Proposed Alternative to Income Taxes.

[Odin]

Just to say off the bat, this is not something I necessarily believe should happen, just something I thought of today. I don't endorse income taxes at all, but the point of this post is more coming from the point of view that if we HAVE to have income taxes a more voluntary way is possible.

Income taxes are involuntary in 2 ways - 1.) The money is taken from us without our consent. 2.) We have no power to decide what the money is spent on. I would say we could eliminate one of those impositions, by allowing people to choose to what causes their tax money is distributed.

So the basic groundwork of such a plan would be as follows - government collects a minimal amount of money for itself for the most basic duties - military, emergency and police services at the state and local level, and whatever else. Let's say that is a base of 5% of income. So if you make, for instance, $500,000 a year, you are currently taxed 35% - which is about $175,000. So the idea is that $25,000 you don't have any control over - it goes to the government for the sole purpose of the protection and defense of our freedom. The rest of the money, you can give to causes as you see fit - for instance building roads and highways, providing welfare for the poor, you can give money to legitimate charities, you can give it to scientific research or to universities, you can put it into a program to help students through college, or to any other exercize of compassion, construction of social goods, public education, or whatever other cause the government currently spends money on (apart from corrupt ones or crony ones). This idea could obviously be refined and there would obviously have to be a restriction that the money cannot find its way back to yourself or your company (even though that's what happens in the current government). Anyway I think you get the idea, I'm sure you guys can think of a number of problems, but I will address a few objections that I would expect from more 'mainstream' types of people.

First advantages:
1.) People feel good about themselves and get the chance to exercise their compassion in a personal way.
2.) Efficiency - since there is no guarantee of money coming in, and since the people running each program would have to convince those who are donating to them that they are running it effectively or lose their donations, money would be less likely to be wasted, especially bureaucratically.
3.) Politicians lose most of their power - pretty self-explanatory, but we wouldn't have big business lobbying politicians anymore because politicians wouldn't have the money and big business wouldn't be allowed to receive "tax money."
5.) States rights are restored because the bloated federal government is brought back down to size. Education is no longer in the hands of the federal government and people may give their money to educational programs that correspond to their values.
6.) Possible objection - people choose not to spend money on the important things. I would expect a left-leaning person to say this in regard to welfare or other such programs for the poor. I would argue that 300 million people allocating their money in a somewhat voluntary way is more reflective of the nation's priorities than a few hundred individuals in Congress doing so.

I know it's not a perfect idea but I think the point is that imo it's far better than the current system. Given that the government will force me to give up my money either way, I would much rather decide how it was spend than sending it to Washington DC to be decided by politicians.

Thoughts?

[Danke]

The Income Tax is voluntary.

[John F Kennedy III]

I love it. I was actually thinking something similar the other day.

[ghengis86]

You do realize that all you describe is what occurs in the absence of government extortion? Your proposing that people spend their money as they see fit and then highlight all the benefits that brings! The only difference is the mandatory amount they must spend to keep them out of the rape cage i.e. prison.

[ghengis86]

Sorry, I like the idea and it is better than current system. I just despise taxation of any kind.

[BAllen]

I'm opposed to income taxes as well. A consumption tax is much better. Take the gas tax. The more you drive, the more tax you pay. Very simple. Very effective. It also encourages fuel efficient vehicles. As long as it's not spent on anything else, there's plenty of money for additional roads as needed. There is no need for toll roads.

[erowe1]

The only difference is the mandatory amount they must spend to keep them out of the rape cage i.e. prison.

That's a pretty big difference.

Here's a similar idea I've thought of before.

When we want to cut funding for some government program, change the vocabulary and the whole paradigm of the bill. Don't say "cut," say "voluntarize," and then make part of the legislation the addition of a line on everyone's 1040 that says, "in addition to the amount you are required to pay, would you like to contribute some money above that for government program X?"

Then the politician proposing it can say, I'm not cutting anything. I'm just voluntarizing it. If the taxpayers really want their money to go to that program as much as you think they do, they can continue funding it at the same level, or even increase its funding.

[Henry Rogue]

Sounds a lot like tax choice, pragmatarianism. Xerographica will either feel happy or threatened.

[Odin]

You do realize that all you describe is what occurs in the absence of government extortion? Your proposing that people spend their money as they see fit and then highlight all the benefits that brings! The only difference is the mandatory amount they must spend to keep them out of the rape cage i.e. prison.

