View Full Version : I'd rather pay 10% more in Taxes than lose 10% of my (or my countrymens) freedom
Strike For The South
09-08-2008, 19:22
Agree or disagree? And dont weasel your way out by saying neither or both
yesdachi
09-08-2008, 19:28
How about if I pay 10% less in taxes and gain 10% more freedom?
Paying more taxes gives more power to the government, therefore causing a loss of freedom.
Innocentius
09-08-2008, 19:40
Define freedom and I'll think about it.
Goofball
09-08-2008, 19:45
Define freedom and I'll think about it.
Something you hate?
~D
Paying more taxes gives more power to the government, therefore causing a loss of freedom.:yes: Best answer.
Crazed Rabbit
09-08-2008, 20:30
Agree or disagree? And dont weasel your way out by saying neither or both
Sure, if it worked out that way. But it doesn't.
Paying more taxes usually leads to bigger government which leads to less freedom, as drone said.
CR
GeneralHankerchief
09-08-2008, 21:14
Paying more taxes gives more power to the government, therefore causing a loss of freedom.
QFT :smash:
Meneldil
09-08-2008, 21:21
I hardly understand on what basis people assume that :
Paying more taxes = More power to the government = Less freedom for the average Joe.
But heh, anyway, who need rationality when arguing about taxes ? I mean, taxes are bad, everyone knows that :2thumbsup:
GeneralHankerchief
09-08-2008, 21:38
I hardly understand on what basis people assume that :
Paying more taxes = More power to the government = Less freedom for the average Joe.
What's the alternative?
Paying more taxes gives more power to the government, therefore causing a loss of freedom.
How does that work? Assuming the taxes are not used to fund some paramilitary thought police,
Is improved medical care a loss of freedom?
Are better schools a loss of freedom?
How does that work? Assuming the taxes are not used to fund some paramilitary thought police
That's a big assumption. ~;)
Money is power. The very act of increased taxation is a reduction of freedom, there is no choice (aside from jail) but to pay. Money allows do-good (read: meddling) politicians to implement their little pet programs and to tell me what to do. Telling me what to do requires enforcement, which must expand as I find new ways of doing what I want instead of what they want, and that enforcement requires money.
Taxes are best served locally, I would willingly pay more local/state taxes if my federal bill was reduced accordingly. The majority of my tax burden goes to the feds, where it gets used in bad wars and bailing out poorly run companies. Locally, my taxes would go to schools, roads, etc. The US Constitution did not even allow for a federal income tax originally, it wasn't until the 16th amendment that allowed it (although the feds did try various schemes to get around the Article 1 clause). The tax disparity between the state and federal government in the US has essentially eliminated the 10th Amendment (state's rights), the feds can browbeat the states with reduced federal funding if a state gets uppity.
I don't argue that better schools or health care would be a bad thing, but there are no guarantees these would be delivered. Once a large bureaucracy gets a taste of tax dollars, it's like crack. They will do anything to get more, and they don't care who they have to step on to get it. A smaller treasury would make the government prioritize spending and use it more efficiently, instead of acting like sailors on shore leave.
Louis VI the Fat
09-08-2008, 22:48
The Congo government hardly levies taxes. Neither do Haiti and assorted hellholes elsewhere. Unlike heavily tax burdened countries like Denmark, Canada and Switzerland. Everything in life comes with a price. And taxes are the price one pays for living in a civilised country.
And dont weasel your way out by saying neither or both Few would opt for both. But can we be freedom loving conservatives and weasel out by deficit spending and mortgaging our children's freedom to the Chinese and Arabs?
Strike For The South
09-08-2008, 22:52
The Congo government hardly levies taxes. Neither do Haiti and assorted hellholes elsewhere. Unlike heavily tax burdened countries like Denmark, Canada and Switzerland. Everything in life comes with a price. And taxes are the price one pays for living in a civilised country.
Few would opt for both. But can we be freedom loving conservatives and weasel out by deficit spending and mortgaging our children's freedom to the Chinese and Arabs?
