Alternatives to taxation when addressing inequality
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?
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?
Comments (43)
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?
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.
No.
Do business, like everyone else. Duh! :grin:
:smile:
What kind of business do you think governments can reliably undertake?
The kind that mints boatloads of money. The world's richest people provide the best hints and tips.
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?
Exactly!
Forgiving debts and inflating the currency would transfer wealth from savers to debtors.
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.
You just answered your own question. You said "I am anti tax." That's why.
Quoting 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!
Quoting Bartricks
Uh, that's what people are proposing to do: Organize, because your ilk has been doing it to us.
Quoting 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?"
Quoting 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Might makes right, so I have the right if I can do it. That's what the anti-tax people taught me.
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.
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.
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.
But I just did. So you must be wrong again.
Yes. I just did something that you said could not be done.
Anyway, enough of the bar tricks. I'm teaching you a lesson here. You start with your turnup hermit on an island. But in order to do that, you must distinguish her from the environment she exploits. Somehow she gets a pass and we don't delve into how she came into possession of what she has. That's okay, but you must understand that that is us, humanity, collectively, agreeing that the the slate is cleaned and starts with her; conveniently forgetting that which came before, and which she took into her possession. With might. That process is, at it's very core, *might*. And by that process I'm not merely talking about what she did. I'm talking about our collective agreement to wipe the slate and start with her. It's might's open conspiracy.
Why do we start where you say we start? How convenient. That's how society works. Criminals steal shit until such time as they can "go legit." After that, they are good-to-go. They have so much they can buy politicians and exempt themselves from taxation. They can even circulate myths about themselves so that saps will join in their chorus of anti-taxation and dream about islands where they can just be left alone. Until Epstein and his ilk decide they want the island. So they "buy" it with their ill-gotten gains. And they demand the state defend them against other states that would take the island from them. But they don't pay for that defense.
Well, my little Padawan, who is no one? I have to know who no one is before can tell you whether or not I can steal from it/hem.
Not so good. You didn't answer the question; not even with another question.
It depends. If you are an anti-taxer, then yes. If you contribute to society and pay your fair share of taxes, no.
Yes, I remember now when you established that tax was fair and did so without any assistance from reason whatever. Truly you are a fine philosopher
It's a habit of mine.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
You are welcome, my son.