Yeah I understand that, but the main objection people have to getting rid of taxes is that people wouldn't voluntarily give money. So I'm just saying if we're going to take people's money anyway, surely a better and more effective system would be to let them decide how it is spent. Although a certain amount of money is taken from you in the sense that you have to pay taxes, I think it is a lot "more free" to let people spend it on whatever issues are on their conscience. People could 'campaign' to get people to allocate more money to the causes they think are important. It would be competition in our tax dollars.

The biggest advantage would be the overall positive effect for society, we would have the best schools and cheapest universities in the world, we would have by far the most efficient "public sector" in the world, it would just be a very good thing for society, and then over time we could lower the tax rate as the economy expands but of course we could allow folks like Warren Buffet to give whatever percent of their income to these causes that is necessary to relieve their conscience.

[Odin]

That's a pretty big difference.

Here's a similar idea I've thought of before.

When we want to cut funding for some government program, change the vocabulary and the whole paradigm of the bill. Don't say "cut," say "voluntarize," and then make part of the legislation the addition of a line on everyone's 1040 that says, "in addition to the amount you are required to pay, would you like to contribute some money above that for government program X?"

Then the politician proposing it can say, I'm not cutting anything. I'm just voluntarizing it. If the taxpayers really want their money to go to that program as much as you think they do, they can continue funding it at the same level, or even increase its funding.

Haha very good. People would fall for it too.

Of course hardly anyone would choose to pay extra for that program. That's why here in California they didn't put prop 30 on everyone's 1040, they put it on the ballot. Because people will gladly vote to raise others taxes but not their own.

[Danan]

I'm opposed to income taxes as well. A consumption tax is much better. Take the gas tax. The more you drive, the more tax you pay. Very simple. Very effective. It also encourages fuel efficient vehicles. As long as it's not spent on anything else, there's plenty of money for additional roads as needed. There is no need for toll roads.

A consumption tax is not "better" than a toll or fee. With a toll or fee you pay for the service you use (if it's provided by a government monopoly it's still not quite like the free market, but at least a similar scenario).

A consumption tax is a tax on everything. The only reason you aquire income, is to consume. All income is ultimately being spent, that's the reason it's there. That being said, it also makes an across the board x% consumption tax little invasive, in comparison to progressive income taxes, etc. (it's closer to what economists call a "lump sum tax").

However the worst kind of "consumption taxes" are the ones like the gas tax you mentioned. Those are designed to be a penalty on certain behaviour (like driving) which is seen socially disadvantageous by some politicians. You don't want to give politicians the power to put extra taxes on fat, sugar, gas, risky behaviour of all sorts, etc.

It's not up to them to decide or to manage the costs and benefits of your decisions. If you want a fuel efficient car, pay for it with your own money. Don't force development in areas you would like it to, by forcing other people to decisions they wouldn't have made on the free market!

The best taxes are no taxes, anyway.

[BAllen]

Then how would roads be payed for?

[Brian4Liberty]

Money is fungible, and government is interconnected. Any money given to government would eventually get moved around.

[fisharmor]

Then how would roads be payed for?

Did you know that your tax dollars have, in the recent past, been used to throw parties for old Afghan men wherein a small boy is dressed up like a girl and made to dance seductively, trying to get the old men to bid on who gets to take him home and have sex with him? It's called Bacha Bazi.

So my question is, if we had voluntary tax funding, how is Bacha Bazi going to be funded? Obviously this is a current function of our government, and I therefore cannot envision a world where my tax dollars are not used to encourage old men to engage in homosexual pedophilia.

Or maybe we could ask the fundamental question, which is "why the fuck are my tax dollars going to this in the first place?"

Why do we ask that question so readily in one case, and never in the other case?

The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot know whether the market would support our road system in its current form. If we don't know that, then there is the real possibility that what we will have under a free market will not be the same.

When you come to terms with that - with the idea that what we have now, what we're forced at gunpoint to fund, is probably the polar opposite of what we would choose if not forced at gunpoint - when you come to terms with that, then it makes no sense to ask "how will such and such be funded".

[Danan]

Then how would roads be payed for?

