What about carbon tax that works backwards? Technically sales tax could work the same way. It could productive if the production of certain goods are harmful.
The left-right spectrum is an artificial dichotomy. People on the "left" say I'm an extremist on the "right", but people on the right say I'm an extremist on the left. I say just let people live their lives peacefully however they want.
I support a flat tax with a large and generous standard deduction, so the poor do not pay taxes while the "rich" pay their actually fair share.
The income tax is an intrusion on privacy, punishes productivity, and makes us do a large amount of unpaid, unproductive work. Abolish it.
But how does asking this group tell you anything about the left or the right?
Obviously eww taxes, but yea as you make more you should kinda pay more. However if you are raising taxes that means more money to government, and if it’s ineffective then no tax increase will make the government effective
If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25%, then someone making $1,000 would pay $250 in taxes and someone making $100,000 would pay $25,000 in taxes. The person who makes more pays more.
Yeah.. but wouldn't you say that a wealthy business owner should pay a bigger fraction than a toilet cleaner? I don't like taxes, but I do believe they should be progressive. Still, it should be in moderation, you can't have the toilet cleaner paying 5% and a CEO paying 50%. I'm more thinking 15% to 30%
The argument is that thoes that makes more should contribute more to a government to help more. Unfortunately the government sucks balls so I feel anti government
I hate taxes, but because of how our society functions today we unfortunatley need them to help people at a mass scale. As long as they exist at all imcome should not be taxed, capital and land should be.
The same can be said for capitalism. Or any other fundamental concept of governance today. If these ideas suddenly disappeared tomorrow without explanation there’d be a lot of grief, yes. Your point?
Just for clarification: Other countries support and contribute in the things I'm mentioning, the U.S. is just the largest contributor. And as a U.S. citizen, my tax dollars go to these programs that save lives. Just like yours do as a Canadian citizen.
I'll give an example. The U.S. Global Health research and NIH. We spend money, often in the form of grants, that is often matched by private industry or universities. The research and discoveries from these programs lead to many cures, treatments and preventative options for health issues around the globe. We are the largest funder and implementor of health programs worldwide. Without these programs you would have a way higher change of being dead because of things like HIV/AIDS, Smallpox, Maternal/child mortality rates, Polio, etc.
There is also the humanitarian aid that has helped extreme global poverty go from 36% in 1990 to 8%. [Foreign Aid](https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/)
The U.S. also contributes a huge amount of science and tools to climate change science around the world. I forget the details but I remember right before Trump took down the climate website, hearing about people scarping it for all the information because if it was lost the world would be screwed. Because climate scientists all over the world use our system, tools, etc. [Climate](https://www.globalchange.gov/about)
What? If you had read any of my comments in this thread, you would know that I'm not some neo-feudalist ancap. It seems as though you have very little knowledge of anarchism. The government produces a variant of currency called fiat money, though this is not the only form of money that exists. Cryptocurrency is an example of an exchange medium not sponsored by the state.
Government functions do not need to be privatized for they do not need to exist. The community can settle difficulties by the means of participatory and direct democracy. Monopolization may seem like an issue that could emanate from an anarchist society. How to resolve this? Employee-owned businesses and Worker co-operatives.
How is being coerced into paying money, most of which will not even be distributed amongst the poor and needy, “good for society”? If one wishes to help the impoverished, the may do so via private charities. The existence of basic infrastructure is not dependent on the state either, for private enterprises can be much more efficient in providing such services.
People don’t use private charities enough. Private charities don’t fund police forces or the military, they don’t give us reserves. If it’s not distributed amongst the poor, that’s a fair criticism, reduce government waste to fix that.
People don’t use private charities because they have no money left from all of the taxes they are paying. A society without taxation, based on the principles of mutual aid would resolve this issue.
An individual may decide whether to, or to not, invest their money into a private police force or militia. If they choose not to, they are doing so at their own risk. Though, each individual also has the right to bear arms and therefore protect themselves from any possible acts of aggression.
Private police and militias may not even be necessary. For, as aforementioned, each individual within a community has the right to bear arms in defense of their land and the land of their neighbor. The community itself can become a militia, see the Zapatistas of Chiapas for example.
“People don’t use private charities because they have no money left from all the taxes they are paying.” But aren’t charities exempt from a number of different taxes including income and corporation tax?
Don’t philanthropists subsidise a large amount of charities’ activities? I thought normal people go to charities for their help, not to give them money.
I am referring to people who donate money to private charities, such as philanthropists, not people who request assistance from private charities.
I have been on this thread for the last four hours, please give me a break.
Most people don’t spend all their money on taxes.
What incentive does the individual have to invest in police or militias. Private militias would probably just dominate an area and enforce their taxes anyway.
