200 years ago you would have been a great colonist in the American western frontier.
1 Like
Is there any evidence it would happen vs. just increased inequality until society breaks down in chaos? (or a ruling class takes control of it)
Past centuries aren’t giving us much evidence it would work.
2 Likes
We, the people, have and still are deciding things on our own. Like in 1999 when we voted yes for our constitution (with this full text, no need to remove anything; the most controversial thing was the first sentence with reference to a God). This is the fairest solution possible, or where else on this planet do you find a society with so much direct input and voting power from the general population?
And your claims about a better society where everything is privatized and all social aspects are taken care off by voluntary contributions and charities is laughable. Not only would it not work for many practical reasons (see below), and your views and depicted behavior show exactly the problem: You want no taxes and everything to be voluntary, so that you can stop contributing anything to society.
You made the example of people donating after a house burned down. You really prefer that over a house that doesn’t burn down thanks to a tax funded fire brigade? And maybe inform yourself about how tax brigades worked historically before they were government funded, before now claiming that those donations would establish them.
1 Like
But a collective will decide for an individual. Families are an unequal structure, not everybody holds the same power in them, and some people will be coerced by others, sometimes openly, sometimes because they need the family and will fear to upset some of their members, sometimes for good purposes, sometimes for bad.
Then you have clans. Clans are a natural social structure that arises outside of the rule of law. There is a lot of coercion in them. You, as an individual, are expected to act for the good of the clan because if you don’t, other clans beat your own and you are left without the bigger part of wealth and power that was sustaining your clan to begin with.
Human relationships do include coercion, not having a government would not get rid of it, it would simply move to different social structures. We have tried them and we have ended up here. Can we better the way we function as a society? Sure, we can. Is our present so terrible that we need to get back in the past and fight for power because that’s what makes your family strive? I live in Wallis, I’m glad we’re finally getting out of there, I don’t think we really need to get back there so soon.
Edit: I guess what I really mean by that is that ideologies are great and I love the concept of getting rid of coercion, including getting rid of the governement if that’s what’s included in the package, but the ideas behind ideologies are not what happens in reality and we live in reality. The ideas behind communism were awesome, in theory, it was all great. People took arms, died and killed for it. They were convinced! It was like, the government was trying to have them wear masks or something. And in practice, it was terrible. We don’t need to pursue communism or complete freedom away from all coercion, we need the less bad (or best) system that works. Switzerland is very good at that.
5 Likes
To me, “taxation is theft” is a teaser, a reminder, a helper to set the right mindset. Of course, we need some government and some public services. But it’s about the perspective. If two people make an exchange of goods or services, they are legally required to pay tax on these actions. They did not sign any contract with the government of the country there were born in, it’s imposed on them. And if they don’t pay, they will be arrested. So maybe taxation isn’t theft, but it’s damn close to tribute or ransom 
You could argue “ok, but ownership is just a social construct, so whatever you’re selling, it’s thanks to the society that you’re allowed to own it in the first place”. Fair point. But what about services, like massage or haircut? You will say that only thanks to the society I am free to provide these services, otherwise I would live in constant danger and get killed by some violent intruders. OK, maybe so. I just think it’s good to sometimes take a step back a rethink what tax really is.
2 Likes
Also the money you get for offering your services is just a human invention. And it’s printed by the government that also collects the taxes on it. It would be very difficult to offer a massage or haircut without the services the government provides (like roads that enable your customers to come to your shop). Also the apprenticeship for a hairdresser might be subsidised by the government.
People did not sign a contract with the government, but they decided to stay. Maybe they even immigrated from another country. So the package you get seems to be convincing. As in most packages there might be parts you don’t like.
But it seems like we all agree that a government is needed and therefore we also need taxation. The differences arise when it comes to the question of how much government is needed and how taxation should work.
It’s funny, how some people (not you) argue like money was a natural resource and like ownership was a natural law. It’s all just fabricated by us. There is no objective truth about how we should handle these things. Also I don’t believe there is a universal definition of moral.
So, statements like the above are completely meaningless to me. There is no objective universal moral and ownership is just a construct.
4 Likes
Great, then let’s pay for haircuts & massages (also the “exotic” ones) in Bitcoin, which is not issued by the government. It’s in fact just a mathematical puzzle. In the end we don’t need money or Bitcoin, we need the real stuff, but just not now, or not from the person we’re giving the massage to.
True, some things are hard to execute fair payment for, if privately owned.
Yeah where should they go? They were born there, it’s the language they speak, should they now move out and seek refuge in some other countries? There aren’t many countries that will welcome you with open arms, and where taxes are low.
How and why should I tell you where to go? You sure know better what is important to you than I do. There might be a reason some things are similar almost everywhere. Maybe it’s a system that works well. Maybe we didn’t find a better one. You can of course always start your own community somewhere with like minded people. It’s not like hippie communities for instance don’t exist.
In general if you are not happy with something, you have some choices:
- Evasion (like leaving the country)
- Trying to change it
- Accept it and continue your life
For people who are not happy with what we have, I suggest they should do something with leverage like starting a campaign, giving talks, starting an initiative, etc… Whining in a forum about how unfair (what does fair even mean?) tax collection is (looking at @Patron not @Bojack) isn’t going to change things or help anyone.
