I was all ready to run up in here hatin' on tax evaders, reel off some polemic about how schools and roads need to be paid for by everyone, but then I read this.
Descending cloud of morning depression: averted. Best of luck to you.
The tax system is a very, very crooked one (speaking for the US but probably everywhere), and nobody should be forced to sacrifice 35% (!!!) of their earnings to it.
My point here is that you shouldn't go around telling people that they have a moral duty to pay taxes. People who believe that have to choose between guilt, and self-sacrifice.
And self-sacrifice was a pretty good choice last time I checked.
I particularly like this quote on tax avoidance from Kerry Packer, 1991:
I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
Genuine needful social spending nothwithstanding, they beg to differ that the State can spend their money without seeming limit, borrowed money at that, better than they can. Just one illustration - the EU budget has not been passed by auditors for 13 years in a row. And when this was questioned from within the hierarchy, that person was sacked.
(b) And, any system that sacrifices some people to others is barbaric, and ought to be ended.
To elaborate on (b):
The whole point of the rule of law (civilization) is to make it so that nobody can take what's mine from me by force, which is the very definition of barbarism (the state of nature).
Yes, we need government force to protect us from arbitrary force (the state of nature), but it should not go beyond the minimal necessary application of force. It should not tax me for other people's education, for example. Let them pay it back once they get jobs. The market works in every sector where we've tried it.
If I have any duty, it's to oppose continuing such a barbaric system.
There are an awful lot of benefits to everyone in giving the general populace a passable education and access to basic health care. Once folks' basic needs in life are met, they are rather more likely to dedicate themselves to the causes you recruit them for (political, business, whatever).
(So come on, USA, how about re-routing a fraction of the money you're burning in Iraq & Afghanistan into education & health care?)
There are plenty of issues with tax systems in most (all?) countries, but the fact that some people pay in more than they get back from it isn't one of them.
Your argument of not wanting to be taxed for other people's education... just doesn't work. What if you had an education and then died, or never worked a day in your life, who pays for that? The only way that you got an education is because your parents and their generation were paying for it, and if your generation aren't paying for the education of those younger than you, no-one will get educated.
"The market works in every sector where we've tried it." I'm not sure anyone who has experienced the health service in many European countries, even here in the UK where the NHS has many big problems, would consider the market solution in America to be better than a free health service covered by taxes. And where do you stop? Should police only investigate crimes for a fee, and leave anyone who can't afford the prices on their own?
I'm with you on that, and on the general moral obligation to pay taxes even if you are in the minority that (supposedly) gets less than they put in with their taxes.
However:
In the US, the taxes you pay essentially go to government official's cronies in the banking and military industries and to corrupt unions. Really. The US now borrows some 20-50% of what it spends (depending on who you ask and how you count spending on things like medicare, social security, etc)
In the US, you're not actually getting any health services (unless you're already dirt poor); good education is private in all age groups.
The moral argument is much, much weaker in the US.
And on the angle that I do agree with you -- I think most people who pay 35% taxes are actually paying much LESS than what they get for -- hiring your own guards is bound to be more expensive. That's the main service your taxes get you -- not getting robbed/killed every other day.
Good. Do you want to be elderly, disabled, cancerous, an injured veteran, jail-bird or a school kid (again)? You don't want those benefits until you need 'em. And you or your family will need 'em. If you're a self-made rich person, or one of your ancestors was, consider how they leveraged the taxes of others to get that way.
The "state of nature" concept as pre-societal (Hobbes, C17) is bogus and as out of date as phlogiston theory. The term was originally coined by Aquinas (C13) and specifically included society and culture until Hobbes removed them almost 500 years later. For humans, society is nature. Aristotle and Aquinas recognized this, and this is in line with current thinking, except apparently among libertarians who seem to believe that "red in tooth and claw" justifies their luck and screw you buddy to anyone less lucky.
But maybe you should get arrested every month just to get your money's worth. Make sure to tell the cops they are parasites.
If you earn enough in Sweden you will end up paying a total of close 70% of your income in taxes. (income tax capped at 56% if I recall correctly and the rest if VAT etc)