[ATsch]

It also goes towards the roads and infrastructure the company and its employees use daily.

I don't understand why people refuse to pay their countries membership fees. They have no problem paying the fees for their gym, their sports club or their phones, but as soon as they have to pay for the services their country offers its okay to not pay?

[charlesdm]

I do. It has to do with value, not with price. Anything with a high price, whether it's a good or a service, has a negotiable price tag. Not so much with tax.

Say I make $25k a year, and I pay $5k in tax. I'm probably getting that back in value (health insurance, roads, safety, etc).

Now say I make $100k a year. I'd probably be paying $30-45k a year in tax (depending on the country). This is getting to the point where you're no longer getting enough value for your $/€.

Third option, say you make $1M a year. On average, you now need to pay $400-500k a year to the treasury of your country in tax. No way you're getting that in value. Alternative: you structure things through a tax friendly jurisdiction, and at the end of the road you only have to pay $150k instead of $400k, legally.

Honestly, why would I pay $400k in tax if I can pay $150k? Tax aside, I'm obviously still spending money in the country where I live (-> creating income for businesses, increasing the taxable base of those businesses, who in turn will pay full corporate tax).

[rayiner]

> No way you're getting that in value

I disagree. If Mark Zuckerberg had started Facebook in Bangladesh, would he still be worth $35 billion? Almost certainly not. But-for his starting his company in a developed country with a stable government, deep technological infrastructure, educated employees, and wealthy consumers, he would not have that money. Whatever he pays in taxes is far less than what he got in value.

[goatforce5]

> No way you're getting that in value.

Infrastructure was in place before you were born that gave you the opportunities to succeed.

It's now time to pay that back(/forward?) so that others have similar chances to succeed.

[charlesdm]

It was, but it would be in place regardless of whether you succeeded or not. Maybe not historically, but today, whether I personally succeed or not doesn't matter to the budget/deficit. Those who carry the taxable base are the middle class; the employees who can't restructure their affairs.

Paying back / forward is great, but (imo) it has a limit. Unless you inherited your wealth, most people who are self made will have paid a significant amount of tax before they tax optimise their structures. So, if you’re a success, you will have paid back your “debt” to society (and then some).

There needs to be a limit somewhere. Some countries are more aggressive (i.e. the US) in collecting their tax dollars than others (i.e. the UK).

[kuschku]

"people who are self made".

There is no such thing.

A single child raised to finish college costs the taxpayer in Germany 300'000 Euro in subsidized nursery, free school, and free college.

Additionally, each person costs a lot for roads, public transit, etc.

And then you have to add in that for every person who gets to become a billionaire, you have hundredthousands who won’t become billionaires, but still cost you equally much. There’s no way to find out who is going to become a self-made millionaire, and who isn’t.

And society already tries to provide many programs only to those kids with high potential, to save money. Programs like this [1] are already exclusive.

If you want to give the generation of your kids the same chances at becoming self-made millionaires, you have to provide all of them with this high quality service.

Which means you have to accept nominal tax rates of 48%+.

    ----------------

[1] http://www.enrichment.lernnetz.de/content/information.php

[charlesdm]

> Which means you have to accept nominal tax rates of 48%+.

Except, you actually don’t. You are always free to move to a country with a lower (or a higher) tax rate, for whatever reason.

If someone wants to go live in Monaco, and not pay anything, that’s his/her right. There is never a debt, in the true sense of the word.

[kuschku]

Well, nice for quoting half of my sentence.

If you want that the next generation has the same opportunities, then you need those taxes.

Without them, you won’t be able to provide intelligent and engaged children (no matter their family’s wealth) with quality education.

[ctlby]

> Which means you have to accept nominal tax rates of 48%+.

Nonsense. I won't speak for Germany, but our government spends about $500 billion annually on things that can plausibly be called public goods (I exclude defense). This is a mere 4% of total US personal income.

[kuschku]

Well, we spend lots of money on bullshit, too.

We spent 200 billion saving the greek economy.

We build the Berlin Airport BER, the S21 train station, and the Elbphilharmonie.

All projects that waste money.