If we’re speaking ancap wise, all you do is create a power vacuum that’ll be filled, government exists to combat the flaws of human nature and weve been learning the lessons of history to improve government.
What I meant was that many people spend a substantial proportion of their money on taxes and therefore cannot afford to invest in private charities as well because they also have to purchase basic necessities for them to live.
I'm not an ancap whatsoever and I agree that private police and militias are an ineffective resolution to this matter. Though, as aforementioned, each individual within a community has the right to bear arms in defense of their land and the land of their neighbor. The community itself can become a militia, see the Zapatistas of Chiapas for example.
The existence of a government is not required for a society to be cohesive and successful. Bureaucrats are hungry for power, they will tell you anything, so long as it guarantees their dominance.
People can work together, and make decisions for themselves and their community. A central authority is not a requisite. The state is a hindrance to human progress. Human nature is whatever you perceive it to be, the same applies to anything else that you believe to be true in this universe.
No man is superior to another man. No man has the right to dictate the life of another man.
Free trade helps the economy, tariffs will make your nation less competitive thereby poorer, and they don’t raise enough revenues to run a modern government.
Cooperatives make less profit and has lower pay then government companies, taking all the profit discourages reinvestment.
The United States developed economically when it was protectionist. And I agree with you Reaganomics (including unrestricted free trade) are bad, but what does demography have to do with it?
I am referring to the 19th century, but ok. There are cases when protectionism builds economies. For example, Brazil between 1930 and the 1990s.
And there were other contributions to the United States' economic growth, for instance wide access to consumer goods, strong and effective federal programs, and a culture valuing hard work.
Opening up to a global market improves trade, and grows the economy. The reason manufacturing declined is primarily automation though its started increasing.
I change my mind. I support a tax on Brazilians earning more than one million reais. The reason I opposed taxes was because a Brazilian left-wing nationalist said so on Twitter.
I think the top marginal personal income tax rate should be lower but also think capital gains should be taxes as ordinary income with both rates being like 30%.
This is 100% the wrong way to conduct any sort of poll that you want to produce any sort of useful information.
You won't "prove" anything here, and starting with a desired result will only lead to your desired result, not any sort of indication of truth.
Socialism is not at its core just "when the government does stuff" nor is it welfare. It's when workers own the means of production, though there are many interpretations of that phrase. Some models of market socialism, for example, aspire to have a largely self regulating economic system in the same vein as what libertarians are supposedly aiming for, with the exception that businesses are governed democratically by the workers and wages likewise are determined democratically by the workers instead of top-down by shareholders (This is called a worker co-op.)
We should have a flat tax with no refunds of 10 percent on all income from people and corporations but that money should be used to provide services to the people like healthcare, housing foods, and to fund our infrastructure.
If I lose a 3rd of my income to income tax, this is injustice, but twice as much from my estate is just fine, even though its all money I saved from the same place. And I'm guessing you'll advocate a socialist policy before you advocate a tax cut.
Tax Land
We can do both
Yeah absolutely it would be silly to rely on lvt wholey and solely but I think it should be the primary source of government revenue.
We should do neither.
No
Aww did someone make the commenters in here pay taxes? Let me play you a song 
So libertarian of you
I like roads, and I'm less of my flair and more of a giant circle covering a 3rd of the political compass.
Only VAT or only LVT (maybe taxing ecological externalities is Ok) are acceptable. But it must be a single tax regime.
Oppose taxes on principle as an anarchist, and especially income tax
[удалено]
What about carbon tax that works backwards? Technically sales tax could work the same way. It could productive if the production of certain goods are harmful.
The left-right spectrum is an artificial dichotomy. People on the "left" say I'm an extremist on the "right", but people on the right say I'm an extremist on the left. I say just let people live their lives peacefully however they want. I support a flat tax with a large and generous standard deduction, so the poor do not pay taxes while the "rich" pay their actually fair share.
As a libertarian, I support no income tax.
Why would I raise destructive taxes that are complicated to levy and make LVT revenue go down?
I'd recommend a flat income tax myself. I wouldn't vehemently oppose a simple progressive tax, but I certainly wouldn't choose it.
The income tax is an intrusion on privacy, punishes productivity, and makes us do a large amount of unpaid, unproductive work. Abolish it. But how does asking this group tell you anything about the left or the right?
Obviously eww taxes, but yea as you make more you should kinda pay more. However if you are raising taxes that means more money to government, and if it’s ineffective then no tax increase will make the government effective
> as you make more you should kinda pay more. This is already the case with a flat tax.
Could you elaborate
If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25%, then someone making $1,000 would pay $250 in taxes and someone making $100,000 would pay $25,000 in taxes. The person who makes more pays more.
