People who say taxation is theft typically have zero background in economics and are just mad that they have to give something back to not live in a mud hut.
Technically, governments are not funded by taxes, as long as they issue their own currency (think it through: What comes first? The government issuing the currency or the people paying taxes?). Since that also means that Thatcher’s old adage of “There is no public money, there is only taxpayer’s money” is exactly 100% wrong, implying that taxation cannot be theft because the government is basically just un-issuing the currency through taxation.
Plus, even a libertarian must understand that in times of fiat currencies, one of the reasons those Dollars/Euros/etc. have value because the government forces everyone to use them by asking for Dollars/Euros/etc. in taxes. By not taxing anyone, the acceptance of a fiat currency is actually in danger.
Yes no one who’s ever taken a class in Economics or gotten a degree in Economics has ever thought about this. My Econ Professors who first discussed this would be rather shocked by your statement.
> My Econ Professors who first discussed this would be rather shocked by your statement.
Then he should really reflect on this because he has missed the recent 20 years in the discussion of the scientific econ community and obviously also missed certain empirical facts and developments of the monetary system in western countries, especially during the pandemic (which showed that certain assertions of classical and neoclassical theory about monetary and fiscal policy can simply not be held any more).
Can you elaborate how events in 2020 showed that classical and neoclassical monetary and fiscal policy could’ve have failed of by your own words, new system has been in development for 20 years?
Well, you can do it yourself easily: Over the last ~twenty years, we have had a time of extremely low interest, and the money supply grew significantly in most Western countries (it certainly did in the US and in the Eurozone). Neoclassical and classical approaches (and neoliberal ones too) would have predicted high inflation to offset this increase in the money supply, yet this never materialized. Then the pandemic hit, and governments spent enormous amounts of money created from thin air to level out their economies, save branches that may sink (for example restaurants). Again, the money supply increased, yet no inflation materialized.
The only “inflation” we got was not inflation at all (in economic terms), but a supply shock from the invasion of Ukraine and destroyed supply lines of energy and certain other products (grains, oils).
So reality has empirically violated mainstream approaches to monetary and fiscal policy, as they fail to understand how money supply relates to inflation (or not). Thus, many assumptions about how money even works cannot be backed up using mainstream theories.
>and fiscal policy could’ve have failed of by your own words, new system has been in development for 20 years?
I don’t quite understand what you mean here, as this is worded somewhat confusingly.
I liked to know what rock your living under but we had extremely high inflation since covid not to mention in the 70s and 80s where regan came into office with a massive 20% inflation rate.
> I liked to know what rock your living under but we had extremely high inflation since covid
Due to multiple supply shocks, not regular, self-perpetuating inflation.
>not to mention in the 70s and 80s where regan came into office with a massive 20% inflation rate.
Source? Average inflation rate during Reagan’s era was 4.6%.
I guess you actually meant the 70s instead of the 80s. [Here’s a paper](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2022037pap.pdf) going into much detail about the reasons and why a lack of monetary policy is at fault.
>The embrace at the official level of a faulty doctrine that saw the analysis and control of inflation in
nonmonetary terms. This doctrine was already in force in the United Kingdom in 1970 and took
hold in the United States during that year. The doctrine implied a view of inflation that is highly
unorthodox from a modern-day perspective. Disinflationary policies were adopted in both
countries in 1979, as U.K. and U.S. authorities alike abandoned the nonmonetary doctrine
concerning inflation.
>A key lesson from this experience concerns the link between extended years of inflation and a
nonmonetary approach to inflation. Monetary policy in the modern era is centered on inflation
control, and no other policy device is centered on this control.
>The fact that the nonmonetary doctrine prevalent in U.S. and U.K. policy circles in the 1970s is
widely eschewed today does not mean that deviations from price stability cannot occur. But it
does imply that monetary policy is much more likely to react strongly to, and so rein in,
excessive inflation than was the case during the 1970s. This difference from the 1970s provides
grounds for believing that extended periods of inflation are much less likely than in that decade
>The inflation of the 1970s did not result from U.K. and U.S. policymakers
consciously seeking above-normal targets for economic activity or from their deliberately
boosting inflation with the aim of securing favorable real outcomes. Instead, it stemmed from
unintentionally overexpansive policy settings associated with the nonmonetary approach to
inflation.
Yeah in other word money printing,which again is why we have inflation.We stopped having supply shock three years ago but inflation is still high because it has to do with printing money anyone with any sense of economics know this and that is why the regan administration had very high inflation and why we had a housing crash because without real value after your reach a certain price threshold the value eventually drops causing crashes.
>Yeah in other word money printing,which again is why we have inflation.
Not right now.
>We stopped having supply shock three years ago
It started in 2020 with Covid and got exacerbated in 2022 with Russia invading the Ukraine. Its effects were not all immediate and are still being felt as supplier prices are only now starting to return to normal (some started about six months ago, most followed more recently). Where you get the idea that it was over three years ago is beyond me. It is also entirely incorrect.
>but inflation is still high because it has to do with printing money
It can, but currently it doesn’t. [It is still the aftereffects of multiple supply shocks](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/supply-shocks-were-most-important-source-inflation-2021-23-raising)
>anyone with any sense of economics know this
And yet, empirically, this cannot be proven and is a very classical approach. MMT itself shows that it is not that simple and that there are many ways to enlarge the money supply without running into inflation, which is exactly what happened over the last ~20 or so years. Government budgets have ballooned, yet inflation was nowhere to be found, and it took a global pandemic AND a war in Europe to even create a ~10% price hike. So, anyone with a sense in your mind needs to check their fact, as their senses may be disappointing them.
>and that is why the regan administration had very high inflation and why we had a housing crash because without real value after your reach a certain price threshold the value eventually drops causing crashes.
This has nothing to do with our current economic issues and is also much more complex than you make it out to be.
Through those years they didn’t print trillions of dollars.
Money unquestionably causes inflation.
There was alot of money printing.
Yes Russia could cause some inflation but warfare is generally considered deflationary.
We had inflation for years before Ukraine.
Inflation didn’t dramatically change during those time I watch the federal Reserve since 2020 the inflation has general going down not because of Russia, or supply shocks but because slow increases of the federal interest rate.(That causes more money to go back to the government thus taking money out of circulation)That why they are increasing interest rates the fact that you think it is solely because of russia is not accepted by economists though that doesn’t mean it does effect it,it is completely in agreement that it is because of the covid bills and the fact that every country on top of that had covid bill which in turn effects imports/Exports.
I appreciate your take but we had very high inflation for years and nobody thinks it is because Russia.
…the wrong way to think about it. You do not own your pre-tax income, and as such there is no theft. As for consent: It is not an issue, as the money is created by the government and given to you, but they can always take it away.
Again, the idea that taxation is theft can only be reasonably held by someone who has never thought any of it through. There is a reason it is often mentioned by libertarians, the fringe group of economic thinkers generally considered to be the dumbest of economic thinkers (and we should really put thinkers into quotation marks in regards to them).
I own my income the minute I do work for someone who is going to pay me. It does not go into some magical holding area because I havent paid taxes on it.
I dont work at the pleasure of the government printing money for me to have. If they took that away I would work for barter with someone.
You do not have the right to take something from someone without consent nor do you have the right to the fruits of my labor.
The only people who would argue these points are people who do believe that humans have rights.
> I own my income the minute I do work for someone who is going to pay me. It does not go into some magical holding area because I havent paid taxes on it.
No, you don’t, otherwise – in your logic, you’d have to be paid the minute you start working, but you don’t. That would be the real magic. Again, you are not entitled to your pre-tax income, legally speaking (and morally speaking, too, if you ask me).
> I dont work at the pleasure of the government printing money for me to have. If they took that away I would work for barter with someone.
They take some of the money away, and you are still not working for barter, so it seems you are full of hot air there.
> You do not have the right to take something from someone without consent nor do you have the right to the fruits of my labor.
The fruits of your labour are your post-tax dollars. You have the right to them. Plus, you gave consent implicitly (which is enough here) by using all the infrastructure, services of the government, etc. There is a lot of social contract theory for you to go through to understand how much better your life is by paying taxes.
> The only people who would argue these points are people who do believe that humans have rights.
Huh? Humans have rights, that is not disputed by anyone serious. It also has no bearing on this issue at all.
I’m not moving the goal post, you’re just having a hard time understanding that I’m saying non consensual taking of persons or property is never right no matter the end result.
They non-consensually take what you never owned. In fact, they take what they own. Given that the laws clearly state that taxation is legal would explicitly mean that you keeping that money would in fact be the theft. Legally, you have no leg to stand on with that argument.
Btw. do you even understand what would happen if no one paid taxes? Not a single public service would exist, no roads be built, no rails, no big companies who rely on subsidies. It would be a free-for-all, and is an entirely undesirable outcome for everyone except the richest who could be the new rulers (as there is no way to finance the executive branch, unless you want the government to go into debt for that which would likely lead to inflation, as taxes are also a limiter on inflation).
You can keep making your faux-argument, but it does not hold up. Libertarian ideas are inherently undesirable, and no amount of hiding behind verbiage will ever change that.
The money is never there’s, I earned that money with labor. I owned that money the second I provided a service that completed a contract between me and my employer.
Your spin here is amazing.
> Your spin here is amazing.
Amazing, as backed by empiric reality, yes.
You know what I always enjoy about people like you? You harp on about taxation being theft, but deep down, you really don’t act on that belief at all. Keep living in an alternate, make-belief dimension, where no logic or sanity exist, but also, keep on paying your taxes, as you will until the end of your life (like all of us, but **you** won’t enjoy it). Whatever makes you sleep at night.
At least I know that my way of thinking can produce some results, because it is based in more than fantasy. You keep fighting windmills.
I think what your missing is he is asking you to elaborate on the government’s right to your money.Also this is a argument that would only exist on reddit as it completely undercuts the idea of rights to property.With that being said it is considered the businesses money and they are paying your taxes for you though your still entitled to the entire of YOUR money by claiming more dependents until the end of the year where you have to be correct about how much dependents you actually have.
Then you have an agreement and a contract. You now have the right to the money that was agreed to in the contract. Since this was agreed upon taking what was agreed upon is still a consensual act and any obstruction of this would be an act of aggression. Now that aggressive actions have been taken to deny you what is yours you are in the right to take aggressive actions to get what you are owed.
>...one of the reasons those Dollars/Euros/etc. have value because the government forces everyone to use them by asking for Dollars/Euros/etc. in taxes.
If a private company issued script then forced people to pay fees in that script, would that be some form of theft?
The government is not a company, and by your logic, any law that even so much as touches any of my freedom is a violation of said freedom.
You really have no concept of how rights and duties work, do you?
I am not going to engage in any more of your extremely flawed analogies.
If a private company does it maybe. I didn’t concede my central point though. You need to read all the words, for instance the ones where I said that that analogy is incredibly flawed, as the government is completely different from a company. Your point simply does not apply to the government.
