|
On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree.
This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities.
What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay.
|
On February 01 2011 23:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:25 mcc wrote:Some posters think of Medicare and Social Security as services that will provide them directly with some benefits. But their point should be safety net, because if you get rid of them, what are you going to do with the big percentage of people that will be stupid enough or unlucky enough to be crippled by medical debt or no money in old age. Are you going to let them rot on the street or die ? Charities won't cut it, and so some of these people will turn to crime others will be begging. So think of it as paying for lowering likelihood of being robbed or killed and avoiding the inconvenience of tripping on dead bodies on the street (This is slightly satirical, because for most people ethical argument supported by reality that most people are irresponsible and stupid is enough to see the need for those programs to be mandatory, but for libertarian extremists argument based on selfish interest has to be provided  , not that it will convince anyone ). Charities won't cut it? Wow, I am so convinced. People really still think the US government is responsible and cares about them? Really? Private companies will provide better services than government ? Wow, I am so convinced. You see I can do the same. Your statements are also opinions like mine and are in their current form also nothing more than 'because I say so'. We could discuss the ability of charities to provide necessary funds, but it would lead nowhere since there is no proof only some partial indicators and that will not convince you, so why bother. And I do not think that any government is responsible or cares. Do not personalize the government, it is a system/tool and not a person. Some governments work better some worse, yes in first world seems American one is one of the more dysfunctional, but that does not mean it cannot be fixed.
I didn't make such a statement, and let me know when government is run by machines, rather than people. lol
What will those machines in congress decide next?
|
There already is a voluntary tax, its called "the lottery" and it taxes people who opt out of learning math.
|
On February 01 2011 23:22 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:16 betaV1.25 wrote:On February 01 2011 23:09 Treemonkeys wrote:
Then they wouldn't be called taxes, they would be called donations. The fact that governments have to use violence to force their programs shows how flawed they are. It's just a scam really.
"I'm going to point a gun at your head so you will give me your money, but it's for your own good." You know how much the funding the army/police would be if people would have been given a choise to pay or not to pay taxes that go to the army/police? You basicly have to put a gun against their head and tell them... it's for your your own security. This basicly show the flaws in their programs, or your reasoning i forget. You would have to actually convince people that you were doing a good job of handling their money, and that your services were needed, which almost every government is doing a pathetic job of right now. You can count yourself with one of humanity that is too stupid to know how to take care of itself, but I'm not one of those. There isn't any reason to argue about specifics, because it's already clear that you want to pay, and want others to be forced to pay. So don't talk about my reasoning, when your "reasoning" is using violence to force people. That isn't reasoning, that is brute force that says fuck all reasoning.
Its a good thing that i am a grown up and that i wont be offended by you calling me too stupid to take care of myself.
I fail to see how ever how your government is using brute force to make you pay. As i remember it social security was one of the biggest things obama wanted to change and if i recall it correctly he was chosen to lead the US in a fair and democratic election. So I really dont get were my reasoning is supporting violence to force people.
Furthermore, please elaborate how 'almost every government is doing a pathetic job' with social security. Because if i look at the spending of some governments i think regarding social security they are doing a good job. I am allso rather confused that you dont want to discuss anymore the minute somebody thinks social security is good idea, this is ofc a very good way of making sure you don't have any other point of view then the one you hold so dear.
|
On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree.
I think also prisoner dilemma with more than 2 participants shows the similar thing in pure game theory sense. The only stable strategy in those scenarios is to defect. So we end up in a situation that is stable yet everyone is worse off than they would be if some outside force made them contribute for common good.
And those scenarios are not some highly engineered constructs that you cannot find in a real world. They are everywhere in society and not necessarily is the outside force the government. Often in smaller groups societal pressure has this role, on a bigger scale government is necessary because societal pressure does not work well over big groups of people that do not interact with each other often. I would be interested if libertarians also think that societal pressure is the same evil as government, because it also forces you to do things.
|
On February 01 2011 23:47 betaV1.25 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:22 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:16 betaV1.25 wrote:On February 01 2011 23:09 Treemonkeys wrote:
Then they wouldn't be called taxes, they would be called donations. The fact that governments have to use violence to force their programs shows how flawed they are. It's just a scam really.