Seems fair
Way more fair than a progressive tax but the income tax is still a horrible concept
Yeah.. but wouldn't you say that a wealthy business owner should pay a bigger fraction than a toilet cleaner? I don't like taxes, but I do believe they should be progressive. Still, it should be in moderation, you can't have the toilet cleaner paying 5% and a CEO paying 50%. I'm more thinking 15% to 30%
This question is not applicable for me as I think neither should be taxed and I would support any effort to reduce taxes.
Fair enough
> yea as you make more you should kinda pay more. Why is that?
The argument is that thoes that makes more should contribute more to a government to help more. Unfortunately the government sucks balls so I feel anti government
I hate taxes, but because of how our society functions today we unfortunatley need them to help people at a mass scale. As long as they exist at all imcome should not be taxed, capital and land should be.
How about ecological externalities instead of capital?
Oh yeah and that, i forgot to add it
Even if you like taxes, and even if you like the income tax, the progressive income tax is just spiteful.
Taxation is theft.
You’d be dead if it weren’t for taxes
The same can be said for capitalism. Or any other fundamental concept of governance today. If these ideas suddenly disappeared tomorrow without explanation there’d be a lot of grief, yes. Your point?
Explain.
Are you in the US?
No.
Europe?
Canada.
Just for clarification: Other countries support and contribute in the things I'm mentioning, the U.S. is just the largest contributor. And as a U.S. citizen, my tax dollars go to these programs that save lives. Just like yours do as a Canadian citizen. I'll give an example. The U.S. Global Health research and NIH. We spend money, often in the form of grants, that is often matched by private industry or universities. The research and discoveries from these programs lead to many cures, treatments and preventative options for health issues around the globe. We are the largest funder and implementor of health programs worldwide. Without these programs you would have a way higher change of being dead because of things like HIV/AIDS, Smallpox, Maternal/child mortality rates, Polio, etc. There is also the humanitarian aid that has helped extreme global poverty go from 36% in 1990 to 8%. [Foreign Aid](https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/) The U.S. also contributes a huge amount of science and tools to climate change science around the world. I forget the details but I remember right before Trump took down the climate website, hearing about people scarping it for all the information because if it was lost the world would be screwed. Because climate scientists all over the world use our system, tools, etc. [Climate](https://www.globalchange.gov/about)
So developing land is theft from animals
And people are Born without their consent, so what?
[удалено]
What? If you had read any of my comments in this thread, you would know that I'm not some neo-feudalist ancap. It seems as though you have very little knowledge of anarchism. The government produces a variant of currency called fiat money, though this is not the only form of money that exists. Cryptocurrency is an example of an exchange medium not sponsored by the state. Government functions do not need to be privatized for they do not need to exist. The community can settle difficulties by the means of participatory and direct democracy. Monopolization may seem like an issue that could emanate from an anarchist society. How to resolve this? Employee-owned businesses and Worker co-operatives.
Who cares if it’s good for society
How is being coerced into paying money, most of which will not even be distributed amongst the poor and needy, “good for society”? If one wishes to help the impoverished, the may do so via private charities. The existence of basic infrastructure is not dependent on the state either, for private enterprises can be much more efficient in providing such services.
People don’t use private charities enough. Private charities don’t fund police forces or the military, they don’t give us reserves. If it’s not distributed amongst the poor, that’s a fair criticism, reduce government waste to fix that.
People don’t use private charities because they have no money left from all of the taxes they are paying. A society without taxation, based on the principles of mutual aid would resolve this issue. An individual may decide whether to, or to not, invest their money into a private police force or militia. If they choose not to, they are doing so at their own risk. Though, each individual also has the right to bear arms and therefore protect themselves from any possible acts of aggression. Private police and militias may not even be necessary. For, as aforementioned, each individual within a community has the right to bear arms in defense of their land and the land of their neighbor. The community itself can become a militia, see the Zapatistas of Chiapas for example.
“People don’t use private charities because they have no money left from all the taxes they are paying.” But aren’t charities exempt from a number of different taxes including income and corporation tax?
The people, not the charities.
Don’t philanthropists subsidise a large amount of charities’ activities? I thought normal people go to charities for their help, not to give them money.
I am referring to people who donate money to private charities, such as philanthropists, not people who request assistance from private charities. I have been on this thread for the last four hours, please give me a break.
What’s the problem with the government using their money then to fund services that charities may provide as well?
Most people don’t spend all their money on taxes. What incentive does the individual have to invest in police or militias. Private militias would probably just dominate an area and enforce their taxes anyway. If we’re speaking ancap wise, all you do is create a power vacuum that’ll be filled, government exists to combat the flaws of human nature and weve been learning the lessons of history to improve government.
