Philosophy Now Forum

i've been working on a list of alternatives to taxation. my main goal was to find ways to eliminate them completely that would work satisfactorily for everyone.

however, i am finding it difficult to eradicate them completely. to the extent that i've pretty much put that out of my mind (not entirely yet, but seems that that might have to be so). although i'm still throwing around thoughts on how to rid us from the majority of it.

does anyone have any alternative ideas on how to rid us from taxation without catastrophe?

The downside of less tax-rates is less state income. Of course, if you are of the persuasion that state spending is bad or should be limited somehow then that's not much of problem. I'm not of that persuasion.

But I think there are more effective ways to fund the government in forms of taxes. First of all, money is recycled. And because of this the faster money goes from the government, to the individuals or firms, and faster back again, the more money the government generates for its budgets. Because of this, slow economic cycles like wages and the income tax makes for a smaller gains because the spending from both the state and the individuals and firms is slow-phased. Therefore, although I've as yet made not conclusion, I thought that lowering the income tax and instead building a government budget on V.A.T. instead as that tax takes direct benefit of the spending cycle, and also shift the economy itself away from small but large cash-movements to smaller but many more and much more often cash-movements could increase the cycling speed and therefore the budget also.

Also, an economy funded on VAT could, like the central bank rent, be lowered and increased based on the cycle-speed and how much money is generated from it, as there would be rates (higher) of the VAT that would slow down the economy due to lack of money for the individuals and there would be rates (lower) of the VAT that would speed up the economy, and just like the central bank rent this wouldn't be an absolute but would have certain highest efficiency points as people won't spend more money than there are things to buy.

anarchy works

-Imp

hmmm well, i see your point, but i've been trying to find alternatives to taxation for a variety of reasons, one of them being that i wonder what it would be like to not have to constantly hear 'NO TAXES!' 'LESS TAXES!' 'TAX THE RICH!' 'I WANT TO KNOW WHERE MY MONEY IS GOING!' 'FREAKING USURPERS!' 'UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE! NO YOU SOCIALIST BASTARDS!' etc..

and i wonder what it would be like to live in a world where people aren't born to live a life that is all about taxes? one way or the other.

i understand the first reactions of those to this that are for taxation. that is why i am looking for alternatives to taxation that are still beneficial to society in the same, if not, even better ways.

Impenitent wrote:anarchy works

-Imp

only with and for true non-hypocritical likeminded of consenting age unviolational of the un-likeminded type of anarchists and anarchy?

instead of taxes the government could own businesses. In several wealthy or small states the government ownership of business provides great revenue, and decreases the bureaucracy heavily. However, the financial security of such states are not secured, though this could be countered by emergency-tax laws that enter force should the government business empires fail to deliver sufficiently or somehow collapse. Otherwise there could be other laws or paradigms of statecraft that focus on generating revenue from business activity directly, for instance government banking monopoly, though this would have bad side-effects to peoples business freedoms, or the government could demand rent on all land property and abolish the ownership of land, etc., many forms of monopoly can generate cash.

bus2bondi wrote:i've been working on a list of alternatives to taxation. my main goal was to find ways to eliminate them completely that would work satisfactorily for everyone.

however, i am finding it difficult to eradicate them completely. to the extent that i've pretty much put that out of my mind (not entirely yet, but seems that that might have to be so). although i'm still throwing around thoughts on how to rid us from the majority of it.

does anyone have any alternative ideas on how to rid us from taxation without catastrophe?

