What are your thoughts on taxation?

>private sector provides all services much better than the public sector so taxes should be abolished anyway and all services privatized

Sure, because we all know affordability and convenience of the American healthcare system. Same goes for British railways, thank you privatization!

Go ahead, easiest way to achieve socialism. Wealth disparity and exploitation will be so high the workers will be clamoring for a revolution.

Oh boy, we got an ancap on our hands lads.

But I'm not an elite or anything.
Taxation is actually theft. This is the reality.
I know a few cases, here in fucking Romania of private roads and people don't tax you or whatever you guys think. They built that road from necessity because no one cared about them and they needed a road. Their roads have camers because people care about their road and it's in a good condition (the state doesn't care that's why most of them are in bad condition).

Taxation is theft. It should be either abolished or kept at absolute minimum. Only critical infrastructure should be funded by taxes, privatise everything else.

'other company' would compete and lower its prices and improve its quality

government monopolies are uncompetitive because they dont have to compete to exist, they extort money from you at gunpoint very much like a mafia style but this is called "tax" and isnt a crime
and when they kidnap you its called "imprisonment" instead of kidnapping

>hur durrr we must stop private business because monopolies are bad
>so lets support the biggest fucking monopoly ever, the government

>lets blame government regulation on free market
um sweetie...
fda regulations are the biggest costs on american healthcare
the reason your healthcare costs so much is because you gotta pay government regulation fda

Clapiatanian system is bad because of incompetence and nothing else. Every time a state has tried to implement socialist healthcare, it has ended up costing even more than the system they had prior.

Also a recent case : Some people bought the materials and built a road to connect to their village. THE STATE stole their work. THE STATE promised they will give them money back but also the same STATE is incompetent. I feel bad for them.

and corporate monopolies are any better? I live with an internet infrastructure monopoly and it's fucking terrible. Fuck comcast. What's the other company going to do if one company already owns all of the roads in a city? Build roads of it's own too and clutter the city up with two individual road systems?

And what do I mean by stealing their work? Now people can't repair their own road for example, they can't build things or improve the road because now it belongs to the STATE. They can go to jail for that.

government provided services will always be incompetent because they literally do not compete with anything

government provided services will always cost more because they dont have to lower prices to beat competitors, they can just demand outrageous taxes

taxes should be voluntary, if you want x pay for x, if you dont want x dont pay for x

retard, you live in a corporate monopoly because corporations lobby the government to put red tape on all competition

alternatives always happen unless the government intervenes to keep the corporate status quo

>Wealth disparity and exploitation will be so high the workers
So typical...
That would bring competition. If you think you're treated like shit then you can tell them to "fuck off". And believe me, competition is real when the government isn't involved.

>Taxation
The poor being robbed for the sake of investing in a more efficient infrastructure which is concerned with the further exploitation of the poor thereby bringing more profit to the upper class.
And yet socialists think the rich promote democracy and socialism because muh humanitarian interests.

In an ancap society the government wouldn't have the power to prevent monopolies

0% tax
military funded by raiding
infrastructure privatised
education available to elites
no healthcare? get thrown in volcano

For everyone bringing that shit "monopoly" argument. It's not real.
Actually the monopoly brings inovation, can you believe that? I mean sure, le'ts say google who has a big monopoly but the same google brings a lot of inovation to keep that place and that's why people like using google products. Literally you can say "fuck google" and use alternatives because they are.

Also monopolies are temporary and you struggle a lot to keep that position. You can see Google, Microsoft, Apple. I'm not inventing these facts.

>ancap
ancap is your mental strawman, no one tattooed "ancap" on their forehead, you did this in your own head to other people

most of the people who understand economy are minarchists, they believe a government has a proper place in society but its job is to enforce a small number of rules and its small scope makes it immune to corporate lobbying
the government would run police and military with a flat tax but that is it, everything else would be done by productive competitive private citizens and government would make sure no one is holding anyone hostage, no one is threatening anyone, polluting, etc etc

please do not involve yourself with politics until you understand the simplest, most basic economics

It's nesary, there's a lot of things a (functional) state does better than private businesses ever can. Because it's done on a national scale, they aren't focused only on profit and can plan ahead.
Cities with central planning are much more efficient than random ones which spring up. Muh roads unironically.
Even shit like healthcare because it's such a high scale. Also you like at basically any government service that gets privitised and it turns to absolute dog shit and skyrockets in price.
And also it can negate a bit the inherently snowballing nature of capitalism while still keeping it as a system which kicks the absolute shit out of a planned economy.
You just need balance. Also it doesn't work for third worlders or meds

I think the military is the only valid reason to keep this stupid taxation.
>infrastructure privatised
good
>education available to elites
false
>no healthcare?
also false

but no price will skyrocket when nobody can afford your product, they will be much much lower because of the competition on the market.
and the government can regulate these things

you are literally the only one who understands me here

people dont understand that the most basic and fundamental thing about economy is production
production most come first
if you destroy the desire for people to produce, you cant have a prosperous nation

if government takes half of your shit, why produce anything?
if there is a high barrier to entry (creating medication in america because of fda regulations), how can they produce anything?
if you are robbing productive people to "redistribute" to unproductive poor, why produce anything?

leftists through their economical illiteracy are killing production, for some reason they also think they can consume before they can produce, you cant consume before you produce something
leftists must be stopped, if they put consumption before production, they will have neither

Prices for trains skyrocketed when they were privatised in the UK. They recently privatised disability care in one of our states and a whole bunch of people which only needed some care were kicked out and prices went up.
The free market creates wealth but it's not the the ideal version of it. People put things as high as they can get away.

