A couple months back, I worked this little comment up,
https://voat.co/v/whatever/3120282/17644756
It only contains 100 different taxes that we have to pay, there’s actually more, though.
Anyways; I’m not talking about ending some of the taxes, I’m asking the people that think ending taxes in its entirety would work.
A few questions right off the bat would be,
How could you maintain a military presence if no one is paying for them?
Who would maintain the infrastructure without anyone paying someone to do so?
How would scientific research still be viable without government grants?
How would physical money be distributed and/or created (assuming the end of the federal reserve)?
Also a few things that people might not even care about, but I still think are valid questions,
Who would be responsible for construction/safety inspections?
Who would be responsible for food inspections?
How would the ownership of land work if there isn’t a federal/local government keeping track and settling disputes?
Really looking for genuine answers here - so keep that in mind... please.
cyclops1771 ago
Roads: Building - you issue construction bonds, and enact tolls to use them until the bond is paid off. Make sure the bond sales also sets up a maintenance fund that would sit for 10-30 years gaining interest until the bond is paid off with the tolls - the faster the bonds are paid off, the faster the road becomes free to use. You then have road repair funds to maintain said road. You also could just get people to create their own by renting a bulldozer and a grader. neighborhoods could join up, and issue bonds themselves, sell lemonade, etc to cover the cost of a mile or two.
Military. Don't need it. An armed populace is free and unconquerable. If you really feel bad about it, require 16-50 serve in a local militia 1 weekend a month. Raise money for more lethal weaponry through fundraising events, bond issues, or donations. Hell yeah, we got ourselves a Tank, boys!!!
Coast Guard - same as militia. But, can also have cutters paid for through port/dock fees and customs fines.
Construction inspections, etc. - Paid for through violation fines and fees for variances to the building code. Require new buildings to pay for an inspection, just like when you buy a house. Tenants would pay for the inspectors.
Food inspections - Again, if needed, paid for through violations. Usually not needed, and does anyone actually think that they do anything worthwhile? How many shows have you seen where the kitchen is disgustingly dirty and not up to code?
Scientific research - government grants are a relatively new phenomenon - mid 50's, maybe? (Read Big Science by Michael Hiltzik if interested in how this came about.) Private donors and grants and patrons worked great for centuries. Also, profit motive is a big key for R&D. Again, could raise funds through charities, issue bonds or stock offerings, or simply beg rich people to fund you.
Police - no need. Have a county sheriff office - again, paid for through fines and violations. Jail time reserved for violent crimes only. Convicts would work on roads and other labor actions that need it in order to reduce their toll on society and would earn money through their work to pay for their own incarceration and food.
County deed offices would still exist, and would be paid for by filing and recording fees, notarizations, and contract validation requests.
Courts would work the same way - paid for through fines and filing fees. No need for big courthouses, judges would travel the county and provide courts at each village or sheriff office.
Schools would be paid for via each city/village and by tutelage fees. You have a kid, that kid pays a bit for the schoolmaster. No need to have giant buildings
TestForScience ago
Damn...That was a good, well thought out answer.
Your first point about the roads is actually something that sounds like it could work right out of the box too.
The inspectors, sheriff, county office, and courts one still gets me, though.
The issue I have with them circles back around to the money - while your fee based system makes perfect sense in theory, what do they do for money during the times that there aren't people building new houses, or requiring any sort of official paperwork overall? It seems like it could be a major issue in small towns as well as big cities; small towns having extended periods of no new construction - and a large city, which could potentially require a lot of staff, if there's even a relatively small amount of time where there's no work for them, they'd have 0 income, which could be very bad, very quickly, for a place that has a lot of people that need to be paid.
cyclops1771 ago
Why does it have to be a full time job for the "official" side?
The local house inspector who hires on with private people to inspect houses so they don't but a POS would also be available to the "official" side to do the inspection for the zoning commission, or the builder or whoever. If an error occurs, the inspector, as well a the builder, are liable, to avoid corruption.
Right now, we hire a bunch of people to do the "official" job, to cover the job, plus sick time. plus vacation, plus leave, plus pensions, plus benefits/health care, etc. so we end up paying 150% or more than we should for the same job that we could pay piecemeal.
And we only need to pay those extra costs because of the high taxes to begin with. If everyone took home 100% of their pay, these fees and benefits wouldn't be needed to be covered. People could cover them easily themselves.
