mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The countries that don't have income taxes usually run on tourism or oil profits, or you have to be wealthy to live there.
@Shaul
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The countries that don't have income taxes usually run on tourism or oil profits, or you have to be wealthy to live there.
So? The more salient point is that they have good relations with their neighbors which eliminates the need for a military. The elimination for the need for taxes to support a military is real.
I was pointing out Alien826's nubulous use of the word. It was not of myself.You are not a we and neither am I. Yet you start with a "we"? and end with doing the same.
And I believe all or most of them still have other forms of taxes, such as sales tax, etc.The countries that don't have income taxes usually run on tourism or oil profits, or you have to be wealthy to live there.
So? Not taxes. As I wrote.
I was pointing out Alien826's nubulous use of the word. It was not of myself.
So? Not taxes. As I wrote.
Um, the definition I provided was the only one under the word ""theft". The exception could be to use the word metaphorically.Um, actually it is both a legal and a moral or ethical term. As the definition you provided shows. A crime may or may not be codified in law. You are equating lowercase "law" with uppercase "Law". The former is an imperfect man made construct the latter is the ideal archetype of the concept.
ONE MORE TIME(!) Taxation is a spectrum, not an absolute. Arguing for the perfect against the possible is absurd. Reducing taxes is still possible even if the total elimination of taxes isn't.And I believe all or most of them still have other forms of taxes, such as sales tax, etc.
IOW, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."-- and collect $.
ONE MORE TIME(!) Taxation is a spectrum, not an absolute. Arguing for the perfect against the possible is absurd. Reducing taxes is still possible even if the total elimination of taxes isn't.
And all governments have wasteful spending too. So what? As I have written multiple times. There are alternatives to taxes for funding government operations. I never wrote that taxes could be eliminated completely. Stop arguing a straw man case.And all countries are like them.
And all governments have wasteful spending too. So what? As I have written multiple times. There are alternatives to taxes for funding government operations. I never wrote that taxes could be eliminated completely. Stop arguing a straw man case.
I think you're very confused as I never said otherwise.ONE MORE TIME(!) Taxation is a spectrum, not an absolute.
Of course.Reducing taxes is still possible even if the total elimination of taxes isn't.
Yet countries like Saudi Arabia, Bermuda and the Bahamas get by with no income taxes. Also the United States had no income tax for most of its history. History indeed.
I have paid for the paving of my own roads privately. Also there are many private, non-government supported, roads. They are called toll roads.
No doubt these countries have other sources of income. For Saudi Arabia it's oil. Maybe it's tourism for the other two. As I said that's still taking money that could be allocated to individuals and putting it to government uses. I don't have a problem with that, but it seems that you are just objecting to the word "taxation".
It is one part. The point is that a society can take constructive actions to reduce and/or eliminate their need for a military. And that in so doing they reduce or eliminate the need for taxes to support military expenditures. The point is still valid that the argument that taxes are a necessity because there is such a thing as a military is false.Erm... It is not just being in a good relationship with your neighbors. It is having neighbors armed to the teeth that will come for your aid if the need arises. Otherwise, someone from far away may come around and claim your land just as easily.
It is one part. The point is that a society can take constructive actions to reduce and/or eliminate their need for a military. And that in so doing they reduce or eliminate the need for taxes to support military expenditures. The point is still valid that the argument that taxes are a necessity because there is such a thing as a military is false.
No problem. Simply don't use them and you don't pay for them either. But someone taxed to pay for roads is given no such choice. One is voluntary, the other taxes, is not.Yeah, I object to toll roads and private roads.
Which country does not have taxation? You said there were several...The use of taxation by governments is a spectrum, not a binary state of use/non-use. So your question of where it is "completely irrelevant" isn't answerable. It would be like asking for an economy that is completely free-market. I have previously listed some of the alternative methods for financing government operations. The point is that a society decides how much taxation it permits. There is no universal minimum required amount of taxation.