"I'm going to point a gun at your head so you will give me your money, but it's for your own good." You know how much the funding the army/police would be if people would have been given a choise to pay or not to pay taxes that go to the army/police? You basicly have to put a gun against their head and tell them... it's for your your own security. This basicly show the flaws in their programs, or your reasoning i forget. You would have to actually convince people that you were doing a good job of handling their money, and that your services were needed, which almost every government is doing a pathetic job of right now. You can count yourself with one of humanity that is too stupid to know how to take care of itself, but I'm not one of those. There isn't any reason to argue about specifics, because it's already clear that you want to pay, and want others to be forced to pay. So don't talk about my reasoning, when your "reasoning" is using violence to force people. That isn't reasoning, that is brute force that says fuck all reasoning. Its a good thing that i am a grown up and that i wont be offended by you calling me too stupid to take care of myself. I fail to see how ever how your government is using brute force to make you pay. As i remember it social security was one of the biggest things obama wanted to change and if i recall it correctly he was chosen to lead the US in a fair and democratic election. So I really dont get were my reasoning is supporting violence to force people. Furthermore, please elaborate how 'almost every government is doing a pathetic job' with social security. Because if i look at the spending of some governments i think regarding social security they are doing a good job. I am allso rather confused that you dont want to discuss anymore the minute somebody thinks social security is good idea, this is ofc a very good way of making sure you don't have any other point of view then the one you hold so dear.
I'm not saying you are too stupid to take care of myself, you were the one saying humanity in general is too stupid to know what's good for them, and I was saying I am not one of those people. You can consider yourself one if you want to.
You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob.
I didn't say every government is dong a pathetic job with social security, they are doing a pathetic job in general. If you actually think they are doing a service for humanity. If you look at it from the angle of power and control, they are doing a great job.
|
On February 01 2011 23:45 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:40 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:25 mcc wrote:Some posters think of Medicare and Social Security as services that will provide them directly with some benefits. But their point should be safety net, because if you get rid of them, what are you going to do with the big percentage of people that will be stupid enough or unlucky enough to be crippled by medical debt or no money in old age. Are you going to let them rot on the street or die ? Charities won't cut it, and so some of these people will turn to crime others will be begging. So think of it as paying for lowering likelihood of being robbed or killed and avoiding the inconvenience of tripping on dead bodies on the street (This is slightly satirical, because for most people ethical argument supported by reality that most people are irresponsible and stupid is enough to see the need for those programs to be mandatory, but for libertarian extremists argument based on selfish interest has to be provided , not that it will convince anyone ). Charities won't cut it? Wow, I am so convinced. People really still think the US government is responsible and cares about them? Really? Private companies will provide better services than government ? Wow, I am so convinced. You see I can do the same. Your statements are also opinions like mine and are in their current form also nothing more than 'because I say so'. We could discuss the ability of charities to provide necessary funds, but it would lead nowhere since there is no proof only some partial indicators and that will not convince you, so why bother. And I do not think that any government is responsible or cares. Do not personalize the government, it is a system/tool and not a person. Some governments work better some worse, yes in first world seems American one is one of the more dysfunctional, but that does not mean it cannot be fixed. I didn't make such a statement, and let me know when government is run by machines, rather than people. lol What will those machines in congress decide next?
Oh I forgot that every system that has some people incorporated is a person. Seems like working factory can also 'care' and 'be responsible', the same for a company, car with people in it,...