Tolls, fees, monthly payments, whatever. I can't tell you how, but ask yourself the following question: If government wouldn't build roads, would we stop driving? Would there be no one willing to provide this service?

There is a book by Walter Block dealing with this issue, called "The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors", you can read it if you're really interested in the details: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf (I haven't read it yet but I'm sure it's great).

However, those "how would the free market handle this and that?"-questions are not perfectly answerable.

Murray Rothbard famously talked about a government whose only job it is to produce shoes and how a proposal to let shoe production be just another part of the free market would have to deal with huge resistence:


The libertarian who wants to get the government out of a certain business is “treated in the same way as he would be if the government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax-financed monopoly from time immemorial.”

If everyone had always gotten their shoes from the government, writes Rothbard, the proponent of shoe privatization would be greeted as a kind of lunatic. “How could you?” defenders of the status quo would squeal. “You are opposed to the public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes . . . if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town? . . . What material would they use? . . . Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?”

The bottom line is, you wouldn't have to be a specialist of free-market shoe produciton in order see that, in principle, capitalism is capable to handle this situation. But if those people pushed you to lay out a blue print, you would most likely have no clue, just as I can't give you an exact ad-hoc answer to how private roads would work.

[erowe1]

Then how would roads be payed for?

As long as it's not by way of theft, why does it matter?

And wait a second. Aren't you the same guy who was railing against marxists here just recently?

[BAllen]

As long as it's not by way of theft, why does it matter?

And wait a second. Aren't you the same guy who was railing against marxists here just recently?

Yes. I also understand that some government is necessary.
Without taxes all you need do is look at private neighborhoods. The roads are usually terrible.

[erowe1]

Yes. I also understand that some government is necessary.
Without taxes all you need do is look at private neighborhoods. The roads are usually terrible.

Sounds like you're a marxist.

[BAllen]

Sounds like you're a marxist.

Lol. Not hardly.

[osan]

Just to say off the bat, this is not something I necessarily believe should happen, just something I thought of today. I don't endorse income taxes at all, but the point of this post is more coming from the point of view that if we HAVE to have income taxes a more voluntary way is possible.

Income taxes are involuntary in 2 ways - 1.) The money is taken from us without our consent. 2.) We have no power to decide what the money is spent on. I would say we could eliminate one of those impositions, by allowing people to choose to what causes their tax money is distributed.

This is not a novel idea and it is as bankrupt today as it was back when. Regarding the choice of how your dollars are distributed: the idea is ludicrous on its face. It is like standing before the firing squad and getting to choose the weapon from which the fatal bullet shall issue.


So the basic groundwork of such a plan would be as follows - government collects a minimal amount of money for itself for the most basic duties - military, emergency and police services at the state and local level, and whatever else. Let's say that is a base of 5% of income. So if you make, for instance, $500,000 a year, you are currently taxed 35% - which is about $175,000. So the idea is that $25,000 you don't have any control over - it goes to the government for the sole purpose of the protection and defense of our freedom. The rest of the money, you can give to causes as you see fit - for instance building roads and highways, providing welfare for the poor, you can give money to legitimate charities, you can give it to scientific research or to universities, you can put it into a program to help students through college, or to any other exercize of compassion, construction of social goods, public education, or whatever other cause the government currently spends money on (apart from corrupt ones or crony ones). This idea could obviously be refined and there would obviously have to be a restriction that the money cannot find its way back to yourself or your company (even though that's what happens in the current government). Anyway I think you get the idea, I'm sure you guys can think of a number of problems, but I will address a few objections that I would expect from more 'mainstream' types of people.


Did you have severe food poisoning when you thought this up? No offense intended, but this is the wrong approach to the problem. What is the right approach, you ask? Vanishingly small government. Simple.


I know it's not a perfect idea

I am glad you recognize that much. We will now have to graduate you to "I know it's an utterly horrible idea..."


but I think the point is that imo it's far better than the current system.

See bit about firing squad, above.


Thoughts?

This is called "surrender". Nothankyouverymuchsir.

[osan]

Yes. I also understand that some government is necessary.

Is it? Really? Please elaborate.


Without taxes all you need do is look at private neighborhoods. The roads are usually terrible.

There goes Jesus tapdancing across the Sea of Galilee again...

The "roads" argument is so tired... so utterly and hopelessly clapped out. Why, oh WHY, for heaven's sake do people still use it?