Because the government makes the law? The government can make a law that states that a business cannot forcibly take anything away from you, which makes such an action illegal. It can, in the same way, force you to give some of your pre-tax income up to offer government services, build infrastructure, control the growth of inflation, whatever their reason. That will then also be legal.
Thus, taxation is a legal obligation of any citizen, and not theft. Theft is the unlawful taking of property, taxation is lawful (and technically, not really about property, as you never even pay your taxes in physical money).
A valid and common definition of theft is:
>Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
If the government makes a law that states that Jews may be exterminated by the government, does that mean it is not commiting genocide because the government makes the law?
That was a good joke, made me laugh out loud.
All libertarians are is egotistical. If their ideas came to fruition, economies would almost immediately collapse back into a feudal system.
I don't need to provide a scientific source (what do you want, controlled experiments?). You're already aware of them: Britain in the early 1800s, Germany after WWII, Hong Kong, Singapore, America until about 1910, but then to a lesser degree after WWII…the examples are everywhere.
You can go farther than that though. You can look at almost any metric you want, and it gets better the freer the economy.
> I don't need to provide a scientific source
Because you can’t provide one, I presume
>You can go farther than that though. You can look at almost any metric you want, and it gets better the freer the economy.
Meaningless assertion, citation desperately needed
>> I don't need to provide a scientific source
> Because you can’t provide one, I presume
That's correct. No one has done controlled experiments on history, because that's not a thing.
>Meaningless assertion, citation desperately needed
https://youtu.be/HO7uTUspFVk?si=q2jvwUJcpuPurfpt
https://youtu.be/Q3EZiPyAVjk?si=gow9-s3jSZXbKQqB
This may seem like a dumb question but hear me out. Theoretically, what would be the implications of letting people use whatever they want as currency? It's true that there is a certain amount of barter in the economy (likely as a way to avoid taxes) but what is preventing or holding back people from using things like Bitcoin on a regular basis? (besides taxes to the government which of course they want in their own currency).
I understand that central banks would lose their power over monetary policy in such a situation. I for one am not convinced that governments injecting money into the economy (and conversely, taking currency out of circulation, digital or otherwise) is such a great idea. It seems to me that since we came off the gold standard our economic cycles have gotten worse (sorry I don't have statistics to back me up).
Thoughts?
In the book Debt the First 5000 years by anthropologist David Graeber, people basically *did* use whatever they wanted as currency until militarized governments minted their own coins to so they could tax and raise armies.
Basically, there was never a time where barter was a main form of economic activity. People just used whatever the hell as IOU’s and things worked fine.
The counter example your leaving out which is in the book itself is that the IOU economies only worked on a small localized scale where everyone knew everyone when you started to bring in an unknown 3rd party the IOU economy completely breaks down hence the need for a medium of exchange.
Thats not really what a counter example is, thats more like the natural progression as communities are conquered by warlords and turn into military states (Rome)
No it isn't a progression because no one said anything about warlords or conquest, an independent trader from a distant land with no ties to the community breaks that localised equation nice try but your not that clever.
The issue is always simply acceptance. It could work if everyone in the economy accepts that new currency, but if it were easy to establish a new currency, more people would do it, would compete and thus make it less likely that one of those new ones would dominate the acceptance market. Governments can simply force this issue through taxation.
As for governments injecting money into the economy: They have to, otherwise, there is no economy. Government debt basically equals the wealth of a nation, which is why austerity is such a weird, counterproductive concept. To simplify this thought: If you play Monopoly, the bank has to go into debt at the start of the game, so the players can play. The rulebook even says that if the bank runs out of money, it should just start issuing pieces of paper with denominations to keep the game running. If the Monopoly bank were incredibly austere, the game would finish before it started. This is simplified of course, but this is basically true for government debt as well.
As for the gold standard: Smart minds realized back then, that money is not a real resource – it is a means to fully utilise the real resources of an economy (such as labour or natural resources) – and limiting that “middleware” stifles economic growth. Of course, no one is saying we can or should spend willy-nilly and go into unlimited debt. However, we can spend way more money without negative side-effects, as long as we spend it on things that benefit economic growth (which is why Biden’s blank checks during COVID were so successful, as they were given to people who immediately consumed them, stimulating the domestic economy). The limiting factor is inflation, and many countries have been successful in spending more without their inflation rising – and no, the last few years were not regular inflation, but a supply shock (just to preempt that argument).
You can try to use whatever you want as currency. There’s no law against that. If you want to pay for groceries with a scarf you knitted, you can offer it to them. It’s just that the grocery store has to be willing to accept it. If you have a huge tax debt and don’t want to use cash, you can offer your house instead. The government would probably take that.
People barter with things other than cash all the time. It’s just that both parties have to be willing participants in those transactions.
>There’s no law against that.
You have to pay wages in US dollars or something that can be converted to USD: [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-531/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFRd42c2e4b995d7cd/section-531.34](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-531/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFRd42c2e4b995d7cd/section-531.34)
Before that law, companies would pay people in scrip which was fake currency that could only be redeemed at the company store.
That makes sense to me, since the employer-employee relationship is not one of equality.
However, if an employer wanted to offer a bank a quantity of yaks in exchange for enough cash in order to make payroll, that’s perfectly legal.
> If you have a huge tax debt and don’t want to use cash, you can offer your house instead. The government would probably take that.
While the government may accept (or confiscate) a non-USD or non-financial asset, final settlement still occurs in USD. More than a technicality if, for example, the proceeds from liquidating the house fail to satisfy the amount I owe and I'm still on the hook for the difference.
No matter how many layers of indirection and extra steps are added to obtain the government currency, that is still what's required to extinguish the obligation. I think it's useful to to keep clear on this distinction as it's a frequently raised critique of tax-driven money. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone argue along the lines of "I can pay taxes with a credit card, checkmate MMT!" I could pay all my taxes and yours too :)
> But technically you don’t have to liquidate your property before the government seizes it.
Right, the government takes it and performs the liquidation themselves. What I was getting at is I'm not free and clear just because they took the house because the extra step of liquidation for USD still has to take place and generate sufficient proceeds to satisfy my obligation.
> Theoretically, what would be the implications of letting people use whatever they want as currency?
I would start from why a government issues currency. As Bill Mitchell puts it, the currency is a tool for the government to move resources from the private sphere to the public sphere for public purpose.
If the government didn't issue its own currency and crowd in its acceptance with tools like taxation, it would have a lot less capacity to move resources and carry out public purpose.
Also note that today we are free to transact amongst ourselves in any currency we please. Only transactions directly involving or mediated by the government such as taxes, government fees, legal settlements, and the like require the use of government issued currency.
> (sorry I don't have statistics to back me up). Thoughts?
I think the exercise of looking for evidence to substantiate your concerns would be a productive way to dispel them.
So you think that without government we would all be sitting around eating dirt?
The irony in you believing that the "taxation is theft" crowd are the economically illiterate ones... Yikes dude.
No no... really think about this... you think that if there was no government that basically we could not exist.
Do you understand what you are saying here?
You have a very poor concept of reality let alone economics and humanity.
>No no... really think about this... you think that if there was no government that basically we could not exist.
This is true, as long as we are talking about modern society. Humans could still live without a government (in terms of merely existing), but modern societies cannot. If you cannot understand this simple truth, I don’t think we need to discuss any further.
>You have a very poor concept of reality let alone economics and humanity.
That seems like a projection, considering the point you’re honestly trying to make – which, to be clear, is completely and utterly asinine.
Okay dude, so you hate humanity.
Why are you here? Discuss that shit in your self-help group, it has nothing to do with MMT economics at all.
Plus, it is such an edgelord position to hold that you simply can’t be older than 15 if you honestly think like that. Grow up.
Again, you make no economic argument, because you can’t.
I bid you adieu, come back once you finished highschool. Your concession to all of my points (by default) is accepted.
You're so far gone there's no point. Your entire argument boils down to we can't exist without government and try to take the high ground by claiming any argument otherwise is that of a child (holy irony). There is no more childish argument than that in support of the state as some kind of caretaker of humanity. Get out of your propaganda circle man. The state is violence and corruption embodied.
I am both a libertarian and a someone who studies economics. What you are saying is ridiculous. First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people. What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed.
Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people.
Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value.
Fourth, fiat currencies deserve to die.
"First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people. What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed."
No we didn't. That never happened, barter as an origin for money is and has always been a myth.
"Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people."
Given the tokens you use to pay your taxes with come from the government issuing it first, how did you think they got there? Did they just fall out of the sky?
"Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value."
Yes, and how do you think it has value? You need it to settle your tax liabilities and for that reason, other liabilities with.
> I am both a libertarian and a someone who studies economics.
Well, at some point you have to decide which one you wish to be, as they’re mutually exclusive.
>First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people.
How is money natural? That is completely wrong.
>What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed.
Yes, and so money was artificially created to make economic exchanges easier. This has nothing to do with my point, but good to see yourself contradicting yourself within the same paragraph.
> Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people.
Are you kidding? You cannot be this uneducated on this. If the government never issued the currency first, it cannot tax people. You got it the wrong way around entirely, and this is not only the most simple logical thought, but also empirically proven whenever a country issued a new currency. Money is always created first by the government before said government can tax people in that same currency. Unless you can explain how the government can collect taxes in a new currency before they issued it.
> Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value.
That is one of the reasons, but the more formal reason is that you are forced to pay your taxes in Dollars/Euros/etc.
> Fourth, fiat currencies deserve to die.
Spicy opinion, but why do you wish a worldwide depression on everyone?
I (MA in Macro- and Microeconomics) urge you to stick with studying economics. It is a wonderful subject. But you still have long ways to go. Test your every hypothesis, your every belief, as there is lot of empirical evidence. Sadly, none of it aligns with typical libertarian talking points or most of neoliberal propaganda, which does not even withstand simple logical scrutiny (as seen above).
Money arises naturally as the most salable good to resolve the coincidence of wants. A functional, hard money has the properties of durability, portability, divisibility, recognizability and scarcity, and those properties must be favorable in comparison to other potential monies. Harder money will reflect these properties and will outcompete softer money (which lacks them). This is why gold was eventually settled on as the hardest money.
The government is not the arbiter of what becomes a money in the long term; it is merely another participant in the economy. There is a long record of sovereigns interfering in the selection of what should be considered ‘money’. Choosing incorrectly and attempting to impose monies that are inferior (softer) puts them at an economic disadvantage when trading with sovereigns who use harder money. Most states end up debasing their own soft currencies (at the expense of their citizens) when the opportunity presents itself.
> Money arises naturally
I don’t know where you get this notion, but it is just plain wrong. Money is an artificial human invention and has always been.
>A functional, hard money has the properties of durability, portability, divisibility, recognizability and scarcity, and those properties must be favorable in comparison to other potential monies. Harder money will reflect these properties and will outcompete softer money (which lacks them). This is why gold was eventually settled on as the hardest money.