Sure, now there is an alternative, for most of the time government issued money was the best we had. Although I still trust the Swiss Frank much more then the Bitcoin, but that’s just my opinion and besides the point.
Where did I write consent?
Again please tell me where I wrote this.
What options do you see for the people in Afghanistan from your example?
That’s why I left Poland and came to Switzerland, a country that gives you higher income and (proportionally) lower taxes. And I will defend this kind of Switzerland from turning into another failed state like Italy, Spain, France. Look how these countries have been “developing” over the last decades. It’s mostly stagnation. These are the entitled generations, getting swayed by political promises of welfare. Don’t want this stuff in Switzerland, otherwise I’ll have nowhere else to go within Europe…
2 Likes
Ok, so you take my statements from a specific example (Switzerland) where people are free to leave. And mix them with a general statement to make up something I never wrote.
Also I did not imply consent on some specific rules but on the whole package in cases where people have choice. What I wrote was:
So it was about the whole package, not about one specific part. Obviously if you are not able to leave a country, staying does not mean you consent, as you can’t leave.
Well, I guess if you can not argue against what I actually wrote you just make things up and argue against them.
Please in the future quote my statements you are referring to so it’s immediately obvious when you are making things up.
1 Like
There’s not much I can’t agree with in your post. I would add, that we should preferably look try to find a solution that works on a global scale.
Taxes might be low because we have loads of rich people here and they might have come here because of the low takes. If everyone had low taxes, rich people might become more evenly distributed in the world. Leading to higher taxes for the not-so-rich or less public services.
Now you are just trolling. As I wrote, if people don’t have the option to leave, staying does not imply consent.
The list of options from my other post also applies to the people in Afghanistan:
They might not have the first option (some have, as some came here) that still leaves the other two options. Now, I’m not saying these options are great, but I guess it’s all they have. That’s why it’s probably not a great place where they live. If you see other options, tell me.
Or to phrase my opinion differently. If you have the choice to freely leave (like you have here) and you chose to stay, then you are convinced you get the best package you can here (at least I hope so).
1 Like
Then we might just be different in this point. I stay because I like the package despite things I don’t like or agree on. I think what I currently get here suits my needs best. This of course includes language and social network (as I grew up here) and the hassle of moving. Why would someone stay if they have an alternative that is better in total (including language, friends, hassle of moving etc. in the calculation)?
Afghanistan seems like the almost perfect example of why it is important to have a functioning society with strong leadership and army paid by the collective - as opposed to a group of individuals focusing on their own self interest
2 Likes
Not sure what you mean by this, but I would be cautious about implementing global solutions. It’s good to have countries with different rules and tax rates, so that you can have the freedom where you want to live and do business. Regarding the EU, what I definitely love about it is the European Single Market. It provides the so called four freedoms of movement: of capital, goods, services & people. I don’t much appreciate the rest of stuff that the EU imposes on its members.
What I mean is, we can not look at our system in isolation. If we act, others react. If we would for instance half the tax rate for the top 1%, the super rich would flock to Switzerland. Other countries would have to react and also lower the taxes. We’d have a race to the bottom for the lowest taxes. Some people would of course like this.
Personally I think countries could also compete on the services you get for your tax money, not only on the tax rate.
By the way, an interesting article: Race to the bottom – Wikipedia
(Linking the German one as it’s the one I read, but it’s also available in English)
1 Like
But that’s how competition works. If we have it in goods & services market, why not in government services & taxes? You don’t care if companies race to the bottom to offer you the cheapest car insurance or smartphone, you welcome it. Why shouldn’t you welcome countries that require less tax to be paid? Tax heavens exist because most countries have punishing tax rates for the wealthy. I think the problem is also that it’s too easy to find loopholes, transfer out the income and pay no tax.
A good tax would be a tax that charges you on the service provided to you by the country where you live or do business. Income is such a shaky thing to measure, because you can just create some imaginary “consulting” or “brand image” fees and transfer out all the income to the mother company abroad. But I think it should be within each country’s competence to control what is going on within its borders, and not have to resort to some global solutions like “minimal tax rates” for all countries.
1 Like
On an individual level we don’t allow this as it would be to much paperwork and difficult to control. Also because we don’t want to leave people dying in the street because the opted out of health care or ALV/AHV. Some things like health care insurance don’t work if not everyone contributes. If you only have the sick in health care insurance it just doesn’t work. Personally I would probably opt out of health care insurance if I could.
The Swiss cantons situation seems to show an example of this. When rich people move the the lower tax canton, this canton is able to lower the taxes even more and force the poor canton to increase its taxes even more. So what could looks like a “free market” wet dream at first becomes a vicious circle where the rich/low tax cantons have actually plenty of money to spend on welfare, but the people that need welfare are kicked out of those regions because the rents are rising as well. The poor and social cases are invited to go live into the poor cantons where now rents are lower because of vacancies. Also less and less companies want to establish themselves in the poorer cantons so unemployment become worse and worse. There is not much the poor cantons can do about it once the wheels are in motion and cutting “bureaucracy” (i.e. essential services) and letting even more people without a job is not helping at all.
5 Likes