Taxes, are they limiting our freedom?
Taxes are often discussed as something people would like to reduce. In some countries the skepticism towards taxation is higher than in others.
Let's start with the perception from the photo. Many are having such an opinion when it comes to taxes. They feel that it is limiting their freedom when they are forced to pay taxes.
Especially libertarians are having the belief that taxes should be reduced to the very minimum, so we just can sustain a state having the very fundamental functions such as the police. In other words we should only pay enough taxes to prevent the state of nature where we all will be fighting for survival.
With such a low taxation every individual will have the personal responsibility to assure their health, to assure their survival in case they will be unemployed and to assure that their income is high enough to provide education for their children. For the ones having a strong portfolio this can very well prove be a perfect system.
The moral of this kind of taxation is that every individual has the chance to decide their own destiny.
This means that you can reduce your chance of getting sick by living a healthy life style, therefore reducing your payments to health insurance and surgeries.
You can also use do your very best in order to always stay employed and therefore never be in the need of any kind of benefits from the state.
In such a case there is no reason to pay taxes in order to have a state that provides safety.
Another main argument in favor of a minimal taxation is that nobody will pay in order to feed the free-riders.
Especially in the USA we see that the existence of free-riders is something that the majority of the tax payers would like to avoid taking place. Actually the free-riders are mentioned many times as the reason why taxes should be reduced.
The point of view with a minimal tax bill is in my personal opinion the classical American view on taxation.
But it is not only the ones who are having the American/libertarian view of taxation that believes that paying taxes is a limitation of your freedom.
In countries with a high level of corruption the citizens tends to be very negative about paying taxes and the reason is obvious. They simply don't believe that the taxes are invested wisely by the government instead it is believed that the politicians are feeding themselves and their friends. The citizens are therefore trying to avoid paying taxes whenever the chance appears. When living in a corrupt society the money you earn can be the ticket to your freedom.
Now that we have covered two skeptic views on taxation it is time to have a look at the pro taxation view, and yes there are people in favor of a high taxation.
In Denmark people have for some generations now been happy about paying taxes. The reason why they are happy to contribute is that it is crucial in order to sustain the universal welfare state.
The citizens of Denmark don't have to worry about health insurance, education for the children or whether they can provide food to the family in case they get unemployed.
This huge feeling of safety and stability is what creates such a loyalty and it is what makes them willing to pay up to 55% in tax.
For people outside of Denmark it do sometimes sound like a communist society where the state is taking much of your salary and deciding how they would be wisely invested. The Danes feels that if they are to keep the level of safety then they would need to continue the contribution to the state through the tax payments.
Somehow it has become a part of the national identity being a proud tax payer, contributing to a very well functioning society.
Coming back to the question of freedom, the Danes do actually feel free because the basic needs always are covered and they can therefore move their focus towards their personal goals.
Taxes can therefore be an issue for our freedom in some cases while the taxes in other cases are assisting the people feeling free.
There are many opinions about taxes and whether it is fair that some are paying while others aren't, but at the end of the day it seems that we all would have to pay taxes.
What is your opinion about taxation is it a limitation of our freedom?
I really can't comprehend how anyone can be against the social contract, it's pretty common sense to me. My only problem with taxes is from corruption, ie. when taxes end up in somebody's pocket instead of where they are supposed to go or when the elected representatives draft tax budgets that go in favor of donors/lobbyists/etc instead of the people they are supposed to represent.
There is no fucking social contract. Idiots talk about inexistent things and remark how others disregard their hallucinations. A contract means Intent to Contract, Full and Informed Consent, offering Equal Considerations from both parties resources by parties of the same nature.
First of all, you can't contract with an imaginary construct. You can only contract with other real people, and there's no offer to contract, no full and informed consent, no consideration, there's absolutely nothing to show that says you agree to these things, enumerating anything at all because this hallucination you're baffled about doesn't fucking exist.
You call others idiots, but you don't even realize the "social contract" is just a name for a particular state of affairs that can arise in societies, not a literal contract. As an anarchist I believe any system of power and coercion that can't justify itself should be dismantled and replaced with something more just. You are not gonna easily convince me that the social contract doctrine cannot be easily justified. You don't sign off to (virtually) anything in a society. Society has norms and also laws. You are born into it and by the time you reach age of consent you don't need to sign anything, your agreement is implicit. So you can either decide to accept them, you can challenge them or you can leave.