Taxes should be levied only against the Wealthy, the churches and big business. The common man deserves to be left alone with the fruits of his labour.

What is a monopoly? How is there supposed to be competition when a monopoly just buys out or eliminates any emergent competition.

No he's not, I posted earlier but I got banned for posting lolis so the posts disappeared.

The common man is also the one who can't run away

>but no price will skyrocket when nobody can afford your product
You fool, you haven't realised that the people in charge of these companies are exactly as stupid as you are. They will gouge everything they can from the market until it literally cannot support them any more, then sit around complaining about being stuck in another recession.

appeal to authority is a fallacy.
"please do not involve yourself with ARGUMENTS until you understand the simplest, most basic LOGICS"

That is not an appeal to authority.

wow dude learn your propaganda tactics
Nah we are here. More intelligent people are usually better listeners. Idiots usually make the most noise

Attached: BLJ.jpg (1152x720, 56K)

governments still have no reason to be benevolent, efficient or competitive
you can try to tip toe around this as much as you want but you will only fail
>inb4 soviet design bureaus, space projects, internet, blah blah...
strategic sector competes for existence because alternative is being conquered and destroyed, competitive sectors such as military technology and defense are competitive by nature, and i already said military and police should be ran by government, but literally nothing else

I like living in civilized society so I think taxation is a good concept.
>tax should be flat
No it shouldn't because any flat tax capable of financing public services is bound to surpass the income of a good number of people. That means the poorest citizens would inevitably have to be exempt from paying taxes. Not to mention there would be extra incentives to misreport income so as to become part of this group. Your system would inadvertently be even more unfair to "hard workers".
>private sector provides all services much better than the public sector
Incorrect. Look at public goods for example. You can't privatize the army because you can't prevent anyone who hasn't contributed from benefiting from it.

ReadFucking illiterate leaf

>the poor deserve x by virtue of being poor
no they dont
and being poor isnt a virtue

if you cant afford x you do not deserve x
sorry but if you are working a zero skill part time job and make 30 children, and you cant support said 30 children, those 30 children just gotta get darwined out

i am sorry but imagine if everyone just kept consuming what they can not produce, 100 million people would die in labor gulags all over again
it is quite physically and mechanically and materialistically impossible for people to consume more than they produce and socialism is just that, pretending that worthless and semi worthless 'workers' are entitled to yachts when in reality only a tiny minority of workers work smart enough and hard enough and not all workers are equal for everyone to have equal income

What taxation? You know there are various right?
Anyway we'll probably have to move away from income tax to capital gains/finance transaction fubded budgets if automation will be as bad as projected, so "taxing the rich more"(which is already done everywhere anyway) doesnt matter much

Heavily disagree. Governments have far more motivation for benevolence as opposed to a company. Governments are democratically elected, and a poor administration will be voted out. You also bring out examples of government innovation (such as the space race and internet) and then just dismiss it for no reason. "blah blah..." is not an argument.

Public goods don't start and end at defense. National roads are a public good.
Did you quote the wrong post?

Nobody has even mentioned the fact that the environment or product safety are ever considered in the private sector. Companies literally will still be dumping toxic sludge into rivers if they could, and there would be no reason for them not to. We'd still have leaded gasoline and fucked up drinking water because "much cost effective"

there are plenty of instances where the consumer has caused shifts in product safety quicker than government.

And vastly more that were because of the government. Consumers only consider the short term benefits and of products, and not the long term consequences of environmental problems. For example, leaded gasoline being phased out would require the majority of consumers to switch for the benefits, even though they would be paying more for gas in the long term.

This is why I hate you fucking rightists. You are not fucking God. You don't decide who has the right to live and who must die.

Now pay your goddamn taxes.

You can't really use that as an argument, since in the current world the government is expected to regulate environment and product safety. If individuals had more power, they could very well start taking more responsibility too.

It's a good sign if even in the current environment consumers have made significant changes, which is the point the other burger raised.

I know this is a difficult subject, dear, but do try to keep up. Nobody is deciding who gets to live and die here.

Why are these disgusting Eastern European subhumans spouting boomer-American talking points about "muh tackses"?

>dear
Literal boomer faggot, fuck off back to Jow Forumsthedonald you subhuman.

Shouldn't be as high as it currently is in the West and is slowly chipping away at the growth produced by our low tax history

2/10 Low effort bait.

What about China for example in there SEC, where issues like these occur. Regulation takes a back seat for the sake of production, and shits pretty bad there. Consumers there can't take responsibility because they're quashed in the name of development. I don't see this changing without any kind of intervention.

