I learned this theory from David Graeber's Debt.

You are a ruler with an army. That army has to be fed. It can just violently take what it needs from the population. But that is disorderly and makes people mad at you.

So, instead, you issue money to the soldiers. By why would the population take this money in exchange for food? Even if it's made out of a precious metal, what does a peasant want with gold, when nobody else wants it either (unless maybe they want to make something out of gold, but who can afford that). Well, you say they need to pay you taxes in this money you have issued. Now they've got to get some of it, and the soldiers are the ones with the supply. So you give them food in exchange.

I haven't read that account of the origin of money anywhere else (and I'm not sure how much consensus there is around it among relevant ancient historians), but I have read that taxation originates generally from the need/want to maintain large/standing armies. Not just that you have an army for the purpose of exracting tribute by force; but that you had an army for some other reason (conquering "someone else's" land or defending "yours"), and now you need to extract resources from "your" population to maintain it. This idea is referenced a bit in OP in the context of Europe: "But from around the late fifteenth century, war became more expensive… "

This is an interesting idea but seems simplistic.

Certainly the peasants also need to trade with each other, regardless of the presence of an army? Money facilitates that trade. You can barter chickens or goats or whatever but at some point nobody needs more of those either. Especially because chickens have to be fed.

When the thing being traded has only abstract value it becomes money, even if the tokens are chickens.

I think an argument could be made that armies are just a jobs program. In a way money necessities jobs because of the increased economic capabilities of that abstract trade token. With more efficient trade the peasants have less to do so they need ever more complex jobs. An army (and the military-industrial complex) provide those jobs.

What you describe is the "common sense" explanation of the origin of money that we hear a lot, "even peasants need to trade with each other, and maybe they don't always have what each other needs directly, they need an abstract unit of value." But it's unclear if it's actually based in any historical evidence or was just invented as something that "made sense". Graeber suggested it is not based in much historical evidence, and that there is evidence for other explanations.

I think Graeber's theory of the origin of money may not be universally accepted (not sure how accepted it is); but I think it's true that the 'common sense' theory isn't actually based on much historical evidence, but is just "an argument that can be made", as they say, which somehow became the "common sense". That's not a very reliable way to accurately describe history. All sorts of things that people in different times assumed "must be true because it just makes the most sense" turn out not to be. "seems simplistic" or "seems more plausible to me" is not a reliable guide for distinguishing truth from fiction, and what seems more plausible to me may not to you.

I’m not presenting an alternative origin of money. I’m arguing the issue is more complex than a single explanation.

Money is a natural consequence of trade in general.

Athenian field workers were not quite peasants from later ages, and a lot of trade was ran in kind. Early units of money were weights - usually of grain and equivalent. Money only made the exchanges a bit simpler.

the social function of money far predates states: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

Its like the mafia coming to your door wanting a protection fee but instead the government is much bigger and even pays to punish people for wrong-think like on this site.

If you don't pay your taxes and fight back, the government will send its servants to kill you or beat you until money pops out.

Tired: the government is like the mafia

Wired: the mafia is like the government

Inspired: mafernment

God is love. Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God.

I see no flaw in your conclusion.

Ray Charles is dead, ergo...

If you don't like taxes why wouldn't you move to a country that doesn't have taxes like Somalia? Is it because taxes pay for security and things you use everyday like infrastructure?

It's a common strawman argument to paint the argument as black and white, that either you want taxes or you want zero taxes. When in reality there's many shades of grey. The majority of people that complain about taxes don't want zero taxation, they just want to be taxed fairly, with proper representation, and for the government to make proper use of the money they do take, with accountability, before demanding more from the citizens.

These are things that everyone want, they don't really distinguish those who complain about taxes from those who don't.

I'd propose, simplistically, that people who demand tax cuts have in common the following characteristics:

- they may be confused about the role(s) of taxation

- they may not have sat down with pen and paper to try and figure out how to work a government's finances

- they may not be aware that a lot of the information they're demanding is public, or may not know where to find it

- they may not have a clear idea of which services to cut, or might not fully appreciate the importance of the services they'd like to cut

Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes:

- have a clear understanding of at least some of the roles of taxation

- have a specific idea what budget item they would like to see it spent on

> Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes:

There is no evidence supporting this assertion. A massive swath of people currently support raising taxes on the wealthy solely to take their money away (“reducing income equality”) without having a particularly sound way to spend it or one that even makes mathematical sense.

https://twitter.com/iamscottenglish/status/12358062448179159...