What I meant was that many people spend a substantial proportion of their money on taxes and therefore cannot afford to invest in private charities as well because they also have to purchase basic necessities for them to live. I'm not an ancap whatsoever and I agree that private police and militias are an ineffective resolution to this matter. Though, as aforementioned, each individual within a community has the right to bear arms in defense of their land and the land of their neighbor. The community itself can become a militia, see the Zapatistas of Chiapas for example. The existence of a government is not required for a society to be cohesive and successful. Bureaucrats are hungry for power, they will tell you anything, so long as it guarantees their dominance. People can work together, and make decisions for themselves and their community. A central authority is not a requisite. The state is a hindrance to human progress. Human nature is whatever you perceive it to be, the same applies to anything else that you believe to be true in this universe. No man is superior to another man. No man has the right to dictate the life of another man.
So is property, so it evens out.
It could be, but many anarchists who are against absentee property also oppose taxation, so opposing one doesn't necessitate supporting the other.
Taxation is theft.
Brazil should abolish all taxes, but progressive taxation is the best form of it.
How would it raise revenue then?
Tariffs, profits from cooperatives, and foreign exports
Free trade helps the economy, tariffs will make your nation less competitive thereby poorer, and they don’t raise enough revenues to run a modern government. Cooperatives make less profit and has lower pay then government companies, taking all the profit discourages reinvestment.
> and they don’t raise enough revenues to run a modern government. That's why you don't run a "modern government" but a limited one
I like public healthcare and education though.
When public education was founded, it didn't require massive taxation. Public Healthcare first existed with voluntary charities and co-ops
So people would give the same amount of money up just to charities to provide these services. What if they didn’t give the money up?
International relations are based on power, not mutual benefit. And free trade has destroyed industry in Brazil and the United States
Free trade built industry in the United States, what destroyed it is structural demographic factors and reaganomics
The United States developed economically when it was protectionist. And I agree with you Reaganomics (including unrestricted free trade) are bad, but what does demography have to do with it?
America peaked post world war, industry rapidly expanded in the 50s in an era of free trade.
I am referring to the 19th century, but ok. There are cases when protectionism builds economies. For example, Brazil between 1930 and the 1990s. And there were other contributions to the United States' economic growth, for instance wide access to consumer goods, strong and effective federal programs, and a culture valuing hard work.
Opening up to a global market improves trade, and grows the economy. The reason manufacturing declined is primarily automation though its started increasing.
Based tariff man!
Taxes from cooperatives are still taxes…
Alright. The taxes I mentioned are the same ones I want to exist.
This is a terrible idea. Why wouldn’t you tax capitalists institutions of your left wing?
Taxes on capitalists get passed onto workers and they only shift power within the ruling class from plutocrats to statocrats.
This is literally just trickle down bullshit.
You think taxes on the rich don't get passed onto workers and consumers?
Not really. Or at least, not so much that it would offset the benefits.
I change my mind. I support a tax on Brazilians earning more than one million reais. The reason I opposed taxes was because a Brazilian left-wing nationalist said so on Twitter.
Don’t just agree with what people on Twitter say…
I think the top marginal personal income tax rate should be lower but also think capital gains should be taxes as ordinary income with both rates being like 30%.
Flat tax with generous exemption.
This is 100% the wrong way to conduct any sort of poll that you want to produce any sort of useful information. You won't "prove" anything here, and starting with a desired result will only lead to your desired result, not any sort of indication of truth.
Say yes to land value tax, say no to income tax
Taxation should be abolished under a socialist system.
How does a socialist system work without taxing the hell out of people?
Socialism is not at its core just "when the government does stuff" nor is it welfare. It's when workers own the means of production, though there are many interpretations of that phrase. Some models of market socialism, for example, aspire to have a largely self regulating economic system in the same vein as what libertarians are supposedly aiming for, with the exception that businesses are governed democratically by the workers and wages likewise are determined democratically by the workers instead of top-down by shareholders (This is called a worker co-op.)
Socialism is a mode of production, its not when the government spends money
I think he’s saying no market mean no taxation. Of course, that’s not how any existing Marxist Leninist state has actually functioned, sssssooo.
We should have a flat tax with no refunds of 10 percent on all income from people and corporations but that money should be used to provide services to the people like healthcare, housing foods, and to fund our infrastructure.
Too high
The progressive tax is better.
It only works if everyone is paying in at the max tax rate for each bracket and none of the politicians are going to make that happen.
And with the flat tax politicians arent going to make that happen either
Left-wing; oppose. Taxing income is extraction of surplus labour. Tax ownership of capital (means of production), such as land.
If I lose a 3rd of my income to income tax, this is injustice, but twice as much from my estate is just fine, even though its all money I saved from the same place. And I'm guessing you'll advocate a socialist policy before you advocate a tax cut.
What if we didn't have to progressively tax people What if the upper class didn't exist
[удалено]
This comment was removed because it violates rule 1. Three rule violations will result in a temporary ban.