|
So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation?
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
The nationalizationof every company in the country, followed by the abolition of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Duh, you have NO government and just have tolls on everything. Problem solved!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Full communism
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Full communism 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Basically the Skynet model of governance has everything you could possibly want. Transparent governance, no taxes and kill all humans. What more could you ask for?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
The government produces goods which it sells (either full or limited-but-exclusive-nationalization-of-specific industries), or hyperinflation all day everyday, or do what some ancient civilizations did and require 'taxation' in the form of labortime (levies). The last one generally isn't a good idea today, considering the degree of specialisation in modern industrial economies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? OP how do you feel about codes of conduction for society that call for non-aggression, maybe call it some kind of Principle?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
I suppose the government could charge a fee for their service. I would envision that you would be enrolled in some form of mandatory auto-pay system where money is progressively deducted from your earnings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:I suppose the government could charge a fee for their service. I would envision that you would be enrolled in some form of mandatory auto-pay system where money is progressively deducted from your earnings. I don't have any income, in fact my multi-million-a-month company has operated on loss for years! Absolutely no taxable income here. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? - Print money, therefore effectively taxing debtholders and dollarhavers without actually using the t-word. - Have solid nationalized industries that produce enough surplus to fund the government. - Engage in regular aggressive conflicts and sell the resources and/or labor thus obtained.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The government produces goods which it sells (either full or limited-but-exclusive-nationalization-of-specific industries), or hyperinflation all day everyday, or do what some ancient civilizations did and require 'taxation' in the form of labortime (levies). The last one generally isn't a good idea today, considering the degree of specialisation in modern industrial economies. Oh yeah, technically levy labor is not taxation!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Full communism
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Why does nationalization of industries have to be "exclusive" for governments to participate? The government could manufacture anything from generic drugs, to housing, to aluminum cans, and sell them at profitable rates, without preventing private companies from doing the same thing. Sure, most governments aren't set up with the correct bureaucracies to have for-profit arms, but isn't that a solvable problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Does it need to a "full nationalization" though? Say the government is entitled/required to a certain share (usually enough for control) of select businesses which gives the government influence over the running of the company and access to a part of the profits, essentially how the Norwegian state owned oil company is run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? Direct serfdom, slavery, and the indenture of debtors seems to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Why does nationalization of industries have to be "exclusive" for governments to participate? The government could manufacture anything from generic drugs, to housing, to aluminum cans, and sell them at profitable rates, without preventing private companies from doing the same thing. Sure, most governments aren't set up with the correct bureaucracies to have for-profit arms, but isn't that a solvable problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Why does nationalization of industries have to be "exclusive" for governments to participate? The government could manufacture anything from generic drugs, to housing, to aluminum cans, and sell them at profitable rates, without preventing private companies from doing the same thing. Sure, most governments aren't set up with the correct bureaucracies to have for-profit arms, but isn't that a solvable problem? You can't have full communism going on along with private ownership of capital 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Really though a lot of these schemes, in fact all of them short of full communism, are functionally equivalent to a government running on either a flat tax (inflation) or sales tax (limited-nationalization). Both are really regressive because they're going to hit the poor hardest - simply staying alive has a fixed cost to it, and basic amenities are harder to cut back on than luxuries (a smartphone + internet access is essentially mandatory for getting a job in developed countries), ie- money is a good with marginal utility. Since government is necessary so long as capitalism cannot deal with the problem of the commons (it can't and never will), if we're asking people to sacrifice for the common good, then it's only fair that we ask for a proportional sacrifice of utility from each person. Ergo, short of full communism, progressive income taxation is the better outcome here. tl;dr Shut your ugly loving mouth and loving pay your taxes. rear end in a top hat. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
It would be nice to have no taxes. Hopefully automation reaches the point where the wealthy can go their own way; machines to take care of the wealthy and the rest will be free of the wealthy's yoke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? Hark! Another libertarian has arrived! Tell us more about the startling revelation that taxation is theft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Full communism
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because you're using the income from selling those goods to fund things like the military, police and social services, so a business that doesn't have to do any of that is going to have a price advantage. Therefore, it had to be either full nationalization, or in whatever limited areas you do nationalize, you can't allow anyone else to compete. Contrary to your conjecture, the government might also be too competitive, with strong economies of scale, less extravagant executive compensation, and the ability to bypass regulation that private entities couldn't. Strong accounting safeguards would need to be in place to make sure the for-profit entities didn't send industries into a race to the bottom, or become monopolies in their own right. How is there such a disconnect on the operation of government programs? rudatron posted:Really though a lot of these schemes, in fact all of them short of full communism, are functionally equivalent to a government running on either a flat tax (inflation) or sales tax (limited-nationalization).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? Create the United Federation of Planets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
