What if the political class is corrupt and uses the tax money and their possition of power to fill up their own pockets, bailout banks and corporations owned by their billionaire friends and family members making them invulnerable to competition ensuring they’ll control the market, oppress the population to the point that it has no capacity to resist and even if it did it wouldn’t have the time nor strength to do so after working all day just to stay alive? What if the corporations collude with the politicians to introduce loop holes into tax law so that they don’t have to pay them and if they can’t do that they’ll just trickle-down the cost onto the workers and consumers by increasing prices or lowering wages?
You can’t dismiss a system based on theoretical “what if” edge cases, especially in the face of common everyday reality that we’re all living.
The world isn’t perfect and we can’t afford to act like it is. What we can do is try things out, see what the result is and act accordingly. If you tried to bring down a tree by punching it and it broke your hand you wouldn’t just punch it harder next time, you’d try something else. The same goes for the tax system, no matter how much money we’ll shovel into it, it won’t fix the underlying issue. It doesn’t have to be perfect, nothing is, and dismissing anything short of it won’t get us anywhere.
Because you can always make up a theoretical “what if” edge case and the counter argument to it is a real world “this is happening right now” endemic.
I’d also appreciate if you’d post an answare to my entire argument instead of picking a single point and answering it with a question, otherwise this discussion won’t be very productive.
What if the political class is corrupt and uses the tax money and their possition of power to fill up their own pockets, bailout banks and corporations owned by their billionaire friends and family members making them invulnerable to competition ensuring they’ll control the market, oppress the population to the point that it has no capacity to resist and even if it did it wouldn’t have the time nor strength to do so after working all day just to stay alive? What if the corporations collude with the politicians to introduce loop holes into tax law so that they don’t have to pay them and if they can’t do that they’ll just trickle-down the cost onto the workers and consumers by increasing prices or lowering wages?
This is happening right now, to everyone, saying that something bad might theoretically happen to a small amount of people if the system changes does not justify sticking to a broken, fundamentally evil, anti-human, extorcionistic system of finantial rape.
Im arguing that it’s counterproductive to try to extract good out of something fundamentally evil and prone to abuse no matter how good your intentions are and that it’s a good idea to replace it with something fundamentally good even if it’s not perfect.
We can argue whether taxation is a necessary evil or not but if you can’t see evil in forcefully taking away any sovereignty from an individual, financial sovereignty included I think further discussion is futile and the best we can do is agree to disagree.
As for the poll you linked, or any other poll that doesn’t ask something along the lines of “do you think we should change our public funding scheme to (description)” is not a valid measure of support in this case (the way the question is phrased I might even say yes to it) and certainly not a valid measure of what’s good or evil. Not too long ago majority of people thought it’s ok to enslave other people because they looked different or castrate them because they loved different or lock them up for having a certain plant, the list goes on…
What if the political class is corrupt and uses the tax money and their possition of power to fill up their own pockets, bailout banks and corporations owned by their billionaire friends and family members making them invulnerable to competition ensuring they’ll control the market, oppress the population to the point that it has no capacity to resist and even if it did it wouldn’t have the time nor strength to do so after working all day just to stay alive? What if the corporations collude with the politicians to introduce loop holes into tax law so that they don’t have to pay them and if they can’t do that they’ll just trickle-down the cost onto the workers and consumers by increasing prices or lowering wages?
You can’t dismiss a system based on theoretical “what if” edge cases, especially in the face of common everyday reality that we’re all living.
The world isn’t perfect and we can’t afford to act like it is. What we can do is try things out, see what the result is and act accordingly. If you tried to bring down a tree by punching it and it broke your hand you wouldn’t just punch it harder next time, you’d try something else. The same goes for the tax system, no matter how much money we’ll shovel into it, it won’t fix the underlying issue. It doesn’t have to be perfect, nothing is, and dismissing anything short of it won’t get us anywhere.
Sorry, you can’t dismiss a theoretical system with a theoretical what if? Why exactly?
Because you can always make up a theoretical “what if” edge case and the counter argument to it is a real world “this is happening right now” endemic.
I’d also appreciate if you’d post an answare to my entire argument instead of picking a single point and answering it with a question, otherwise this discussion won’t be very productive.
It is not happening right now because there is no country without taxation.
You are saying that you can’t counter a theoretical concept with another theoretical concept. Yes you can.
Read my previous comment especialy this part:
This is happening right now, to everyone, saying that something bad might theoretically happen to a small amount of people if the system changes does not justify sticking to a broken, fundamentally evil, anti-human, extorcionistic system of finantial rape.
Ah, I see, you’re arguing that badly-implemented taxation is an argument against all taxation. My mistake.
I suppose leeches are an argument against medicine.
Im arguing that it’s counterproductive to try to extract good out of something fundamentally evil and prone to abuse no matter how good your intentions are and that it’s a good idea to replace it with something fundamentally good even if it’s not perfect.
There is nothing fundamentally evil about requiring every citizen paying their fair share to make a nation run smoothly.
More importantly though, it’s what most people want.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/poll-86-voters-believe-paying-210134382.html
Sorry, people don’t want a libertarian tax-free world. Your dream is not going to happen.
We can argue whether taxation is a necessary evil or not but if you can’t see evil in forcefully taking away any sovereignty from an individual, financial sovereignty included I think further discussion is futile and the best we can do is agree to disagree.
As for the poll you linked, or any other poll that doesn’t ask something along the lines of “do you think we should change our public funding scheme to (description)” is not a valid measure of support in this case (the way the question is phrased I might even say yes to it) and certainly not a valid measure of what’s good or evil. Not too long ago majority of people thought it’s ok to enslave other people because they looked different or castrate them because they loved different or lock them up for having a certain plant, the list goes on…