Alternatives to taxation when addressing inequality

Wheatley

With growing inequality between the rich and poor there has been a lot of outcry for governments to something about it. One solution is to try and redistribute some of the wealth by taxing the rich and provide more government assistance to the lower class poor. In the USA, democratic socialists like congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and senator Bernie Sanders have proposed socialist-like programs like Medicare for All, The Green New Deal, student loan forgiveness, free community college, etc... Critics of socialism often point to the cost of such programs. The math simply doesn't work out (or they say), there's no way to pay for these programs. It is argued that no amount of taxation could possibly pay for all of these programs. Even that were true, I don't think all hope is lost.

Taxation has always been the go-to way for governments to raise funds. Governments are really good at taxing its citizens. There's a famous saying by Ben Franklin, in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. There's also the usual fines fees and tariffs, but that's trivial. Taxation is effective because government (unlike private business) can forcefully take money from people. This might be a radical (crazy?) idea, but imagine a government that can actively be involved in the marketplace. The question then is what can a government provide that private business has a hard time providing? The government is really good at certain things such as protecting its citizens from domestic and foreign threats. Suppose the government (and this is just one example) can rent out its ability to protect and provide security (among other things). Countries with large military budgets can rent out their military services to fight terrorists. Provide security for journalists. They might also rent out their detectives and investigators to help investigate corruption in other countries.

What do you think? Are there viable methods for governments to raise money that doesn't involve taxation? If so; do you think it is possible (and preferable) to use alternative methods of funding to pay for ambitious government programs to help combat inequality?

NOS4A2

Before taxes the US used bonds to accrue funding for military activity. Basically the government had to beg for a loan from its people. Nowadays they just steal our money or skim from our purchases and we have no say how it is spent. Maybe bringing back government bonds, and government begging, would help to fund its projects without all the theft and forced labor.

James Riley

The government should round up all the anti-tax people, steel all their property, sell it to those who don't whine like little puppies, put them on trains and take them to forced labor camps and make them work. You know, so they learn a lesson about hyperbole. And how good they had it when they had to pay for all the services they received, but which they took for granted with their childish entitlement mentality and their petulant refusal to take responsibility for their own actions.

Or, we could just go back to the 90% marginal tax rate that we had when America was at her peak. We could even have a butt-load of exemptions when private sector largess was spent on things that helped here, in America.

Defense budget = $7t over ten years. AOC/Sanders asking for $3.5T over ten years. Defense budget compared to the rest of the world? Look it up.

The money to pay for socialism is there, and then some. In fact, we are socialist, in part, as is every other 1st world country/ally. Hell, the U.S. military, the best in the world, is the most socialist institution we have. See what socialism can do?

180 Proof

↪James Riley

:100: :smirk: Amen, comrade!

Wheatley

Maybe bringing back government bonds, and government begging, would help to fund its projects without all the theft and forced labor. — NOS4A2

I do not know about forced labor, but doing away with taxation and relying on bonds is a horrible idea, and will leave the government massively underfunded. President George W. Bush even had this strategy of "starving the beast" which basically meant that we can achieve smaller government by cutting taxes. Long story short, it didn't work. The US government, underfunded by tax cuts sustained its overblown government budget by acquiring a load of debt. The only thing George W. Bush did was starve younger generations with an increased debt burden.

Caldwell

What do you think? Are there viable methods for governments to raise money that doesn't involve taxation? — Wheatley

No.

Wheatley

↪Caldwell

:razz:

TheMadFool

What do you think? Are there viable methods for governments to raise money that doesn't involve taxation? — Wheatley

Do business, like everyone else. Duh! :grin:

Wheatley

↪TheMadFool

I shall call it a "democratic corptocracy!" :party:

Caldwell

:razz: — Wheatley

:smile:

Wheatley

Do business, like everyone else. Duh! :grin: — TheMadFool

What kind of business do you think governments can reliably undertake?

TheMadFool

What kind of business do you think governments can undertake? — Wheatley

The kind that mints boatloads of money. The world's richest people provide the best hints and tips.

Wheatley

The kind that mints boatloads of money. The world's richest people provide the best hints and tips. — TheMadFool

Hmmm... I bet The US pentagon knows how to create exceptional software (they need to because of all the cyber threats). What's stopping them from selling sofware to ordinary citizens and businesses?

TheMadFool

Hmmm... I bet The US pentagon knows how to create exceptional software (they need to because of all the cyber threats). What's stopping them from selling sofware to ordinary citizens and businesses? — Wheatley

Exactly!

Wheatley

↪TheMadFool

Great! Let's put Microsoft out of business.

Wyclef

Using anti-trust regulation to break up the estates of robber barons would reduce wealth concentration. If you really wanted to reduce inequality long term you could make all their companies worker co-ops. Failing that a 12:1 pay ratio (recently suggested in Switzerland) would keep executive pay in line with median pay.

Forgiving debts and inflating the currency would transfer wealth from savers to debtors.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

I am anti tax. Why should I have to pay for your education or healthcare or, you know, any of your costs whatsoever? Whatever you cost, pay for yourself or bill your parents. I don't owe you a bean.
I mean, by all means ask. But you have no right just to take some of my money because you happen to want something it can buy and haven't got enough of your own. That'd be outrageous behaviour, as you too would recognize if I did it to you. It's called theft.
And nothing changes if you steal from me to give to a third party.
Your parents owe you a living. I don't. So you are not entitled to anything from me, at least not in any force-liscensing way. And so the state is not entitled to steal from me to give to you either.

James Riley

I am anti tax. Why should I have to pay for your education or healthcare or, you know, any of your costs whatsoever? — Bartricks

You just answered your own question. You said "I am anti tax." That's why.

