Is taxation analogous to the typical purchase?

[Bust Nak]

I think it is, as I will attempt to demonstrate:

A grocery store provides bread I want; Government provides the police I want.
A grocery store also provides things I don't want but others do; Government provides things I don't want but others do.
The store sets the prices as it see fits; Government sets the tax rate as it see fits.
If I take the bread without paying I go to jail; If I benefit from police protection without paying I go to jail.
If I think the bread is bad value, I can either go without bread or go to a competitor; If I think tax is bad value, I can go live on international waters or I can emigrate.
The store takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things like stocking tobacco, that I will never use and morally opposed to; Government takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things I will never use or am morally opposed to.

Any differences are in the detail, broadly speaking the concepts are the same: a contract between two parties for the exchanging of goods and services for money.

[Bust Nak]

No, if the exchange rate is two apples to one potato, I can give you two apples and you give me one potato...

Where does borrowing/lending and interest even factor into this? You seem to be talking about something completely different.

Exchange rate has nothing to do with interest...

Then you ARE talking about something completely different. I claimed that borrowing and lending, when well regulated, lead to economic growth. I don't know how that lead to a tangent on exchange rate and bartering.

No, in a standard transaction nothing is taken. Both parties freely give without coercion or threat of force.

If buying stuff doesn't count as be coerced to pay, then why would taxation count as coercion?

Because if you do not pay taxes, the payment is confiscated anyway, with additional fees and penalties, or you are thrown in jail.

If you don't pay for the stuff you buy, the payment is confiscated anyway, with additional fees and penalties, or you are thrown in jail.

No, the government establishes the tax rate and the tax payer is fined and or imprisoned, if he does not comply.

Just as a seller establishes the price and the buyer is fined and or imprisoned, if he does not comply.

No, that is because in modern western societies a seller is bound by his offer, but the buyer is not. That is not a free market. That is a government imposed requirement.

What does the buyer not being bounded by his offer even mean? The buyer can agree on a price and then receive the good and not pay the seller?!

You were arguing that sellers advertise prices. Those advertised prices are binding because the government requires it. The buyer can refuse to pay a price he has previously stated, prior to the services being rendered or goods delivered.

Right, and that qualify as the seller setting the price in my book. The advertised prices is the prices, whether printed on a sticker on a product, or from the mouth of the seller just before a hand shake.

In a free market, you, as the buyer, establish the value to you when you make the offer. The buyer who makes the greatest offer determines the market value. If the seller values that item more than the greatest offer, the price is not established, it is just determined to be greater than the market value.

At best you are talking about an agreement on price between buyer and seller, how on Earth would you think to would qualify as the buyer determining the price?

It wouldn't until the transaction takes place. That is the point. The sellers advertised price is not the actual price, because it is possible that no one would buy it at that price. The actual price is the amount that the buyer actually pays.

In that sense the tax payer sets the tax rate. The actual tax rate is the amount that the tax payer actually pays.

If no buyer buys the goods, the offer is above the market price and the price has not been established. Therefore, the seller does not establish the price.

If no seller sells the good, the offer is below the market price and and the price has not been established. Therefore, the buyer does not establish the price.

When he does not make the purchase. When he tenders payment, he establishes the price.

In that sense when the tax payer tenders payment, he establishes the tax rate.

Even in modern western societies, the seller can lower the price. However, even that was illegal under the Roosevelt's WPA. However, when the buyer makes the purchase, the value for that particular item is established.

Just like taxation.

No, under taxation value is irrelevant. The government requires payment regardless of the value to the one taxed. There are those who argue that progressive taxation seeks to make the tax rate match the value to the one who is taxed. However, even that evaluation is in the hands of the government and not the tax payer.

In that sense under purchasing value is irrelevant. The seller requires payment regardless of the value to the one buying. In that sense that evaluation is in the hands of the seller and not the buyer.

Taxation is very different, because the buyer is forced to make the purchase, whether he wants to or not, and he is required to do so via a third party vendor who tells the buyer how much he is to pay.

You are not forced to make the purchase at all. You can go decide to pick a competitor's offer and emigrate, or you can go without and live on international waters. What you can't do, is enjoy the goods and services the government provide, without paying. Just like any other purchases.

You appear to be saying that one must abandon their property, if one does not agree to pay whatever the government requires for whatever the government supplies. How is that like any other purchase? Do you believe in private property rights, or do you see property ownership as a privilege provided by the government?