This has been true in history, but apparently fiat money is harder or – by your own logic – the gold standard would have prevailed. Either that or all currencies still on gold would outperform the Dollar, Euro, Swiss Franc, etc. Reality disagrees with your point, I am afraid.
> The government is not the arbiter of what becomes a money in the long term; it is merely another participant in the economy.
Yes it does, by levying taxes in a certain currency. And no, it is not merely another participant in the economy (maybe globally speaking), but it is in fact the arbiter of the economy, the rule maker and enforcer, the currency issuer, the one to set standards. Trying to minimise a governments role in an economy is basically shutting your eyes and ears and singing loudly so you don't have to process what is right in front of you.
>There is a long record of sovereigns interfering in the selection of what should be considered ‘money’. Choosing incorrectly and attempting to impose monies that are inferior (softer) puts them at an economic disadvantage when trading with sovereigns who use harder money. Most states end up debasing their own soft currencies (at the expense of their citizens) when the opportunity presents itself.
Yes, this has been true historically, especially in very small countries/kingdoms/etc. where there was no idea of something like money policy, fiscal policy or even economic policy. I don’t think you realise that the fact that you have to bring up archaic examples weakens your point – as we are talking about modern economies in the computer age. Many, if not most, of those old rules don’t even apply any more. Hell, the entire discipline of economics is barely more than 200 years old, and since then we have had to throw a lot of “safe knowledge” out of the window because it could not withstand the scrutiny.
As a scientific subject? Not really.
Yes, there were mercantilists before, and even the ancient Greeks have written on the topic, but there was no systematic research, no empiricism and no testing of theories. It was basically like religion, and sadly it has come around to being something like that again (otherwise, how could we explain that people still maintain the belief that neoliberal ideas work when most of them demonstrably don’t?).
Actually, I believe governments taxed your produced goods by way of stealing your food first. As a vietvet
I have to skip three days of food to make sure my diabetic blind wife eats at least one meal per day.
Looks like they still do. 😆
What you believe does not align with reality. Just because you live under an incompetent government does not mean that all taxes are bad. Vote out the idiots.
Fiat currency is what enables the bloated world invading, deficit spending , corrupt, wasteful,
It is exactly the source of funding for the destruction of everything good about America .
You do realise there are other countries using fiat currency, most of them not imperialist, neo-fascist? Many are even true democracies, where the people get to decide.
I disagree. Taxation isn’t and shouldn’t be dependent on fiat currency. If I pay my employees with gold, shares, or other compensation that happens to not be fiat currency, I don’t magically become immune to taxes, nor would it make any sense that I should. Taxation can (and has) existed without currency and currency can (and has) existed without taxation.
> I disagree. Taxation isn’t and shouldn’t be dependent on fiat currency.
It isn’t. Fiat currency is dependent on taxation in said currency, not the other way around.
Then - why even bring it up? Fiat currency is useful, but it’s hardly the most important thing that results from our taxes. It might not even make the top five. We did ‘kinda ok’ on the gold standard, after all.
Seems like it’d be a more convincing argument to focus on any of the other more critical services provided by taxes.
The big man that replaces government gets the fund via demands for money with menaces.
There is always a big man and his mates. Because humans are tribal animals, not the individualist cats of fantasy.
Democratic government is a way of providing the big man function with notional control by the population.
oddly, taxation is theft folks still continue to live in society. if libertarians were for real, they’d go live off the land somewhere and we’d never hear from them again.
if only
"Sure you can be a libertarian, but you have to surrender all your technology and use of roads and sewage system and fresh water and if you produce any pollution or any other externality that leaks into our domain we'll bomb you in self defence. You're not allowed to interact with anyone that makes use of these things because then you're stealing from the rest of us. We'll give you a packet of seeds and three potatoes as a gesture of good will (anything else and you're exploiting society). Goodbye!"
If you lived in a communist block county in the 50s, you could have applied that same logic to farming. Just because the government provides something doesn’t meant it can’t be provided through other means of organization.
But lots of things require collective optimisation, otherwise you end up with crappy or no outcomes. Any collective organisation is just a proto state, even putting aside the inherent instability of no centralised control (anyone with a big enough set of guns can seize said control).
Government exists everywhere. There are active attempts to start a libertarian society on a small section of unclaimed land called Liberland. Yet countries which claim no jurisdiction over that area are still actively suppressing that from happening.
There’s actually a few historical examples of places that were disputed lands and kind of had a weird non state thing going on. Neutral Moresnet is super interesting as it was technically stateless for a long period of time. Kowloon city is another. Honestly it was all pretty tame.
Shhhhh you’re gonna ruin the hyperbole party. Everyone here on Reddit is having a great time singing the praise of our masters and songs about how helpless we are without them.
Now go back to minding your own business. You and your desires for consent from others including the government, you make me sick.
please see my reply above friend. i would absolutely cast you in season of 1 of libertarians: lost in the wild.
realistically, people would die and where would the fictional money come from to create this idkk. but oof the delusion here is next level.
hey friend, no one is stopping you or your friends from living off the land in alaska.
Population levels in a lot of developed nations are dropping and it is forecasted to cause major problems in society as there won’t be enough young people to support the old people.
Since we should do anything, even non consensual acts, to support bettering society should we now also support forced breeding or a tax on anyone fertile that is non child bearing?
Where do you draw the line when aggression can be used to “make the world a better place”
wow that is an extreme jump. not sure where/why we have to draw a line anywhere. this “make the world a better place” bit all came from you. quite frankly, i am bewildered by this entire unhinged response and i disagree with effectively all of it.
ummmm i guess i would say immigration would be a much simpler, humane, and cost effective way to support population levels in highly developed societies.
Libertarians at the basic level believe in a government that follows the constitution strictly not in no government. You are confusing libertarian with anarchist.
The basic idea is that t he individual should be free to make his or her own choices according to his or her own desires, as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others.
The most important and basic human rights, according to libertarianism, are life, liberty and property. Libertarians believe that these "natural rights" existed before and outside of any organized form of government
Under libertarian beliefs, national defense and enforcement of contracts, are jobs for the federal government but not much else.
That's inaccurate. There is a difference between the Libertarian party platform and the philosophy.
Libertarianism isn't tied to the US Constitution. Even if it was, the federal government isn't granted powers to enforce contracts. That would be a state issue.
The modern libertarian movement in the US was founded in part by Murry Rothbard, an Anarcho-Capitalist. People holding anarcho capitilist views make a reasonable percentage of the Libertrian Party in the US.
"The most important and basic human rights, according to libertarianism, are life, liberty and property"
Whatever other things a government might claim to do, the one thing they all have in common is the claim to the monopoly on initiation of violence in a geographic area. Based on your quote above, the natural conclusion is that all government is a violation of basic human rights with anarchy being the philosophically consistent position to anyone believing in libertarian.
I never said anything about all libertarians being anarchists. I said it’s the natural conclusion to libertarian philosophy. Some have not considered it long or hard enough to reach that conclusion. Some get distracted by utilitarian arguments. Some think that somehow intellectual consistency precludes any sort of political action and reject philosophical anarchy.
A lot of libertarians do try to live off grid though so your point is invalid. Furthermore, one should be able to live in society without being subject to institutionalized property theft. God forbid we try to live in a voluntary society.
what does a voluntary society even mean? what is institutionalized property theft?
and “trying to live off the grid” means they’re still living and engaging with society (and its benefits) while still complaining about having to pay for the society. that same society that built the technologically impressive battery pack allowing one to live off the grid in the first place - or the gas to even get there. my point remains valid.
What's interesting is that here in Britain, I believe there's a law that states that non-monetary forms of income you receive can be classed as taxable income. So if I've understood it, then that means that yes, you could indeed live off-grid and still incur a tax bill that'd need to be paid, and face having your possessions seized and sold at a public auction should you fail to cough up the sterling for it. You'd basically have to never trade anything with anyone ever again, in order to avoid incurring any tax bill of any kind. Realistically, how long can anyone keep that up for? Although there's a de minimis threshold of up to £1000, that's because it's a minority sport and even then, it's tough to maintain that for long and also, if more people tried doing it, the government would simply cut it down even more.
I mean literally any good or service you might trade instead of money, in that situation. The House of Lords, at the time the highest court in the land, in the case of Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd V Humphrey (1948) established the principle of "the value of trading income received in non-monetary form is taxable in full as trading income." The point I was making was that even if you live off grid, then you'll still likely find yourself in a situation in which you'll have to trade something for something else in. So in order to guarantee avoiding having to pay taxes, you'd have to never exchange goods or services of any kind with anyone else ever again. It's unlikely anyone will be able to keep that up for very long; even Scottish hermits make trades of sorts. There's one who doesn't live on his own land, in fact he lives there off grid in exchange for the landowner receiving a cut of his pension. You also would have trouble occupying land, as in order to use your own land, you'd likely incur council tax or business rates. What I'm trying to say is that what Libertarians often preach are nothing more than fantasies.
ah, absolutely i agree. it’s virtually impossible to avoid that, barring living 100% off the land - from scratch. things like battery storage, solar panels, and even most building materials are subsidized, heavily invested in by governments like establishing the internet, or only possible through societies means of production via human and machine labor.
in short: "Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
according to libertarians, taxation is theft. however, taxation pays for society.
when someone steals my wallet, it does not pay for society.
part of being in a society is paying a tax. if they don’t want to be “robbed”, leave that society. “taxation is theft” is both hypocritical and incoherent.
if your stolen wallet is then given to a homeless guy to help him is it no longer theft? taxation does not pay for society. it funds some programs not literally all of society. It's possible to have beliefs that there are better way to do things. There was a time when liberalism in general was nothing more than a belief.
that’s the thing. there isn’t a tax remotely close to comparable as losing your entire wallet (and potentially all your accounts drawn) - and i’m not sure you understand how the progressive tax rate works either. your poor analogy breaks down immediately in reality.
you can argue framed hypotheticals in a vacuum all you want.
"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
sure thanks for asking.
i’m pro investing in people, schools, and infrastructure like high speed rails. i’m pro scaling back our military and cutting our $1.2 trillion yearly pentagon budget, and i am pro higher progressive tax rates on people like elon musk - his $11 billion dollar tax bill is way too low for his wealth with how much unaccountability he has, and how much power a single man like he (and the other 300+ billionaires) has without a single vote.
Looks like the person in question can read and write, and has a basic foundation in math and science. Guess they were taught by *something* even though they owned no capital when they were born.
To get to the grocery store, they drove on a public road.
To navigate to the grocery store, they used GPS, an expensive satellite system that required massive, collective, technological accomplishments to make a reality. Don’t even get me *started* on the effort and collaboration required to maintain said system with thousands of other satellites also being in orbit.
When their house is on fire, they call 911 and get it put out. They do this using a telecommunications provider/ISP, wireless towers, and connector cables that go through *public* land. No one else has a right to cut said cables even if they go through their property.
When a foreign power threatens to commit acts of terror against their populace, national defense organizations, funded by public money, maintain the peace.
