Ok /pol/ in this thread I want to discuss methods on how we can go about removing taxation completely? Not just income tax?
The first idea I come up with is adapting state capitalism in a capitalist society.
Effectively the government taxes the people, opens industries that compete with the private sector and does not offer any services for free.
Effectively it is competing and trying to improve just as the private sector, giving a competitive rate on what ever industry/ies chosen.
Basically after taxes are collected to open and operate the state-owned industry, all workers are paid and all excess profit goes directly to finding the government.
Effectively this could be one method of eliminating taxation while still funding the government.
What do you guys think? What are your ideas?
No ideas guys?
PLEASE NOT STEP ON ME
>>70117027
That would be the equivalent of anarchism. A government is a government _because_ it taxes -- if we could choose not to use it's services then it would be a private entity.
If you are arguing that the government would still run things such as the police and military, then what happens if it doesn't derive enough income from it's "private" businesses to pay for those? Either way, it's private businesses would be receiving an artificial advantage ("buy from us or we'll reinstate taxes", "we automatically win all lawsuits because we are the law", and so on) which can be construed as a form of tax; the government may decide it needs to have a hand in more and more industries (with a start-up taxation each time like you said); and the government merely owning things represents a continuous taxation (land owned by the government might be put to better use elsewhere so society is losing that gap year after year).
The only real way to eliminate taxation is to eliminate government entirely.
>>70118127
>That would be the equivalent of anarchism. A government is a government _because_ it taxes -- if we could choose not to use it's services then it would be a private entity.
I disagree, If it still does the same services and the like as you'd expect from a government even as a night watchman government is that not enough?
>If you are arguing that the government would still run things such as the police and military, then what happens if it doesn't derive enough income from it's "private" businesses to pay for those?
Then those institutions are underfunded and the workers (police, soldiers, etc) are punished as such.
>Either way, it's private businesses would be receiving an artificial advantage ("buy from us or we'll reinstate taxes)
Ideally this wouldn't be a threat used.
>"we automatically win all lawsuits because we are the law", and so on)
I think that's an ok compromise.
>which can be construed as a form of tax; the government may decide it needs to have a hand in more and more industries (with a start-up taxation each time like you said); and the government merely owning things represents a continuous taxation (land owned by the government might be put to better use elsewhere so society is losing that gap year after year).
As far as my idea goes, I figure we place a GDP limit that the government can own/be part of the public/state-industry for instance 10% of GDP at most being in the state-industry/public sector and this cap cannot be surpassed in any occasion.
>The only real way to eliminate taxation is to eliminate government entirely.
I do not find that at all viable in today's society as it is highly unrealistic for any decently sized nation to expect to work without a government.
Do you have any alternatives to what I put down as a way to fund a government without taxation?
>>70117027
Government cannot exist without some form of taxes.
>>70117027
Just read back over what you posted. What incentive would the private sector have to exist in such a system, if everything they do gets undercut by government? I hope you're not of voting age
>>70118698
My point was that you _cannot_ fund a government without taxation (or more specifically, without violent force). Your example is a tax.
>I disagree, If it still does the same services and the like as you'd expect from a government even as a night watchman government is that not enough?
If I hire a security guard, they are not a government. If I go to a private court to get a ruling, they are not a government. A government (or "state" if you'd prefer) is specifically a territorial monopolist of decision making. That is, it sets the rules of a given territory, decides how much everyone will pay for its services, and attempts to stop other states or people from encroaching on this monopoly.
>Ideally this wouldn't be a threat used.
We're talking about the government, m8. Even then, they wouldn't need to make it explicit for everyone to understand that reinstating taxation would be the inevitable result if the business goes belly-up.
>I think that's an ok compromise.
But it's still a tax. You cannot say one use of force (being above the law) is inherently better than another (traditional taxation).
>>70118698
>I figure we place a GDP limit that the government can own/be part of the public/state-industry for instance 10% of GDP at most being in the state-industry/public sector and this cap cannot be surpassed in any occasion.
You mention capitalism and you're going to let a "company" decide how much of the pie it gets?
Your better bet it to suggest that certain government entities be private sector only, thus eliminating the need for that portion of the tax.
>>70118990
The government wouldn't give better prices or the like. It would more or less just try to be competitive with the free market/private sector.
Be it through prices or quality of goods and the like.
>>70119367
I do not particularly care about it being force or a sin against the non aggression principle. I just hate the fact that taxes remove so much from society and funnel it into inefficiency.
I am honestly just looking for any alternatives to traditional taxation that do not forcibly remove any currency from the average citizen.
>>70117027
Move to somolia fag.
>>70119702
Again effectively I am assuming this state owned industry would not actually benefit from any excess profit.
Again all excess profits would go to funding the entirety of the government.
I figure if that 10% is dedicated to state owned industry that should be enough to pay fully for a night watchman government no?
>>70119817
I'm not an anarchist senpai, I'm economically libertarian for the most part and socially authoritarian/fascist.
>>70119788
>I just hate the fact that taxes remove so much from society and funnel it into inefficiency.
By advocating that the government instead directly controls 10% of the economy. Doing some rough math, corporate profits in the U.S. roughly totaled 6.8 trillion dollars. Total Federal spending (not even state spending) in 2015 was 3.8 trillion dollars. The government have to take over far more than 10% of the economy to cover this. You could argue that the government could just spend less, but then traditional taxation would _also_ decrease accordingly and then you'd have nothing to complain about.
>>70120409
Well I'm talking about a nightwatchman government.
So yes while you are correct that traditional taxation would go down, is this not better than straight up forcibly removing currency?
Look at pic related, for instance if we just kept the military budget (which is also very large) we would be fine.
>>70120821
>So yes while you are correct that traditional taxation would go down, is this not better than straight up forcibly removing currency?
I have no idea what you mean by this, nor do I think you understood me. There are no benefits to your proposal compared to traditional taxation.
There should be a tax on Libertarianism.
>>70121167
Kek
>>70121222
nice id color
Your basically thinking of syndicalism
>>70121514
Probably, I've been reading on corporatism and syndicalism lately.
But again do you have any methods to fund a government without taxes?
>>70117027
Tariffs
>government opens industries
What part of small government do you not understand?
>>70117027
Why not just rename taxes "subscription" and of you lapse,you get deported
Libertarian is so easy, you don't even have to think.
how will we give welfare to wall street criminals without taxes>?
>>70122105
Charities
>>70122105
It's paid out of the profits from "private" industries run by said wall street criminals because they're the best men for the job.
>>70122295
I don't know.... it doesn't sound fair to make investment bankers have to be responsible for their own industry.
I mean they are the elites, without them we wouldnt even get the breadcrumbs they graciously allow us to have.