Nah, I am not saying that: you don't have to abandon your property to move, anymore than you have to abandon your car when you reject the asking prices of gas as too expensive. You can take you property brick by brick to your preferred competitor. What you DO have to abandon, are the goods and services provided by the government. Just like how you have to abandon the goods and services provided by any other provider when you aren't willing to pay.

Presuming that the government does have an interest in proper valuation, how would the government establish such valuation?

The same way a seller establish the price of his goods and services.

As I have stated earlier, the seller does not establish the actual price, but proposes a suggested price and the actual price is established, when a buyer, of his own free will without coercion, tenders payment. So, are you saying that taxes are mere suggestions and one is not obligated to pay them?

Only in the sense that the seller does not establish the actual price, but proposes a suggested price, yes.

What is valuable to the government? How does the government know what I value, let alone what that value of that is?

Buy guessing how much their customers are willing to pay in comparison to what the costs are.

How would they know what the customer is willing to pay, since the customer can be fined and/or imprisoned if he is unwilling to pay whatever it is that they may guess? Also, presuming the government were constrained to using that model, how would they determine the cost?

The same way any seller can find out what the customer willing to pay, even when the customer can be fined and/or imprisoned if he is unwilling to pay whatever it is that they may guess. Polls? The amount of new customers vs exiting customers? Market research? Any number of ways.

Also, presuming the government were constrained to using that model, how would they determine the cost?

By the price of their subcontractors, employee, suppliers and debtors are asking for.

[janavoss]

I think it is, as I will attempt to demonstrate:

A grocery store provides bread I want; Government provides the police I want.
A grocery store also provides things I don't want but others do; Government provides things I don't want but others do.
The store sets the prices as it see fits; Government sets the tax rate as it see fits.
If I take the bread without paying I go to jail; If I benefit from police protection without paying I go to jail.
If I think the bread is bad value, I can either go without bread or go to a competitor; If I think tax is bad value, I can go live on international waters or I can emigrate.
The store takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things like stocking tobacco, that I will never use and morally opposed to; Government takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things I will never use or am morally opposed to.

Any differences are in the detail, broadly speaking the concepts are the same: a contract between two parties for the exchanging of goods and services for money.

It's not quite the same because you have no negotiating power with the government.

If you think the bread is a bad value you can try to negotiate a better price; the government sets the price and there is no negotiating. Or, you can wait until the bread you want goes on sale for a price you are willing to pay; the government does not offer sales & discounts.
That is how the buyer sets the price - you only buy the bread if the price is what you are willing to pay. You do not have this same negotiating advantage with the government.

[janavoss]

I think it is, as I will attempt to demonstrate:

A grocery store provides bread I want; Government provides the police I want.
A grocery store also provides things I don't want but others do; Government provides things I don't want but others do.

The store takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things like stocking tobacco, that I will never use and morally opposed to; Government takes my money and spend it as it wish, including on things I will never use or am morally opposed to.

Well, not quite. The store may offer things you don't want, but you don't have to pay for those things. You just buy your bread and leave. With the government you don't get to pick & choose. You pay taxes that support programs you want and maybe also programs you are morally opposed to. With the store, if you don't want tobacco you don't pay for tobacco.

You might argue that the store takes your money for the bread and spends it on stocking tobacco, but that's not really how the accounting works. If the store is losing money on selling tobacco it will raise the price on tobacco, or drop the product entirely if it isn't selling well. The store might choose to increase the price of bread to make up for poor sales on tobacco, but then again, you get to decide at what point the bread is too expensive and stop buying it. If the store is still losing money on tobacco because now the bread is so expensive that no one is buying it, it would not continue to try to use your money from the bread to cover it, that's just bad business.

The government, however, does take your money and could use it to support programs you do not use or even want. The government doesn't have to care which programs are making money or losing money, or which programs you use and support or which programs you don't like. You are going to pay the same either way.
Not that I think this is a bad thing, it's part of living in a society. It's just not an apt comparison. Voting and getting involved is the way to monitor and try to control government spending; choosing where to shop and what to buy is the way to monitor and control retail sales.

[janavoss]

deleted, duplicate post

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 3 by janavoss]

Does you vote not the equivalent of negotiating power, is your ability to emigrate not the equivalent of going to a competitor?

The store may offer things you don't want, but you don't have to pay for those things...

