Hacker News Reader

Comment by eksith | Hacker News Reader

No. Taxes are a service fee paid as agreed to in your social contract (which you signed by participating in said society). If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere that is a. Devoid of taxes (good luck) or b. Devoid of society.

Society functions by and large by public services which, whether you like it or not, need money; not magic. Every functional society has had tax collection in some form or another as a result.

There are communities that don't charge taxes for things, and they're heavily de-regulated as a result. They also heavily favor self-reliance and don't feature luxuries such as Police or Firefighters.

View on HN

Yes. This.

I had a more "radically libertarian" view before I "settled down" (bought real property, got married, made a child). I've increasingly bought into the idea that paying a fair fee for the services that society offers is a reasonable bargain. Paying the fee isn't the issue for me anymore. Rather, the uncivil political discourse and refusal to make reasonable compromises to deal with disagreements about how that money should be spent (and how government, defense, and social service programs can be sustainable) is what irks me. Living in the US makes me feel like a large part of my taxes are nothing but throwing good money after bad (even though I know it's really not as bad as I think it is).

No argument from here about wastage. If I'm paying the rate appropriate for decent services, give me decent services please. Some of it may be as bad as we think it is (bureaucracies always have some degree of inefficiency), but a lot, thankfully, are managed by more level heads.

I encourage people to donate to their local volunteer fire and ambulance services for this very reason. Also, if your local police are having a fundraiser, you should consider helping. You can side-step the inefficiencies of government distribution (and the bickering) if you take an active role in directly funding these essential services.

Most of these should also be tax-deductible so you're just basically side-stepping the middle-man (the bureaucracy) and making sure the money is going where it's needed directly.

I mean, honestly, considering how many people are clustered together these days, we're just not equipped to deal with the chaos that will come about if there was no social infrastructure. These things run on tax money.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being libertarian (after all, the root "liberty" is in there). I'm just very uncomfortable with the casual disregard for all authority, order and in many cases, common sense, that some folks who claim to be libertarian tend to espouse. Last I checked being libertarian required a great deal of common sense, a sense of fairness and above all else, order and self-control.

I just have one big problem with the "service fee" thing. The law (in the West) is (mostly) a set of contracts between the government and individuals. Taxes are one of the main obligations of the individuals, and they're part of this contract.

There are of course other sides to the contract. Where I'm from one of the other sides is inflation-adjusted pensions. I work just like everybody else did, future and past. Yet I do not have the right to inflation adjusted pensions anymore.

Now that contract, when I read it at age 20, really did not seem to leave any leeway to cancel them, but of course the state is sovereign. No matter how (legally) solid a promise or contract, the state is under no obligation to execute it (not even for people who are current pensioners, and have very little power in the current system. The ones that trusted the government to hold up it's end of the bargain got screwed. Some got screwed, aged 70 or so, and became homeless. I knew one of those).

That event has opened my eyes. What I'm paying taxes for, ~40% goes to paying pension, both of which are getting canceled. Another 50%+ goes to national health insurance and unemployment insurance (I'm in Europe), and in Brussels it is obvious that this part of the system is collapsing, but is also begin used as "bread and circuses" for most of the inner-city population, leading to fast growth. People blame immigration for this, and while that's a significant chunk, the root of the problem is that low-paying jobs are a lot worse than unemployment to any rational person. They're much more likely to demand overtime and extra work than high-paying ones, and the commute costs money, and the whole thing is just so much more stressful than actually doing something.

So there's 2 factors here that I find most offensive about taxes. First, I'm being held to tax law, but the government is not being held to it's promises (like my pension). Second, the government has created a feedback loop that uses my taxes and makes people dependent, brought the whole thing close to the breaking point, and expects me to pay for it.

Screw them. This is not rational on any level. Sorry. I do not volunteer my time on one-sided contracts, where the other side has zero intention to fulfill it's end of the bargain. Whatever I can do to lower my taxes, I do. And I don't consider it morally dubious even. Whatever one can do to make this bread-circus system collapse faster should be done, for the longer it takes the bigger the suffering will be.

