So basically...could taxes basically be replaced with putting money into circulation through the services government provides? (in other words, cut out the middleman)

HalfmetalAlchemist: 10-13-2011 at 12:55 PM
it could, i think it would make more sense...
0 0
Ithilwen: 10-13-2011 at 3:25 PM
Nope...
What cervices does the government provide, exactly? What if someone never uses them; how do they contribute?
I think taxing itself isn't a problem. The problem comes when you aren't taxed fairly.
1 0
Lich_Money: 10-13-2011 at 3:53 PM
Well, for one thing, if you've ever traveled on a road, that's a government service. In fact, railroads probably wouldn't be nearly as prominent as they are now if it weren't for the transcontinental railroad...education...and so forth.

And if someone never uses a service, they don't. But that isn't a detriment to anyone directly, and the government can always ax the service if enough people don't use it.

I agree with you, on the whole, about taxes. I was mostly thinking of this idea as a...
0 0
Lich_Money: 10-13-2011 at 3:54 PM
...way to satisfy the people who don't want "their money taken from them". Because, with this, that wouldn't happen. It wouldn't be theirs, because it would never pass through their hands. But the same end result of their being roads and the like is there.
0 0
Lich_Money: 10-13-2011 at 4:01 PM
I think the issue here is that you thought I was trying to make the argument that the two ideas are interchangeable (which I could). But I'm not, I'm actually proposing a different system. XD
0 0
Ithilwen: 10-13-2011 at 4:31 PM
It's not a bad idea. But if why get a different system when you can just alter the one already in place? For instance, a flat tax rather than graduated?
1 0
Lich_Money: 10-13-2011 at 4:37 PM
Because that might not get as much in the way of funds as, say a graduated tax. And, plus, there's no equivalent to "raising taxes", at least in the straight up ethics book.
0 1