|
On February 01 2011 23:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:45 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:40 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:25 mcc wrote:Some posters think of Medicare and Social Security as services that will provide them directly with some benefits. But their point should be safety net, because if you get rid of them, what are you going to do with the big percentage of people that will be stupid enough or unlucky enough to be crippled by medical debt or no money in old age. Are you going to let them rot on the street or die ? Charities won't cut it, and so some of these people will turn to crime others will be begging. So think of it as paying for lowering likelihood of being robbed or killed and avoiding the inconvenience of tripping on dead bodies on the street (This is slightly satirical, because for most people ethical argument supported by reality that most people are irresponsible and stupid is enough to see the need for those programs to be mandatory, but for libertarian extremists argument based on selfish interest has to be provided , not that it will convince anyone ). Charities won't cut it? Wow, I am so convinced. People really still think the US government is responsible and cares about them? Really? Private companies will provide better services than government ? Wow, I am so convinced. You see I can do the same. Your statements are also opinions like mine and are in their current form also nothing more than 'because I say so'. We could discuss the ability of charities to provide necessary funds, but it would lead nowhere since there is no proof only some partial indicators and that will not convince you, so why bother. And I do not think that any government is responsible or cares. Do not personalize the government, it is a system/tool and not a person. Some governments work better some worse, yes in first world seems American one is one of the more dysfunctional, but that does not mean it cannot be fixed. I didn't make such a statement, and let me know when government is run by machines, rather than people. lol What will those machines in congress decide next? Oh I forgot that every system that has some people incorporated is a person. Seems like working factory can also 'care' and 'be responsible', the same for a company, car with people in it,...
????
|
A better poll might be Which programs Would you voluntarily pay taxes for
Police, Fire, Courts, Roads... I would pay taxes to benefit
Social Security/Welfare/Education.. No, I figure I can do those better myself
Medicare/trash collection.. Depends on how the private market is able to respond to individuals, I don't think either of those are geared for individual buyers.
National Defense/Foreign policy... well I don't see how those can be voluntary. (the army can't say (invade this house and it's not an act of war... the other house and it is... especially since some houses are in the middle of the US, or any country)
The reason private corporations do better than government is that private corporations can fail. They are Designed to be able to fail (and when they can't ie too big too fail, then they are like a branch of the government.)
|
On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay.
Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels.
I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs.
|
On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob.
I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition.
|
So basicly you think the system called democracy is a voilent system that uses brute force.
I know a quote from this guy, that you might known, he is on the 2 dollar bill.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
If you think this is unfair feel free to suggest another system
|
|
|
On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs.
Those who use more pay more is not only just, it means that if people use more of it, there can BE more of it (and vice versa, if people use less, there will be less)
If you say the rich should pay more for certain things, why not extend that to everything?
If you want to buy a car you must pay 50% of your yearly income... luxury cars are 100% of your yearly income.
Gas costs 0.01% of your yearly income per gallon (or per liter, it costs more in Europe anyways)
A House costs 40% of your income for 30 years (varies by house) or just 10 years of income up front
Rent is 20% of your income (varies by apartment)
I don't think that would be Just, because extra income would have no extra reward. Now there is luck involved in income but there is also effort,and that effort needs to be rewarded.
Also the OP particularly talked about a system where there is no Free rider problem. Social Security... I personally won't get Social Security because I work as a teacher and they are excluded (because they have their own mandatory retirment system)
I will not benefit in any way from the money Other people have put into Social Security.
Some government systems are potentially like that, Social Security, Welfare, Parks, Roads, Education, etc. Someone could "opt out" and receive no benefits (ie the government doesn't give you a driver's license if you don't pay the road taxes)
Fire and Police and Courts are something that there is Some "spill over" particularly in crowded areas.
Regulations enforcement v. companies Could be voluntary, but just like police, that would be hard (You can only by "made to Regulation" products if you pay the tax.)
That Actually might be do able... Products that carry the "made to government regulations" stamp also have an extra ~10% tax on them (to pay for enforcing those regulations).
National Defense/Foreign Policy... has Really strong spillover, almost no way
|
On February 02 2011 00:04 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:44 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 01 2011 23:36 Electric.Jesus wrote:
To answer the OPs question. If taxes are voluntary, no on will pay. That is what psychology and experimental economy tells us (you can read hundreds of papers that investigate human behavior in public goods games and they pretty much tell the same story). It is quite easy to see why people will not like to pay taxes if it is voluntary for at least three reasons:
1. It is economically rational to "defect", that is not to pay and hope that others will do.
2. You get to see little benefit from your individual payment, that is, the contigency between effort and reward is low. This redcues individual motivation to pay taxes.
