If no taxes, what?

brianlux

I'm sure we must have covered this before but while looking at some figures today I'm reminded of this question: If taxes were eliminated, where would the money come from for...

Well, for example- just two situations:

The cost of fighting the Rim Fire in California: well over $100 million
The cost to repair flood damaged highways in Colorado: $430 million

Just those two incidences alone amount to well over half a billion dollars. So if taxes were to be abolished, where would the money for these and all the other billions of dollars spent on fighting fires and repairing roads come from- not to mention parks, sewers, defense, etc., etc.? And what would be the cost to completely change over that infrastructure? And who would get to say what the new method of payment would be?

Just curious as to what some of you think.

unsung

I have problems with four types of taxes.

The inheritance tax- my family's success shouldn't be fined when a family member dies.

The property tax- you never really own your home.

The income tax- government should not get to decide how much a person should get to keep from their own labor. That's slavery.

Taxes on Rights- fee permits to speak, special taxes on firearms, taxes on the use of public lands, etc.


I prefer consumption taxes.

Last-12-Exit

unsung wrote:

I have problems with four types of taxes.

The inheritance tax- my family's success shouldn't be fined when a family member dies.

The property tax- you never really own your home.

The income tax- government should not get to decide how much a person should get to keep from their own labor. That's slavery.

Taxes on Rights- fee permits to speak, special taxes on firearms, taxes on the use of public lands, etc.


I prefer consumption taxes.

a topic I agree with you on. south carolina should be voting on the fair tax system in January. As for the OPs question, there's always been taxes. in every civilization. theres no way for a government to exist without them.

JimmyV

The OP mentions $530 million in unexpected expenses caused by only two events. How would consumption taxes alone ever provide those kinds of funds? Like all Utopian ideas consumption only tax is a nice but impractical one.

unsung

Income taxation is forced and therefore theft.

On edit: there are other ways to raise revenue without taking from the individual.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

Income taxation is forced and therefore theft.

On edit: there are other ways to raise revenue without taking from the individual.

Please share them.

unsung

How about not giving defense contractors a free ride?

unsung

JimmyV wrote:

The OP mentions $530 million in unexpected expenses caused by only two events. How would consumption taxes alone ever provide those kinds of funds? Like all Utopian ideas consumption only tax is a nice but impractical one.

"The man who puts all the guns and decision making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -Murray Rothbard

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The OP mentions $530 million in unexpected expenses caused by only two events. How would consumption taxes alone ever provide those kinds of funds? Like all Utopian ideas consumption only tax is a nice but impractical one.

"The man who puts all the guns and decision making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -Murray Rothbard

Cool quote.

Again, I am curious how a consumption tax only system would provide the necessary funds needed to combat the natural disasters Brianlux mentioned in the OP. Simply saying income taxation is theft does not help those situations. Would ending the supposed free ride of defense contractors provide those funds?

Gern Blansten

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Taxes are completely necessary.

Some government agencies are completely necessary.

Income tax is the only way... coupled with sales taxes and 'other' taxes.

A consumption tax only? Get serious. If you eliminated those taxes that you have listed and relied on a consumption tax only... the tax at the point of purchase would be... off the top of my head- and I might miss by a ton- 70%. It might even be 170%. And if people elect not to buy anything and squirrel away their cash... then let the fires burn and let the roads erode let alone all those essential services. Yikes.

C'mon, man.

hedonist

I like the idea of a flat tax; whether it would work in practice vs. theory, I don't know.

And, I'm with unsung on inheritance taxes.

That said, I might have less of an issue with the taxes I pay if they weren't squandered and put to poor use so often. A school district out here had their teachers assisting their students to cheat on testing. Why am I contributing to their salary, to their pension, to their tenure?

Why did the construction crew that re-paved my workplace's alleyway take twice as long to complete the job, and even then it was fucked up?

Why are our councilpeople paid ridiculous salaries, with it guaranteed after they leave their post? Why are we going to pay Tony Fucking Villar for just "being" after his stint as mayor of LA?

Shit needs to be cut back and cleaned up. Then I might not get so pissy every time I see taxes added on to so many of our bills.

unsung

Gern Blansten wrote:

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

Income taxes are taken by force. Consumption taxes are taken when one chooses to buy something. But technically yes both are theft. I prefer to control what I can.

unsung

End these unconstitutional wars, end the police state, close some of the 900 bases around the world, stop buying $2B planes and ships, etc. That should fund one heck of a firefighting team.