No, why should anyone want to do that.
The gov. prints the money and takes back what it thinks it needs, to provide society with the things you and I ask for - stuff that it is not possible to provide for ourselves.

hmm, well, good points vot. i think i'd cross most of that off the list aside from the fact that i don't find it too terrible that a community has a business or two that genuinely uses its revenue for the good of the community. well.. actually i do. because what if the money used from that was used to build a statue? my community is building a new statue. for one thing, i don't like that statue because it used tax money that could've been used for something truly heroic rather than a crock piece of stone.

bus2bondi wrote:hmmm well, i see your point, but i've been trying to find alternatives to taxation for a variety of reasons, one of them being that i wonder what it would be like to not have to constantly hear 'NO TAXES!' 'LESS TAXES!' 'TAX THE RICH!' 'I WANT TO KNOW WHERE MY MONEY IS GOING!' 'FREAKING USURPERS!' 'UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE! NO YOU SOCIALIST BASTARDS!' etc..

and i wonder what it would be like to live in a world where people aren't born to live a life that is all about taxes? one way or the other.

i understand the first reactions of those to this that are for taxation. that is why i am looking for alternatives to taxation that are still beneficial to society in the same, if not, even better ways.

Health is one issue where it is impossible to set aside enough cash for each of us to live free from the fear of illness.

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

bus2bondi wrote:hmm, well, good points vot. i think i'd cross most of that off the list aside from the fact that i don't find it too terrible that a community has a business or two that genuinely uses its revenue for the good of the community. well.. actually i do. because what if the money used from that was used to build a statue? my community is building a new statue. for one thing, i don't like that statue because it used tax money that could've been used for something truly heroic rather than a crock piece of stone.

Well statues are a waste. I like abstract art installations or statues, and naked women statues (:D) but generally they are mostly just propaganda for some ideology, like militarism, nationalism, patriotism, loyalism, or national romanticism ("hero" statues, like of writers, poets, politicians and so forth.)

But what the government spends money on is a different thing than how it gets the money. You could say for instance that only the most essential stuff should be spent with government cash, like healthcare, basic education, security, judiciary and law-enforcement. Maybe include research also, but narrow it down to natural science, like medicine research, and things related to practical things like finance, technology etc., and studies in security and law to make those effective, and then leave the rest of science and the humanities to independent spending.

I don't know, is that your taste for spending? Or was it just particularly the statue which was the problem?

"Well statues are a waste. I like abstract art installations or statues, and naked women statues (:D) but generally they are mostly just propaganda for some ideology, like militarism, nationalism, patriotism, loyalism, or national romanticism ("hero" statues, like of writers, poets, politicians and so forth."

yeah, i wonder what business the government has in art?

"But what the government spends money on is a different thing than how it gets the money. You could say for instance that only the most essential stuff should be spent with government cash, like healthcare, basic education, security, judiciary and law-enforcement. Maybe include research also, but narrow it down to natural science, like medicine research, and things related to practical things like finance, technology etc., and studies in security and law to make those effective, and then leave the rest of science and the humanities to independent spending.

I don't know, is that your taste for spending? Or was it just particularly the statue which was the problem?"

thanks, well i've been breaking down everything and testing out thoughts on how to handle them without government and taxation.

your wrote: 'You could say for instance that only the most essential stuff should be spent with government cash'

that's definitly something i've come across in my thoughts, and i've even tried to find ways to handle those most essential areas without tax. so far, i'm still in the cross it out stage. however, arguments about these most essential areas will go on and be used forever, and it's an asses joyride. so i'm trying to find ways that eliminate the ass, see what i mean???

assless joyrides are not joyful...

-Imp

Health is one issue where it is impossible to set aside enough cash for each of us to live free from the fear of illness.

Some people gamble by paying an insurance company, other countries have more or less state provision.

Generally the less you pay to insurance company parasites the better. Insurance company's main job is to AVOID paying out because they are not motivated to heal but to make money. Their aim is to maximise profits, and so get more income than they pay to the health provider; balancing litigation costs against, claim refusal, and spend outs.
Insurance companies have Death Panels deciding how little they can get away with paying.

What you laughingly call 'socialist medicine' is more efficient and delivers more for less money due to the fact that they are not funding insurance company profits, which cream off around 15-20% of basic health care costs.
So, in this instance MORE TAX please - less insurance.

i think you are right, and i think it should be luxury tax that funds health. are there any arguments against luxury tax as opposed to other forms of tax?

The incumbent Pope signed this into action. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... LX20120921