Listen here comrade Im on your side
Louis VI the Fat
09-08-2008, 23:05
Listen here comrade Im on your sideOooh!! I have a brilliant response burning on my keyboard, but I fear it'll lead us to digress again and consequently to a right good spanking by Banquo. :beam:
Strike For The South
09-08-2008, 23:06
Oooh!! I have a brilliant response burning on my keyboard, but I fear it'll lead us to digress again and consequently to a right good spanking by Banquo. :beam:
pm me frenchie
CountArach
09-08-2008, 23:27
Taxes. They are too low anyway.
GeneralHankerchief
09-08-2008, 23:42
Taxes. They are too low anyway.
You do realize that, if you wanted to convince any Americans of your position, you worded that statement in the most horrible possible way, right?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-08-2008, 23:44
I hardly understand on what basis people assume that :
Paying more taxes = More power to the government = Less freedom for the average Joe.
Simple. You are giving your money away to someone else instead of choosing how you want to spend it.
HoreTore
09-08-2008, 23:53
You do realize that, if you wanted to convince any Americans of your position, you worded that statement in the most horrible possible way, right?
Bah, the yanks are lost anyway. Louis has it spot on IMO.
The Congo government hardly levies taxes. Neither do Haiti and assorted hellholes elsewhere. Unlike heavily tax burdened countries like Denmark, Canada and Switzerland. Everything in life comes with a price. And taxes are the price one pays for living in a civilised country.
This is so true.
HoreTore
09-09-2008, 00:01
Simple. You are giving your money away to someone else instead of choosing how you want to spend it.
Long term effects > short term effects.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 00:13
Long term effects > short term effects.
Perhaps, but does the government have the right to take away your money?
This is an unanswerable question, because we will inevitably have two sides who disagree based on ideaology.
Vladimir
09-09-2008, 00:14
Taxes. They are too low anyway.
:inquisitive: Well, cough it up! You do realize that you can pay extra money to your government, don't you?
Rhyfelwyr
09-09-2008, 00:42
Paying more taxes gives more power to the government, therefore causing a loss of freedom.
This is only from a US viewpoint since due to it's history the government is seen mainly as a threat to people's freedom. For Europeans, the government is there to ensure their freedom from the same problems that arise from the "freedoms" people demand in the US (ie monopolies, big corporations, corruption, poverty etc).
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 00:46
This is only from a US viewpoint since due to it's history the government is seen mainly as a threat to people's freedom. For Europeans, the government is there to ensure their freedom from the same problems that arise from the "freedoms" people demand in the US (ie monopolies, big corporations, corruption, poverty etc).
The differences between freedom in Europe and American can in most cases be divided as such:
Europe: Freedom from (poverty, violence, corporate monopolies)
America: Freedom to (own guns, make your own financial choices, not be forced into a multi-state union against your will...)
Perhaps, but does the government have the right to take away your money?
This is an unanswerable question, because we will inevitably have two sides who disagree based on ideaology.
You think the government has money trees growing? They need the people's money to continue to run for the people.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 01:17
You think the government has money trees growing? They need the people's money to continue to run for the people.
Did I state an opinion in that post? ~;)
Did I state an opinion in that post? ~;)
Yes. Or your question is oddly worded.
"Does the government really have the right to govern?"
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 01:29
Yes. Or your question is oddly worded.
"Does the government really have the right to govern?"
The wording of the question is explained by the second sentence.
The wording of the question is explained by the second sentence.
It's answerable: The government functions with the people's money.
Hosakawa Tito
09-09-2008, 01:51
Since I have no control on how the government "redistributes" my wealth...I'd prefer they keep out of my pocket as much as possible.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 01:57
It's answerable: The government functions with the people's money.
But how much of it does it actually need?
LittleGrizzly
09-09-2008, 01:58
Seems a bit unfair that i have to pay extra just to keep a status quo, now if i could pay 10% more taxes and get 10% more freedom then were talking!
But i would probably want to now what freedoms im gaining exactly, if i was gaining the freedom to own guns or to not wear clothes then i would probably rather pay an extra 10% not to have those freedoms....
I only pay about £25 a week tax anyway, so it doesn't need to be much incentive for me to reach into my pocket for an extra £2.50 a week....
But how much of it does it actually need?
Enough to pay public workers, maintain buildings, start projects that will benefit the people, and more importantly, fund the armed forces. Hate to find our carriers with barnacles because we just had to pay for their maintanence.
Meneldil
09-09-2008, 02:03
What's the alternative?
