Taxation

[Delta1212]

Who is going to enforce the regulation that I have approved/trained staff on my private security force?

 

Who is going to enforce the collection of the subscriptions?

 

If we had a government made up of educated experts in a vareity of fields, I think that would solve a lot of problem, but we don't and I don't see how your system would do anything to change that.

 

And finally, the private prison system in the US is a massive human rights disaster. The reason we have the highest incarceration rate in the world is that we've set up a system where people make money off of locking us up. Holding that up as an example doesn't inspire confidence in the benefits of your proposed system.

[Silvestru]

What if I don't want to pay for the services?

 

 

Swansont: How is a forced subscription different, other than changing the name?

 

You are still obliged to pay these services but they do not go through the Government making it easier to control and improve. You pay each field separately, directly.

 

It is a very simplified example so don't take it to literally but Imagine the restaurant industry.

All of them are verified that they are up to health standards but after this the number of clients depends on the quality of the services in relationship with the price.

The competitive nature of the market will make only quality services emerge.

[StringJunky]

 

There will still be a government. One of educated individuals with experience from many fields. A legislature is still in place.

 

You still mandatory pay for all these services like Police but it does not go through the government.

 

It is still a for of taxation but it does not go to the government. You can open a private security firm like you can in our modern society but it has to have approved/trained staff.

 

There are private prisons in USA so this concept is not new.

 

Your house will not burn, like I said you will pay for these services.

 

If you are unable to work due to old age/disability etc you will receive these benefits. The other people paying will just have to pay a bit more to make up for the number of people which cannot.

I'm of the the belief that private policing, healthcare, firemen, prison staff etc lowers the quality of those services because those are vocational jobs and commercial administrations, being answerable to shareholders, are principally interested in profit and and maximising that at the expense of quality care.and working to the best social principles. I think we are now seeing the negative effects of private prison services here in the UK with increasing disorder within them. In a commercial enterprise, I think, the staff are just 'going to work' and not so so much trying to make a difference for their charges.

[Silvestru]

1: Who is going to enforce the regulation that I have approved/trained staff on my private security force?

 

2: Who is going to enforce the collection of the subscriptions?

 

3: If we had a government made up of educated experts in a vareity of fields, I think that would solve a lot of problem, but we don't and I don't see how your system would do anything to change that.

 

4: And finally, the private prison system in the US is a massive human rights disaster. The reason we have the highest incarceration rate in the world is that we've set up a system where people make money off of locking us up. Holding that up as an example doesn't inspire confidence in the benefits of your proposed system.

 

1: The Government will still exist. It will audit all business making sure it is up to standard. The government and it's staff will be paid the same as I suggested the police and doctors will be paid except, No, Delta you will not be able to open your own government. Every major expense will be made public.

2: If you get paid, your salary will be deducted by the amount of money necessary for this.

3: In my idea everything would just be more transparent in hopes to increase the efficiency of these funds. You have to understand that no matter what system you have, USA will still have the same resources, they will just be used in a more competitive controlled environment and not the current chaos.

4: I know what you are saying and I feel your pain. It is a disaster. I just gave an example of a privately owned establishment which historically was governed by the government. I did not suggest applying any methods/behavior from these private prisons.

Introducing Higher Education only would reduce the number of inmates.

[DrP]

QUOTE: "won't go through the government, making it easier to control and improve"

 

Who will you pay your taxes too then? Who can you trust? At least the government is 'chosen by the people for the people' and all that... it is supposed to be there in the best interests of the masses. Who better to organise the money?

[Silvestru]

I'm of the the belief that private policing, healthcare, firemen, prison staff etc lowers the quality of those services because those are vocational jobs and commercial administrations, being answerable to shareholders, are principally interested in profit and and maximising that at the expense of quality care.and working to the best social principles. I think we are now seeing the negative effects of private prison services here in the UK with increasing disorder within them. In a commercial enterprise, I think, the staff are just 'going to work' and not so so much trying to make a difference for their charges.

And I respect your Opinion. But I see people working for the state as being much less excited and working in a non-competitive atmosphere.

 

If you daze off in a private company they will usually fire you.

[DrP]

We have several public services over here in the UK which are a shambles now they have been sold off to private investors (mates of the guys in power who sold it to them). They just want to make money... when they were government run they were focused on service to the people rather than profits and bonuses for the shareholders.

[swansont]

You are a scientist. Maybe it's a speculation but a very high number of people working in the science field are foreign. You are "importing" many scientists and other high level specialization jobs from other countries which is amazing really. But this is the case because your education system does not encourage a career such a difficult area.

Again, relevance? How is this an issue of taxation?

 

Without government assistance I likely would not have gone to college and would not be a scientist. Without military benefits graduate school would have been more difficult. Without government-funded research, I would not have had anything to study.

 

In reality, government-funded research is one of the things that the private sector would not pick up on were it to go away. Companies like to see a near-tem payout of research investments. They put very little into basic research, which provides the new ideas upon which modern advances are based. There is no market-based solution to this. In my current job, I have worked on devices that would never have been developed by a for-profit company, free from government funding, since there is not enough of a market to sustain such an enterprise.

