?
|
On February 02 2011 03:52 BlackJack wrote:
People can't be trusted to invest in their future. They are too busy spending all their money on shamwows and billy mays products. In an ideal world it would be a better alternative because money gets lost in red tape.
This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. I should be able to do whatever I want with my money that I earned. I'm only 27 and I have invested far more in my retirement fund than I've put into social security while supporting a family and putting myself through college and paying for a home. The only reason you people are ok with the government stealing money from you by force is because you have no life experience. Squatting in your parents home and not having to actually pay real bills makes your opinion irrelevant.
|
I'm a selfish prick and if I didn't have to pay taxes I wouldn't pay a single cent. If I have to rely on SS in the future I failed.
|
On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive?
In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
|
On February 02 2011 04:38 Xglutlewl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive?
In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development. If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
|
On February 02 2011 04:38 Xglutlewl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive?
In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development. If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
nice attitude and simplistic thinking
|
On February 02 2011 04:43 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 04:38 Xglutlewl wrote:On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive?
In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development. If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case. Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
That is a different issue than social security (in the US that is)
"social security" in general terms can mean a lot of things
However the idea of
1. Saving for retirement
2. Paying some type of insurance in case something happens and you can no longer work.
[Which are what is covered by the US Social Security program]
Are something people are capable of doing for themselves.
People who were never able to get a job for reasons other than laziness (poor luck, bad family, bad genes, etc.). That is a different issue.
|
This thread leaves little hope for humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
