/siberia/ - Off-topic

I would call taxation a type of rent, so it is legalised theft.
The state is the national landlord.
Private landlords are merely leaseholders of the state's property.

Another argument however is that since taxes are paid in money, and money belongs to the state, the state has a right to confiscate it by taxation. We merely rent the asset of money. Even if this were true, a free market of money (including "counterfeiting") would permit the competition between the state and private banks for currency. The fact that domestic coin has national monopoly in transactions then shows the use of force, in making the state's money a monopoly over others'. Some banks even disallow it's creditors to invest in crypto, since this divests from the cash flows of a balance account. So, the monopoly of money is itself a tactic to extract public rents (e.g. taxation).

Taxes are the price of admission into society. Hating taxes for the sake of hating taxes makes you retarded and unfit for civil society.

I am a sissified white male.

>>824738
There are millions of people who pay no taxes, yet receive money from those who do pay taxes - are net negative contributors to society (e.g. tax contributors) less civilised than otherwise? If one pays more taxes than another person, is their civility measured by this?

No, because they (are supposed to) service the working class. Don't forget that some welfare can actually make a profit, with public schooling being the best example for it. Free healthcare can also save money by preventing overcharging and making the workforce much healthier. And social safety nets help people refind a job when becoming unemployed.

The key here is to contribute to the workers back in some way.

>>824746
>Taxes are supposed to service the working class
What on earth are you blathering about?
Taxes throughout history have mostly served the ends of war.
The 16th century "poor relief" was for the unemployed, the same as today, not workers - and if workers pay into the system, and it is returned in another fashion, then it's someone stealing from you and then giving you back your own money with a discount on it.
>Free healthcare
It's not "free"; it's taxed.
>social safety nets help people refind a job
So would you say that someone who has been unemployed for over a year is exploiting tax-payers by not actually finding employment?
>contribute to the workers back
Who do you think is paying taxes in the first place?

my employer doesn't use my surplus value to build the roads and pavements i use

>>824778
Does he use them to build nukes or start wars in the midde-east

people have been complaining about taxes for millenia yet no ones ever come up with an alternative way to structure society

>>824810
We dont need taxes under communism retard

>>824812
Then how do you fund public services?

>>824812
marx disagreed. how else will you maintain a complex industrial society?

>>824810
Would you then admit that all governments are based on hypocrisy?
They tell you not to steal, yet they steal from people?

>>824815
how is it stealing?

>>824816
Because if you don't give "the government" your money they lock you in a cage.

>>824813
>>824814
So whats a reasonable amount to take from workers?

>>824821
My personal preference is not an income tax, but a sales tax.
This was also implemented in the Soviet Union.
50% VAT in the UK would cover over the revenue of income tax.

>>824823
Wouldnt work in a economy thats not entirely controlled by the state and since the state already deciced the prices of everything that vat tax doesnt really matter

>>824826
What do you mean?
A sales tax is a tax put on distributors and offset onto consumers.
In the UK, VAT is currently 20% meaning that if an item has a price of £1 in manufacturing, it will have a £1.20 in retail. I am suggesting to raise the price to £1.50, which would easily be affordable due to the workers having more money - by abolishing income tax. What's good about a sales tax too is that it targets everybody, so isn't dividing. For example, the upper margin of sales tax revenues come from luxury spending; so the rich also pay into it, at the same rate. In the US, some advocates call it a "fair tax"; a federal sales tax of 21%. Rousseau in his "Essay on Political Economy" (1755) also called sales taxes the most liberal taxes (while poll taxes are the most illiberal - income taxes not existing in Europe at that time, but which are comparable to poll taxes). If you want to look at numbers, here are some stats:
<Income Tax: £327.8bn
<VAT: £180.7bn
https://www.friendpartnership.com/hmrc-tax-receipts-2025-26-a-quick-summary
So, if we increase VAT by 250% we get £450bn in tax receipts, and with added spending, you get over £500bn in projected figures.
>>824827
It's very easy to raise VAT.

>>824833
wouldnt that decrease consumption though?

>>824833
The problem with this is prices would increase massively meaning the same amount of tax income from vat would have significantly less purchasing power than from income tax for the state meaning they would overall end up with less money

>>824836
Not to mention the average person would lose more money on the cost of products than they would gain from not having to pay income tax

>>824834
No, since people would have more income.
In the UK, your income is taxed past the threshold of £13,000 at a rate of 20% until £50–125k at 40% and then £125k+ at 45%.
>>824836
If people consume at the same rate, VAT would receive more than income tax currently receives in total. I am expecting consumption to increase even further, however.
>>824837
Not true at all.
VAT is already at 20% so it's not a big cost, yet it is a massive gain.

>>824838
The average person in the uk would earn around 460 more pounds a month at the cost of everything raising prices by 35%

>>824838
thats assuming people are consuming at the same rate and thus tax income increases linearly.
higher prices = less consumption = less income from taxation

>>824840
The 35% increse in rent food gas and everything else would more than eat away at 490£ meaning the average person would end up with less purchasing power than they do now.

>>824844
The price increase would have to be less than the income gained from no income tax which for the majority of the populace it would not be.
A high consumption tax but no income tax would end up only benefiting the rich in general

>>824840
>£460/month
Actually, since the median income is £33,000 and so the median income tax is £6,600, it would be £540/month extra, and prices would be raised 25% not 35%.
>>824844
If you give people more money, they spend it, they don't save it.
>>824845
Landlords do not charge VAT in the UK.
There are different exemptions currently put on food and drink too:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114
So you can scale things however you like.
>purchasing power
Again, I am working with the controlled statistic that consumption is at the same rate, which thus grants people £6,600 more per year. If we then cut £6,600 by 25% we get £5,000. So, that's £5,000 extra in total.
>>824847
How? As I have explained, the upper margin of VAT currently comes from luxury spending. If instead of paying £1,200,000 you were to pay £1,500,000 (which you can afford by having no income tax), the state would receive £300,000 more, which cuts into the rich, at the same rate.

>>824851
>If you give people more money, they spend it, they don't save it.
but thats assuming theyd have money to spend in the first place. poor people spend more income on consumption proportionally than rich people do, the vast majority of what they earn is spent, which means that price increases will effect them a lot more

>>824853
There are more lower earners than high earners, so that's the way it's going to work out anyway. For example, 75% of all income tax payers earn between £13,000–50,000 and 20% earn £50,000–£125,000:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/income-tax-liabilities-statistics-tax-year-2022-to-2023-to-tax-year-2025-to-2026/summary-statistics
>>824856
>youd have to raise it to 61%
But these exemptions are already factored into my account.
Where are you getting this 61% number?
>That extra 5k won't be enough to cover the costs of all the price increases under a 60% vat.
It's 50%, and how are you calculating this?
What is a VAT rate which wouldn't decrease consumption?

I don't live in the UK, but I'm so poor I don't even pay any income tax where I reside, so it would just fuck me over