[BAllen]

Is it? Really? Please elaborate.



There goes Jesus tapdancing across the Sea of Galilee again...

The "roads" argument is so tired... so utterly and hopelessly clapped out. Why, oh WHY, for heaven's sake do people still use it?

Maybe because it works?

[Odin]

This is not a novel idea and it is as bankrupt today as it was back when. Regarding the choice of how your dollars are distributed: the idea is ludicrous on its face. It is like standing before the firing squad and getting to choose the weapon from which the fatal bullet shall issue.



Did you have severe food poisoning when you thought this up? No offense intended, but this is the wrong approach to the problem. What is the right approach, you ask? Vanishingly small government. Simple.



I am glad you recognize that much. We will now have to graduate you to "I know it's an utterly horrible idea..."



See bit about firing squad, above.



This is called "surrender". Nothankyouverymuchsir.

I'm glad you think it's ludicrous but if you want me to believe that you will have to explain why it is worse than the current system.

[erowe1]

Lol. Not hardly.

Well, you do want socialized roads.

Do you also want socialized medicine? If not, why do you want socialism in the one and not the other? And what other things do you want socialized?

[Zippyjuan]

National defense is a better example than roads. I can choose to use or not use a road but everybody is covered by national defense whether they agree or not. And it would be extremely difficult to come up with some sort of "user fee" on it.

[osan]

Maybe because it works?

Oh come on, you can't mean to say that this is the best you've got. I refuse to believe it... unless you are in 5th grade and in the bottom fifth of your class.

Because it works... Yeah, it works on stoopid people unwilling to employ their brains to a purpose marginally better than a hat rack.

[osan]

I'm glad you think it's ludicrous but if you want me to believe that you will have to explain why it is worse than the current system.

I did not write that it was worse. If you can find where I wrote that I will eat my hat.

You missed the salient points completely. Go back and read what I wrote again, only this time with some eye toward actual understanding. The meanings of what I wrote are eminently clear. Because you missed them, I can only conclude you that you were either careless or made an innocent error in interpretation. I will not assume you are stupid because you probably are not. You did, after all, learn how to login to these forums. :)

Re-read, take care to apprehend the correct meaning, and your issues should dissipate of their own accord.

[osan]

National defense is a better example than roads. I can choose to use or not use a road but everybody is covered by national defense whether they agree or not. And it would be extremely difficult to come up with some sort of "user fee" on it.

Good example.

[erowe1]

National defense is a better example than roads. I can choose to use or not use a road but everybody is covered by national defense whether they agree or not. And it would be extremely difficult to come up with some sort of "user fee" on it.

Do the things the regime does in the name of "defense" make us safer or less safe? If they make us less safe, then why should any of us have to pay anything for it?

[Aeroneous]

Yet again, Odin, you have come up with some very interesting ideas to ponder. Like the Constitution, this idea would only function in a moral society. I think what you would likely see would be a lot of corruption tactics... creating charities that funnel money back into the pockets of those who donate and what not. But no form of government is without corruption, so we could make that statement about nearly every idea.

Great thoughts, though. I'd be curious to see the results in actual application.

[BAllen]

Well, you do want socialized roads.

Do you also want socialized medicine? If not, why do you want socialism in the one and not the other? And what other things do you want socialized?

Bravo! Fine example of Critical Theory.
;)

[BAllen]

Oh come on, you can't mean to say that this is the best you've got. I refuse to believe it... unless you are in 5th grade and in the bottom fifth of your class.

Because it works... Yeah, it works on stoopid people unwilling to employ their brains to a purpose marginally better than a hat rack.

I'm not the one complaining about it. YOU are.

[erowe1]

Bravo! Fine example of Critical Theory.
;)

You did notice that those were questions. Right?

Could you answer them?

And while you're at it, what's Critical Theory?

[Odin]

I did not write that it was worse. If you can find where I wrote that I will eat my hat.

You missed the salient points completely. Go back and read what I wrote again, only this time with some eye toward actual understanding. The meanings of what I wrote are eminently clear. Because you missed them, I can only conclude you that you were either careless or made an innocent error in interpretation. I will not assume you are stupid because you probably are not. You did, after all, learn how to login to these forums. :)

Re-read, take care to apprehend the correct meaning, and your issues should dissipate of their own accord.