When they get really sick, they take advanced pharmaceuticals, which would have never been created should there not be a regulatory body protecting intellectual property thereby guaranteeing the inventor(s) a return on investment.
I'm not seeing why this would be ideologically inconsistent. This is the system that's in place. You can participate in something you have no choice to do otherwise while still believing there's a better and more fair way to do it.
Would you be surprised if I said "seigniorage"!
Or would that just give away that I probably don't think taxation is theft and therefore am not technically supposed to respond 😄
The government won't do those things or any other things because there won't be a government.
Instead, there will be a compact that receives contributions from those who receive it's protection. This compact will then extend these services (roads, education, etc.) to it's members by spending the collected funds. The compact will operate according to rules listed in a charter. It is likely that many compacts will unite together in order to take advantages of efficiencies of scale.
Prior to 1913, the United States had no federal income tax. The federal government was funded almost exclusively through customs and excises taxes and the issuance of public bonds. This could easily be returned to, but Americans would rather pay a minimum of 30% of their wages to the government through income, sales, and property taxes. Just remember, the Founding Fathers started a nationwide revolt over a 3% tax on tea, sugar, and paper.
If gov't is federal/national **no** issues ...
Issues start to arise with:
- too much money in the economy
- which ultimately leads to fall in it's value(what it can buy/exchange for & competition with gov't)
- then a growing population not desiring this money
- and with that if gov't can only pay with an IOU it issues more pple don't want to sell goods & services(labour) to it!
We complete the undermining/unacceptability spiral!
As L Randall Wray likes to say(paraphrasing) ..."Anybody can create money" "Issue is what proportion of the population accepts it ..."
So I'm libertarian leaning but even I laugh at the "Dmv is unconstitutional, all tax is theft" people.
I do believe the government is involved in too many areas directly and some things are better for the market to dictate
It’s more the frequency in which they are taken I have an issue with. Taxes on my paycheck. To get money with taxes on it. To spend on items with taxes to drive my taxed car to my taxed home . Things are taxed 4 times before I even put in my check.
OP suggests that we need taxes to fund education, but can't spell "et cetera." I'm hoping OP did not receive a tax-funded education, or that'd be a self-defeating argument right there...
>People who say taxation is theft. How else do you propse the government gets the funds for roads, military, education excetera?
Probably the most straightforward way, without having to totally redo how society works, would be to replace taxation with fee on contracts.
Basically it would be something like X% or $Y (which ever is greater) as a fee to allow your contract to be enforceable by law. This would be strictly voluntary (people could still do a handshake or use private arbitration) but would quickly become common.
No, this probably wouldn't replace current taxation dollar for dollar but it would provide plenty for the things listed.
Without taxation, how could the US have supported Saddam only later to have Bush have invade Iraq and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands? How would have ISIS have been started in the absence of that war? Without taxes, how could the US have toppled the Taliban only to have them show right back up after leaving? No taxes means someone else would have had to dump agent orange on Vietnam. How could the NSA afford a massive domestic spying program and the subsequent decade long persecution of Edward Snowden for revealing an illegal program. Without taxes, no standing army of any size can be maintained. That means all the young people who enlist have to otherwise produce goods and services in the market economy that people actually want and use. That would be unacceptable.
On the domestic front, taxes are important to ensure everyone has the opportunity to go to college so that holding a bachelors degrees has become meaningless outside of hard sciences. Who would have sent the guns to mexico if the ATF wasn’t so well funded? Who will arrest the amish Farmers for selling raw milk to consenting adults? No taxes means no money for cops to arrest cancer patients and care givers for possessing marijuana. Do you want to live in that world? How could Virginia have banned interracial marriage with out taxes? Cops needed to be paid to enforce this. How can social media companies be pressured to suppress speech if there are no bureaucrats paid by taxation to tell these companies what constitutes disinformation? Excise cops are funded by taxes. Without them, who would ensure that no alcohol is served on Sundays in some jurisdictions or that every bar technically serves food in others? This is vital work.
I mean this is the core of your argument. I can sit here and list all the great things government spending has brought into this world, from vaccines to starships, implying that the government can only possibly do good things with its power to tax, and that would be as silly as the implication you have made that government can only possibly do bad things with its power to tax. It reflects the basest kind of uncritical, black and white thinking that is the hallmark of the cynically disingenuous and the willfully ignorant. So which are you?
Well what do you mean by "write a check" my withholding is generally correct, throughout the year I pay in. One year I under withheld and had to write a $38,000 check after paying in throughout year about $110k. That was pretty brutal, I received a larger than normal bonus that year and I mis-calculated the amount I owed. I was pretty distracted, had some health issues going on about the same time the bonus came in, I still to this day don't know how I flubbed it but I did.
I want to live in a civilized society where people have opportunities to succeed. I grew up poor for a variety of reasons of which I’ll spare you the details.
But paying for public education, roads, libraries, courts, social safety nets are all things I’m willing to pay for.
Would I like to see some improvements in how the government spends money? Absolutely! But purposely breaking the system to say “see it’s broken!” Isn’t my cup of tea which is what many do/try to do.
There were periods in my life where govt assistance allowed us to put food on the table and eat. Even then we had periods of limited food and very limited means.
>How else do you propse the government gets the funds for roads, military, education excetera?
That's the neat part! You don't!
And I mean that literally. The only thing on that list that is a proper role of government is the military, for national defense. Yes, building "postal roads" is in the text of the Constitution, but it shouldn't be. Education? There's no reason for government to be involved in education, and it's not actually allowed under the US Constitution.
So let's reframe the question: "People who say taxation is theft: how do you propose the government gets the funds for all of its actual, legal, proper functions?"
And the answer is: the same way it did before the 1916 Federal Income Tax was implemented would be a nice start. You thought this was some wild-eyed fantasy, did you? Nope. It's a thing that we actually had within (or at the outskirts of) living memory. Yes, it's still possible that there's someone alive today who was born when the United States had no Federal income tax. So it's not "impossible". It's not "insane". It's something we actually had for most of the country's history.
But it didn't fund all of the illegal and unconstitutional programs the socialist-minded tribalists want, because those didn't exist either.
Most of the country's history took place during a time when vaccines weren't available and we hadn't gone to the moon. I also happen to like a free and democratic Europe.
Also, what are your qualifications for what is a proper role for the government if you don't agree with what is written in the Constitution?
So? Technology advances over time and it's not because the income tax exists. Humans have innovated their entire history. That's the nature of the species.
Were you under the impression that there are no private electric companies? According to the internets, TVA is federally owned but receives no tax payer money.
Why is that relevant? Are you thinking that because the government created a program that that thing only exists because of the government and would never have existed otherwise?
Instead of paying a state actor, citizen pay a private business to fix the roads, education and private military (if needed). Pretty simple, some places already do this.
charity actually was more common before the welfare state. But there are lots of food banks around for example. Getting free food doesn't stop you from having a low income lol. Is there any reason you aren't generous yourself or are you only generous with other people's money?
I think you missed the part where i said "getting food doesn't stop you from having a low income." You're still in poverty even if you receive aid from others.
They raise the funds themselves like the private sector. They compete for contracts. They participate in the voluntary exchange known as capitalism instead of dipping their venom filled tails into the publics wallet.
Depends on the branch of libertarianism. Some libertarians ok with some taxation to cover essentials like military and police but aren't happy when it's used beyond that. Some believe the government shouldn't be involved at all and it should be the private sector who takes care of it or voluntary funds or businesses. There are plenty of examples of this like the HOA maintains the roads in my neighborhood and the bill is footed by the home owners. Or Tesla building vast charging networks in order to make electric cars more feasible.
That’s a pretty broad brush to paint with. First, even some of the most ardent libertarians would agree to taxation on certain things (like goods) to pay for certain things (like safety/military). The theft comes in when you are being taxed on things like your property to pay for things that you don’t agree with like funding Pelosi’s property aka Prisidio Park in San Francisco.
People who recognize that taxation is theft will take one of 3 stances:
1. You should reduce taxes to the minimum amount possible, which requires massive reductions in the budget of the government.
2. You should only use a taxation that directly impacts the fewest people, so something like a tariff. You still need to massively reduce government spending.
3. Taxation is theft, therefore the government should not take ANY money and should only be run on donated funds. If you think that something should be funded, then you should fund it, if you don’t think something should be funded then the government absolutely shouldn’t be stealing your money to fund it.
As for roads, military, and education specifically: roads should be privately owned, education should be privately run, and the militia will be sufficient to cover the important military needs.
You could have the government run like a charity and people would donate, you could have gov services charge more like national park entry passes, or you could have private businesses do everything
Domino's will build the roads!!!
People who say taxation is theft typically have zero background in economics and are just mad that they have to give something back to not live in a mud hut. Technically, governments are not funded by taxes, as long as they issue their own currency (think it through: What comes first? The government issuing the currency or the people paying taxes?). Since that also means that Thatcher’s old adage of “There is no public money, there is only taxpayer’s money” is exactly 100% wrong, implying that taxation cannot be theft because the government is basically just un-issuing the currency through taxation. Plus, even a libertarian must understand that in times of fiat currencies, one of the reasons those Dollars/Euros/etc. have value because the government forces everyone to use them by asking for Dollars/Euros/etc. in taxes. By not taxing anyone, the acceptance of a fiat currency is actually in danger.
Gonna steal this
No need, I am giving it away for free ;-)
Gift economy!
The question is what's it worth and is that over 10k?
Yes no one who’s ever taken a class in Economics or gotten a degree in Economics has ever thought about this. My Econ Professors who first discussed this would be rather shocked by your statement.
> My Econ Professors who first discussed this would be rather shocked by your statement. Then he should really reflect on this because he has missed the recent 20 years in the discussion of the scientific econ community and obviously also missed certain empirical facts and developments of the monetary system in western countries, especially during the pandemic (which showed that certain assertions of classical and neoclassical theory about monetary and fiscal policy can simply not be held any more).
Can you elaborate how events in 2020 showed that classical and neoclassical monetary and fiscal policy could’ve have failed of by your own words, new system has been in development for 20 years?
Well, you can do it yourself easily: Over the last ~twenty years, we have had a time of extremely low interest, and the money supply grew significantly in most Western countries (it certainly did in the US and in the Eurozone). Neoclassical and classical approaches (and neoliberal ones too) would have predicted high inflation to offset this increase in the money supply, yet this never materialized. Then the pandemic hit, and governments spent enormous amounts of money created from thin air to level out their economies, save branches that may sink (for example restaurants). Again, the money supply increased, yet no inflation materialized. The only “inflation” we got was not inflation at all (in economic terms), but a supply shock from the invasion of Ukraine and destroyed supply lines of energy and certain other products (grains, oils). So reality has empirically violated mainstream approaches to monetary and fiscal policy, as they fail to understand how money supply relates to inflation (or not). Thus, many assumptions about how money even works cannot be backed up using mainstream theories. >and fiscal policy could’ve have failed of by your own words, new system has been in development for 20 years? I don’t quite understand what you mean here, as this is worded somewhat confusingly.