There is an alternative to full communism: conquering and enslaving other nations to provide the wealth and free labour your country requires. Historically it's worked only OK but I don't think anyone tried pairing it with zero taxes, maybe that's where the magic happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Can I eat this entire cake right now and still somehow have a slice left over for later? Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
FWIW, the PLA (China, not Palestine) actually has an entire arm that owns industrial plants and poo poo that makes consumer goods, apparently they're fairly competent managers? I don't recall much else about it but there do exist real world examples to look at
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Create the United Federation of Planets. So full communism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because you're using the income from selling those goods to fund things like the military, police and social services, so a business that doesn't have to do any of that is going to have a price advantage. Therefore, it had to be either full nationalization, or in whatever limited areas you do nationalize, you can't allow anyone else to compete. That only applies if the competition is all cooperative based or nonprofit pr whatever where solvency is the driving goal. As long as the government's competition's revenue is above cost there should be some amount of profit to pay for services that the government could extract. It would probably be a mix of high volume products of some sort (like generic drugs or something) and highly niche products where they can use their existing breadth to make it worthwhile (like a federal Uber). This isn't to say it's a good idea or that it wouldn't be perilous. Although I would be curious what a federal cab service would look like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Zachack posted:That only applies if the competition is all cooperative based or nonprofit pr whatever where solvency is the driving goal. As long as the government's competition's revenue is above cost there should be some amount of profit to pay for services that the government could extract. It would probably be a mix of high volume products of some sort (like generic drugs or something) and highly niche products where they can use their existing breadth to make it worthwhile (like a federal Uber). It would fall to poo poo as whatever right-wing government gutted its funding to point out it doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Global protection racket. That's a mighty fine London you have there, great Great Britian. It'd be a shame if something... happened to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
What is it with lolbs and paying tax anyway do these people go into a coffee shop, get a coffee, and then scream WHAT YOU WANT ME TO PAY FOR IT NOW, just lovingrudatron posted:Shut your ugly loving mouth and loving pay your taxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? Serious answer: state-owned corporations (nationalization or monopolization isn't automatically a part of this, see China's model below) selling products and generating income for the state like a normal corp would for shareholders. And/or use a fee-based system wherein non-payment means you don't get access to any services, such as the police investigating your death if you're murdered. Somali xeer has a concept kinda like that. rscott posted:FWIW, the PLA (China, not Palestine) actually has an entire arm that owns industrial plants and poo poo that makes consumer goods, apparently they're fairly competent managers? I don't recall much else about it but there do exist real world examples to look at Yeah, public concerns like Norinco has been around forever selling millions of AK47s to whoever wants some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 06:15
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah, public concerns like Norinco has been around forever selling millions of AK47s to whoever wants some. They also tried to sell rocket launchers directly to gangs in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Notax posted:So, can anyone think of a way, without resorting to hostages, to satisfactorily generate government revenue to provide services without taxation? Doesn't Qatar or some other place effectively doing that by using their national resources as...national resources? You'll have to keep moving the goalposts as oil and minerals deplete - but it works for a century or so, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Lenders will compensate by rising interest rates under an inflation-based scheme, and an expansion of the money supply is an effective 'tax' against all existing currency holders by whoever is printing the money - it is a transfer of value. Similarly, dividends from securities is the return from an investment of capital into a company, at the time of the stock offering, the majority of which is probably going to end up being reinvested into other stocks. Spending that money on 'the commons', whatever that happens, isn't going to provide a return, so the 'government as massive shareholder' is going to dwindle in wealth over time. To compensate for that, the amount you 'skim' from the top is going to have to be much, much larger than the similar unburdened private sector, ergo you will be out-competed. If we compare that to the situation today, it means that the running of the government services is compensated by consumers of specific products - like I said, it's effectively a sales tax. I'm making no assumption of private companies being magically more efficient than government projects, I'm not stupid enough to be a free-marketeer. Though economies of scale and network effects may mean that, functionally, you wouldn't have to ever implement that exclusivity, but in the fantastic world of the frictionless sphere in a perfect vacuum, such a legal restriction would have to apply. It might work if you simply made all network-based services government-owned only, so water + sewage, postage, electricity, telecom, public/mass transit, maybe even all logistics companies if we're being generous. That would leave all the individual manufacturing, retail, consulting as having to be private. Primary production is 50/50, it being strongly location dependents means you can get away with nationalization without having to worry about competition, but you're also competing with goods on the world market, which is currently why countries like Venezuela are in trouble, since the fall in oil prices. rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 08:57
|
|