I frequently see people complain about the government "stealing" money from the people in the form of taxes, yet all of the examples I've seen so far often amount to straw man arguments with no realistic alternatives offered. Here's one taken from the thread "What's wrong with Civil Unions?".

This argument ignores the fact that everyone uses a government service in some form or fashion, and that those services are payed for by taxes. Thusly, use of these services without paying taxes is theft, or to equate it to ancaps analogy, it would be like refusing to pay your gym membership and showing up the next day and hopping on the treadmill.


Another complaint I've heard about taxes is that they aren't right because the individual doesn't make use of a particular service, or simply does not want the services at all. Aside from the fact that this falls back on the first argument, that everyone uses government services in some way, it also raises a question about the individuals selective attitude. I can understand not wanting to pay for things you don't use all the time, but why does this attitude apply only to the government? Why not argue with the owner of a gym to lower their monthly membership if you only use the treadmill, and never use the other machines? Why not argue with all businesses about the price of their services every time I deem that the price I pay are spent on things I believe are wasteful, not ethical, or not necessary?


Alternatives are always worth exploring, as no system is perfect. However, I can only imagine how much abuse would come out of a system that would hinge on voluntary contributions to support our infrastructure.


So lets hear it. I want to hear real alternatives to the current tax system. Please include the specifics of how it will work.

We could have a bake sale.

here's how it would work:

1) Bake things

2) sell them

3) use the money to fund every government program/infrastructure program/public amenity

hey, it works for the Girl Scouts right?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

You don't? I sure as hell do and I save a great deal of money doing so.

there is no law requiring most americans to pay an income tax.... but they take it anyway....stealing



im all down for taxes but the must be APPORTIONED
(aka THE SAME FOR EVERYONE)


as the constitution demands

__________________

taxes cannot be apportioned... they have to be PROPORTIONED.

if they are apportioned, then someone (INDIVIDUAL A)that makes 10 million a year would pay the same as a person (INDIVIDUAL B) that makes 15,000 per year.

let's say that "apportioned" number is 10,000. that means that everyone, regardless of income level, pays 10,000 in income taxes:

its 10,000/15000 x 100 = 66.7% of that individuals (B) income.

10,000/10,000,000 x 100 = 0.1% of (A) income.

that's why it doesn't work...

I'm pretty sure his intent was a percentage of income. Why should I pay 34% of my income while someone else pays 29% simply because I happen to make more? If it were based purely on a flat tax rate, I would still be paying more, but it would be fair. Not to mention it's been proven over and over that the Gov'ment would actually receive more revenue under a flat tax.

while there are those that believe all government is abusive and should be eradicated (i tend toward that view, but realize it is a necessary evil. for now.), there are very few who do not understand that the nation's infrastructure must be paid for with some sort of taxation. the complaints arise from the inherent inequities of a system that penalizes success and from our government's tendency to finance its pet projects at the expense of any minority it can label as wealthy or single out in some way for the derision of the masses. the alternatives of a flat tax rate on earnings above some set limit or a national sales tax that targets consumption instead of earning have been forwarded, but they are always shot down by those who see wealth as a fixed commodity and the wealthy as somehow responsible for the welfare of the nation. both are workable models, but the former undermines the expansion of the welfare state by holding even the lowest among us responsible for the government services they consume and the latter places the burden on the very creature comforts that are used to subdue the masses into their stupor of comfortable poverty. there is no perfect option. the question arises as to whether we should continue milking the wealthy at an ever increasing rate to satisfy the desires of the mob or chasten the unproductive members of our society in hopes that they may strive further to improve their lot.

while the manner in which government funds itself may be of great concern, the use to which it puts those funds is even more contentious. while the various forms of taxation continue to place an increasing burden on the middle and upper classes, our infrastructure's steady decline is evident. if it is not used for its intended purpose, where does all that money go? to the honest observer, the answer is evident. the nation's growth has stagnated because of an increasing emphasis on gaining popular support for whatever faction of the liberal establishment happens to be in power at the time. we throw good money after bad to support flawed social programs designed only to shore up the reputations of the proponents of the welfare state. billions are spent to fund a massive bureaucracy designed to eradicate poverty and still poverty increases with each passing day. we are inundated with intrusive regulations and the enforcement of those regulations funnels away even more of the funds wrung from the very people they were designed to subdue. we have been tricked into policing a world that despises us until we may be of some use to them and then despises us all the more for those efforts, spending billions in an effort to save the world from itself. the waste inherent in any government operated program is staggering, yet still we clamor for more, and let us not forget the ongoing public relations campaign, funded by the taxpayer and designed to convince him that all his sacrifices in the name of the holy state are not in vain.