Not to burst your bubble but most of the taxes you pay go to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and various handouts to select industries.

Virtually none of the tax money goes to help the downtrodden or to build necessary infrastructure.

As a property owner you are getting big tax breaks and so your support has been bought.

> Not to burst your bubble but most of the taxes you pay go to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and various handouts to select industries.

That's not really true. A large part of your taxes goes to the military, but that's not co-extensive with the Iraq and Afghanistan war. That money goes towards maintaining the largest most powerful military in the world, enabling the U.S. to continue to be the supreme world power. If you don't think that primacy is directly relevant to your quality of life as an American (a people who as a category consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources relative even to other highly developed countries), I'm not sure what to tell you.

> If you don't think that primacy is directly relevant to your quality of life as an American

The quality of life of a lot of countries is influenced by the American military, both good and bad.

And actually, the US doesn't spend nearly what most people think it does, as a percentage of GDP.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

I don't know if this adds to the conversation, but I'm surprised to see you say: "Yes. This."

...to

"No. Taxes are a service fee paid as agreed to in your social contract (which you signed by participating in said society). If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere that is a. Devoid of taxes (good luck) or b. Devoid of society."

...but then proceed to say:

" Paying the fee isn't the issue for me anymore. Rather, the uncivil political discourse and refusal to make reasonable compromises to deal with disagreements about how that money should be spent (and how government, defense, and social service programs can be sustainable) is what irks me."

...which I actually agree very much with.

The "If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere" argument offends me greatly, my interpretation of that is that the author believes they hold the ultimate final wisdom on the subject, and you either take it, or you leave.

I fully agree that there should be some taxes, and different people should pay different amounts (from each according to his ability) not so much because it is "right", but because it is "wise", it is (I think) the best way to structure a society to maximize happiness (not the right word really). I believe it is best that those who are more able are forced to pay more (in absolute numbers, if not necessarily percentage, but maybe that too), but I also believe the people who are on the other side of that deal should also be made (somehow) to know how good they actually have it, and it wouldn't hurt them to maybe say "thanks" now and then.

Now, imho money in society is largely ending up in the pockets of people who in no way actually earned it, so some of the above doesn't apply. I don't think someone making minimum wage should be saying thanks to a Wall Street banker for example. I think money "should" be flowing to people who genuinely innovate to raise the standard living of his fellow man, and citizens of the world. I'm thinking innovations in manufacturing, distribution, medical & health advancements, some forms of software, etc. Things that make a real difference.

I also happen to feel/guess that the real, righteous innovators who are really improving the world, probably would be very ok with getting just "very rich" despite how much they've given the world, whereas many of the recipients of the big money flows today (who in very many cases have really done nothing beneficial for the world, often the opposite even), want to keep all of their money, and will do almost anything to keep it, things that they very well know are morally wrong, by most any definition.

The problem is, who is wise enough to make these decisions, of what is the right amount of taxation, what is the right amount of privatization vs socialization, etc. I think we need some social enlightenment, and I don't see that happening any time soon. We've had great experiments of different models in different countries throughout the world, I think we have plenty data for wise open minded people to make a very accurate judgement in some cases. But then, it is also extremely culturally driven, and with current immigration and reproduction rates around the world, I think the makeup of societies are now changing so quickly, that the "best" solution that would have worked in a particular region 20 or even 10 years ago, might now be nowhere close to the best solution. For example: I grew up in a small, close knit community, where everyone knew everyone. There were always some layabout people and families who were always sucking on the public teat, but that's just the way it was, and no one really got overly upset. But if multiple families like this start moving into my neighborhood from other countries, and they don't seem particularly interested in the community or my culture, and choose to associate only amongst themselves, while still helping themselves to the rich social programs that are largely a product of lifetimes of extremely hard work and sacrifice of my ancestors, well, I'm not so ok with that.

