Why does the government need to collect taxes?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Entium

This isn't really true. The Swiss National Bank eg. is autonomous of the Swiss government. It sets its own inflation target (an interest rate range) and is actually working like a real company (make huge benefit). There is empirical evidence, that the more independent central banks are, the more continous inflation is.
And this isn't actually off-topic, because as long a country has by constitution an 'independent' central bank, it cannot print money for seignorage purposes.

so is the ECB, isnt it? there isnt even a single goverment that could influence them.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

they are autonomous, at least they are somewhat independent of the goverment, which is all that im talking about.

Not here they aren't.

The Lord High Chancellor (who appoints judges) is a government minister.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Not here they aren't.

The Lord High Chancellor (who appoints judges) is a government minister.

but they decide based on the laws, not on what the goverment wants, dont they?

[Entium]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Saving money wouldn't be a problem because the central bank's rate of interest would be set slightly above or slightly below (depending on whether the bank wants you to spend money or not) the inflation rate.

I doubt this. Most central banks use the interest rate to adjust money supply today. If they suddenly changed to a money-printing-supply, the interest rate adjustment instrument wouldn't be available any more. Central banks cannot adjust both the interest rate and the money supply out of printed money. Sure, the bank could print more money and bring it into circulation (which isn't done quite easy, as the central bank has to sell other currencies/gold...), but the interest rate would constantly drop and eventually the bank wouldn't have enough foreign currencies to trade them.

In fact, the real interest rate under hyperinflation would be 0, if not negativ (Fisher-equation).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

but they decide based on the laws, not on what the goverment wants, dont they?

Who makes the law?

(ok technically common law is made by precedent and stuff, but you know what I mean)

[Entium]

Against a background of both historical experience and the evolution of the policy debate, central bank independence has in many countries become the preferred means of providing an institutional framework for monetary policy. Reflecting this growing consensus, the Maastricht Treaty enshrines the independent status of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the EU national central banks - which together form the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) - as a bulwark for ensuring that the future euro area benefits from price stability.

More about the topic here.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who makes the law?

(ok technically common law is made by precedent and stuff, but you know what I mean)

yes, but its one thing to change laws and another to have a goverment that takes all decisions directly.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

yes, but its one thing to change laws and another to have a goverment that takes all decisions directly.

I don't really see how, except in a practical sense.

Judges have to decide cases on what the law says, and if the government wants them to decide differently it just changes the law.

Granted, it's a more indirect control of the courts than simply having all cases decided by the Cabinet, but it's not as if judges just make up their own minds about what the law should be without outside interference, which is what "autonomous" would mean to me.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I don't really see how, except in a practical sense.

Judges have to decide cases on what the law says, and if the government wants them to decide differently it just changes the law.

Granted, it's a more indirect control of the courts than simply having all cases decided by the Cabinet, but it's not as if judges just make up their own minds about what the law should be without outside interference, which is what "autonomous" would mean to me.

strange, and i learned that especially in your anglo-saxon area courts are more independent than here and sometimes make their decision based on what other courts decided in equal cases before (dont know the english word for that) and not always based directly on laws.
other than that there always is some form of constitution (even if its not writen down) which influences the courts decisions and cant be changed that easily.

anyway, we are getting somewhat off topic. indirectly the goverment can controll everything

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

strange, and i learned that especially in your anglo-saxon area courts are more independent than here and sometimes make their decision based on what other courts decided in equal cases before (dont know the english word for that) and not always based directly on laws.

Only when there are no laws specifically saying what they have to do, which is happening far less often nowadays, with laws being passed to cover everything. If other courts have convicted people hundreds of times before for a particular crime and Parliament has just passed a law saying it's not illegal, the judge has no choice but to acquit someone accused of it.

Oh, and the word you're looking for is "precedent".

Originally Posted by wu_trax

other than that there always is some form of constitution (even if its not writen down) which influences the courts decisions and cant be changed that easily.

Nope. We are sometimes said to have an "unwritten constitution" (not actually unwritten, just not one big document or law, but a collection of things), but it's not really a constitution in the normal sense of the word. It can be changed simply by passing a law, and there is no legal recourse if something is "unconstitutional", as that term is just used to mean something that goes against precedent and normal practice, and has no legal basis.