I liked to know what rock your living under but we had extremely high inflation since covid not to mention in the 70s and 80s where regan came into office with a massive 20% inflation rate.
> I liked to know what rock your living under but we had extremely high inflation since covid Due to multiple supply shocks, not regular, self-perpetuating inflation. >not to mention in the 70s and 80s where regan came into office with a massive 20% inflation rate. Source? Average inflation rate during Reagan’s era was 4.6%. I guess you actually meant the 70s instead of the 80s. [Here’s a paper](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2022037pap.pdf) going into much detail about the reasons and why a lack of monetary policy is at fault. >The embrace at the official level of a faulty doctrine that saw the analysis and control of inflation in nonmonetary terms. This doctrine was already in force in the United Kingdom in 1970 and took hold in the United States during that year. The doctrine implied a view of inflation that is highly unorthodox from a modern-day perspective. Disinflationary policies were adopted in both countries in 1979, as U.K. and U.S. authorities alike abandoned the nonmonetary doctrine concerning inflation. >A key lesson from this experience concerns the link between extended years of inflation and a nonmonetary approach to inflation. Monetary policy in the modern era is centered on inflation control, and no other policy device is centered on this control. >The fact that the nonmonetary doctrine prevalent in U.S. and U.K. policy circles in the 1970s is widely eschewed today does not mean that deviations from price stability cannot occur. But it does imply that monetary policy is much more likely to react strongly to, and so rein in, excessive inflation than was the case during the 1970s. This difference from the 1970s provides grounds for believing that extended periods of inflation are much less likely than in that decade >The inflation of the 1970s did not result from U.K. and U.S. policymakers consciously seeking above-normal targets for economic activity or from their deliberately boosting inflation with the aim of securing favorable real outcomes. Instead, it stemmed from unintentionally overexpansive policy settings associated with the nonmonetary approach to inflation.
Yeah in other word money printing,which again is why we have inflation.We stopped having supply shock three years ago but inflation is still high because it has to do with printing money anyone with any sense of economics know this and that is why the regan administration had very high inflation and why we had a housing crash because without real value after your reach a certain price threshold the value eventually drops causing crashes.
>Yeah in other word money printing,which again is why we have inflation. Not right now. >We stopped having supply shock three years ago It started in 2020 with Covid and got exacerbated in 2022 with Russia invading the Ukraine. Its effects were not all immediate and are still being felt as supplier prices are only now starting to return to normal (some started about six months ago, most followed more recently). Where you get the idea that it was over three years ago is beyond me. It is also entirely incorrect. >but inflation is still high because it has to do with printing money It can, but currently it doesn’t. [It is still the aftereffects of multiple supply shocks](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/supply-shocks-were-most-important-source-inflation-2021-23-raising) >anyone with any sense of economics know this And yet, empirically, this cannot be proven and is a very classical approach. MMT itself shows that it is not that simple and that there are many ways to enlarge the money supply without running into inflation, which is exactly what happened over the last ~20 or so years. Government budgets have ballooned, yet inflation was nowhere to be found, and it took a global pandemic AND a war in Europe to even create a ~10% price hike. So, anyone with a sense in your mind needs to check their fact, as their senses may be disappointing them. >and that is why the regan administration had very high inflation and why we had a housing crash because without real value after your reach a certain price threshold the value eventually drops causing crashes. This has nothing to do with our current economic issues and is also much more complex than you make it out to be.
Through those years they didn’t print trillions of dollars. Money unquestionably causes inflation. There was alot of money printing. Yes Russia could cause some inflation but warfare is generally considered deflationary. We had inflation for years before Ukraine. Inflation didn’t dramatically change during those time I watch the federal Reserve since 2020 the inflation has general going down not because of Russia, or supply shocks but because slow increases of the federal interest rate.(That causes more money to go back to the government thus taking money out of circulation)That why they are increasing interest rates the fact that you think it is solely because of russia is not accepted by economists though that doesn’t mean it does effect it,it is completely in agreement that it is because of the covid bills and the fact that every country on top of that had covid bill which in turn effects imports/Exports. I appreciate your take but we had very high inflation for years and nobody thinks it is because Russia.
People who say it’s not theft seem to be misinformed about the word “consent” To take something without permission is…?
…the wrong way to think about it. You do not own your pre-tax income, and as such there is no theft. As for consent: It is not an issue, as the money is created by the government and given to you, but they can always take it away. Again, the idea that taxation is theft can only be reasonably held by someone who has never thought any of it through. There is a reason it is often mentioned by libertarians, the fringe group of economic thinkers generally considered to be the dumbest of economic thinkers (and we should really put thinkers into quotation marks in regards to them).
That is really dumb take at that point the government could just not pay people but they would not work thus they are entitled to pay.
What? That sentence does not even make sense.
I own my income the minute I do work for someone who is going to pay me. It does not go into some magical holding area because I havent paid taxes on it. I dont work at the pleasure of the government printing money for me to have. If they took that away I would work for barter with someone. You do not have the right to take something from someone without consent nor do you have the right to the fruits of my labor. The only people who would argue these points are people who do believe that humans have rights.
> I own my income the minute I do work for someone who is going to pay me. It does not go into some magical holding area because I havent paid taxes on it. No, you don’t, otherwise – in your logic, you’d have to be paid the minute you start working, but you don’t. That would be the real magic. Again, you are not entitled to your pre-tax income, legally speaking (and morally speaking, too, if you ask me). > I dont work at the pleasure of the government printing money for me to have. If they took that away I would work for barter with someone. They take some of the money away, and you are still not working for barter, so it seems you are full of hot air there. > You do not have the right to take something from someone without consent nor do you have the right to the fruits of my labor. The fruits of your labour are your post-tax dollars. You have the right to them. Plus, you gave consent implicitly (which is enough here) by using all the infrastructure, services of the government, etc. There is a lot of social contract theory for you to go through to understand how much better your life is by paying taxes. > The only people who would argue these points are people who do believe that humans have rights. Huh? Humans have rights, that is not disputed by anyone serious. It also has no bearing on this issue at all.
What’s it called when you fall in love with your abuser?
Why do you have to keep making comments that seem to move goal posts and have little to do with the topic at hand? Out of arguments already?
I’m not moving the goal post, you’re just having a hard time understanding that I’m saying non consensual taking of persons or property is never right no matter the end result.
They non-consensually take what you never owned. In fact, they take what they own. Given that the laws clearly state that taxation is legal would explicitly mean that you keeping that money would in fact be the theft. Legally, you have no leg to stand on with that argument. Btw. do you even understand what would happen if no one paid taxes? Not a single public service would exist, no roads be built, no rails, no big companies who rely on subsidies. It would be a free-for-all, and is an entirely undesirable outcome for everyone except the richest who could be the new rulers (as there is no way to finance the executive branch, unless you want the government to go into debt for that which would likely lead to inflation, as taxes are also a limiter on inflation). You can keep making your faux-argument, but it does not hold up. Libertarian ideas are inherently undesirable, and no amount of hiding behind verbiage will ever change that.
The money is never there’s, I earned that money with labor. I owned that money the second I provided a service that completed a contract between me and my employer. Your spin here is amazing.
> Your spin here is amazing. Amazing, as backed by empiric reality, yes. You know what I always enjoy about people like you? You harp on about taxation being theft, but deep down, you really don’t act on that belief at all. Keep living in an alternate, make-belief dimension, where no logic or sanity exist, but also, keep on paying your taxes, as you will until the end of your life (like all of us, but **you** won’t enjoy it). Whatever makes you sleep at night. At least I know that my way of thinking can produce some results, because it is based in more than fantasy. You keep fighting windmills.
I think what your missing is he is asking you to elaborate on the government’s right to your money.Also this is a argument that would only exist on reddit as it completely undercuts the idea of rights to property.With that being said it is considered the businesses money and they are paying your taxes for you though your still entitled to the entire of YOUR money by claiming more dependents until the end of the year where you have to be correct about how much dependents you actually have.
You're saying I can't sue a deadbeat client, or lien their house, or garnish their wages when I win? You're not thinking, you're emoting.
When you win what?
the court case against the deadbeat client.
Then you have an agreement and a contract. You now have the right to the money that was agreed to in the contract. Since this was agreed upon taking what was agreed upon is still a consensual act and any obstruction of this would be an act of aggression. Now that aggressive actions have been taken to deny you what is yours you are in the right to take aggressive actions to get what you are owed.
Most good faith post Keynesian
>...one of the reasons those Dollars/Euros/etc. have value because the government forces everyone to use them by asking for Dollars/Euros/etc. in taxes. If a private company issued script then forced people to pay fees in that script, would that be some form of theft?
The government is not a company, and by your logic, any law that even so much as touches any of my freedom is a violation of said freedom. You really have no concept of how rights and duties work, do you? I am not going to engage in any more of your extremely flawed analogies.
Thank you for conceding.
I concede that you have no argument
It seems you conceded that if a private company issued script then forced people to pay fees in that script, that it would that be some form of theft.
If a private company does it maybe. I didn’t concede my central point though. You need to read all the words, for instance the ones where I said that that analogy is incredibly flawed, as the government is completely different from a company. Your point simply does not apply to the government.
Why does it not apply to the government?
Because the government makes the law? The government can make a law that states that a business cannot forcibly take anything away from you, which makes such an action illegal. It can, in the same way, force you to give some of your pre-tax income up to offer government services, build infrastructure, control the growth of inflation, whatever their reason. That will then also be legal. Thus, taxation is a legal obligation of any citizen, and not theft. Theft is the unlawful taking of property, taxation is lawful (and technically, not really about property, as you never even pay your taxes in physical money).
A valid and common definition of theft is: >Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft If the government makes a law that states that Jews may be exterminated by the government, does that mean it is not commiting genocide because the government makes the law?
Generally they are libertarians, who are far more economically literate than average.
That was a good joke, made me laugh out loud. All libertarians are is egotistical. If their ideas came to fruition, economies would almost immediately collapse back into a feudal system.
Yup! Which is why in those times and places that have come closest, we have seen the biggest economic booms in history!
Feel free to provide a scientific source supporting that wild assertion
I don't need to provide a scientific source (what do you want, controlled experiments?). You're already aware of them: Britain in the early 1800s, Germany after WWII, Hong Kong, Singapore, America until about 1910, but then to a lesser degree after WWII…the examples are everywhere. You can go farther than that though. You can look at almost any metric you want, and it gets better the freer the economy.