No what you did Osan, was lambast the idea purposelessly without any use of logic or rationality. Unfortunately there were no salient points, there were actually no points at all - just assertions that it is a 'terrible' and 'bankrupt' idea - which I do not appreciate as a response unless you provide some thoughtfulness in doing so. From the point of view of contributing to the thread, or contributing to the understanding of those discussing the idea, your post didn't provide anything. That was my point.

Now if you go back and read the thread again, you'll notice that I started it, and that I made a few simple points that are open to debate. I never said it is a perfect alternative, just that it is a better alternative. That is the only assertion and I provided evidence and reasoning. I understand the point that taxes are theft, but this isn't a moral discussion. The salient question is whether offering people the opportunity to choose what their money is spent on, is better than them having no say at all.

If you want to argue that it is NOT, then we have something to talk about. Otherwise your posting here has no purpose. Obviously I agree with your point about taxes (95% of people on this forum probably do), but that is NOT THE PURPOSE of this thread. Take care to apprehend that point, and your issues will dissipate on their own accord. ;)

[Odin]

By the way Osan, you called my post 'ludicrous' - clearly without either reading or comprehending it. If my post was 'ludicrous' then, once again, you will have to show me that my proposal would be worse than the current system. Notice that is not a claim that you said it is, but you called my post ludicrous - and the essence of my post is that the current system would be worse than my proposal, which puts you in the position of having to defend the italicized assertion.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. I also understand that some government is necessary.
Without taxes all you need do is look at private neighborhoods. The roads are usually terrible.

Meh.

Mass. has some of the highest overall taxation in the nation.

In lots of places the roads suck.

NH has one of the lowest overall taxation rates.

Most of NH roads are top notch.

[osan]

Meh.

Mass. has some of the highest overall taxation in the nation.

In lots of places the roads suck.

NH has one of the lowest overall taxation rates.

Most of NH roads are top notch.

NJ has the highest taxes in the nation and their roads are pretty lousy. Freehold-Englishtown Rd. and the streets in Englishtown are awful. It is the same all over the place, even in wealthy towns like Freehold. I will admit that they are better than they were in the mid- to late 70s, but given that I know people paying $20K/year in property taxes for small capes on 1/8 acre, I would say the taxation scheme could be the poster child for FAIL.

I knew a guy who in the early 80s was living in a modest split-level in Jackson Twp. on 1 lousy acre and paying twelve THOUSAND dollars in property tax. The roads in Jackson in those days barely qualified for the title. The miserable bastards had no ratables, were hell bent for leather to build million dollar schools, and therefore socked it to the residents for all the blood they could squeeze - which is very common in NJ. They are scurrilous criminals and should hang by their balls. A close friend was paying $4K on a 40-acre farm assessment. About 3 years ago they put it up to $24K over night and afforded him no due process. Pay or the sheriff will be paying a visit.

[Odin]

Meh.

Mass. has some of the highest overall taxation in the nation.

In lots of places the roads suck.

NH has one of the lowest overall taxation rates.

Most of NH roads are top notch.

That's an interesting point - but tax money is still used to pay for roads in NH isn't it? I think it's an interesting phenomenon how the more money government takes, the more wasteful it becomes to the point that it does FAR less with much more. Government expansion really only expands the useless administrative jobs imo. So eventually you have so many people 'administrating' and no one actually doing the building. That's why I think this proposal would correct some problems, because if you were at least in charge of your own tax money you would make sure it goes to something efficient.

[BAllen]

Well, from my experience, it works. South Carolina has a lower gas tax, but their roads are terrible........pot holes everywhere, and mostly 2 lane roads. I lived there for several years. Here in North Carolina, we have a higher gas tax, but our roads are far superior. We also have many more 4 lane highways, which makes travel much easier. From what I understand, NJ (or is it NY?) has a high gas tax but is also b/c of a regulation that requires a station attendant to pump the gas, which accounts for the higher price. There are also tool roads up north, so that should be figured as a gas tax, too.

[osan]

From what I understand, NJ (or is it NY?) has a high gas tax but is also b/c of a regulation that requires a station attendant to pump the gas, which accounts for the higher price. There are also tool roads up north, so that should be figured as a gas tax, too.

No. NJ has the lowest gasoline prices in the USA and that has been truth for at least 20 years and more.