[Silvestru]

At least the government is 'chosen by the people for the people' and all that... it is supposed to be there in the best interests of the masses. Who better to organise the money?

 

The value of a currency or a product or a company is given by the trust that the people have in that product, based of course on what that product offers.

 

Let me ask you something. And I am really not implying anything here. An educated law abiding scientist votes for a candidate that realizes the danger that current society poses on the environment and understands exactly what this candidate's plan is, all the laws he wants to try to pass and where he wants to invest his money. He votes for him. Does this educated mans vote count the same as a junky's vote. One with no education, not even a spirit of conservation. Do each of their votes hold the same weight?

[swansont]

 

The value of a currency or a product or a company is given by the trust that the people have in that product, based of course on what that product offers.

 

Let me ask you something. And I am really not implying anything here. An educated law abiding scientist votes for a candidate that realizes the danger that current society poses on the environment and understands exactly what this candidate's plan is, all the laws he wants to try to pass and where he wants to invest his money. He votes for him. Does this educated mans vote count the same as a junky's vote. One with no education, not even a spirit of conservation. Do each of their votes hold the same weight?

 

 

What is the relevance to taxation, which is the subject of the thread?

[Delta1212]

 

1: The Government will still exist. It will audit all business making sure it is up to standard. The government and it's staff will be paid the same as I suggested the police and doctors will be paid except, No, Delta you will not be able to open your own government. Every major expense will be made public.

2: If you get paid, your salary will be deducted by the amount of money necessary for this.

3: In my idea everything would just be more transparent in hopes to increase the efficiency of these funds. You have to understand that no matter what system you have, USA will still have the same resources, they will just be used in a more competitive controlled environment and not the current chaos.

4: I know what you are saying and I feel your pain. It is a disaster. I just gave an example of a privately owned establishment which historically was governed by the government. I did not suggest applying any methods/behavior from these private prisons.

Introducing Higher Education only would reduce the number of inmates.

If the government doesn't control the funding for police services, what control do they have over them exactly?

[Silvestru]

Again, relevance? How is this an issue of taxation?

 

Without government assistance I likely would not have gone to college and would not be a scientist. Without military benefits graduate school would have been more difficult. Without government-funded research, I would not have had anything to study.

 

In reality, government-funded research is one of the things that the private sector would not pick up on were it to go away. Companies like to see a near-tem payout of research investments. They put very little into basic research, which provides the new ideas upon which modern advances are based. There is no market-based solution to this. In my current job, I have worked on devices that would never have been developed by a for-profit company, free from government funding, since there is not enough of a market to sustain such an enterprise.

1% (0.77% to be exact) of your tax money went into science in 2015!

33% went into helping the unemployed. The priority is to first fix the hole in your boat and then throw the water out.

Increase funds to Education, the rest will naturally improve.

[StringJunky]

We have several public services over here in the UK which are a shambles now they have been sold off to private investors (mates of the guys in power who sold it to them). They just want to make money... when they were government run they were focused on service to the people rather than profits and bonuses for the shareholders.

Yes, i always wondered how water authorities, railway regions etc could, by privatisation, be made more 'competitive' when they monopolise their districts. The realities of shareholder-driven businesses is that the administration must show rising profits, year on year, in order to keep and attract new money. The usual tactic is to arbitrarily raise prices. The pharmaceutical industry is a glaring example of this practice.

[Silvestru]

 

What is the relevance to taxation, which is the subject of the thread?

I am sorry Swansont It's just really hard to stay on track when every comment needs to be addressed.

My point was Education is lacking because of poor tax fund use.

Increasing control on how we spend taxes by paying them directly to the provider is my idea. Which doesn't have too much traction haha.

 

I am very open minded and Just wanted to open a discussion. I don't fully support my idea myself. And I appreciate all your comments.

It makes me think about all the aspects. Just wanted to clarify that I am not an angry crazy guy behind the keyboard, mad at the government.

I just want to explore this idea.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Silvestru

[DrP]

QUOTE SJ, POST #38... "...example of this practice"

 

Yes, it's sad.

 

 

QUOTE: "Increase funds to education"

 

Well that's great - but where do these funds come from if not from taxation? No one is saying things are perfect - quite the opposite, we all know there is waste and corruption everywhere in every country. It is sad. But I honestly believe it is improving. Look at where the world is now compared to 5 years ago, 10, 20, 60, 100, 200, 400 etc.. of course the governments aren't perfect, but they are supposed to be and in the ideal, the taxation system should easy cover all that is needed for anyone who falls for any reason.

Edited July 5, 2017 by DrP

[Delta1212]

So, is everyone paying the same rate under this system for each service or does the price fluctuate with income?

[DrP]

"lacking due to poor tax fund use"...

 

 

Then the problem is with the organisation of the funds... not how the funds are raised.

[Silvestru]

"lacking due to poor tax fund use"...

 

 

Then the problem is with the organisation of the funds... not how the funds are raised.