But the public services we get are still worth the tax. I wouldn’t want to pay less tax and lose our libraries, or free university access, or quality education. I wouldn’t give up just for a bit more money the public transit, which cuts down my commute times, or the services financed by the government.

Yes, the government invests broadly to get money back – from companies like T-Mobile and DHL to VW, all of which end up paying dividends to the federal budget, because the government owns a lot of shares in them – but we still need taxes.

And I’m okay with that.

The life here isn’t perfect, but it’s okay. One can live with it, without ever worrying about stuff.

[elevensies]

How much opportunity comes from government spending versus private investment?

Money going to the U.S. Federal government goes to: 24% Social Security (i.e. the dole), 24% to the least efficient healthcare system in the world, 17% to the military to drop bombs on poor people.

If the majority, or even 25%, of government spending was creating economic growth and opportunity, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. This is a country that was begun by a tax war, so if there is an obligation to the past, an aggressive response to tax policy is certainly part of it.

[harryh]

> Tax aside, I'm obviously still spending money in the country where I live

You should read some Kant. If no one pays, then the civilization that allowed you to succeed wouldn't exist in the first place.

[ohyes]

> Now say I make $100k a year. I'd probably be paying $30-45k a year in tax (depending on the country). This is getting to the point where you're no longer getting enough value for your $/€.

I Disagree.

The money you're getting paid in is a construct of the government that you're paying taxes to. You wouldn't even be able to collect $/€ for your goods and services without taxes. So you'd have to barter and stockpile basic commodities in order to barter for other things that you need. Can you imagine buying an iPhone with corn or oil? Or collecting ad click through revenue in gold? There would size-able inefficiencies just because of the need to hold 'stuff' rather than an imaginary thing.

Furthermore the marginal utility of a government backing the currency that you use is proportional to your income. Someone living in relative poverty probably could provide for their basic needs without currency (think peasants or yeoman farmers scraping out a living, basically self sufficient, or tradesmen exchanging services for necessary goods... vs. a hedge fund manager).

I can't imagine someone making the equivalent of 1/2 million a year having an easy way of storing and maintaining that value (particularly the excess beyond what they spend) without a currency (or even being able to collect it in the first place). (Remember the markets are settled in currency and all accounting is done based on currency, you can't just invest in AAPL with corn).

I can't imagine a normal person owning an iPhone and buying apps from an app store under the hypothetical situation. It seems to me to have a very high utility to the individual at the top of the income chain. You are completely ignoring many of the benefits of having a functional government and a stable society with many consumers (whose consumption is supported by those tax dollars) who are able to consume because of the constructs put in place by a treasury and a tax structure.

I think you're underestimating the intangible value returned by governance. It is near non-finite.

So assuming governance and currency (we can agree these have utility?), taxes can be looked at as being closer to a hedge against inflation than anything else (that is, they prevent devaluation of the currency). As a thought experiment, imagine if the government weren't allowed to collect taxes AT ALL.

How would it fund itself?

Well it controls the treasury, so it would print money, and it would issue debt (bonds). It already does this, incidentally. Both of these things would devalue the currency. (Printing money means more in circulation (its easier to get... therefore worth less), whereas a bond would promise of a certain amount of money that I plan to print in the future). These can be treated as similar, at very least.

So the real (interesting) question about taxes is tax structure. If we assume a flat % tax, it is pretty close to the above devaluation scheme. If we assume a flat $ amount, it very quickly becomes regressive, disproportionately penalizing the poor a large percentage of their money, preventing them from having anything to spend at all. That's how you get a revolution.

With a progressive tax structure, those who can comfortably pay more, do pay more, those who can't don't. (All the way down to certain people being taxed negative amounts in certain situations).

All that said.

Yes, sure, the corporation should move to jurisdictions which are the most friendly to its tax status... it is a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, anything else and they are leaving money on the table. At the same time, powerful governments should pressure these corporations into giving them a cut of any business that they do under that government's jurisdiction. In fact, they have a responsibility to do this so that the government can continue functioning properly.

[nickff]

Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. If I created a club, defined territorial limits (which happen to include your house), and charged you a fee, would you feel obligated to pay? If I asserted that I was giving you a number of benefits, would your obligation increase? If I employed force to extract the fee from you, would that be legitimate? You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...