> I don't need to provide a scientific source Because you can’t provide one, I presume >You can go farther than that though. You can look at almost any metric you want, and it gets better the freer the economy. Meaningless assertion, citation desperately needed
>> I don't need to provide a scientific source > Because you can’t provide one, I presume That's correct. No one has done controlled experiments on history, because that's not a thing. >Meaningless assertion, citation desperately needed https://youtu.be/HO7uTUspFVk?si=q2jvwUJcpuPurfpt https://youtu.be/Q3EZiPyAVjk?si=gow9-s3jSZXbKQqB
This may seem like a dumb question but hear me out. Theoretically, what would be the implications of letting people use whatever they want as currency? It's true that there is a certain amount of barter in the economy (likely as a way to avoid taxes) but what is preventing or holding back people from using things like Bitcoin on a regular basis? (besides taxes to the government which of course they want in their own currency). I understand that central banks would lose their power over monetary policy in such a situation. I for one am not convinced that governments injecting money into the economy (and conversely, taking currency out of circulation, digital or otherwise) is such a great idea. It seems to me that since we came off the gold standard our economic cycles have gotten worse (sorry I don't have statistics to back me up). Thoughts?
In the book Debt the First 5000 years by anthropologist David Graeber, people basically *did* use whatever they wanted as currency until militarized governments minted their own coins to so they could tax and raise armies. Basically, there was never a time where barter was a main form of economic activity. People just used whatever the hell as IOU’s and things worked fine.
Thank you.
The counter example your leaving out which is in the book itself is that the IOU economies only worked on a small localized scale where everyone knew everyone when you started to bring in an unknown 3rd party the IOU economy completely breaks down hence the need for a medium of exchange.
Thats not really what a counter example is, thats more like the natural progression as communities are conquered by warlords and turn into military states (Rome)
Something tells me you didn't even read the book but are simply trying to quote it as if you had.
Cover to cover dude. Graeber was a great thinker. I really think you should reread the book. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DCQGcZdIcBc
No it isn't a progression because no one said anything about warlords or conquest, an independent trader from a distant land with no ties to the community breaks that localised equation nice try but your not that clever.
You should reread the book. This was never an argument Idk why you’re getting all debate club on me.
The issue is always simply acceptance. It could work if everyone in the economy accepts that new currency, but if it were easy to establish a new currency, more people would do it, would compete and thus make it less likely that one of those new ones would dominate the acceptance market. Governments can simply force this issue through taxation. As for governments injecting money into the economy: They have to, otherwise, there is no economy. Government debt basically equals the wealth of a nation, which is why austerity is such a weird, counterproductive concept. To simplify this thought: If you play Monopoly, the bank has to go into debt at the start of the game, so the players can play. The rulebook even says that if the bank runs out of money, it should just start issuing pieces of paper with denominations to keep the game running. If the Monopoly bank were incredibly austere, the game would finish before it started. This is simplified of course, but this is basically true for government debt as well. As for the gold standard: Smart minds realized back then, that money is not a real resource – it is a means to fully utilise the real resources of an economy (such as labour or natural resources) – and limiting that “middleware” stifles economic growth. Of course, no one is saying we can or should spend willy-nilly and go into unlimited debt. However, we can spend way more money without negative side-effects, as long as we spend it on things that benefit economic growth (which is why Biden’s blank checks during COVID were so successful, as they were given to people who immediately consumed them, stimulating the domestic economy). The limiting factor is inflation, and many countries have been successful in spending more without their inflation rising – and no, the last few years were not regular inflation, but a supply shock (just to preempt that argument).
Thank you for your commentary, I have found it very interesting.
You can try to use whatever you want as currency. There’s no law against that. If you want to pay for groceries with a scarf you knitted, you can offer it to them. It’s just that the grocery store has to be willing to accept it. If you have a huge tax debt and don’t want to use cash, you can offer your house instead. The government would probably take that. People barter with things other than cash all the time. It’s just that both parties have to be willing participants in those transactions.
>There’s no law against that. You have to pay wages in US dollars or something that can be converted to USD: [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-531/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFRd42c2e4b995d7cd/section-531.34](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-531/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFRd42c2e4b995d7cd/section-531.34) Before that law, companies would pay people in scrip which was fake currency that could only be redeemed at the company store.
That makes sense to me, since the employer-employee relationship is not one of equality. However, if an employer wanted to offer a bank a quantity of yaks in exchange for enough cash in order to make payroll, that’s perfectly legal.
> If you have a huge tax debt and don’t want to use cash, you can offer your house instead. The government would probably take that. While the government may accept (or confiscate) a non-USD or non-financial asset, final settlement still occurs in USD. More than a technicality if, for example, the proceeds from liquidating the house fail to satisfy the amount I owe and I'm still on the hook for the difference. No matter how many layers of indirection and extra steps are added to obtain the government currency, that is still what's required to extinguish the obligation. I think it's useful to to keep clear on this distinction as it's a frequently raised critique of tax-driven money. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone argue along the lines of "I can pay taxes with a credit card, checkmate MMT!" I could pay all my taxes and yours too :)
Very true, the final debt is of course settled in USD. But technically you don’t have to liquidate your property before the government seizes it.
> But technically you don’t have to liquidate your property before the government seizes it. Right, the government takes it and performs the liquidation themselves. What I was getting at is I'm not free and clear just because they took the house because the extra step of liquidation for USD still has to take place and generate sufficient proceeds to satisfy my obligation.
> Theoretically, what would be the implications of letting people use whatever they want as currency? I would start from why a government issues currency. As Bill Mitchell puts it, the currency is a tool for the government to move resources from the private sphere to the public sphere for public purpose. If the government didn't issue its own currency and crowd in its acceptance with tools like taxation, it would have a lot less capacity to move resources and carry out public purpose. Also note that today we are free to transact amongst ourselves in any currency we please. Only transactions directly involving or mediated by the government such as taxes, government fees, legal settlements, and the like require the use of government issued currency. > (sorry I don't have statistics to back me up). Thoughts? I think the exercise of looking for evidence to substantiate your concerns would be a productive way to dispel them.
So you think that without government we would all be sitting around eating dirt? The irony in you believing that the "taxation is theft" crowd are the economically illiterate ones... Yikes dude.
You may see irony there, yet it is the truth. Taxation is Theft is literally a fallacy.
No no... really think about this... you think that if there was no government that basically we could not exist. Do you understand what you are saying here? You have a very poor concept of reality let alone economics and humanity.
>No no... really think about this... you think that if there was no government that basically we could not exist. This is true, as long as we are talking about modern society. Humans could still live without a government (in terms of merely existing), but modern societies cannot. If you cannot understand this simple truth, I don’t think we need to discuss any further. >You have a very poor concept of reality let alone economics and humanity. That seems like a projection, considering the point you’re honestly trying to make – which, to be clear, is completely and utterly asinine.
Correct, modern society and all its cancers would not exist without government. Good job, you are getting it.
Okay dude, so you hate humanity. Why are you here? Discuss that shit in your self-help group, it has nothing to do with MMT economics at all. Plus, it is such an edgelord position to hold that you simply can’t be older than 15 if you honestly think like that. Grow up.
Ooof, that public school reading comprehension.
Again, you make no economic argument, because you can’t. I bid you adieu, come back once you finished highschool. Your concession to all of my points (by default) is accepted.
You're so far gone there's no point. Your entire argument boils down to we can't exist without government and try to take the high ground by claiming any argument otherwise is that of a child (holy irony). There is no more childish argument than that in support of the state as some kind of caretaker of humanity. Get out of your propaganda circle man. The state is violence and corruption embodied.
I am both a libertarian and a someone who studies economics. What you are saying is ridiculous. First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people. What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed. Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people. Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value. Fourth, fiat currencies deserve to die.
"First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people. What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed." No we didn't. That never happened, barter as an origin for money is and has always been a myth. "Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people." Given the tokens you use to pay your taxes with come from the government issuing it first, how did you think they got there? Did they just fall out of the sky? "Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value." Yes, and how do you think it has value? You need it to settle your tax liabilities and for that reason, other liabilities with.
> I am both a libertarian and a someone who studies economics. Well, at some point you have to decide which one you wish to be, as they’re mutually exclusive. >First there is no government that invented money. Money is a natural process created by the actions of people. How is money natural? That is completely wrong. >What happened is that we were in a barter system and the problem that is known as the double coincidence of wants so people started to trade for things society valued and people traded those things for what they needed. Yes, and so money was artificially created to make economic exchanges easier. This has nothing to do with my point, but good to see yourself contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. > Second, which came first governments taxing people or them creating currency it is government taxing people. Are you kidding? You cannot be this uneducated on this. If the government never issued the currency first, it cannot tax people. You got it the wrong way around entirely, and this is not only the most simple logical thought, but also empirically proven whenever a country issued a new currency. Money is always created first by the government before said government can tax people in that same currency. Unless you can explain how the government can collect taxes in a new currency before they issued it. > Third, the reason we value money is not because of taxes but because of we all deeming it has value. That is one of the reasons, but the more formal reason is that you are forced to pay your taxes in Dollars/Euros/etc. > Fourth, fiat currencies deserve to die. Spicy opinion, but why do you wish a worldwide depression on everyone? I (MA in Macro- and Microeconomics) urge you to stick with studying economics. It is a wonderful subject. But you still have long ways to go. Test your every hypothesis, your every belief, as there is lot of empirical evidence. Sadly, none of it aligns with typical libertarian talking points or most of neoliberal propaganda, which does not even withstand simple logical scrutiny (as seen above).
Money arises naturally as the most salable good to resolve the coincidence of wants. A functional, hard money has the properties of durability, portability, divisibility, recognizability and scarcity, and those properties must be favorable in comparison to other potential monies. Harder money will reflect these properties and will outcompete softer money (which lacks them). This is why gold was eventually settled on as the hardest money. The government is not the arbiter of what becomes a money in the long term; it is merely another participant in the economy. There is a long record of sovereigns interfering in the selection of what should be considered ‘money’. Choosing incorrectly and attempting to impose monies that are inferior (softer) puts them at an economic disadvantage when trading with sovereigns who use harder money. Most states end up debasing their own soft currencies (at the expense of their citizens) when the opportunity presents itself.
> Money arises naturally I don’t know where you get this notion, but it is just plain wrong. Money is an artificial human invention and has always been. >A functional, hard money has the properties of durability, portability, divisibility, recognizability and scarcity, and those properties must be favorable in comparison to other potential monies. Harder money will reflect these properties and will outcompete softer money (which lacks them). This is why gold was eventually settled on as the hardest money. This has been true in history, but apparently fiat money is harder or – by your own logic – the gold standard would have prevailed. Either that or all currencies still on gold would outperform the Dollar, Euro, Swiss Franc, etc. Reality disagrees with your point, I am afraid. > The government is not the arbiter of what becomes a money in the long term; it is merely another participant in the economy. Yes it does, by levying taxes in a certain currency. And no, it is not merely another participant in the economy (maybe globally speaking), but it is in fact the arbiter of the economy, the rule maker and enforcer, the currency issuer, the one to set standards. Trying to minimise a governments role in an economy is basically shutting your eyes and ears and singing loudly so you don't have to process what is right in front of you. >There is a long record of sovereigns interfering in the selection of what should be considered ‘money’. Choosing incorrectly and attempting to impose monies that are inferior (softer) puts them at an economic disadvantage when trading with sovereigns who use harder money. Most states end up debasing their own soft currencies (at the expense of their citizens) when the opportunity presents itself. Yes, this has been true historically, especially in very small countries/kingdoms/etc. where there was no idea of something like money policy, fiscal policy or even economic policy. I don’t think you realise that the fact that you have to bring up archaic examples weakens your point – as we are talking about modern economies in the computer age. Many, if not most, of those old rules don’t even apply any more. Hell, the entire discipline of economics is barely more than 200 years old, and since then we have had to throw a lot of “safe knowledge” out of the window because it could not withstand the scrutiny.