[wu_trax]

makes it even more time for a european constitution then

[ChubbyChecker]

Having a national constitution is a dumb idea, a european one is even dumber!

Though that's not the topic so I'll say no more

[JammyJim]

Right heres my 'arguements against'

1. Multiplying factor :

When injecting money into an economy the total is multiplyed as it is spent over and over again within the economy so predicting inflation is difficult at best.

2. Trade

How can you possibly trade things when the price of such goods varies on a daily basis. Presuming this system was adopted by all major western powers the international trading system would be thrown into anarchy. It would take cray supercomputers to even begin to try to unravel what should be sold to who for what price and when.

3. Money saved

Any savings would be wiped out killing off most of the elderly population....same with pension plans...

4. Hyper Inflation

Look at Germany pre WW2. I dont particularly want to have to collect wages in a wheelbarrow worth more at the end of the day than the money thats inside it.

5. Other countries.

In countries where it costs 20million of X to purchase a loaf of bread western 'hard' currency is sought after. In most third world nations purchasing in dollars and sterling is wanted more than their own domestic currency because people can rely on the fact that itll be worth something in less than a weeks time.
Using your example, wages would have to be paid and spend almost immediately or theyd be worth fk all after only a few days. You wouldnt be able to 'hold' the money unless you converted it to another hard currency which as was mentioned would lead to an 'opt out' system.


6. Commies (argh)

Surely this ideal points towards the communist ideal of no money whatsoever. We all work for mutual benefit and dont require monetary reward because if everyone does better then everyone can have anything they want....
Surely using the very same example you could get the government to purchase everyone a new car, house and computing equipment. Equipping the entire nation with high tech advancements which in theory could rocket power educational development in the long term....(woohoo)


7. Past history...

In cases where this has been 'tried' ( i cant be bothered to cite them but im sure its been tried before) people turned to more fundamental bartering techniques of 'ye olde' system. I.e. ill give you 2 pigs for your cow...
It would drive economic advancement backwards to a time that was far more simple. People require stability.

Business cannot operate without some semblance of 'projected value' and earnigs. Due to the fact that in every capitalist society there remain elements of communist 'planning'...i.e. a company will PLAN to purchase 1000 computers next year and then sell 20,000 pieces of software etc. This planning process becomes totally untenable when the primary instrument of negotiation becomes defunct due to its constantly changing value. So infact the economy wouldnt just experience hyper inflation...it may even stop functioning in terms we see today.



The reason money is money is that its evolved to a state whereby its a trusted source of negotiating power that is stable. Everyone wants money. Not everyone has it. Its value changes very little per year in real terms and as a result its stability is a sign of its strenghth. When currency becomes unstable people look elsewhere to gain stability back. ITs pointless dreaming of £1,000,000 one day and then thinking 'wait a mo...itll only buy me a mars bar...' the next.

Erm tbh its been awhile since ive done Economics but these are just some of the reasons why. I could always fetch some old notes i made on why inflation and overblown deficit spending (in theory at least) is a really really bad thing but it would require driving home and looking through old essays....


p.s. some of what ive said might be utter bs but ive written this on the fly so to speak...

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

makes it even more time for a european constitution then

If it were a good idea to unite Europe (which it isn't), then it would probably be a good idea to have a written constitution. However, the current proposed constitution is just rubbish.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

If it were a good idea to unite Europe (which it isn't), then it would probably be a good idea to have a written constitution. However, the current proposed constitution is just rubbish.

and why is that?

[at0mic.c0w]

the concept of inflation:

if we assume a currency that is not backed by a pile of gold in some bunker where is the actual connection between the government printing more money and my bank notes losing value ?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

the concept of inflation:

if we assume a currency that is not backed by a pile of gold in some bunker where is the actual connection between the government printing more money and my bank notes losing value ?

there is more money in circulation, but there arent more goods. because everyone wnats everything this results in rising prices.

[at0mic.c0w]

ah i see

EDIT: now that my coffee starts to kick in i feel a bit silly for asking

[JammyJim]

unlimited wants vs scarcity of resources.

[EeewocK]

hello

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and why is that?

