Question: Would you voluntarily pay to fund a government if taxes were voluntary?

I'm a strong believer that the services provided by government could be better provided by private individuals.

Government is incapable of offering good quality services at good prices. As a matter of fact government is inherently flawed.

I would much rather give my money to private individuals who don't have any forced monopoly powers that actually have to offer me something of value in order to receive my money.

I don't trust monopolies with my money.

"IF" taxes were voluntary? Senator Harry Reid has stated that taxes ARE voluntary: http://janhelfeld.com/video/37/is-taxation-voluntary.html

Privatize everything.

but I might send them a fruit cake for Christmas.

I would pay fees to individual companies that provide me my services so that I only pay for the services I need and want....

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
– Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention

only if I got my money's worth

Taxes are supposed to be voluntary, now. The IRS just uses force to extort what it collects!

Because there will never be a voluntary system.

The goal is to reduce the level of the Federal Government to it's proper role. If we follow the Constitution and limit the FEDS to only those functions, it would operate on tax revenue from other sources, such as outlined in the film F2F. Roads and infrastructure would be funded by the fuel tax and road tolls. The money needed to fund a strong national defense (as opposed to the current national offense) would be collected through corporate taxes etc.

All the agencies and programs currently run by the FEDS, in violation of the Constitution; Education, FDA, EPA, etc.etc.etc.etc. would be reserved for the states. A state may wish to levy high taxes to provide it's citizens a utopia, that's OK with me, I could move to another state. It's rather difficult to move to another country; so by giving states the responsibility the free market of choice would allow citizens to freely decide their path.

It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a move in the right direction, that direction being decentralized power. By moving government away from the Federal level and into the state and hopefully farther into local jurisdiction people would have a greater stake in the choices they make. The whole problem is the people have surrendered their power to an ever increasing central power. JMO

But I love the question.

Free yourself.

Yes. You will be paying for all the services that are widely accepted to be necessary that the government provides anyway.

yes

This is actually how it was originally and thats because the Republic needed so little to perform its Trust functions.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Not a chance. I would use my money to help others and provide for those in need directly. Locally I would be willing to support projects and basic maintenance and law enforcement, but not a dime would go to to anything federal.

The Catholic church is supposed to be one of the wealthiest organizations in the world, but apparently they are mostly supported by contributions, as far as I know.

I have to assume that the government that this voluntary tax supports would be drastically different from the one we operate with today. So, if it were much smaller, humbler, and appreciated it's intended role in serving only to protect individual rights, then maybe I'd contribute. Of course taxes are voluntary right now too. Many IRS accountants have pointed this out and so has Irwin Schiff (including many others). He is unlawfully imprisoned - the result of too much thoughtless support for a government that has been allowed to vastly over reach it's intended jurisdiction.

Assert Your Authority

I'm a volunteer. I guess it's one way I got involved with Ron Paul early on, I was looking for a government president to help, and I contributed time, money, gas, room/board and more.

Locally, I volunteer for the city as a docent for the historical socieity, and I have the Grange and when there's a clean up day for the city, county, state parks, or event/festival.. I'm one to volunteer. I have adopted camp ground, 2 mile section of HWY with Cal-Trans, and I help out at the animal shelter and food bank.

As a volunteer, I can wear my Ron Paul apron when I serve pancakes at a breakfast, and I get to know and work with the Sheriff, DA, judges, supervisors, mayor, city manager, chamber, and many businesses, the rangers, fish and game....

My point is that there are many ways we can and should contribute to government. WE SHOULD BE THE GOVERNMENT, meaning we are active and participating.

If they did than no way, and I would say dissolve it. Gov't claims to a monopoly on force is what got us where we are today. I reserve the right to defend myself.

=======
"The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

- Robert E. Lee, 1866

/Mike

Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg

I believe that if the federal government wants my money, they need to acquire it through constitutional means; thus, through indirect and direct taxation. However, my feeling with regard to direct taxation does not include the federal government's belief that the 16th Amendment provides them with the power to tax me directly without apportionment. They did not have the power to tax me directly prior to the 16th Amendment, and the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th Amendment provided the federal government with no new taxing powers, therefore, if they want to tax me directly, I believe they should be doing so as authorized by Article I, Section 9.

As for the state government, sure they can impose taxes on their citizenry, but if I am not happy with what my state sets as a tax rate, then i will look for a new state to move to where I believe the tax rate is more appropriate or non-existent. That is my choice. If a state loses too much of its population due to taxation, perhaps they will lower or remove said taxes. This is basically the ability to choose the state we wish to live in by way of a free market; the state is the product, and the tax is the price.

By the way, my feelings on taxation at the state level reflect my belief about all power and law the states impose upon the citizens. This is how the country was designed. We are supposed to be living in a free country, where we can decide where to live based upon our particular likes and dislikes of the sovereign states, and still have out creator given rights protected by the federal government, as well as border security and regular commerce throughout the country.

With regard to government at levels below the state level, the taxes and laws they ordain and promulgate by way of ordinances and regulations must be within the laws of the state, so I refer you back to my feelings at the state level.

EDITED FOR GRAMMAR 9/26/09 8:50am EDT

Lock me up throw away the key,I am still not paying fed income taxes!!!

Well in that case the "government" would be friendly voluntary organization! After looking at its causes I might donate a lil money.