Taxes as theft

[Perd Hapley]

"Taxes" aren't theft.

"Taxes as one large lump sum with no itemization and no means to choose not to consume services as economic protest" is theft.

I've never come across that before, and I don't know if I agree with it yet, but at least we can acknowledge the crucial difference between taxes themselves, and particular tax policies.

[MicroBalrog]

what do you suggest?

An amazing solution:

To accept we don't live in a perfect world.

In a perfect world, I'd love anarchy. This isn't a perfect world, and government is seen as necessary to some extent.

To what extent we need taxation - which is theft - I would prefer to have the process of taxation limited by the usual instruments of a Constitutional Republic, like makattak  outlined.

[Fly320s]

Count me as one who doesn't see taxes as theft.  Maybe assault, but not theft.  Like it or not, I (we) allow the legislators to do it to us.  We do have a voice to make changes, even if no legislator listens or acts.  In the worse case scenario, we may use force to affect change.

sounds a might complicated. has anything like that ever been done?  on any scale? even corporate?

Some charities, and I think political donations, do something similar.  For instance, the NRA has several options of where donations may be spent.

It is complicated, but today's computer systems are very capable of keeping it all straight, and memory is dirt cheap.

How about this for an idea:
1.  When filing federal income tax returns, the payer gets to choose up to 5 divisions to fund, such as Defense, Infrastructure, Healthcare, Social Programs, NASA, etc.  Limit the options to macro-divisions, not individual programs.
2.  Then the citizen gets to decide what percentage of his taxes goes to each division.  To keep it a bit simpler, use only multiples of 10.  i.e: 10%, 20%, etc.
3.  The national budget is limited by percentage for each divison. 
4.  People who choose to fund the government this way, must pay a $50 fee to help defray the cost.  Those who don't want to play, don't have to pay, and may continue to file tax returns in the current form.
5.  Only individuals may use this format.  Companies, corporations, LLCs, etc must file in the current manner.

[Tallpine]

How about if the fed.gov assessed each state for a fraction of the national budget, probably based on population? 

Then it would be up to each state to figure out how to raise the money.  And all tax collections would be "local" and the citizens would have more control on how it was done.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

How about if the fed.gov assessed each state for a fraction of the national budget, probably based on population? 

Then it would be up to each state to figure out how to raise the money.  And all tax collections would be "local" and the citizens would have more control on how it was done.

I like this approach. Also. I think if you pay no federal taxes, you shouldn't get to vote for folks who decide how federal taxes are used. Entitlement programs are good at producing massive voting blocks.

I would prefer a straight flat tax on income, regardless of what your income level is. Say 10%, if you make 20K or 250 Billion, you pay 10%. Or even better, get rid of the IRS and put a national sales tax in place.

[RocketMan]

To what extent we need taxation - which is theft - I would prefer to have the process of taxation limited by the usual instruments of a Constitutional Republic, like makattak  outlined.

Almost there.  Taxation to the extent necessary to support the government as provided for limited by the Constitution.

[Tallpine]

I would prefer a straight flat tax on income, regardless of what your income level is.

Income tax is the worst of all, because it is an invasion of privacy.

Flat tax means very little when you still have to determine "how much income?" and furthermore "what is income?"

Things like capital gains tax are nothing more than a tax on inflation caused by the govt in the first place. 

[Jamisjockey]

Kill income tax. 
Use consumption tax, set by law at X rate for X years (many years, like 99 at a whack).

Better yet, assign each state an amount by capita.  Have sates collect taxes however they see fit and pay tribute to the federal governent.  No more dumping our incomes into the federal coffer for it to then be divied back down to the states. 

[zahc]

Income tax will never go away because its system of exemptions and credits provide a nearly limitless, legislation-free way to impose the governments will and power upon the populace by flexing the purse-strings. Revenue is not really the point. You could go into any bar in the US, grab some random person, and they could come up with a more efficient way to gather revenue than the byzantine tax code and wasteful IRS. But income tax would still be around even if it didn't make any money at all.

[KD5NRH]

How about if the fed.gov assessed each state for a fraction of the national budget, probably based on population?

Population alone is a poor measure; one of the few legitimate purposes of Federal government spending is national defense, which is not particularly dependent on population.  As an example, compare Alaska and Vermont: they have similar populations, but the resources required to defend Vermont would be crushed quickly if spread over the whole of Alaska.

[Jamisjockey]

Population alone is a poor measure; one of the few legitimate purposes of Federal government spending is national defense, which is not particularly dependent on population.  As an example, compare Alaska and Vermont: they have similar populations, but the resources required to defend Vermont would be crushed quickly if spread over the whole of Alaska.

However, that national defense is national.  Those resources would be drawn from all 50 states, not just Vermont's resources being used to defend Alaska.

The power of the leviathan lies in its ability to control the purse strings.  The states have lost their identities because they are beholden to the Federal government for money. 
A prime and tangible example is the national drinking age.  When the Federal government decided it needed to be changed, they withheld federal highway funding to states that didn't comply.
The original intent of federalisim was a band of mini-states held together by a set of guidelines and commonality.  But each state was still granted enough leeway to have its own identity.  Mini experiments in democracy.
We should have 50 states who are clearly identifiable experiments in democracy.  The amount of federal laws should tell you all right now that is no longer the case.
Lets take, for example, drug laws.  Several states have medical marijuana laws.  Yet the Federal government still holds mj to be illegal.  You can still be prosocuted for violating those laws.
It is either time to dissolve the states and succumb to the federal government, or beat the federal government back and return to federalisim. 

[Tallpine]

Population alone is a poor measure; one of the few legitimate purposes of Federal government spending is national defense, which is not particularly dependent on population.  As an example, compare Alaska and Vermont: they have similar populations, but the resources required to defend Vermont would be crushed quickly if spread over the whole of Alaska.

Or compare Wyoming ... can you imagine how many troops and forts are required to hold back an invasion of mongol hordes ...?   

[Jamisjockey]

Or compare Wyoming ... can you imagine how many troops and forts are required to hold back an invasion of mongol hordes ...?   

Like I said.  An invasion of one state would bring the resources of the entiriety to bear.  The whole purpose for "common defense".




Also, states are able to raise militias to aid in their defense.

No, I'm right with Tallpine. Population would make the most sense. 
Of course, I have another, more capatilistic solution.
% of state GDP.  Give the Federal government a reason to encourage growth.  The higher the GDP of the states, the more income the Federal government procures. 

My recipe for salvation:
Constitutional amendent that spending, borrowing, and PRINTING not exceed tax income, only to be broken during actual time of war involving invasion of the CONUS.
All tax rates locked in for 99 years.
Taxation responsibility falls on the states, who then pay tribute to the Federal government based on population
Term limits on all federal appointments and all federal elected representatives.
All bills written must cite constitutional authority to write said law
Constitutional amendment calling for constitutional convention every 99 years
Disbanding of Department of Ag, Department of Ed, EPA, Homeland Security and IRS

[zahc]

I agree, but I would add: all federal laws have a maximum 20 year sunset. If for no other reason than technology and world macroeconomic conditions change fast enough that they should be revisited that often anyway.

But it's all silly. We don't have the government we have because nobody has come up with anything better. You could ask pretty much anyone for ideas on improving government, including school children, and they would be able to spot the glaring problems and introduce simple fixes. We have the government we have simply because it' that status quo and it benefits those currently in power. The problem with introducing change is how to upset that power. Is there any way to do it nonviolently?

[MicroBalrog]

Is there any way to do it nonviolently?

Many. They all require hard work and volunteering by individuals. Why they won't be done.