Gern Blansten

unsung wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

Income taxes are taken by force. Consumption taxes are taken when one chooses to buy something. But technically yes both are theft. I prefer to control what I can.

Makes no sense

Income taxes are taken by one choosing to make income.

Gern Blansten

hedonist wrote:

I like the idea of a flat tax; whether it would work in practice vs. theory, I don't know.

And, I'm with unsung on inheritance taxes.

That said, I might have less of an issue with the taxes I pay if they weren't squandered and put to poor use so often. A school district out here had their teachers assisting their students to cheat on testing. Why am I contributing to their salary, to their pension, to their tenure?

Why did the construction crew that re-paved my workplace's alleyway take twice as long to complete the job, and even then it was fucked up?

Why are our councilpeople paid ridiculous salaries, with it guaranteed after they leave their post? Why are we going to pay Tony Fucking Villar for just "being" after his stint as mayor of LA?

Shit needs to be cut back and cleaned up. Then I might not get so pissy every time I see taxes added on to so many of our bills.

The flat tax and fair tax are just schemes to allow the wealthy to pay less. We need the income tax....we simply spend too much money and blow up too many foreigners to not have an income tax.

The inheritance tax is nothing. The federal exemption now exceeds $5million per individual so it effects very few people. Many states are doing away with their state level taxes.

Pingfah

Gern Blansten wrote:

It's ridiculous to say that an income tax is theft and a consumption tax isn't. Absolutely ridiculous.

But with consumption tax you can choose to walk around in homemade clothes sewn together from rags stolen from dumpsters, and starve to death.

FREEDOM!!!

vant0037

Thomas Jefferson, long-held up as the champion for small-government/states' rights political philosophies, believed that when someone died, all of their belongings should cede to the State. He also had a theory that once every generational cycle (approximately 25 years or so), there should be a redistribution of wealth.

JimmyV

vant0037 wrote:

Thomas Jefferson, long-held up as the champion for small-government/states' rights political philosophies, believed that when someone died, all of their belongings should cede to the State. He also had a theory that once every generational cycle (approximately 25 years or so), there should be a redistribution of wealth.

Pfft...sounds like a commie to me.

hedonist

Gern Blansten wrote:

The flat tax and fair tax are just schemes to allow the wealthy to pay less. We need the income tax....we simply spend too much money and blow up too many foreigners to not have an income tax.

The inheritance tax is nothing. The federal exemption now exceeds $5million per individual so it effects very few people. Many states are doing away with their state level taxes.

I don't understand how it's a scheme. If I work to eventually make, say, $500K a year (which deems me "wealthy"), but I'm still paying the same percentage as someone who makes a tenth of that, how are they paying less from a ratio standpoint? Unless the thinking is that the more one makes, the more they should pay, dollarwise vs. actual percentage?

(and to spending too much money - that's part of my point! Stop over-spending and frittering shit away)

Gern Blansten

vant0037 wrote:

Thomas Jefferson, long-held up as the champion for small-government/states' rights political philosophies, believed that when someone died, all of their belongings should cede to the State. He also had a theory that once every generational cycle (approximately 25 years or so), there should be a redistribution of wealth.

Exactly...the whole idea was that if individuals are allowed to continually pass down their estates then the wealthy would gain too much influence.

Gern Blansten

hedonist wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

The flat tax and fair tax are just schemes to allow the wealthy to pay less. We need the income tax....we simply spend too much money and blow up too many foreigners to not have an income tax.

The inheritance tax is nothing. The federal exemption now exceeds $5million per individual so it effects very few people. Many states are doing away with their state level taxes.

I don't understand how it's a scheme. If I work to eventually make, say, $500K a year (which deems me "wealthy"), but I'm still paying the same percentage as someone who makes a tenth of that, how are they paying less from a ratio standpoint? Unless the thinking is that the more one makes, the more they should pay, dollarwise vs. actual percentage?

(and to spending too much money - that's part of my point! Stop over-spending and frittering shit away)

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

hedonist

Gern Blansten wrote:

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

I'd rather it be on me to give more if I earn more; it's no one else's say, really.