I'm not sure what my point is really. I think on one hand, our technology and highly automated manufacturing allows us to get 75% of everything else wrong and still have a high and extremely widespread standard of living. On the other hand, I think if we could get that other 75% down to around 25%, perhaps the wealth could be spread around more fairly (one class who's getting royally screwed is the current generation of workers in Chinese factories) without everyone getting bent out of shape, and we could perhaps have some leftover to work on some of the really important problems in the world, that can almost only be solved by a socialized effort.

The problem is that the social contract is a lie. Fed policy of inflation is a kind of deliberate taxation. Social Security is a bankrupt fraud. We borrow a trillion dollars a year, a debt that will burden today's children who have no say in the matter. The complex tax code is a giant con game where insiders and the wealthy shift the burden to the middle class. And you're not free to leave the US if you are wealthy, there is a substantial financial penalty (confiscation).

It isn't all or nothing, we can have low, honest taxes and a decent society with a more vibrant private sphere.

Can you really defend US Federal taxes in 2013 when most of the money goes to fund dishonest wars and various social ponzi schemes?

Your point is valid in an idealized world where taxation is fair and spending transparent. But in today's world progressive taxation is simply a tool to extort complacency from the masses and allow the powerful to start costly wars using terms like "evil" and "evildoers" rather than having to make a rational cost/benefit analysis.

My original reply was to the assertion that taxes are theft, which it patently isn't. I agree a lot of it is going to means to dubious ends and that can only change during elections.

  > Spending must be transparent. No argument here.
  > Wars of aggression (already illegal) must stop.
  > War on drugs, and other likewise stupid expenditures must stop
  (slow, but getting there)

These will only change when politicians start representing the people that voted them into office. Remember that: Only the people that voted them into office. Not those who hold the majority sentiment. The two groups aren't necessarily the same.

> (which you signed by participating in said society)

This is what Plato has Socrates argue in Crito, but it is bullshit outside of perhaps a limited few scenarios (such as: if you are an older adult with the capacity to be politically aware, the means to remove yourself, and the emotional hardening or ideological emphasis necessary to abandon your friends and family.... in other words, if you are Socrates.) Those who actually have the ability to do as you implicitly suggest they should if they do not consent are a very small minority.

"If you don't like it, leave it" is the cry of those who are in privileged positions in society and think that those below them should suck it up and deal with it.

(Of course "leave" also becomes difficult for the extremely wealthy since, unlike in Athens at the time ("Any one who does not like us and the city, and who wants to emigrate to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, retaining his property."), we have "exit tax" for those people. These few people must be taxed in order to opt-out of being taxed.)

Let me add a c. then : "Re-negotiate the contract to more favorable terms at the ballot box". And this is the only truly effective mode of meaningful change in a Democracy. I just wish people would stop voting one or two issues which invariably lead to disappointment on many others.

That is perhaps the "correct" answer, though not particularly satisfying or convincing to those of use who have lost faith and confidence in the system.

Perhaps not terribly realistic when public opinion is so well controlled by partisan politics.

I'll agree that taxes in theory are a service fee. However, the part that many with libertarian leanings (for example, me) get frustrated by is not the idea of paying for services (I like cops & firefighters & paved roads), but paying into a grossly inefficient system and seeing so much get squandered.

I feel communities would greatly benefit from more fundraisers for this very reason. The middle-man will always take a cut, but most of your donations should be deductible. At least this way, you're funneling part of Uncle Sam's cut to where it's truly needed.

We can deal with Uncle Sam's cut and how it's spent with the ballot box.

I would caution, however, too many people vote candidates into office on only one or two of their pet issues. I understand no one will find a candidate they agree with 100%, but there's a lot more to a person than just taxes, just guns or just environment etc... This has to change.

People need to look at what they're really getting themselves into by voting for the right people after thinking very carefully and objectively. And of course on more than one or two issues.

A service fee? So... the government is Ticketmaster?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com