Why are you bringing up China? Individuals have little to no possiblity to affect anything over there.

"Sanoo,että köyhät lapset pitäisi kitkeä parhaaseen Darwin-tyyliin."

"Ei mukamas ole yritys leikkiä jumalaa."

Kummeli: Valintojen maailma

Do you understand what darwining out even means? They're responsible for themselves, nobody is deciding their fate for them.

Invalid argument, when you're dealing with individuals who de facto cannot fend for themselves, be them minor children, the disabled, or what have you. Civilized societies take care of their own.

Why not? SEZs have little government interaction other than the censorships there. They do have a choice and should have one based on what was said in the last reply, if I understand correctly.

There are charities that help the worst off and do it much more efficiently than a government. Give your money to them instead.

I don't know enough about China to say for certain, but I'm under the impression that the government controls pretty much everything in there.

Nah, SEZs in China are kind of there own things when it comes down to it, they have only little interaction with government.
>t. had to study China's government structure for an entire semester in HS
Thanks for replying Fin, it's always nice to hear a different opinion.

Private charities are no replacement for government funded social security. They haven't nearly the resources to help everyone in need. Even as we speak, Heikki Hursti is struggling financially, and will only make it trough this year, because fucking Metallica of all people intervened and donated.

>>Private charities are no replacement for government funded social security.
Why?
>They haven't nearly the resources to help everyone in need.
Give them more money.
>Even as we speak, Heikki Hursti is struggling financially, and will only make it trough this year, because fucking Metallica of all people intervened and donated.
Who the fuck is this guy and why should I care about his financial struggles?

You post with a Finn flag and don't know Hursti? Are you some mamu or something?

>Give them more money.
This is why private charities don't work, because most people never give anything. Certainly not enough to meet the demand. This is why we have taxes in the first place. Private charities don't produce enough.

>You post with a Finn flag and don't know Hursti? Are you some mamu or something?
I don't follow domestic news because I want to avoid reading about how this shithole of a country keeps fucking up.

But I take it that he's a random fucknugget who I don't need to know about.

>This is why private charities don't work, because most people never give anything. Certainly not enough to meet the demand. This is why we have taxes in the first place. Private charities don't produce enough.
>people support governments stealing their money when it's done with the pretense that they're helping the poor, but they LITERALLY CANNOT give money to the poor themselves
Seems like a stretch to me.

Save for some kinks that should be ironed out, for the most part it works and is fairly efficient. I, for one, do not welcome the US system, where I'm flat out denied health care, if my private insurance provider tells me to go fuck myself and won't cover me. Warts and all, I still prefer our health care system to theirs by a long shot.

Siis ihan tosi, Heikki Hursti. Se pyörittää niitä Helsingin leipäjonoja, uutisissa usein ja väität ettet ole kuullut. Jeesus, mikä tampio.

Okay, thanks for your opinion.

>uutisissa usein
I already told you, I don't follow news.

taxation is theft m8

>Why?
For one because charity is pro-cyclical and that's not a quality you want in a social safety net. You want social spending to go up in a recession and to go down in an expansion to stabilize the economy but charity goes the other way around. People give a lot when the economy is doing well and few need help and little when the economy is doing bad and many need help. Supporting society isn't charity's primary function and charities can't and don't want to assume this responsibility. It's above all a service offered to donors - a means to assuage moral guilt and shape the world to specific values. That's how most charity isn't given to the poor but rather to religious and political groups and the little charity that is given to the poor often comes with strings attached. Private charities aim to please donors, governments aim to keep the society they preside over afloat. They aren't substitutes.

>For one because charity is pro-cyclical and that's not a quality you want in a social safety net. You want social spending to go up in a recession and to go down in an expansion to stabilize the economy but charity goes the other way around. People give a lot when the economy is doing well and few need help and little when the economy is doing bad and many need help.
So they'll save money when fewer people need help so that they have funds to help people with later down the line.
>Supporting society isn't charity's primary function
Neither should it be the government's.
>It's above all a service offered to donors - a means to assuage moral guilt and shape the world to specific values.
That is exactly what the current system provides, except that you have no control over where your money goes. You're sitting there defending the system because I assume you would feel guilty if people suddenly stopped feeding the poor.
>That's how most charity isn't given to the poor but rather to religious and political groups and the little charity that is given to the poor often comes with strings attached.
You cannot with a straight face claim that the government is any better at handling funds responsibly, or that there is sufficient transparency about what the funds in actuality are used for. I stand by the claim that charities are still a lot more efficient at getting the help to where you want it, and even if one failed, you can still choose to support another. Can you choose your government or in any way affect government spending?
>Private charities aim to please donors
You know how they could do that? By getting the funds to where the donor wants them to go! What a shocker, right?
>governments aim to keep the society they preside over afloat.
Governments aim to keep themselves at the top and everyone else at the bottom. True enough, everyone is aiming for that, but governments do it by outright theft.
>They aren't substitutes.
Neither should they be.

agree the romanian government should not exist