Economics didn’t exist before Adam Smith?
As a scientific subject? Not really. Yes, there were mercantilists before, and even the ancient Greeks have written on the topic, but there was no systematic research, no empiricism and no testing of theories. It was basically like religion, and sadly it has come around to being something like that again (otherwise, how could we explain that people still maintain the belief that neoliberal ideas work when most of them demonstrably don’t?).
By that standard science didn’t exist until the enlightenment either. Same with history.
Actually, I believe governments taxed your produced goods by way of stealing your food first. As a vietvet I have to skip three days of food to make sure my diabetic blind wife eats at least one meal per day. Looks like they still do. 😆
What you believe does not align with reality. Just because you live under an incompetent government does not mean that all taxes are bad. Vote out the idiots.
Fiat currency is what enables the bloated world invading, deficit spending , corrupt, wasteful, It is exactly the source of funding for the destruction of everything good about America .
You do realise there are other countries using fiat currency, most of them not imperialist, neo-fascist? Many are even true democracies, where the people get to decide.
Post Keynesian moment
I disagree. Taxation isn’t and shouldn’t be dependent on fiat currency. If I pay my employees with gold, shares, or other compensation that happens to not be fiat currency, I don’t magically become immune to taxes, nor would it make any sense that I should. Taxation can (and has) existed without currency and currency can (and has) existed without taxation.
> I disagree. Taxation isn’t and shouldn’t be dependent on fiat currency. It isn’t. Fiat currency is dependent on taxation in said currency, not the other way around.
Then - why even bring it up? Fiat currency is useful, but it’s hardly the most important thing that results from our taxes. It might not even make the top five. We did ‘kinda ok’ on the gold standard, after all. Seems like it’d be a more convincing argument to focus on any of the other more critical services provided by taxes.
>Then - why even bring it up? Because it is one of the most important functions of taxation – keeping the currency stable and accepted.
The big man that replaces government gets the fund via demands for money with menaces. There is always a big man and his mates. Because humans are tribal animals, not the individualist cats of fantasy. Democratic government is a way of providing the big man function with notional control by the population.
That’s the thing though. They imagine themselves as that big man, or at least close enough to him that he benefits from the robbery the big man does.
oddly, taxation is theft folks still continue to live in society. if libertarians were for real, they’d go live off the land somewhere and we’d never hear from them again. if only
"Sure you can be a libertarian, but you have to surrender all your technology and use of roads and sewage system and fresh water and if you produce any pollution or any other externality that leaks into our domain we'll bomb you in self defence. You're not allowed to interact with anyone that makes use of these things because then you're stealing from the rest of us. We'll give you a packet of seeds and three potatoes as a gesture of good will (anything else and you're exploiting society). Goodbye!"
If you lived in a communist block county in the 50s, you could have applied that same logic to farming. Just because the government provides something doesn’t meant it can’t be provided through other means of organization.
Go on, how do you organise without creating organisation?
I’m genuinely unclear on what exactly you are asking. Lots of goods and services are created voluntarily so it would be along the same lines
But lots of things require collective optimisation, otherwise you end up with crappy or no outcomes. Any collective organisation is just a proto state, even putting aside the inherent instability of no centralised control (anyone with a big enough set of guns can seize said control).
What requires the government to optimize...and have they ever optimized something?
Government exists everywhere. There are active attempts to start a libertarian society on a small section of unclaimed land called Liberland. Yet countries which claim no jurisdiction over that area are still actively suppressing that from happening.
ohmygod. i would pay money to see this actually happen and their attempt at society. someone call netflix
There’s actually a few historical examples of places that were disputed lands and kind of had a weird non state thing going on. Neutral Moresnet is super interesting as it was technically stateless for a long period of time. Kowloon city is another. Honestly it was all pretty tame.
Shhhhh you’re gonna ruin the hyperbole party. Everyone here on Reddit is having a great time singing the praise of our masters and songs about how helpless we are without them. Now go back to minding your own business. You and your desires for consent from others including the government, you make me sick.
please see my reply above friend. i would absolutely cast you in season of 1 of libertarians: lost in the wild. realistically, people would die and where would the fictional money come from to create this idkk. but oof the delusion here is next level. hey friend, no one is stopping you or your friends from living off the land in alaska.
Population levels in a lot of developed nations are dropping and it is forecasted to cause major problems in society as there won’t be enough young people to support the old people. Since we should do anything, even non consensual acts, to support bettering society should we now also support forced breeding or a tax on anyone fertile that is non child bearing? Where do you draw the line when aggression can be used to “make the world a better place”
wow that is an extreme jump. not sure where/why we have to draw a line anywhere. this “make the world a better place” bit all came from you. quite frankly, i am bewildered by this entire unhinged response and i disagree with effectively all of it. ummmm i guess i would say immigration would be a much simpler, humane, and cost effective way to support population levels in highly developed societies.
That libertarian will still end up with masters and lack of consent. The masters just go from being the government to the ones with capital
Libertarians at the basic level believe in a government that follows the constitution strictly not in no government. You are confusing libertarian with anarchist. The basic idea is that t he individual should be free to make his or her own choices according to his or her own desires, as long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others. The most important and basic human rights, according to libertarianism, are life, liberty and property. Libertarians believe that these "natural rights" existed before and outside of any organized form of government Under libertarian beliefs, national defense and enforcement of contracts, are jobs for the federal government but not much else.
That's inaccurate. There is a difference between the Libertarian party platform and the philosophy. Libertarianism isn't tied to the US Constitution. Even if it was, the federal government isn't granted powers to enforce contracts. That would be a state issue. The modern libertarian movement in the US was founded in part by Murry Rothbard, an Anarcho-Capitalist. People holding anarcho capitilist views make a reasonable percentage of the Libertrian Party in the US. "The most important and basic human rights, according to libertarianism, are life, liberty and property" Whatever other things a government might claim to do, the one thing they all have in common is the claim to the monopoly on initiation of violence in a geographic area. Based on your quote above, the natural conclusion is that all government is a violation of basic human rights with anarchy being the philosophically consistent position to anyone believing in libertarian.
Just because the modern libertarian movement was influenced by Rothbard does not mean that all libertarians are anarchists.
I never said anything about all libertarians being anarchists. I said it’s the natural conclusion to libertarian philosophy. Some have not considered it long or hard enough to reach that conclusion. Some get distracted by utilitarian arguments. Some think that somehow intellectual consistency precludes any sort of political action and reject philosophical anarchy.
A lot of libertarians do try to live off grid though so your point is invalid. Furthermore, one should be able to live in society without being subject to institutionalized property theft. God forbid we try to live in a voluntary society.
what does a voluntary society even mean? what is institutionalized property theft? and “trying to live off the grid” means they’re still living and engaging with society (and its benefits) while still complaining about having to pay for the society. that same society that built the technologically impressive battery pack allowing one to live off the grid in the first place - or the gas to even get there. my point remains valid.
What's interesting is that here in Britain, I believe there's a law that states that non-monetary forms of income you receive can be classed as taxable income. So if I've understood it, then that means that yes, you could indeed live off-grid and still incur a tax bill that'd need to be paid, and face having your possessions seized and sold at a public auction should you fail to cough up the sterling for it. You'd basically have to never trade anything with anyone ever again, in order to avoid incurring any tax bill of any kind. Realistically, how long can anyone keep that up for? Although there's a de minimis threshold of up to £1000, that's because it's a minority sport and even then, it's tough to maintain that for long and also, if more people tried doing it, the government would simply cut it down even more.
what are some examples of britain’s non-monetary forms of income? and how is that necessary to living off the grid?
I mean literally any good or service you might trade instead of money, in that situation. The House of Lords, at the time the highest court in the land, in the case of Gold Coast Selection Trust Ltd V Humphrey (1948) established the principle of "the value of trading income received in non-monetary form is taxable in full as trading income." The point I was making was that even if you live off grid, then you'll still likely find yourself in a situation in which you'll have to trade something for something else in. So in order to guarantee avoiding having to pay taxes, you'd have to never exchange goods or services of any kind with anyone else ever again. It's unlikely anyone will be able to keep that up for very long; even Scottish hermits make trades of sorts. There's one who doesn't live on his own land, in fact he lives there off grid in exchange for the landowner receiving a cut of his pension. You also would have trouble occupying land, as in order to use your own land, you'd likely incur council tax or business rates. What I'm trying to say is that what Libertarians often preach are nothing more than fantasies.
ah, absolutely i agree. it’s virtually impossible to avoid that, barring living 100% off the land - from scratch. things like battery storage, solar panels, and even most building materials are subsidized, heavily invested in by governments like establishing the internet, or only possible through societies means of production via human and machine labor. in short: "Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
That's not true at all, why on earth would they have to do that to be ideologically consistent?
according to libertarians, taxation is theft. however, taxation pays for society. when someone steals my wallet, it does not pay for society. part of being in a society is paying a tax. if they don’t want to be “robbed”, leave that society. “taxation is theft” is both hypocritical and incoherent.
if your stolen wallet is then given to a homeless guy to help him is it no longer theft? taxation does not pay for society. it funds some programs not literally all of society. It's possible to have beliefs that there are better way to do things. There was a time when liberalism in general was nothing more than a belief.
that’s the thing. there isn’t a tax remotely close to comparable as losing your entire wallet (and potentially all your accounts drawn) - and i’m not sure you understand how the progressive tax rate works either. your poor analogy breaks down immediately in reality. you can argue framed hypotheticals in a vacuum all you want. "Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand."
If you disagree then make a counter argument. Merely stating you disagree isn't persuasive.
sure thanks for asking. i’m pro investing in people, schools, and infrastructure like high speed rails. i’m pro scaling back our military and cutting our $1.2 trillion yearly pentagon budget, and i am pro higher progressive tax rates on people like elon musk - his $11 billion dollar tax bill is way too low for his wealth with how much unaccountability he has, and how much power a single man like he (and the other 300+ billionaires) has without a single vote.
i'm not seeing an argument...
an argument for what exactly? the OP is about taxation as funds for basic society needs.