It's just awful - it's far too long for a start, is far too much of a compromise deal and so doesn't really say anything useful, and is written (at least the English version is) in legalese. If I wanted a united Europe, I wouldn't want a constitution that talked about "legal personality" and nonsense like that - I'd want one that laid out simply and clearly what my rights were, what the government could do, and what the government could not do, and I can't see anyone needing 200 pages (or whatever absurd length it is) to write that down.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Proteus

It's just awful - it's far too long for a start, is far too much of a compromise deal and so doesn't really say anything useful, and is written (at least the English version is) in legalese. If I wanted a united Europe, I wouldn't want a constitution that talked about "legal personality" and nonsense like that - I'd want one that laid out simply and clearly what my rights were, what the government could do, and what the government could not do, and I can't see anyone needing 200 pages (or whatever absurd length it is) to write that down.

its european, compromises is what we do.
sure, we could have reduced it to the basic fundamental rights (like freedom of speech and so on), but everyone already has these rights guranteed in one form or another anyway.
(and the length, well, thats a european thing aswell, who else would need more than 30 pages to specify how to define an enviromental-friendly office lamp? )

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

(like freedom of speech and so on), but everyone already has these rights guranteed in one form or another anyway.

Yeah, unless you're denying the holocaust, right?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, unless you're denying the holocaust, right?

lets not get started on that again. (see article 5 (2) of our constitution if you care that much. i cant translate it into legal english and i dont have any english translation available right now)

[Dante Hicks]

Article 5 (Freedom of expression).
(1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.

[Nodrog]

"right to inviolability of personal honor."

hahahahaha

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Article 5 (Freedom of expression).
(...) by the right to inviolability of personal honor.(...)

thanks, they are dead, but still i dont think you respect their personal honour if you deny the crime that killed them.

[Dante Hicks]

It's illegal to insult someone's mother in Germany.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

thanks, they are dead, but still i dont think you respect their personal honour if you deny the crime that killed them.

They have no personal honour. How can you respect or disrespect this?

[Dante Hicks]

More seriously though, I find the statement "You have the right to free speech" followed by "These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws" to make the whole thing kind of worthless.

[Nodrog]

A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country's wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency - so today, one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated 'rights' that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these 'printing press rights' negate authentic rights

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

More seriously though, I find the statement "You have the right to free speech" followed by "These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws" to make the whole thing kind of worthless.

whats so bad about that? the point is what these general laws are.
anyway, lets not get into this. you now know what that article says. i can live with it, you cant, but you dont live here.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

whats so bad about that? the point is what these general laws are.
anyway, lets not get into this. you now know what that article says. i can live with it, you cant, but you dont live here.

My main point was that you were making the point that freedom of speech was well protected anyway, and it's certainly not (to my satisfaction at least).

p.s. This whole personal honour thing is just an excuse so slander / libel laws can exist.

[wu_trax]

so you value the right of freedom of speech higher than the right of the individual?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so you value the right of freedom of speech higher than the right of the individual?

The right of the individual to censor anyone?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

That is nothing like what he said, but also that question doesn't make any sense, surely freedom of speech is one of the rights of the individual genius.

so to you its ok to say / publish every lie, insult, general crap about someone, no matter how much damage that does to that individual?

[Evergreen]

OK let me get this right.

In this thread Nodrog assume on a ridiculous scale that the methods used by the goverment to tax people is vastly inefficient.

Nodrog ignores the vast computational assistance on hand to administer the processing of taxing millions of people. Given that we place a lot of the costs of figuring out your taxes in the hands of the taxed people themselves with the self-assessment forms and accountants that businesses hire, that would further lower the costs. Also add to that the amount of fines that can be administered when it is discovered that you have error'd in your taxes that makes up a lot of finances too as the world in large is vastly incompetent.

I think Nod largely underestimates the costs and resources involved on a goverment funded scale in accquirring taxes and how frequently it is accquired, compared to the revenue's generated.

End of. Pointless discussion.

(also given that this infrastructure has been in place for years, I could only merit his hyper-inflation argument on the merit that it was a new country and a new goverment with no infrastructure already in place and no immediately skilled workers or established base to recruit from. In other words if only everyone in entirity was incompetent and even then if that was true none of them would understand inflation etc etc.)

