Anarchists: can there be compromise on taxes?
Now, I am actually somewhat leaning towards anarchism, but also a little bit towards liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. I am somewhat divided on the issue of taxation, mostly income tax.
What I mean is, I think it is beyond unfair that billionaires can be charged 90% of their income. It's just wrong. Especially while some can be exempt from taxes just because they work minimum wage and sometimes higher. What I think should happen is a tithing system them only takes 5 or 10% of one's income. Either that or just collect revenue through things like minimal sales tax.
Maybe there should be free healthcare, but have sales tax on things like drink and cigarettes so that they can stay legal without causing problems to the healthcare system.
I really want to have a proper debate on these things, so please reply, especially anarchists. I want to know if you guys think a compromise can work. Thanks for any feedback.
Compromise on using the force of government to compel payment? I wouldn't consciously be ok with compromise on that. It's basically mob theft.
Or maybe even have voluntary donations? Even if it didn't work, it would highlight that people aren't okay with being forced to pay and wouldn't do so if not not for force.
I like the voluntary donations idea, just like the old testament had with one levite per ten families
Or there could be a sort of charity type thing for courts, prisons, and child protection services and the like because I don't think they should be put into the private sector. Same with schools because having free schools guarantees equality of opportunity.
And tithing is voluntary, so improper use of the word.
Was tithing not the system the church used in medieval times to take one tenth of one's crop? A non-voluntay system?
Tithing per the scripture isn't compulsory. People fled England because the government nd the state were in cahoots and took away nonstate religious freedom. Just because government misuses a biblical term doesn't mean that the definition changes.
thanks for the clarification
Saw this a while back on steemit.
Great example of what happens when the government gets involved to "help" the people.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I do wholeheartedly agree that government help should only be used in the worst cases of poverty. Something like homelessness is one of, if not the only, case that government should intervene in, other than things like roads, schools, and foreign policy.
Taxation is theft.