As many people already explained, I'm pretty sure we could work out something among the lines of :
More taxes = better healthcare for everyone
More taxes = better education system for your child
More taxes = better roads/railroads/whatever in your area
etc. etc.
But then, I do not have the freedom to enjoy the Patriot Act, so what do I know on that matter ?
Then again, if you want to build roads by yourself using your own money, more power to you. I guess.
Edit : we all know that money raised from taxes is - quite often - poorly redistributed. I'm not going to deny that.
GeneralHankerchief
09-09-2008, 02:05
As many people already explained, I'm pretty sure we could work out something among the lines of :
More taxes = better healthcare for everyone
More taxes = better education system for your child
More taxes = better roads/railroads/whatever in your area
etc. etc.
Of course, it could also go to some politician's pet project as a personal favor to one of his friends or get tangled up in some mindless bureaucracy.
Since it can swing both ways, I'd prefer taking the guaranteed option and keep my money.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 02:08
Enough to pay public workers, maintain buildings, start projects that will benefit the people, and more importantly, fund the armed forces. Hate to find our carriers with barnacles because we just had to pay for their maintanence.
It needs however much the electorate deems it ready to spend, in theory.
It needs however much the electorate deems it ready to spend, in theory.
So you think the government has no right to use the people's moeny for the country?
Meneldil
09-09-2008, 02:16
Then, as I said, enjoy building your own road, your own school and so on.
Are we still arguing about the supposed link between taxes and personnal freedom, or should we aim for the "all politicians are evil and corrupted :no:" mantra ? That's a whole other matter.
If so, I think we could summarize two points of view :
- More taxes mean more public projects, which, in the long term, means more personnal freedom.
- More taxes mean that one can't decide what he does with his money, which means less personnal freedom.
These are two distinct conceptions of freedom, and I fear they don't really fit well together.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 02:19
So you think the government has no right to use the people's moeny for the country?
I am simply asking questions. Check my political spectrum, by the way.
Gregoshi
09-09-2008, 02:41
I'd rather have 10% (or more!) less Texas too... ~;)
Strike For The South
09-09-2008, 02:42
I'd rather have 10% (or more!) less Texas too... ~;)
:juggle2:
I am simply asking questions. Check my political spectrum, by the way.
Answer the question.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2008, 02:46
Answer the question.
I believe that the government should charge what taxes are necessary for it to charge to maintain the upkeep of necessary projects. ~;)
Devastatin Dave
09-09-2008, 03:34
Is improved medical care a loss of freedom?
Are better schools a loss of freedom?
You've never been to a military hospital or enjoyed the wonderful lessons at an American public school.
m52nickerson
09-09-2008, 03:46
Agree or disagree? And dont weasel your way out by saying neither or both
Agree, if by me paying more taxes it helps my countrymen then I'm all for it.
More taxes means more government so less freedom.
HoreTore
09-09-2008, 07:38
Perhaps, but does the government have the right to take away your money?
I'd say they have the same right as the landlord has to collect the rent.
Don't like the rent? Move out. Don't like the taxes? Emigrate.
CountArach
09-09-2008, 07:38
You do realize that, if you wanted to convince any Americans of your position, you worded that statement in the most horrible possible way, right?
Yup, but I wasn't trying to convince Yanks. I know that view isn't popular over there... or here for that matter.
Well, cough it up! You do realize that you can pay extra money to your government, don't you?
Wah? How?
HoreTore
09-09-2008, 12:23
Wah? How?
Not sure about Australia, but I know for sure it's not possible here. No matter how much you want to, the money will be sent back to you.
The only way to do it, is to vote for parties who want to increase taxes.
KukriKhan
09-09-2008, 13:27
Over here, on the final page of the yearly Federal Income Tax filing instructions booklet (ha! "booklet"; it usually runs to 100+ pages!) are instructions on how to write a cheque to the Fed Treasury, if you wish. They will happily accept it. Who does so, I've never known; but apparently, it is done.
The differences between freedom in Europe and American can in most cases be divided as such:
Europe: Freedom from (poverty, violence, corporate monopolies)
America: Freedom to (own guns, make your own financial choices, not be forced into a multi-state union against your will...)
