You are a ruler with an army. That army has to be fed. It can just violently take what it needs from the population. But that is disorderly and makes people mad at you.
So, instead, you issue money to the soldiers. By why would the population take this money in exchange for food? Even if it's made out of a precious metal, what does a peasant want with gold, when nobody else wants it either (unless maybe they want to make something out of gold, but who can afford that). Well, you say they need to pay you taxes in this money you have issued. Now they've got to get some of it, and the soldiers are the ones with the supply. So you give them food in exchange.
I haven't read that account of the origin of money anywhere else (and I'm not sure how much consensus there is around it among relevant ancient historians), but I have read that taxation originates generally from the need/want to maintain large/standing armies. Not just that you have an army for the purpose of exracting tribute by force; but that you had an army for some other reason (conquering "someone else's" land or defending "yours"), and now you need to extract resources from "your" population to maintain it. This idea is referenced a bit in OP in the context of Europe: "But from around the late fifteenth century, war became more expensive… "
Certainly the peasants also need to trade with each other, regardless of the presence of an army? Money facilitates that trade. You can barter chickens or goats or whatever but at some point nobody needs more of those either. Especially because chickens have to be fed.
When the thing being traded has only abstract value it becomes money, even if the tokens are chickens.
I think an argument could be made that armies are just a jobs program. In a way money necessities jobs because of the increased economic capabilities of that abstract trade token. With more efficient trade the peasants have less to do so they need ever more complex jobs. An army (and the military-industrial complex) provide those jobs.
I think Graeber's theory of the origin of money may not be universally accepted (not sure how accepted it is); but I think it's true that the 'common sense' theory isn't actually based on much historical evidence, but is just "an argument that can be made", as they say, which somehow became the "common sense". That's not a very reliable way to accurately describe history. All sorts of things that people in different times assumed "must be true because it just makes the most sense" turn out not to be. "seems simplistic" or "seems more plausible to me" is not a reliable guide for distinguishing truth from fiction, and what seems more plausible to me may not to you.
Money is a natural consequence of trade in general.
If you don't pay your taxes and fight back, the government will send its servants to kill you or beat you until money pops out.
That being said, I would happily move to a country with 0% income tax, such as Monaco or Oman.
Alas these countries do not allow free movement of people through their borders.
I'd propose, simplistically, that people who demand tax cuts have in common the following characteristics:
- they may be confused about the role(s) of taxation
- they may not have sat down with pen and paper to try and figure out how to work a government's finances
- they may not be aware that a lot of the information they're demanding is public, or may not know where to find it
- they may not have a clear idea of which services to cut, or might not fully appreciate the importance of the services they'd like to cut
Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes:
- have a clear understanding of at least some of the roles of taxation
- have a specific idea what budget item they would like to see it spent on
That's not even mentioning those that are successful and wealthy in part because of government subsidies and support (e.g. green credits for Tesla).
They already contribute more than proportionally. Proportionally is a flat tax rate and the rich already contribute far in excess of that.
We could pull the plug on that system, but only by driving ourselves into utter poverty, so in some sense we are hostages of the system that we created. On the other hand, if that system fails to serve an agreeable social purpose, it's our prerogative to moderate it.
Let’s go for broke and make them 100% then?
What I'm saying is that when applying first-order thinking, it sounds like "more tax" would hurt. Therefore people who ask for more tax are most likely thinking a bit farther than the tip of their nose.
But perhaps that idea is further than the tip of one’s nose.
There is no evidence supporting this assertion. A massive swath of people currently support raising taxes on the wealthy solely to take their money away (“reducing income equality”) without having a particularly sound way to spend it or one that even makes mathematical sense.
https://twitter.com/iamscottenglish/status/12358062448179159...
Every penny is useful.
The government randomly spending money in bits here in there is not productive.
>even jobs
The last thing you want is the government to add 10 million jobs for only 12 weeks during normal employment.
> infrastructure
Expanding infrastructure that isn’t needed is just more maintenance cost and a waste of money. You need concrete plans for infrastructure that isn’t just a maintenance burden.
> public transportation
Again, this needs actual plans and should provide value. You want HSR from Ely, NV to Portland, OR?
Vague hand-waving of “the government should just spend X billion on Y” is just a perfect way to promote boondoggles.
There's a way to look at this non-vindictively.
Because on the surface it looks like USA also has non-income taxation, such as sales tax (in lieu of VAT), property tax and so on.
You could drop your citizenship but you will need another. No country with little or no taxes will give you a citizenship.
Your best bet is to stay in the US and complain to get policies changed. Or live in the woods/desert. The average person has no real path to a tax free life but the rich can use loops.
What if a US citizen obtainins citizenship in a country that does not tax non-residents, relinquishes her US citizenship and then moves to a country that has little or no taxes.
If the hypothetical wealthy citizen moves to a country without functioning government infrastructure, it's a safe bet that their first priority upon landing will be to figure out a way to move their assets into instruments that are valued in dollars or euro's.
But, generally, the wealthy do not pay more in taxes than the non-wealthy. They generally pay less.
The rich use more of the system than the average person. The area of law, finace, education and property. They receive money/credit for investment in local communities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Revolutionary_Sociali...
This is not the same thing at all.
Yes, like every other failed Socialist and Communist state, they made promises of economic inequality and instead becane authoritarian genocidal maniacs.
There is a reason people making 6 figure+ salaries aren’t clamoring to move to France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden. They aren’t actually all that desirable if you are the one paying the brunt of the taxes.
If you’re actually “passionate about taxes” and you don’t make good money, you would be happy to relocate to the country with the highest taxes for low income... Swaziland. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-t...
Both you and the parent aren’t actually fans of high taxes it sounds like. Instead you just like social programs paid for by someone else.
Obviously you can over-do it, but parent compared taxes to protection money from the mafia and that is ridiculous.
Also people who are “passionate about taxes” think that rich people benefit more from a properly funded society then more poor people, so they should pay more. So as the parent says "what a stupid argument" Also, of course we are my passionate about high taxes. We are passionate about the society that high taxes provide.
All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.
Are there more rich people in the US or those countries?
> It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig).
It’s almost like the high taxation levels of France/Sweden/Portugal/etc have no advantage over the US for “everyone benefitting”, at least not monetarily.
> All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.
I don’t think you’re using that word correctly or you’re not understanding. I’m being quite genuine when I say it’s ridiculous to “be a fan of taxation” and when most people say that they are just generally a fan of some level of government services.
You need to discuss which government services you like socialized to have any meaningful discussion. Otherwise it’s just “I love the government taking money from the people”.
Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God.
Wired: the mafia is like the government