Yes exactly. Like I said, increase control. You might notice I did not open this thread myself. I am just defending a comment that I made in another thread.

 

 

So, is everyone paying the same rate under this system for each service or does the price fluctuate with income?

 

I did not think about that and too be honest I don't know what would be more fair. To have a fixed amount for everyone or pay let's say 10% of your income.

Guys there are so many aspects of this it's inhuman to defend all points haha of course there will be unknowns, cons, problems etc with this idea.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Silvestru

[Delta1212]

Yes, and part of proposing solutions to government problems is working through all of those problems and seeing whether things actually work, how they should work, where they need to be shored up, where potential pitfalls are, what might need to be compromised and ultimately whether it's even a good idea at all.

 

There is a reason that government is and always has been a complicated issue. Things that seem like simple fixes offen aren't, and every idea has unintended consequences and complications.

 

Nobody is attacking this idea just to be mean or because they don't like you. It's being picked apart because there are a ton of issues with it on a practical level that you don't seem to have acknowledged or addressed.

[Sensei]

Almost the all larger countries of the world are wasting their resources, money from people taxes, on this silly armaments race..

 

That's example of not optimal redistribution of income from taxes by currently existing governments, Silvestru was giving in the 1st post (" Tax money is poorly controlled, poorly attributed to where it needs to be").

Trump wants to force other NATO countries to even more waste money (obviously buying weapons produced by USA).

[swansont]

1% (0.77% to be exact) of your tax money went into science in 2015!

And without taxation that would be zero. Who would fund the science that does so much to drive our economy?

 

33% went into helping the unemployed. The priority is to first fix the hole in your boat and then throw the water out.

Increase funds to Education, the rest will naturally improve.

33%? I'm going to need a citation. The pie chart you posted has 33% for Social security, unemployment and labor. Unemployment, logically, is a smaller portion than that. As for social security, I will be a recipient of it someday.

 

I am sorry Swansont It's just really hard to stay on track when every comment needs to be addressed.

 

Off-topic comments do not need to be addressed.

[NimrodTheGoat]

In the area where I live, some immigrants (not all but some, and citizens as well) take advantage of the social welfare programs and monthly income form the governement, even though they work, they still file for unemployment. I feel that the U.S. government should become even more strict in their policies and have even more thorough background checks. We also see people filing for disability even though they are perfectly fine and can work.

 

So be a good citizen, and if you do stumble upon someone who is taking advantage of the system to "snitch" them out to the government.

 

https://www.creators.com/read/your-social-security/06/13/if-you-know-people-who-are-cheating-the-system-turn-them-in

 

 

I just want a woman who will hold me close and whisper to my ear that taxation is theft. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Edited July 5, 2017 by NimrodTheGoat

[Handy andy]

Almost the all larger countries of the world are wasting their resources, money from people taxes, on this silly armaments race..

 

That's example of not optimal redistribution of income from taxes by currently existing governments, Silvestru was giving in the 1st post (" Tax money is poorly controlled, poorly attributed to where it needs to be").

Trump wants to force other NATO countries to even more waste money (obviously buying weapons produced by USA).

 

It is generally not commented on, but no one knowingly elects governments that want to go to war or destabilise other countries, governments are generally elected on domestic issues. If politicians were to ask for more tax money to be raised to police or destabilise a region to grab a countries resources the average person including professors and drug addicts would most likely not vote for those politicians

 

Tony Blair is still under investigation for the Iraq war, he is guilty of treason, ie waging a war not in the interests of his electorate. Hopefully the next attempt to prosecute him will result in him doing time in prison.

 

For a country on the opposite side of the world to alienate a country on the opposite side, and to try and dictate another countries policies is treason, ie it is not in the interests of any electorate to go to war or change a political or religious situation in a country.

 

For Governments to raise taxes to wage illegal wars has to be treason. Many of the worlds governments or religious groups mess about with other countries policies to gain control of resources. Would it be of interest to anyone to be able in a democratic country to indicate what percentage of taxes is allocated for domestic issues and what should be allocated for external issues.

[DrP]

QUOTE: GOAT "immigrants taking advantage"

You might see this happening goat... but it is a drip in the ocean. A few hundred immigrants trying to fiddle the system a) isn't going to break the country. and b) isn't the cause of any of America's problems. and what they are doing is illegal and will be stopped if they get caught - like any criminal activity.

Edited July 5, 2017 by DrP

[swansont]

In the area where I live, some immigrants take advantage of the social welfare programs and monthly income form the governement, even though they work, they still file for unemployment. I feel that the U.S. government should become even more strict in their policies and have even more thorough background checks. We also see people filing for disability even though they are perfectly fine and can work.

 

So be a good citizen, and if you do stumble upon someone who is taking advantage of the system to "snitch" them out to the government.

 

https://www.creators.com/read/your-social-security/06/13/if-you-know-people-who-are-cheating-the-system-turn-them-in

 

Some people cheat on their taxes, too. Plenty of them are already US citizens. That some people cheat the system does not mean you do away with the system, and scapegoating some groups adds nothing to the discussion.