Of course, a figure of speech for tradition, because of course it's not any semblance to an actual contract but a "state of affairs " of how things are done / tradition.
So let me get this straight, everytime someone challenges tradition you're baffled by it, each time someone turns their back to tradition you're perplexed and confused, did you catch why I called you an idiot? Because your innuendo is all nonsense "state of affairs" "social contract doctrine". Retard, can you point out a list of laws and rules that make up this doctrine? Does it actually exist outside your nonsensical assertion that it's not anything like a contract..
wat
haha! :D
everytime someone challenges tradition you're baffled by it, each time someone turns their back to tradition you're perplexed and confused,
Thats what.
Lol, nothing to show for social contract outside your assertion, which is that even though its not an actual contract you're not convinced that it can't be easily justified, too bad there's nothing to substitute that social contract is a "particular state of affairs", which state? Why particular? Which societies?
Keep peddling nonsense and bullshit:
Im baffled that people turn their back on a particular state of affairs, because obviously the particular state of affairs doesn't garner such sentiment of secession. . Baffling.
Haha totally lol! :D
You:I can't really
believecomprehendthat people are against social contractMe: Theres no fucking social contract.
You:yes there is, its a particular state of affairs and you can't make me believe otherwise.
Me:whats the rules and laws of this particular state of affairs?
You: laughing nervously I can't really be an idiot, speaking about things that dont exist, that haven't the slightest semblance to what they purport to be totally.
It is an interesting point of view. For me personally it is also a normal thing to pay taxes in order to establish a well functioning society.
Having lived in a country that has no corruption and a country with a high level of corruption, I also agree with your point that corruption is the only motivation against paying taxes.
I agree with you that the problem with taxes is corruption. The intention is good but the execution is bad. On some cases, loopholes are prevalent that the BIG fishes continue to exploit while the small fishes suffers and just accepts the outcome.
Well that is unfortunately a big part of the game. If you are big enough then you write your own rules. The classic excuse for the multi national companies is that they are creating jobs, so if the governments wants to tax them, then they would have to find an alternative. The governments therefore tends to give in.
In many welfare societies it is the tax money of the middle class that makes things run.
The viewpoint you are describing is anarcho-capitalism. Not everyone with libertarian leanings or who is critical of our current government is in favor of outright abolition and a 'return to a state of nature' as you put it. This is akin to saying that everyone in the police accountability movement is against the existence of police, which is only true for a handful of people. Most people who criticize the police would like to see corrective measures implemented such as civilian review and requiring officers to have malpractice insurance so they can't push the cost of their misconduct. The same holds true for people critical of taxation; it doesn't necessarily imply a desire to do away with all public services. I've addressed this topic on my own blog but you seem content to use hasty generalizations of everyone who opposes the status quo. It's cheap and expedient, but it's also intellectually dishonest.
Hello Chris, thank you for your comment.
I would to some extend agree that there are some generalization in the article, since it only is an article and not a book generalizations would be necessary if the article shouldn't end with more than 50 pages. It is a wrong to conclude that the view on the libertarians in this article is that they are in favor of the state of nature. I argued that they believe that there only should be paid enough taxes in order to avoid the state of nature.
I do though not believe that my view is dishonest as you mention.
As an example Nozick is in favor of a minimal state, where the taxes should be limited to the very least. Nozick as one of the leading philosophers of the libertarian school, believed that taxation is interfering with the personal freedom.
I don't believe that many libertarian are in favor of taxation. On an everyday basis a high taxation do in their point of view remove the motivation of working.
The idea for them is exactly that the people are responsible for their own acts and they should have the chance to invest the money they earned as they desire.
As I pointed out, this has its good and negative sides depending whom is having the view.
Currently I am living in Greece, and I must admit that I find it disturbing paying taxes here, since I feel that the taxation here is interfering with my freedom and is used to either pay the failures of others and keeping a failed state alive.
I don't feel that I am having any health insurance from the government, despite the fact that I am paying around 250 dollars or more per month only for public health insurance through my tax payments. Personally I would in this case benefit more by having a private insurance, since I am eating healthy food and keeping myself in a good shape.
On the other hand I also have been living the majority of my life in Denmark where I was more than happy to pay around 45% of my salary in taxes, since I felt that it wasn't interfering with my freedom but instead was my contribution to a healthy society with a high level of safety.
