Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

  > If I cast a vote for a tax, I am voting in favor
  > of taking money from someone else, with the force
  > of gunpoint and the threat of prison. How can that
  > be moral?

How can you run a government without revenue of some sort?

You suggest donations, but I seriously do not believe that it would be possible to get enough money to run a government based entirely on that. Even with a 'trimming of the fat' in government, there would be too many people willing to try and 'game' the system.

(I guess it would possible to cut the required money even further by making government offices on a volunteer basis, but that would setup a bad set of incentives. It would only attract rich people that could afford to do something like that on a volunteer basis and/or people that are power-hunger/power-seeking.)

  > 2) Numerous organizations ranging from charities, to
  > huge churches that have survived several millenniums,
  > to a complete country (Vatican City) are funded
  > voluntarily, and do that quite successfully.

You're ignoring:

1) For several hundred years some of those religions were the official religions of several counties, and 'donations' were compulsory[1].

2) The Vatican is not completely funded voluntarily[2]:

  The Holy See, which depends largely on investments for
  its annual income, had income of about $326 million
  and expenses of about $313 million.

There's also tourism, in addition to "Peter's Pence" (donations to the Holy See, Vatican's governing body). I tried looking for actual numbers, but didn't find anything in the little bit of looking that I did.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes

[2] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-201...

> How can you run a government without revenue of some sort?

How does the Mormon Church work? They have no tax. Don't tell me tithe. There's no threat of jail time and income confiscation for not tithing.

social pressure can be incredibly effective, especially when you can make people feel like the world is empty without the impact the "inside group" you think you belong to is making.

they make people think their only choice is remain "accepted" or be cast out among filth. mormons are good at it, but the catholic church perfected it centuries before, and it isn't limited to christianity or even to religion. heck, political parties do it, too-- no law making you join a party.

In the Mormon Church, tithing is required to attend services, and especially to use church facilities for major life events (i.e., weddings or baptisms). Effectively, tithing is a tax levied by the Mormon Church on Mormons.

You said two different things: that tithing is payment for facilities, and then that tithing is a tax.

Mormons - all people - have the free choice to pay or not pay the Mormon church. And they do quite well.

I would have no issue with a government that said "If you want to use our services, you need to pay. If you want to use roads that we build, you need to pay." And then people could freely choose.

I have an issue with demanding that someone else pay for their so-called "freedom".

It's not required, always, to pay tithing to attend the standard sunday services in the LDS faith. But if you wanted to get help from your bishop, who has the ability to grant about $5000 USD to anyone of his choosing (I think per month), he will most certainly note if you are contributing to the church if you ask for help paying utility or medical bills, which is not uncommon. Mormons that wish to be married or sealed in the Temple will also be scrutinized of their contributions.

Like you noted, when relating it to Government tax, if you decide to never pay taxes again, you wouldn't get thrown in jail or forced to leave, but you wouldn't get to enjoy the simple things in life, like roads, police, ambulances or the fire department.

You could probably live a life like Henry David Thoreau, but it probably wouldn't be very comfortable.

Have you considered that stable currency is a service performed by the government? Feel free to accumulate wealth, just don't use government backed currency.

First, I am not saying that I don't value government services. I am saying that as someone who believes that people should be free, it's disingenuous of me to force someone else to pay for freedom, through the threat of guns. (I am completely willing to pay my "fair share" and more.)

Second, if the government provides a valuable service, people should and would WANT to pay for it. So there's no need for me to FORCE someone to pay for it.

Third, you named a great DISservice. Currency "stably" heading to zero [1] is really not a valuable service.

[1] http://www.profitscore.com/articles/prof_ValueofaBuck_Aug-09...

People are usually talking about stability from wild fluctuations when they are talking about stability in currency...

Agreed, but it's the same organization that is performing both "services" - providing stability and guiding it "stably" to zero.

  > I would have no issue with a government that said
  > "If you want to use our services, you need to pay.
  > If you want to use roads that we build, you need
  > to pay." And then people could freely choose.

Just by living in the country you are accessing the benefits of those things though.

  > How does the Mormon Church work?

You keep using religion as an example for how to run a government on donations. Do you really think that the government should be modeled on religious power structure? Are we supposed to run a government fundraiser by promising salvation in the afterlife?

Also, with religion, I'm sure that it's possible for someone to be 'kicked out' of the religion for not paying dues. In the case of a sovereign country, where would you deport a US citizen to for conscientiously objecting to the collection of taxes?

The best example of voluntary contribution to a government is the founding of the US government itself. It was entirely voluntary, while taxes were being collected by the enemy. And yet somehow this was successful enough to overthrow the largest world power.

But the obvious objection to that is "times have changed". Religious institutions and other charities are simply modern examples.

Personally, I believe that the entire US government (in its present state and power structure) could be funded voluntarily. Not by promising salvation in the afterlife, but by marketing to the citizens that if you want to remain free, it's your civic duty to contribute (at some prescribed rate).

Since arriving at this new way of looking at taxes, my attitude at the ballot box will be something like this: When asked "Do you approve an 'x-mil' tax levy for the Department of Disability?", the question is NOT asking me "Are you personally willing to support the Department of Disability for Y-dollars?" (which I wholeheartedly support), but rather "Are you willing to hire enforcers to enforce the extraction of payment from someone who may not agree or may not be able to support the Department of Disability? The enforcers may harass, bind, and imprison those that do not support it. And you are hiring these enforcers." Because that is REALLY the question being asked.

At that point, I need to make a moral decision. Is the tax so important that I am willing to vote to imprison someone who doesn't support it?

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to "sign up" on the spot, for automatic deductions for myself to support the Department of Disability. But that isn't an option. And it should be.

In order to "phase in" widespread voluntary "tax", each organization would need to facilitate easy acceptance of direct payments (just like charities do), and our leadership would need to "market" to the people that contribution is the right thing to do (just as Obama, Bush, and Clinton did in soliciting donations for Haiti).

Pretty simple, really. You'd know pretty quickly whether it was viable.

Honestly, tax is the "lazy man's" way to raise revenue. "Let's just vote it in... then we don't have to justify it further."

I would cringe if my contributions to Wikipedia were mandatory. Yet Wikipedia is always able to raise the funds necessary to continue on their mission. But if they started preaching eternal damnation if you didn't contribute, I bet the contribution spigot would run dry.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the path there. If we were to completely implement this system with a twitch of the nose, then I think the government would collapse. There would be too many people willing to 'play chicken' with whether or not the fire department will put their house out if they don't opt-in to the fire department donations. Why? Because you don't want 1 house fire to cause more.

Just letting someone die (not rescue them from the burning house) or letting their house burn down would not sit well with others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com