how can you compare government and the private sector in such matters? this tactic is becoming more and more popular and is disingenuous at best. one must use the carrot to induce growth, the other seems only to know the stick. within the free market there is choice, the answer to your question is that you do argue with all businesses by choosing whether or not to give them your patronage. a business must convince you that theirs is the product or service you should choose among a thousand other similar enterprises and that choice is your power over anyone in the private sector. government, on the other hand, uses force to make everyone comply with their demands. there is no option, no other government down the street that you can move your business to when you become disgusted with your treatment. government denies choice with the threat of violence, imprisonment and confiscation of property. the people may have some small say over their government's demands, but the final say is always in the hands of those few who strive to control our lives.

__________________
When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.

This I'm sure will be an interesting thread. Many people will fall off the logic train quickly, but I'll play along.

Theft is unauthorized taking, when a person or group of people take your property or your money. If they attempt to control your body without your consent most people would agree that is slavery, a horrible variant of theft.

While most of us have taken something that didn't belong to us, most of us can agree that behavior (theft) is wrong.
A thief should not rationalize their behavior by saying, "well I was going to buy something good with the money I stole", that would not excuse the theft would it? I'd say if you had something that belongs to you that was taken without your consent you were stolen from, the "need" or the identity of the thief notwithstanding.

Being made to pay for something you don't use or want is EXTORTION. The meaning of extortion does not change when the perpetrator is the government. Or do "they" have the power to be able to change the very meaning of words! Hmmm.

Few of us have "authorized" government to tax us, I haven't anyway. Therefore if the "taking" is unauthorized we are either being stolen from under the threat of force (extortion) or the property was never really ours to begin with. Any other explanation is a deviation from the true meaning of the words and is a rationalization. Is it possible we don't own our homes, our bodies and our labor? Hmmm.

Logically the meaning of theft should not change when the identity of the thief changes should it?
If a masked bandit comes to my house and robs me at gunpoint or a self appointed official wearing a silly hat with a shiny piece of metal on his chest is the thief what is the difference? The difference is "government" has given themselves a "license" to steal. The act of theft remains, again unauthorized by me, the person who is being stolen from. I have given no consent to either thief, therefore neither act of thievery is a willful transcation on my part. Both are acts of theft,
if unauthorized taking occurred.

People that attempt to own their verybodie s by smoking pot have their lives stolen from them everyday under the guise of "legality". Making something legal or illegal doesn't make it right. It can, by coincidence be right, but it is not the legality that confers right or wrong upon an act, it is the morality of an act that confers right and wrong. For instance, we all know slavery was immoral and wrong, yet it was legal at one time.

The underlying premises of right and wrong are and always have been:
Do the actions of one party bring harm to another? If there are two parties to a "transaction" is one an unwilling participant? If these circumstances exist, a wrongful act is committed, even it is made "legal". Taxation for instance.

If you are not harming another, what you do with your property, your time, your body, your money, is "right" If you wish to exchange your stuff with another and all agree, it is a private affair if force was not used to obtain compliance.

Even if a transaction is made "illegal", it does not automatically confer immorality. Smoking pot is illegal, yet it is not "wrong" if it's what a person choses to do that is it? If a person leaves others alone what right do any of us have to impose our will upon them? Morally none.

There are many alternatives to forced taxes. A competitive free market results in better living for people. Government is simply a middleman that has wormed it's way into existence and like a parasite has no regard for it's hosts, us.
Government exists to feed itself.

A good book to read - THE MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Linda and Morris Tannehill.

A few long-winded posts but still, nobody answers the question.

RobRoy: You say "There are many alternatives to forced taxes", but you fail to name a single one, which was what the original poster asked for. Not a drawn out lecture about slavery and extortion.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

i do not like taxes but know that we need them. i am open to other ideas though.