[Frondo]

Your parents made the choice to enter you into the club when you were born here. As your custodians, they had the legal right to do so. When you reach the age of majority, of course, you are free to leave and relinquish your club membership.

[nickff]

Ah, the 'love it or leave it' theory. This argument is not used by any serious philosophers (that I know of). One of the many problems with this argument is that there is no reason to believe the state has a greater moral entitlement to the land where I live than I do. What makes the state special anyway? Why can't I just claim to be a state and have legitimate authority over the land?

Another problem with this theory is that there is nowhere for the anarchist to go. Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump in the ocean and drown, or try to swim to another ship with an equally tyrannical captain? What makes the modern state different?

As an aside, the 'you should leave if you don't like it' idea is also used by such prestigious organizations as the Klu Klucks Klan.

edit: I believe it is important to know who makes similar moral arguments; if you find this company troubling, that is your concern, not mine.

[Frondo]

You claimed that "most citizens never chose to join the club". I pointed out that your parents made the decision for you, as they were your legal custodians from birth to the age of majority.

As for the lack of stateless land that an anarchist may emigrate to, the lack of such land does not mean that the country of your citizenship is no longer valid. If you chose to renounce your citizenship and end your involvement in the social contract that your parents entered into on your behalf, where you go is up to you and no longer has anything to do with your former country.

Also, trying to compare me to the KKK? Really? Come on, you can be better than that.

I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of this; it's difficult to make sense of it.

EDIT: It is so uncool to edit your remarks instead of replying! But I guess in the independent nation-state of nickfftopia you can do what you want, eh?

[nickff]

So the essence of your argument is: 'if you don't like it, leave, and if you can't leave, it's not my problem'?

The power for parents to make decisions is relatively broad, but a decision made on behalf of a child is not the same as a decision made by the latter (for example, selling a child into slavery does not imply the child wanted to be a slave, or is obligated to continue in servitude).

The abduction/shanghai-ed example of the captive on a ship is a relatively common one, if you do not know how to address it, I suggest you ponder it for a while.

In addition, you never addressed what gave the state any authority at all, and why I can't just claim to be a legitimate independent state.

[Frondo]

If you don't like the decisions your parents made for you, once you reach the age of majority, you may undo those decisions.

I'm not sure why your decisions to renounce your citizenship should obligate the world to create the new kind of place you want to go to.

As for parents selling their children into slavery, I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Citizenship isn't slavery.

As for your desire to claim to be a legitimate independent state, I'm sure you can do so. I wouldn't be surprised if you habitually do so right now. I can't help you with getting recognition from the rest of the world, though.

[InvisibleCities]

By continuing to live in a country, you give it your tacit consent to be governed. This is one of the cornerstones of John Locke's political philosophy[1], which largely formed the basis for the theory behind American government and the Constitution[2].

[1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Inf...

[nickff]

This argument has been put forward by other posts (currently) below, though less well expressed. If you read your first citation, you will see that Locke's reasoning was more complex than yours, and actually allows for people to live in a country without the state having authority over them. No one has ever made a solid argument for why all people born in a country are bound to follow its laws, or respect the state's authority, though many have tried (and Rawls probably came closest, though I admire the democracy-theorists for their creativeness).

The basic question is why the state has any special authority to claim the land and impose its will in the first place. Second, why are you (who may have been born there, thus giving you a presumptive right to keep living there) bound by previous agreements which may or may not have been legitimate to begin with. There are two questions which should be answered here:

1) Why can an individual not claim to be an indipendent state (and claim land as well)?

2) Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump into the ocean and drown, or try to swim to a different ship with a similarly tyrannical captain? How is the ship of state different from the ship described here?

[lhc-]

You can try to be an independent state, if you'd like. Good luck against the US Government though, they have a bit of a resource advantage.

[rodgerd]

> Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee.

Then they can leave. It's actually really easy.

[nickff]

And go where? Is there any real alternative? Why does the victim have to be the one to leave?

[rodgerd]

> victim

I think you mean "freeloader".