Freedom from poverty and violence seem sort of important to me, freedom to own guns sounds a bit like freedom to have a hobby, especially here where I don't really fear some machine gun armed gang of evil mexican drug lords could take over my house/village/city any day. I can also make my own financial choices but it's a bit hard when you are still studying and have to accumulate huge debts to finish studying so in the end you aren't free from the big corporations and banks while in Denmark and Norway studying is free and the state pays you for it, you also get to study as long as you want so that's pretty much a lot of freedom and you have no debts when you start your work life. In return you pay a bit more taxes but in the end you pay either way, the difference is who you pay, when you pay and what happens when you cannot pay(my loans won't have to paid if I end up unemployed, wouldn't want some evil bank that would strip me off my last clothes for the freedom to own a gun that I can never afford with all that debt).
And last but not least someone pointed out some time ago that most people in the 13 colonies did not want the United States of america and even now they all hate the federal government, yet they're forced into it and when it comes to dropping bombs onto other's heads they all go "Hellz yeah, we pwn yoo!" and then complain about how their federal government is bad and oppressive...
Everything has two sides and in the end if you earn a lot, someone else pays a lot because as it was said, money doesn't grow on trees.
Think about it, on one hand you want decent payments for coffee plantation workers and on the other hand you would probably complain if 500g of coffee would cost 20€, you would demand higher wages because you have to pay more, your company would have to raise prices to pay you more, you would complain about higher prices and demand higher wages...oh wait, it already is like that. :dizzy2:
yesdachi
09-09-2008, 16:08
You think the government has money trees growing?
They do have money trees growing, they are called citizens. :wink:
In a perfect world I should be able to trust my government to spend my money wisely but in reality they are wasteful and I do not trust them to decide where to best spend MY money. The US is setup in a free, capitalistic, representative government system and not a socialist or communist system where we all contribute everything we have to the greater good. I want to contribute just enough to ensure I have what I need to be successful – military and law enforcement to make sure I am safe and laws and courts to make sure I am treated fair. Everything else should come from a state or local level so local representatives, that I can hold accountable, can act in my best interests.
One of the weird issues we have here is that we are very individual from state to state and when we try to all agree on something, anything, we are too different minded to all agree. If more initiatives were started on a local or even state lever I think more things would get done. Death penalty is a good example; abortion is also an issue that could be decided on at a state level. National health care is also a good example, I don’t like the idea but if there is a state that wants it more of the focus should be on getting that state to offer socialized healthcare and stop trying to go national.
Where is that social contract I supposedly signed by the way can't find it anywhere.
Gregoshi
09-09-2008, 20:33
You think the government has money trees growing?
No, just one branch of the government. :drummer: <rimshot>
Thanks to yesdachi for pointing out this line for me.
HoreTore
09-09-2008, 20:44
while in Denmark and Norway studying is free and the state pays you for it, you also get to study as long as you want so that's pretty much a lot of freedom and you have no debts when you start your work life.
I knew my trolling would come back and bite me some day.... :whip:
It's not entirely accurate, Husar. While there is no cost for the education itself, you still have to get money for food, clothes, rent, etc etc... To get that money, most people get a rent-free(while you're studying) student loan from the government. Some of it, 15% I think, is given as a scholarship if you pass though. But most people end up with somewhere around 2-300k NOK in debt when they're finished studying(divide by 8 to get euro's). Of course, there's no saying you have to get that loan, a few of my friends who didn't move when they started college/university didn't, as they stayed home and their part-time jobs paid enough for them to get by.
Kralizec
09-09-2008, 21:33
As far as I know, nobody here would dispute that the government should punish crimes as defined by law or that courts should ensure that contractual obligations are honoured. This should show that it's false to say more taxes = less freedom, unless you interpret "freedom" as meaning anarchy in popular usage. It also shows that there's no razorsharp line between what people call positive and negative freedom.
Freedom means something different to starving, illiterate Egyptian farmers in need of medical treatment than it does for Euro/American middle class families. The latter are capable of taking care of themselves and would probably like to be free from the government. If the first is told on how lucky he is to be left alone by the government, well...
That said, I do believe that there's a point where an increase in government spending won't result in more freedom for anyone. The government should ensure equality of opportunity and let every citizen pursue his own happiness. Since western countries have already reached that point, I don't think that there's any good reason to raise taxes further. If money is needed for genuinely, unforeseen needs than the government should just stop wasting some money on people who don't need it and deserve it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.