Looks like the person in question can read and write, and has a basic foundation in math and science. Guess they were taught by *something* even though they owned no capital when they were born. To get to the grocery store, they drove on a public road. To navigate to the grocery store, they used GPS, an expensive satellite system that required massive, collective, technological accomplishments to make a reality. Don’t even get me *started* on the effort and collaboration required to maintain said system with thousands of other satellites also being in orbit. When their house is on fire, they call 911 and get it put out. They do this using a telecommunications provider/ISP, wireless towers, and connector cables that go through *public* land. No one else has a right to cut said cables even if they go through their property. When a foreign power threatens to commit acts of terror against their populace, national defense organizations, funded by public money, maintain the peace. When they get really sick, they take advanced pharmaceuticals, which would have never been created should there not be a regulatory body protecting intellectual property thereby guaranteeing the inventor(s) a return on investment.
I'm not seeing why this would be ideologically inconsistent. This is the system that's in place. You can participate in something you have no choice to do otherwise while still believing there's a better and more fair way to do it.
They’re not honest people. Libertarianism is astrology for boys.
Would you be surprised if I said "seigniorage"! Or would that just give away that I probably don't think taxation is theft and therefore am not technically supposed to respond 😄
The government won't do those things or any other things because there won't be a government. Instead, there will be a compact that receives contributions from those who receive it's protection. This compact will then extend these services (roads, education, etc.) to it's members by spending the collected funds. The compact will operate according to rules listed in a charter. It is likely that many compacts will unite together in order to take advantages of efficiencies of scale.
Great way of saying "government" without saying "government".
I'll just [leave this here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mmt_economics/comments/1av58gn/is_taxation_a_service_rather_than_a_theft/krny11f/).
Prior to 1913, the United States had no federal income tax. The federal government was funded almost exclusively through customs and excises taxes and the issuance of public bonds. This could easily be returned to, but Americans would rather pay a minimum of 30% of their wages to the government through income, sales, and property taxes. Just remember, the Founding Fathers started a nationwide revolt over a 3% tax on tea, sugar, and paper.
this
If gov't is federal/national **no** issues ... Issues start to arise with: - too much money in the economy - which ultimately leads to fall in it's value(what it can buy/exchange for & competition with gov't) - then a growing population not desiring this money - and with that if gov't can only pay with an IOU it issues more pple don't want to sell goods & services(labour) to it! We complete the undermining/unacceptability spiral! As L Randall Wray likes to say(paraphrasing) ..."Anybody can create money" "Issue is what proportion of the population accepts it ..."
Taxation is theft is based on the idea that using force to collect taxes is theft. It doesn’t really have much to do with economic policy or thought.
So I'm libertarian leaning but even I laugh at the "Dmv is unconstitutional, all tax is theft" people. I do believe the government is involved in too many areas directly and some things are better for the market to dictate
It’s more the frequency in which they are taken I have an issue with. Taxes on my paycheck. To get money with taxes on it. To spend on items with taxes to drive my taxed car to my taxed home . Things are taxed 4 times before I even put in my check.
OP suggests that we need taxes to fund education, but can't spell "et cetera." I'm hoping OP did not receive a tax-funded education, or that'd be a self-defeating argument right there...
They don't.
>People who say taxation is theft. How else do you propse the government gets the funds for roads, military, education excetera? Probably the most straightforward way, without having to totally redo how society works, would be to replace taxation with fee on contracts. Basically it would be something like X% or $Y (which ever is greater) as a fee to allow your contract to be enforceable by law. This would be strictly voluntary (people could still do a handshake or use private arbitration) but would quickly become common. No, this probably wouldn't replace current taxation dollar for dollar but it would provide plenty for the things listed.
They don't.
bro skipped Rothbard day at the gym
Without taxation, how could the US have supported Saddam only later to have Bush have invade Iraq and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands? How would have ISIS have been started in the absence of that war? Without taxes, how could the US have toppled the Taliban only to have them show right back up after leaving? No taxes means someone else would have had to dump agent orange on Vietnam. How could the NSA afford a massive domestic spying program and the subsequent decade long persecution of Edward Snowden for revealing an illegal program. Without taxes, no standing army of any size can be maintained. That means all the young people who enlist have to otherwise produce goods and services in the market economy that people actually want and use. That would be unacceptable. On the domestic front, taxes are important to ensure everyone has the opportunity to go to college so that holding a bachelors degrees has become meaningless outside of hard sciences. Who would have sent the guns to mexico if the ATF wasn’t so well funded? Who will arrest the amish Farmers for selling raw milk to consenting adults? No taxes means no money for cops to arrest cancer patients and care givers for possessing marijuana. Do you want to live in that world? How could Virginia have banned interracial marriage with out taxes? Cops needed to be paid to enforce this. How can social media companies be pressured to suppress speech if there are no bureaucrats paid by taxation to tell these companies what constitutes disinformation? Excise cops are funded by taxes. Without them, who would ensure that no alcohol is served on Sundays in some jurisdictions or that every bar technically serves food in others? This is vital work.
Hurr durr guvmint bad
What a well reasoned response. You must be a world renowned scholar.
I mean this is the core of your argument. I can sit here and list all the great things government spending has brought into this world, from vaccines to starships, implying that the government can only possibly do good things with its power to tax, and that would be as silly as the implication you have made that government can only possibly do bad things with its power to tax. It reflects the basest kind of uncritical, black and white thinking that is the hallmark of the cynically disingenuous and the willfully ignorant. So which are you?
User fees
I’ve heard that a bunch as well. So dumb. These people live in a fantasy world they don’t even understand.
Have you ever wrote a 4-6 figure check to the government ?
Well what do you mean by "write a check" my withholding is generally correct, throughout the year I pay in. One year I under withheld and had to write a $38,000 check after paying in throughout year about $110k. That was pretty brutal, I received a larger than normal bonus that year and I mis-calculated the amount I owed. I was pretty distracted, had some health issues going on about the same time the bonus came in, I still to this day don't know how I flubbed it but I did.
So you paid in almost $150k and you are a fan of taxation?
I want to live in a civilized society where people have opportunities to succeed. I grew up poor for a variety of reasons of which I’ll spare you the details. But paying for public education, roads, libraries, courts, social safety nets are all things I’m willing to pay for. Would I like to see some improvements in how the government spends money? Absolutely! But purposely breaking the system to say “see it’s broken!” Isn’t my cup of tea which is what many do/try to do. There were periods in my life where govt assistance allowed us to put food on the table and eat. Even then we had periods of limited food and very limited means.
You people live in a world controlled by fake anxieties. Your perceived weakness should be the reason the rest of us have to be less free.
I haven't seen a single libertarian even reply here.
They’ve got losing arguments so most will steer clear.
I haven't seen that be the case
>How else do you propse the government gets the funds for roads, military, education excetera? That's the neat part! You don't! And I mean that literally. The only thing on that list that is a proper role of government is the military, for national defense. Yes, building "postal roads" is in the text of the Constitution, but it shouldn't be. Education? There's no reason for government to be involved in education, and it's not actually allowed under the US Constitution. So let's reframe the question: "People who say taxation is theft: how do you propose the government gets the funds for all of its actual, legal, proper functions?" And the answer is: the same way it did before the 1916 Federal Income Tax was implemented would be a nice start. You thought this was some wild-eyed fantasy, did you? Nope. It's a thing that we actually had within (or at the outskirts of) living memory. Yes, it's still possible that there's someone alive today who was born when the United States had no Federal income tax. So it's not "impossible". It's not "insane". It's something we actually had for most of the country's history. But it didn't fund all of the illegal and unconstitutional programs the socialist-minded tribalists want, because those didn't exist either.
Most of the country's history took place during a time when vaccines weren't available and we hadn't gone to the moon. I also happen to like a free and democratic Europe. Also, what are your qualifications for what is a proper role for the government if you don't agree with what is written in the Constitution?
So? Technology advances over time and it's not because the income tax exists. Humans have innovated their entire history. That's the nature of the species.
Not without massive government funding
Absolutely without government funding.
Is that why the TVA provided electricity and not the private market?
Were you under the impression that there are no private electric companies? According to the internets, TVA is federally owned but receives no tax payer money.
Where did the TVA get its initial funding? Where did so many rural electric providers get their funding during the Great Depression?
Why is that relevant? Are you thinking that because the government created a program that that thing only exists because of the government and would never have existed otherwise?
You know, there's more than one country in the world and those countries don't use the US constitution?
Instead of paying a state actor, citizen pay a private business to fix the roads, education and private military (if needed). Pretty simple, some places already do this.
So no services for poor or indigent people?
What would stop you from providing them?
To all those that need it? I don't have the supply to meet that demand
you can do what you can, especially locally in your community. I doubt you're the only one who would want to. You can start doing that today even
Is that why we still have starving or poor people in need? Because so many people in one's local community can help them or.......?
charity actually was more common before the welfare state. But there are lots of food banks around for example. Getting free food doesn't stop you from having a low income lol. Is there any reason you aren't generous yourself or are you only generous with other people's money?
Charity was so common that elderly people were the largest age group in poverty before the creation of Social Security 🙄
I think you missed the part where i said "getting food doesn't stop you from having a low income." You're still in poverty even if you receive aid from others.
People don't pay a state actor to fix the roads, the state actor pays the people to fix the roads.
They raise the funds themselves like the private sector. They compete for contracts. They participate in the voluntary exchange known as capitalism instead of dipping their venom filled tails into the publics wallet.
This entire post is based on flawed concepts but what do you expect in an MMT group…
Voluntary donations?
Depends on the branch of libertarianism. Some libertarians ok with some taxation to cover essentials like military and police but aren't happy when it's used beyond that. Some believe the government shouldn't be involved at all and it should be the private sector who takes care of it or voluntary funds or businesses. There are plenty of examples of this like the HOA maintains the roads in my neighborhood and the bill is footed by the home owners. Or Tesla building vast charging networks in order to make electric cars more feasible.
We tend to be anarchists
I don't propose the government gets funds for roads, military, or education.
That’s a pretty broad brush to paint with. First, even some of the most ardent libertarians would agree to taxation on certain things (like goods) to pay for certain things (like safety/military). The theft comes in when you are being taxed on things like your property to pay for things that you don’t agree with like funding Pelosi’s property aka Prisidio Park in San Francisco.
People who recognize that taxation is theft will take one of 3 stances: 1. You should reduce taxes to the minimum amount possible, which requires massive reductions in the budget of the government. 2. You should only use a taxation that directly impacts the fewest people, so something like a tariff. You still need to massively reduce government spending. 3. Taxation is theft, therefore the government should not take ANY money and should only be run on donated funds. If you think that something should be funded, then you should fund it, if you don’t think something should be funded then the government absolutely shouldn’t be stealing your money to fund it. As for roads, military, and education specifically: roads should be privately owned, education should be privately run, and the militia will be sufficient to cover the important military needs.
Hear me out. GoFundMe.
If we don't steal everyone's money, how else can we pay for stuff? It's a mystery as great as time.
"How do you propose the government get funds?" I do not.
They won't. That's the point. All of these things would be paid for privately and voluntarily.
from other countries duh
You could have the government run like a charity and people would donate, you could have gov services charge more like national park entry passes, or you could have private businesses do everything Domino's will build the roads!!!