[nickff]

So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? I'm not sure I follow (unless you are specifically arguing against anarchists on some sort of welfare/social security).

[rodgerd]

> So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader?

Someone who wants all the priviliges of living in a particular society without having to pay for any of them is, yes, a freeloader.

[iamdave]

>You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1]

In the case of the United States, doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment give the State (meaning government, the entity, not State as in Utah specifically) this authority?

[nickff]

Did the citizen in question personally ratify the constitution, or otherwise agree to it? If not, why would they be obligated to follow a contract they never accepted?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

[iamdave]

Well...citizens, individual citizens can't ratify Constitutional Amendments in the US, so I'm unsure if this question is valid. Can you clarify your stance?

[nickff]

Some people voted for ratification, but none of them happen to be alive now. If you want to propose another means by which you can justify citizens being bound to follow the constitution, please do. There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong); philosophers have devoted a great deal of time and effort to justifying the government, but failed. If you have a novel theory, please describe it.

[iamdave]

There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong)

I don't think I have much of an alternative-for no honest reason other than having not put the thought or time into coming up with one. Not for a lack of want.

That said, the quoted line above, when you say 'wrong' do you mean "the notion that the citizen automatically accepts government rule" is incorrect by virtue of criminals rejecting the rule of law, evidencing a wholesale rejection of authority, or do you mean the concept itself is morally wrong?

[jstalin]

Because if you choose not to pay for your country club, the country club doesn't bust your door down, shoot your dog, taze you, and throw you in jail until you do pay.

[ancap]

I'm not sure why the down votes. Your comment demonstrates perfectly why it's absurd to compare paying taxes (compulsory) to paying for some private club (voluntary).

[ATsch]

If you don't pay you country club membership, your membership will be terminated. If you then decide to stay on their property you will be almost certainly arrested for trespassing.

Alternative example: if you would barricade yourself inside your local country club with a dog, I can guarantee you they will bust your door down and taze your dog.

[Frondo]

Happily, this also doesn't happen in the US. Simply failing to pay your taxes will result in your wages being garnished.

Jail is not involved for failing to pay your taxes--you have to do a lot more than that to actually invoke criminal penalties for tax-related stuff.

[refurb]

Doesn't happen?

Still... it isn't often that the Internal Revenue Service greets them with shotguns drawn. But that's what happened to rapper Young Buck - real name David Darnell Brown - on August 3rd, as the IRS attempted to satisfy a tax debt of roughly $300,000.[1]

Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary.[2]

[1]http://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/rappers-home-raided-at-... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-o...

[Frondo]

Did you read those linked articles?

From the second one:

"But the testimony by the three wealthy businessmen from Texas, Oklahoma and Virginia also showed that the agents had reason to suspect they had come across a $300 million tax fraud in one case and a drug operation in another.

Holes and contradictions in testimony by two of the businessmen prompted Senate Democrats to complain that the hearings were not a search for truth but a one-sided propaganda show by Republicans, whose polling data show that attacking the I.R.S. is their best strategy for raising money and winning votes."

That's not a simple failure to pay taxes.

And the first article, the rapper was not jailed, he did have a bunch of stuff seized to pay off a $300,000 debt, however. No mention of a dog being shot, no mention of anyone being tazed.

[refurb]

I did read the articles. Did you read them to the end? Yes, Senate Democrats did claim there were holes and contradictions, but the victim claims there were not.

And, no the rapper wasn't tazed or his dog wasn't shot, but IRS agents did raid his home carrying shotguns.

[Frondo]

So when you said "bust your door down, shoot your dog, taze you, and throw you in jail," for simple failure to pay taxes, what did you mean?

Because the story in the linked articles went something like "bust down your door, NOT shoot your dog, NOT taze you, NOT throw you in jail, but seize some of your stuff to pay off a sizeable tax debt or maybe work out a deal to pay off your taxes". Which is a big difference from what you originally said.

[jstalin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_in_the_United_Stat...

[iamdave]

I can sympathize with someone distressed that their tax dollars get used in ways they may not agree with, voting ostensibly is a measure to somewhat ensure your interests in taxes are represented (without getting into an endlessly caveat-laden debate about the virtues of democratic societies).