3. You risk being the sucker that pays for the free-riders. The sucker-effect is known to reduce individual motivation to contribute to the group.
There are probably more reasons why a voluntary tax system does not work. The nly way that they reliably work is with social contro and punishment for defectors which is why the established systems seem to work to some degree. This isn't always true. People do pay for services, people do pay for charities. What if instead of paying taxes to fund roads and traffic police, you could choose to pay, but if you don't pay, you can't use the roads? Of course people would pay. Hm, charitiy is different ebcause it is based on altruism. I thin the OP was about paying for a public good that everyone including the payer benefits from. With regards to your second statement, this is not uncommon. Take, for example, tolls for roads, bridges and tunnels. I think, it basically come down to how yout want to finance public goods. Financing them via taxes means the rich get to pay more, tolls/fees mean those who use them pay more. It is a matter of how you define just distribution of the costs.
...and people think this isn't fair, or they just want something for free?
Basically all usual arguments of morality and fairness get turned around ass backwards when applied to government, always backed up with hyperbolic arguments based on "it won't work".
What won't work? Humanity will become extinct?
Humanity is hilariously stupid when you look at it from an outside perspective. So many lines drawn on the world, with each area having a government massing up arms so it can defend itself from other governments, all at the common person's expense. Too fearful and controlled to realize the truth, that if they could only disarm all of the governments they would have so much less to defend themselves from. So many wasted resources with such a short lifetime.
Government truly is the only reason we need government. It supports it's own existence through violence and fear mongering.
|
On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition.
Really? How do you know this?
|
On February 02 2011 00:12 betaV1.25 wrote:So basicly you think the system called democracy is a voilent system that uses brute force. I know a quote from this guy, that you might known, he is on the 2 dollar bill. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” If you think this is unfair feel free to suggest another system
When you throw people jail and then kill them if they resist, that is brute force. Not sure how you could possibly disagree. Democracy only means there are more people deciding your fate instead of one dictator, it doesn't change the level of brute force used at all.
It's always funny that whenever I am involved in these types of discussions, there are always people adamantly disagreeing with me while at the same time, they lack even a basic understanding of what government actually is.
I actually expected more with this thread, because the OP flat out says taxes are not voluntary.
I suggest a system where we do not initiate violence against each other to accomplish goals.
|
Medical treatment can be pretty expensive, so atleast for health insurance I'd really rather pay taxes than buckle up 100k+ in cash for life saving surgery should I ever need it. As for social security, I think I'm responsible enough to handle my own finances, so that'd be nice.
|
On February 02 2011 00:24 insaneMicro wrote:
Medical treatment can be pretty expensive, so atleast for health insurance I'd really rather pay taxes than buckle up 100k+ in cash for life saving surgery should I ever need it. As for social security, I think I'm responsible enough to handle my own finances, so that'd be nice.
Without government, it would be affordable.
|
On February 02 2011 00:19 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 00:08 mcc wrote:On February 01 2011 23:56 Treemonkeys wrote:
I'You don't understand how the government is using brute force? Do you know what voluntary means? Do you know what involuntary means? Please explain to me how X number of people I have never meant, choosing to force me into paying for something is fair, yet if one person takes from me it is a crime? Explain the logic of your morality, where it is fair to be robbed by a mob. I would like to point out that unless you live outside of society there is no way to implement stable really voluntary system, so complaining that government is baaad without showing workable alternative system is kind of pointless. Government in reasonable countries does not actually use force to extract taxes, because it does not have to, because its authority is based on societal pressure. Yes there is a theoretical threat of force, but the same threat is in any human society even without any government. There is no way to avoid de facto rule of majority, and them forcing you to do stuff other than rule of minority which is not really a better solution, and is not stable in the longterm anyway. Modern governments are pretty decent solutions based on accepting this unpleasant fact of human condition. Really? How do you know this?
I could again say the same way you know things you write as you also provide NOTHING in the way of proof. As I said earlier any argument that is available would not be enough for you. Some of it is experience, some of it is historical precedent, others are game theory and biology, they all somewhat point to the conclusion I made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
