It seems to be an iron law of civilisation: A state must tax it citizens.

But must it really? Is taxation inevitable? I don't think so.

Let's have a look at the churches. In the U.S. they are funded through donations alone - and most of them do not have financial problems. Other the churches in Germany: Although they are funded by their own church tax (that is added to your normal tax by law if you are member of a church) they have big financial problems. So it is proven that taxation is not the solution to financial problems.

Why do we not forget all taxes and finance the state through donations, too? I know that all politicians will object because they love nothing more than other people's money. Because if we really would forbid taxation and finance the state through donations alone, what would be the biggest difference compared to the present situation? Correct: The politicians would really have to do what the citizens want. At last we would have a democracy that rightfully would be called so.

What do you think?

__________________
The left way never can be the right one.

Nevermind that churches are also exempt from a lot of taxes (if not all...I'm not sure). That certainly lowers their overall costs.

I think taxes are necessary. Things like road maintenance, airports, etc. don't pay for themselves. Other things like sanitation need to be taxed too (especially in my neck of the woods, where white trashlings would rather blow their money on rims and bling, than hiring a private sanitation company).

Now, do I think ALL taxes are necessary? Absolutely not. However, I know human nature, and there are some things (few) that must be paid for, involuntarily if they are to be paid for at all.

You could finance roads etc. by toll - but you did not get my point: I am convinced that a state that would not tax its citizens would and could be financed by donations.

__________________
The left way never can be the right one.

And you're right. It's not inevitable. Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes during his administration, and except for the temporary taxes levied during the War of 1812, America was tax free from 1800 to 1860. And that was the original intent of the Constitution, as clarified by Madison in Federalist 45, that the powers of the federal government were few and defined and that its revenue was to come solely from tariff revenue. Internal taxation was meant only as a temporary measure for emergencies.


"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawA...rsDoctrine.htm


Tariffs are definitely the lesser of two evils if the only other choice is internal taxation, because they do not tax the citizens directly. In other words, if people choose to do business solely within their country and within their neighborhood, they need not ever see a tax collector.

Having said all that, I do believe that the government could be supported by voluntary user fees after all is said and done, and we should certainly experiment with such a system at some point in the future, after we've done away with all internal taxation and are relying on tariffs.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The Commucrats would LOVE that. Think, for a minute, who would be doing the donating. It would be no one but corporations and the wealthy. Exactly the two entities that the Commucrats hate the most.

Envision, for a minute, what we would have.... The "Coors Silver Bullet" mass transit system? The Social Services Center...brought to you by Monster.com? I know! The "Capital One" State Capitol!

In a perfect utopian society, where everyone willfully donates "their share" of taxes, yeah...it could work. However, I'm holding fast with the "selfish redneck" scenario. There are just way too few people who would donate.

Now....if you INCENTIVISED it.... Maybe give each American citizen an extra vote in the elections, for every $500 they donate to the state, then maybe you're on to something. That would work well anyway, since I'd much rather see those who contribute to society have more of a say in government, than the dregs who only sponge off society.

I think our enemies would love your solution. No taxes.

Let the military work off of donations.

In a capitalist society, greed is good. Self interest is what leads to profits.

What % of Americans seeking profits, would not contribute to the national defense in hopes that others would. And they would use their monetary advantage to increase their own wealth?

Soo many that national defense would suffer and our enemies could take us over?

To answer your question.

If you want to live like cavemen where you are the slave of another more powerful country.

Then yes taxes are not nessasary.

If however, you like living in the smartest, most technologically advanced, military power house, freedom of expression, pursuit of happiness society.. then the answer is Yes, taxes are a MUST. You MUST have them.

Hope that helps.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Donations from people kind enough to do so could never come even close to the amount needed to run a government. People just aren't that willing to part with their money.
Another problem arises with a government funded by donations: the amount of money the government gets is proportional to how much the people currently support the government. If we were to switch to donations right now, law enforcement, defense, immigration enforcement, passport issuing, etc. will simply stop. Not because of lack of public support for those procedures, but for lack of public support of the War in Iraq. It simply wouldn't make sense.

A tax by any other name...

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...tionkill-1.jpg

You don't happen to have any links to back up your heresay, do ya Chief?