But I think, personally my level of sympathizing with that incredulity ends with the understanding that taxes are signatures on a social contract and taxes aren't a zero-sum affair. I fully understand that my taxes might go to fund a war or might go into the landing gear of a bomber plane or a bomb itself. I get that.

I wish I had the answers on how to get this through the minds of other voters "Yes, your tax money might be spent on x, it also might be spent on y. If you want to see more money going into y, vote accordingly, but remember you exist in a society with more than one viewpoint so someone 500 miles away might vote for x. Thems the breaks".

As to your question of why people refuse to pay their country's membership fees...the cynic in me wants to blame ideological dogmatism that perpetuates "my party good, your party bad" and limits the scope of understanding a fuller picture of what being in a diverse society actually looks like (i.e. people value things differently than you)

[bmelton]

> taxes are signatures on a social contract

If taxes were voluntary, I would wholeheartedly agree. As it sits, I consider (rightly or wrongly) most taxes to be voluntary, but the income tax is inescapably not. If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

[iamdave]

>If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

I don't disagree with this at all, actually.

In some respects, would you consider taxes to be a 'necessary evil for a net good (prescriptively speaking)'?

[bmelton]

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, really. If I were the president, I would do everything I could to abolish the income tax and replace it with use/consumption taxes.

On the whole though, yes, I agree that taxes are likely a necessary evil, and while I object to large swaths of the federal government, I think it would be naive, or even asinine to suggest that they do not have any good functions which I deem wholly necessary.

That said, at the end of the day, citizenship is something that can be relinquished, and as such, an income tax (of any sort) is something that ought to be competitive. California offers a lot of niceties, and presumably, the people who live there don't mind the tradeoff of high taxes and a generally higher cost of living. If they did, they could trade out to one of the zero-income-tax southern states, in exchange for a generally less educated peer group, less efficient state services, etc.

At the end of the day though, if taxes are to be citizenship criteria, then America is in competition with other nations to deliver good value. In addition to economic freedom, social freedoms, fair treatment, social services, safety net and a myriad of other factors are ways in which we compete. I am not likely to move to another country to save some money on taxes, but if another country offered the same freedoms that I value in America, with lower taxes, and a lower incarceration rate, a move would be worth strong consideration.

[mvc]

> If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

Presumably they would still like to benefit from our IP and Law enforcement, our medicare subsidies, our healthcare professionals. Will a standard invoice to the shareholders be OK?

[bmelton]

Your comment assumes that Pfizer will no longer be obligated to pay taxes at all, which is untrue. They'll pay less taxes, particularly on capital gains and such that allow them to benefit from double-Irish style tax avoidance, that does not mean they aren't paying taxes.

It would be an interesting though experiment to determine the exact cost those services provide, submit them an actual invoice, and then do the math on whether or not services rendered are more or less than taxes paid, but without it, it seems naive to assume that paying less taxes is in any way equivalent to paying no taxes.

Presumably, they get those same services in their countries of operation, and at a lower cost, which opens up an entirely new pool of questions. Are services in Dublin substantially less than what we have in America? Why is the cost of American services so much higher? If services are similar, how is Ireland able to provide them at such a discount? Will Ireland continue discounting their services as they attract more and more businesses? Etc.

[wcummings]

>It also goes towards the roads

Not really, our infrastructure is falling apart, and congress can't even pass a long-term highway funding bill.

[ksherlock]

There are plenty of people that don't pay for a gym or a sports club. (or phone, I guess, if it's an Obamaphone).

[yourepowerless]

This is a non-sequitur, or as the saying goes, the Germans kept the trains running on time?

If ISIS begins collecting taxes to fund road construction and terrorism does that somehow white wash terrorism? Of course not, yet the same tired argument is being made here because of misguided belief in American exceptionaliam, double think is alive and well when people can speak of road building one day while condemning torture the next. Those who work and fund the US government are funding genocide, you must accept that fact, you can down vote all you want to bury the truth but it remains the truth.

Disgusting hypocrisy on display, utterly disgusting, and no real counter argument has been made.