But you have no right — Bartricks

Might makes right. Right? I mean, money is might. If I buy the politicians and hence the laws, then I can get a free ride on the people's back and not pay my fair share for all the shit I use that allowed me to accumulate the wealth. Ergo, if we organize to steel from you, it's all good. We don't want to steel from the poor, DOH! They don't have any money any more. The poor want to steel their money back from those who stole it from them. What? You didn't actually think they earned their 1%, did you? LOL!

That'd be outrageous behaviour, as you too would recognize if I did it to you. — Bartricks

Uh, that's what people are proposing to do: Organize, because your ilk has been doing it to us.

And nothing changes if you steal from me to give to a third party. — Bartricks

Sure it does. It changes who is getting stolen from. From the third party to you. Hopefully we can someday ask you "How does it feel?"

So you are not entitled to anything from me, at least not in any force-liscensing way. And so the state is not entitled to steal from me to give to you either. — Bartricks

Sure we are. And the state is entitled to steel from me to give to you because it's doing it now. Might. You you know. You anti-taxers have been doing it for half a century. That's why we need to go after you, and not someone who's willing to contribute to their community. The community decides. Or you could pack your trash and go to some shit hole like Somalia.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Nothibg you are saying is making sense. No, I don't think might makes right. How on earth did you get that from anything I said?! I think it is rare that one can ever use force against another person. I am anti might!! You are the spoilt vicious one who thinks you can use force to take some of my money to pay for yourself! Pay for yourself or bill your parents. Don't come to me demanding payment and threatening to imprison me if I don't pay.

Here's what a decent person does: they either ask nicely for a handout- which I may give you if you ask really nicely and look sufficiently needy - or they try and make themselves so useful to others that others will give them money for their services.

James Riley

I am anti might!! — Bartricks

Should that which was stolen be returned? Define "theft." Does that definition have something to do with law? If it's legal, is it theft. If those who were stolen from take it back, is that theft?

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Yes, that which has been stolen should be returned, other things being equal. Why do you ask?
If I own something and you take it without my permission, that's theft.
It has nothing to do with the law. If there is a hermit on an island and she's built herself a little hovel and cultivated a little patch of land, then you are stealing off her if you just rock up in your state funded boat - 'The Spoilt Brat' - and help yourself to some of her turnips and move into her shack, yes?

James Riley

Yes, that which has been stolen should be returned, other things being equal. Why do you ask? — Bartricks

Go take a history course. Talk to all those who have had their land stolen, or their labor stolen. You benefit from it. Are you prepared to give it back?

Also, look up the law of compounding and note that it not only works up, but it works down, too.

If I steal your money, it's still your money. If I invest that money and earn interest, the money and the interest is still yours. Not only that, but your lost opportunity should also be recovered. After all, you could have invested that money into something that grew it even more, like your kids education.

I don't think you have a problem with all that. But what if I do all that, give it to my son, and then I die? He didn't steal it. So is it his now? I don't think you would think so. What if he gives it to his son, and it goes on down the line, growing and growing, while you get poorer and you kids get poorer? Compounding up (me and my kids), and compounding down (you and your kids).

Guess when we stop and wipe the slate clean and start over, so that sons don't suffer for the sins of their fathers? We stop when it gets to you. How convenient. You get to keep your ill-gotten gains and then whine like a little bitch when the victims (other their heirs) come calling.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

So just to be clear, you agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips, yes?

James Riley

So just to be clear, you agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips, yes? — Bartricks

So just to be clear, you agree that the victims of theft have a right to recover their property, yes?

And before I answer, are you a hermit who does not stand on the bones of any who have gone before? Who does not benefit from community?

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Oh do get off your soap box, you sound like a pound shop Che Guevara. We'll come to those other issues shortly, I just want to establish some common ground (albeit so I can then bury you in it). Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? (Also, note that I said 'yes' to the restitution question, though I added a much needed other things being equal clause).

James Riley

Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? — Bartricks

Might makes right, so I have the right if I can do it. That's what the anti-tax people taught me.

James Riley

Now, once more, do we both agree that you have no right to take the hermit's turnips? — Bartricks

P.S. On further thought, which sovereign claims the territorial waters and the island? They will, quite rightly, have the right to tax her to defend her from me, or from another sovereign who might take all the turnups, enslave and rape her. And if she refuses to pay her taxes for the defense she benefits from, the sovereign can foreclose and sell the island and the turnups to someone who is more civically oriented.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Er, so you think you are entitled to steal the hermit's turnips. Okaaay.

James Riley

Er, so you think you are entitled to steal the hermit's turnips. Okaaay. — Bartricks

The hermit is stealing from whatever would have been there before she trashed the land. Terns? Gulls? Isn't it the way of the world? Did she pay fair market value to them before ousting them? And if they don't count, why? Because a law says so? Or might?

Er, so you think she gets to suck off the society that defends her without kicking in? Okaaay.

Sounds like your typical anti-tax welfare queen.

Bartricks

↪Wheatley

To address the OP, my proposal - as an alternative to taxation and that is also, so far as I can tell, entirely just as it violates no one's rights - is that the state could simply print money. That is, the state could pay for itself by printing more cash.
It would create inflation, but how does that violate anyone's rights? I don't have a right to money retaining its value and nor does anyone else. So it seems to me that while taxing us to pay for the state is unjust, there would be no injustice in the state printing money to pay for itself.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

You can't answer a question with a question. Stop being tedious and answer the question. We both know what the answer is.

Alternatives to taxation when addressing inequality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions