| Not paying taxes harms people??? That's pretty funny.
Yeah, it harms the person not paying taxes. Your false assumption is that people (as a whole) wouldn't pay an equivalent amount, or more, to charitable organizations or government, if they were not compelled to pay taxes. It's very closed-minded. I'm actually somewhat shocked at the responses on HN, because this crowd usually doesn't jump to unproven conclusions. > Not paying taxes means that people take from society without giving back their fair share. [citation needed] > Not paying taxes means million of kids sleeping hungry for no fault of their own but being born in to wrong parent. [citation needed] > It means crime running rampant, as there is no police to stop criminals. [citation needed] You, too, are making the leap that compulsory taxes are the only way to raise money for services. It's already been demonstrated numerous times, every day, that voluntary contributions can fund every one of these services. Not only that, but it can be done more efficiently than through a tax system. Point by point: first addressing People who don't pay taxes don't pay their fair share. It seems to me that someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett (who happen to be the EXTREME, so should be great examples to PROVE your case), actually pay FAR MORE than their "fair share" (whatever that is - apparently you have some sort of formula), by donating vast amounts of wealth to charity (to keep kids from sleeping hungry). People cite Romney as an example of someone "not paying his fair share", yet he gave far more to charity than most people. Great use of the "Think of the Children" argument, by the way. Suckers everywhere would fall for it. But the fact remains that charitable organizations, through VOLUNTARY contributions do tremendous work in the US and around the world. Filtering charity through government bureaucracy and waste, in an effort to "help the children" is nonsense. People WANT to live in a society free from starving children, which is why charity does as well as it does. Imagine how much MORE it could do, if we weren't FORCED to pay the government. People also want to live in crime-free environments, and people with the most to lose may have extra incentive to do so. So much so that private security forces are funded all the time voluntarily. I haven't read an argument yet that has convinced me that I can decide what someone's "fair share" is, and force them to pay it based on MY arbitrary decision. I DO have a sense of what is reasonable for me to pay, and I do believe in generosity. But I'd rather give because it's the right thing to do, not give because someone made me. But I still willingly pay my taxes "honestly". I just don't think it's right that I dictate how much someone else pays. As I have shown, the argument really can't be extended to theft. Freedom does not extend to harming others. "My freedom to swing my fist stops at your nose", or whatever that saying is. Not paying taxes does not inherently harm anyone except the non-taxpayer, who goes to jail. There are plenty of other ways to "pay your fair share" as you say, without being forcibly compelled to do so. |
You will never look at the world the same way again, I guarantee it.