Personally, I have zero issue with county taxation. County maintain roads are the cornerstone of the community. The county sheriff is the cornerstone of community safety and policing. It's not about incarceration, it;s about getting home safely. IN the cities, each neighborhood needs to step up and do their part.
There will always be corruption, the question is, do you want the local precinct captain being corrupt with the $100k budget they have, or do you want a Senator or Cabinet member being corrupt with a few hundred billion $? Which is more likely to cause serious harm, and which is more likely to not be able to buy their way out of the fraud?
TestForScience ago
Putting it like that, it sounds a lot better, and far more doable.
To put it as succinctly as possible, would you say that you're more of a supporter of micro-governments, as opposed to the anarcho-capitalists that deny taxation of any kind?
cyclops1771 ago
I mean, that was thw way of doing things for all of human history until the last century or two. It's not some radical idea, it's taking a step back and reassessing if the economies of scale that Adam Smith portrayed in The Wealth of Nations actually works when it comes to bureaucracy and government. it is simply my contention that it does not, again, simply becausre there is no motivation or incentive to be lean and mean and benefit from the economies of scale largeness brings.
In our case, it just brings bloat.
I don't know if I be a proponent of "micro-governments" - I'd probably need to get your definition of that - I just feel that county in the right size geographically - but when it comes to counties like Cook County, Fulton County, Harris County, etc. they probably need to be self-divided in order to provide a better experience. Not too much, or you end up with a balkanized system, where neighborhood fights with neighborhood, but allow SOME neighborhood autonomy, and not just have 6 million people be run by a 6 person city council.
It's a fine line of balancing between consistency in a county, and neighborhood priorities. The issues usually come up when you run into NIMBY and her sister ENVY. Someone has to take the shitty end of the stick, and someone seems to get the rosy end. And those nearer each end tend to get a little puckish when it comes to proximity to the shitty end. The difference as I see it is that compensation needs to be provided to those getting that shitty end as part of the agreement through no fault of their own - for example, a new horse smashing glue plant is going to be built, and because NIMBY, everyone want the jobs and industry, but no one wants it near their neighborhood. So, someone has to decide who gets the plant, and as part of putting that plant in, those neighbors should be involved in the negotiating with the horse smashing company to be compensated, within reason, for their loss of value and headache of dealing with all the horse smashing, aka the "smell of money." In lieu of "tax breaks" the neighborhood who asks for less compensation might get the plant.
I don;t think balkanizing government to the street level for everything is good, but each street level should have SOME say in their own lives - it's finding that balance that is the real key. Not having tax authority is a good start, because then you keep all levels in check, because they don't have the damn money to do whatever. (Aside - where I live has about 550 homes. For $650/year, we cover 60 hours of sheriff a week, we cover water infrastructure, road repair and cleaning, mosquito spraying, shared area maintenance and yard - entrance, clubhouse, boulevards - plus garbage pickup 2x a week, levee maintenance, leaf cleanup in the autumn, pump station for storm sewers, and fire protection. There is no way that $650 to the national government would provide so many services. They also enforce certain deed restrictions - like 40 year roof materials, unkempt yards and houses, and no gaudy colors.) I just think that smaller means more, I'm looking at it from a purely economic and benefit perspective.
SearchVoatBot ago
This submission was linked from this v/whatever submission by @virge.
Posted automatically (#40788) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
nothingoriginal ago
Taxes would have to substituted with something the rich could buy from government.
The military can be privatized while still being under government command. Infrastructure should be privatized. Abstract thought should be propriated. Anyone can issue banknotes; people don't compete because the Dollar is mostly stable and ubiquitous. Courts should handle codes not executive apparatus. They should also handle property disputes as they handle the rest of legal disputes. Parts of the court system could even be privatized.
TestForScience ago
When it comes to privatizing things, who would be paying them?
Like maintaining roads - one mile of paved highway is ~$1,000,000 (I don't know what repaving or chip & seal costs) who's paying that?
Critterz ago
The Value of building a road Changes completely. What it costs now under a system of taxes and regulations isn't comparable. Privatizing may make it Way cheaper in some areas of the country and just as expensive in others, would depend on the competitive nature of supply, and demand. As it should be.
nothingoriginal ago
Whatever government does, private industry can do 10x cheaper. The road's users will pay. Local roads would probably be used by the HOA. Regulation is not forbidden under such a system.
Corpse_washer ago
The one who wants a road there.