What I want to say with this example is that I don't see this from any negative perspective, nor do I view libertarians as bad people.
For every society there is an ideology that fits, which is the reason why we have so many different ideologies.
If I myself should point out a point of criticism, it should be the choice of photo in the beginning, since this might seem a bit negative.
Not my name. If you are Greek as you claim to be my name shouldn't be too difficult.
Instead of being lazy and getting all your talking points from liberal talk show hosts, you could have gone to google and done some research on the liberty movement. You don't need to write a thesis style paper to accurately present every school of thought within the liberty movement. You could write a short summary of each, their principles and goals, within 2 pages. Also the small government/low taxes shtick is not libertarianism. That's a ruse created by Republicans to con people out of even more of their money (look up Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal).
I've never read Nozick. His philosophy isn't synonymous with libertarianism. This is just as dumb as people who claim that all libertarians are inspired by Ayn Rand, another person I've never read. Neither of these people are the authorities on libertarianism. The only thing that you have revealed within your article and response is that despite pretensions to the contrary, you don't actually know what libertarianism is. It's not a single philosophy or set of beliefs or the 'non-aggression principle' as ancaps like to claim. It is basically the atheism of politics. Libertarians are only united in what they are against or what they don't believe is just. Criticisms of the government, police, the tax code, fiat currency etc. are common to all libertarians, but no two libertarians agree on a solution, what they think should replace our current institutions.
On average libertarians are Not in favor of the current tax code. On average, libertarians are against the current convoluted tax code, and it's not because it's soaking the rich. The rich can afford to comply with the tax code; it actually hurts the middle class and poor the most since they have less money to hire a tax professional. The IRS also audits poor and middle class people more often because they are easier targets. Taxes on the state and local level are regressive. The rich also disproportionately benefit from deficit spending and the federal reserves's monetary policy. Yes, libertarians are individualists who believe people are responsible for their own actions; this doesn't imply that we don't believe in any group collaboration.
Congratulations @alexpsyllos! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThey and many think that taxes are imposed or forced but they are actually voluntary and gifts. People who don't know erroneously assume that they are obligated to pay instead of questioning exactly how an employee force an employer, as government works for the people and answers to the people in a relationship of employee and employer, and as employee they have no authority to make demands or order people around.
The problem is two fold: Zomia have lived for 2000 years in complete anarchy and embracing the principle of self rule, among 5 different cultures /groups with over 100 million living in the region, so the premise that we need government to stop our inevitable descent into chaos is obviously not reflected in reality, and the most prosperous the US has been was during the 50-60s when taxation on the rich was 95%, so people have to deny the economic stimulation a very high tax on the rich creates and ignoring the obvious history of society minus regulation and mandates or arbitrary authority, a history evident by many native cultures which had not embraced totalitarian hierarchy as the basis of their interpersonal relationships.
This is the dogma of the arrogant islander mentality, who in their divorce from the suffering of the rest of the world ask the idiotic question of "am I my brother's keeper? " and have no sympathy for their fellow man and resolve this ill of conscience by rationalizing that governments are far more evil than the indifference of man is, and who can argue with the fact that the government does more harm than no government and it is essentially government which invaded and made war with anyone that sought to govern themselves, squelching independence like a bad habit. The problem is that what was considered and portrayed as government couldn't be government by the very fact of acting outside the limits of its contract.
If we look at the function and methods it utilized, what's been presented for example as "The United States " has no semblance of limited government, consent of the governed, republican, no standing army and minimal navy so as to ensure protection from piracy and this is the same story for all other governments. The moment government acts outside its delegate authority it has stopped being government and has seemingly become tyranny and despotism, period.
If you don't feed the free riders they will destroy your life, desperate people do desperate things.
Taxes are voluntary as the employee can not order the boss around, high taxes, especially very high taxes have corresponded with Boom periods, from the inception of the income tax there's a correlation of having incredible economic growth when taxes were the highest on the rich, with the opposite when taxes were less which signaled a lengthy economic downtrend.
very, very much so. that is why they exist, to keep the elite rich and the rest as poor as dirt. the entire reason they are elite, is they keep us, the people, poor. they kepe us down, tired and too poor to achieve anything with meaning enough to even come close of becoming competition. try and get a patent, lol.
You Made a Good Share
.gif)
Thank You