(and FYI, I have no desire to get into the wealth distribution discussion )

But it still ties back to my earlier comments about irresponsibility on the part of those who are handling our taxes, regardless of the specific amount any individual pays.

Gern Blansten

hedonist wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Our system is a "wherewithal to pay" system....progressive tax rates. The more you make the more you pay because you are able to.

I'd rather it be on me to give more if I earn more; it's no one else's say, really.

(and FYI, I have no desire to get into the wealth distribution discussion )

But it still ties back to my earlier comments about irresponsibility on the part of those who are handling our taxes, regardless of the specific amount any individual pays.

Right....if we had surpluses and didn't try to blow up all the brown people the top rates would be much less.

unsung

Or not needed at all.

Last-12-Exit

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

Godfather.

a bonus check from your employer is taxed 48% WTF is that all about ? if you win over $1200 at a casino in california you pay 35% in taxes...I am not aginst taxes but the amount we are taxed is friggin crazy, a person earning $1200 to $1400 a week pays about $300 to $400 a week in taxes and it goes up from there, our government does what they arrest the mafia's for but I guess that's just part of the golden rule.

Godfather.

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

You're saying this from 200+ years into the future?

I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of taxes, but it's worth noting that the first income tax was introduced in the US around 1813 (based on British treaties), and from there, introduced or imposed in some fashion up through present day. If you really want to quibble about dates, I'll grant that the progeny to the income tax that we're discussing didn't come until the Civil War.

The point is, it's sort of ridiculous to say that the "country was doing quite fine before income taxes," when the before referring to is hundreds of years ago. Income taxes have been around throughout American history. If you want to challenge or critique the tax system, fine. But history won't provide you with the "time before" that you're looking for.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

End these unconstitutional wars, end the police state, close some of the 900 bases around the world, stop buying $2B planes and ships, etc. That should fund one heck of a firefighting team.

largely paid for by income taxes, yes? Soooo,

Last-12-Exit

vant0037 wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

the country was doing quite fine before income taxes were forced upon the working class.

You're saying this from 200+ years into the future?

I'm not interested in arguing about the merits of taxes, but it's worth noting that the first income tax was introduced in the US around 1813 (based on British treaties), and from there, introduced or imposed in some fashion up through present day. If you really want to quibble about dates, I'll grant that the progeny to the income tax that we're discussing didn't come until the Civil War.

The point is, it's sort of ridiculous to say that the "country was doing quite fine before income taxes," when the before referring to is hundreds of years ago. Income taxes have been around throughout American history. If you want to challenge or critique the tax system, fine. But history won't provide you with the "time before" that you're looking for.

my apologies for being vague. the income tax was used to fund wars before the 16th amendment. but they were revoked shortly afterward. when congress attempted to create an income tax in the late 1800's, it was ruled to be unconstitutional. my point being, that the country didn't need the income tax until wartime. progressives in the early 1900's found the loop hole in the supreme courts ruling, resulting in the income tax amendment.

vant0037

Last-12-Exit wrote:

my apologies for being vague. the income tax was used to fund wars before the 16th amendment. but they were revoked shortly afterward. when congress attempted to create an income tax in the late 1800's, it was ruled to be unconstitutional. my point being, that the country didn't need the income tax until wartime. progressives in the early 1900's found the loop hole in the supreme courts ruling, resulting in the income tax amendment.

Even still, are you really willing to base your critique on the income tax system on a claim that "the country was doing fine prior to 1907?"

By saying that the country was doing fine prior to the income tax (1907), you're picking out a century of civil war, campaigns against Indian nations, Reconstruction, slavery, and bloody expansionism, and saying that is a time period, prior to the income tax, when things were going well. Are you sure that's what you mean? Whether or not the taxes levied during the 1800s to fund wars were unconstitutional or not, are you sure the 1800s are a great example of America "doing quite well," simply because it didn't have the income tax? I'm not implying at all that there's a connection between those things and the existence of an income tax, but your statement does imply America was doing "quite well" prior to the income tax (which by all accounts, was truly implemented in 1907).

Like I said, I'm staying out of the larger argument about taxes, so please don't take offense. But I think its very unpersuasive when you point to inarguably the most internally timultuous century in American history and claim that it represents the "country doing well" because it lacked an income tax.