I've you've done a great job arguing against your own point by pointing out how a shop adjusts each individual price to make things work. The store can indeed choose to increase the price of bread to make up for poor sales on tobacco. (Or the more likely scenario, increasing the price of tobacco to make up for poor sales on bread.) A government has to keep it's book just as much as a shop, which includes dropping the certain services. A government doesn't have to care which programs are making money or losing money individually, as long as the pot can cover the cost.

The biggest different is that the price the government charges is based on how rich you are and not how much stuff you walk out of the shop with.

[janavoss]

[Replying to post 3 by janavoss]

Does you vote not the equivalent of negotiating power, is your ability to emigrate not the equivalent of going to a competitor?

It could be, as long as you are willing to walk away if the vote doesn't come out the way you would like. That would be extreme in reality, but as an analogy I guess it works.
You just have more options with the store I think, other than leaving/going to a competitor.

The store may offer things you don't want, but you don't have to pay for those things...

I've you've done a great job arguing against your own point by pointing out how a shop adjusts each individual price to make things work. The store can indeed choose to increase the price of bread to make up for poor sales on tobacco. (Or the more likely scenario, increasing the price of tobacco to make up for poor sales on bread.) A government has to keep it's book just as much as a shop, which includes dropping the certain services. A government doesn't have to care which programs are making money or losing money individually, as long as the pot can cover the cost.

Except you are leaving out the part that you still get to decide at what point something is more expensive than you are willing to pay. You can choose to buy bread, or tobacco, or both, or neither. You can control how much money you are willing to spend.
With the government you don't get to choose. The government may decide to raise taxes instead of dropping programs and you have to pay it, regardless of whether you would choose to pay that much more for the services or whether you think it's a good value. Or, the government may drop loser programs just like the store may drop loser items, but with the store, if they no longer offer that item you are obviously not expected to pay for it. If the government drops programs because they can no longer cover the cost of the whole pot, you would most likely still be paying the same amount in taxes for fewer offered services.

The biggest different is that the price the government charges is based on how rich you are and not how much stuff you walk out of the shop with.

I was going to bring that up but ran out of time. You are now doing a great job arguing against your own point. You may go to the store, spend $10 and walk away with bread and tobacco. Except you don't really want the tobacco, you may even be morally opposed to tobacco use, but it's just part of the deal and you have to take it. Someone else goes to the same store, spends only $5 and also walks away with bread and tobacco, but they actually want the tobacco. Stores don't work that way, governments do. Again, not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, it's part of living in a society. It's just not the same as a typical purchase.

[2ndRateMind]

I think analogous is the right term. They are clearly different, since when I purchase something, I am deciding how I want to spend my money. When I pay my taxes, I hope I am contributing to the common good, but I have no guarantee of that, since it is the government that decides how to spend my money. The best I can do is vote, and seek to influence others who vote, such that government priorities reflect my own.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Except you are leaving out the part that you still get to decide at what point something is more expensive than you are willing to pay. You can choose to buy bread, or tobacco, or both, or neither. You can control how much money you are willing to spend.

You granted me above the emigrating is analogous to walking way from a shop. If the tax is more expensive than you are willing to pay, you can walk away. You control how much money you are willing to spend.

With the government you don't get to choose. The government may decide to raise taxes instead of dropping programs and you have to pay it, regardless of whether you would choose to pay that much more for the services or whether you think it's a good value.

No different from a shop setting the price of tobacco to offset the price of bread. You have no say in that.

Or, the government may drop loser programs just like the store may drop loser items, but with the store, if they no longer offer that item you are obviously not expected to pay for it. If the government drops programs because they can no longer cover the cost of the whole pot, you would most likely still be paying the same amount in taxes for fewer offered services.

One of my favorite chocolate treat just fairly recently became worse while the costing the same price. That is the capitalist equivalent to what you have described here.

I was going to bring that up but ran out of time. You are now doing a great job arguing against your own point. You may go to the store, spend $10 and walk away with bread and tobacco. Except you don't really want the tobacco, you may even be morally opposed to tobacco use, but it's just part of the deal and you have to take it.

You don't have to take the tobacco at all, the bread just cost you $10.

Someone else goes to the same store, spends only $5 and also walks away with bread and tobacco, but they actually want the tobacco.

Lucky for him.

Stores don't work that way...

But they do work that way - they can price things how they like, including charging you differently for the same goods and services. Concessional pricing is hardly rare, all-you-can-eat type businesses are just as common.