[Dante Hicks]

Nodrog ignores the vast computational assistance on hand to administer the processing of taxing millions of people. Given that we place a lot of the costs of figuring out your taxes in the hands of the taxed people themselves with the self-assessment forms and accountants that businesses hire

I'd say that costs placed on business (i.e. the need for large numbers of accountants) is an argument in favour of Nodrog's change, not against.

[Evergreen]

His argument was how was it profitable for the GOVERMENT to collect taxes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

His argument was how was it profitable for the GOVERMENT to collect taxes.

No it wasn't. Clearly it's "profitable" for the government to collect taxes. It's merely an issue of efficiency. Scrapping taxation, he's arguing, would raise efficiency.

I think it's fairly appropriate to consider efficiency across the board, not just to government. Besides, the costs of tax enforcement/collection are hardly trivial. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise employ a fair number of people between them (admittedly no figures to hand).

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

More seriously though, I find the statement "You have the right to free speech" followed by "These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws" to make the whole thing kind of worthless.

That's basically what the Human Rights Act says - "everyone has the right to X (except if the law says otherwise)".

It's a pretty worthless piece of legislation if you ask me.

[Nodrog]

It isnt profitable for the government to collect taxes. What are they actually getting when they do so?

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This isnt a moral question regarding taxation, just a practical one. The process of actually collecting taxes must cost an astronomical amount; for instance the cost of hiring thousands of people to process things, chasing people up, bureaucracy, and everything else. So why does the government actually bother doing it? I mean, its fallacious to say that the money collected by the government through taxes actually 'funds' the programs.

No it wasn't Dante.

IT was about the costs in relation to goverment costs and that he implied that most of the taxes that the goverment collects is reinvested into collecting taxes which is unproven.

I once again state that Nodrog hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of these 'astronomical' costs other than pretending that they are their.

In otherwords I am arguing that there aren't astronomical costs at the same level that nod arguing there is.

What you generally accept is not neccessarily true, as of yet.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

IT was about the costs in relation to goverment costs and that he implied that most of the taxes that the goverment collects is reinvested into collecting taxes which is unproven.

Huh? You got that from what he said? I didn't.

The UK government raises about £300-£400bn per annum. I don't think anyone would claim it costs more than £150bn to raise taxes. The issue is how efficient taxation is compared to an alternate system of government spending/revenue raising.

Nodrog : Most protection rackets are "profitable". I have no idea where we're getting terms like Profit though, since that applies to private enterprise not public bodies.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

No it wasn't Dante.

IT was about the costs in relation to goverment costs and that he implied that most of the taxes that the goverment collects is reinvested into collecting taxes which is unproven.

That wasnt what I meant. I claimed it was fallacious to claim that tax money 'funds' programs because the government, by definition, has access to an unlimited amount of money whether taxation occurs or not. People lose money to the government and programs take place, but that doesnt mean that the money lost 'funds' the programs in any real sense of the word. Currency has value because the government has decreed it to be so, and there is no reason why the government cant produce all the money it requires, when it requires it (in a sense it does this anyway through defecit spending and such like).

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It isnt profitable for the government to collect taxes. What are they actually getting when they do so?

I got it from what he said and further he's reinforced it as well, it must be being scottish and what not that allows me to interpret what he is saying in a manner you couldn't.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I got it from what he said and further he's reinforced it as well, it must be being scottish and what not that allows me to interpret what he is saying in a manner you couldn't.

OK, well I still dont' see where profit comes into this. Profit is where revenue exceeds costs which is irrelevent from a government point of view (and purely looking at cost of collection vs revenue raised, taxation is staggeringly profitable).

If we're generous and say taxes cost £30bn to raise (in the UK), this would make the UK government's operation the most profitable enterprise in the UK by a large margin.

[Evergreen]

Right then so our current tax system more than adequately funds the process it takes to get funds and therefore generates the neccessary revenue needed to fund other things (what I had called profit, my apologies for misleading you). So in the end this was what was needed argued instead of being distracted by the hypothetical benefits of a hyper-inflation taxless economy.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Everything's underfunded.