Income inequality is a destabilizing force. One of the purposes of taxation is wealth redistribution, and that can be "mathematically" quite useful if you like your system to have an equilibrium state.

There's a way to look at this non-vindictively.

We have plenty of ways to spend money: housing, food, healthcare, infrastructure, public transportation, even jobs. Providing the above for free could be a thing.

Every penny is useful.

Having a list of shit you want the government to spend every spare penny on does not make you informed or particularly intelligent. That’s just a grown-up version of a Christmas wish-list.

The government randomly spending money in bits here in there is not productive.

>even jobs

The last thing you want is the government to add 10 million jobs for only 12 weeks during normal employment.

> infrastructure

Expanding infrastructure that isn’t needed is just more maintenance cost and a waste of money. You need concrete plans for infrastructure that isn’t just a maintenance burden.

> public transportation

Again, this needs actual plans and should provide value. You want HSR from Ely, NV to Portland, OR?

Vague hand-waving of “the government should just spend X billion on Y” is just a perfect way to promote boondoggles.

I think there's a non-trivial (and certainly non-zero) portion of the population who would specifically enjoy tax hikes on other people who have become, in their judgment, too successful.

Envy is a powerful force, to be sure.

Huge success is only possible in the context of systems and infrastructure that enable it. There are no billionaires in Mad Max because society has crumbled - you can't leverage an educated workforce to build your widgets or a working interstate highway system to move them around. Is it so much to ask that those that benefit the most from the legal, financial, law enforcement, and military infrastructure of a country contribute proportionally more of the fruits of their success back to the maintenance of those systems?

That's not even mentioning those that are successful and wealthy in part because of government subsidies and support (e.g. green credits for Tesla).

>of a country contribute proportionally more of the fruits of their success back to the maintenance of those systems?

They already contribute more than proportionally. Proportionally is a flat tax rate and the rich already contribute far in excess of that.

This is the dilemma of living in a complex modern economy. We cooperate with a system that makes great wealth possible, not because that wealth is a right, but because of a social theory that the same system lets the rest of us live in relative security and decency.

We could pull the plug on that system, but only by driving ourselves into utter poverty, so in some sense we are hostages of the system that we created. On the other hand, if that system fails to serve an agreeable social purpose, it's our prerogative to moderate it.

For your logic to be true there must be no billionaires in low tax countries. HK has billionaires and a very low tax rate - ergo, the amount of taxes needed to pay for “the system” to become rich are actually quite low.

On the other hand, the converse is even more plausible.

So the only possible position for an informed, intelligent person is “higher taxes”?

Let’s go for broke and make them 100% then?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

What I'm saying is that when applying first-order thinking, it sounds like "more tax" would hurt. Therefore people who ask for more tax are most likely thinking a bit farther than the tip of their nose.

On behalf of all us low-tax simpletons, I must ask if you have considered that there might be undesirable second-order effects of high tax rates.

But perhaps that idea is further than the tip of one’s nose.

You do realize as an American you have to pay US taxes whatever you live in the world so simple moving wouldn't help.

You could drop your citizenship but you will need another. No country with little or no taxes will give you a citizenship.

Your best bet is to stay in the US and complain to get policies changed. Or live in the woods/desert. The average person has no real path to a tax free life but the rich can use loops.

Do the wealthy need the government's services, financed through taxes, as much as "the average person".

What if a US citizen obtainins citizenship in a country that does not tax non-residents, relinquishes her US citizenship and then moves to a country that has little or no taxes.

Yes, even moreso than the rest of us. The wealthy need things like corporate and financial regulation, the tort system, and other economic infrastructure that the poor aren't even aware of.

If the hypothetical wealthy citizen moves to a country without functioning government infrastructure, it's a safe bet that their first priority upon landing will be to figure out a way to move their assets into instruments that are valued in dollars or euro's.

"Yes, even moreso than the rest of us."

But, generally, the wealthy do not pay more in taxes than the non-wealthy. They generally pay less.

I like using the non-resident loophole angle. It could be possible.

The rich use more of the system than the average person. The area of law, finace, education and property. They receive money/credit for investment in local communities.

Somalia has some other issues.

That being said, I would happily move to a country with 0% income tax, such as Monaco or Oman.

Alas these countries do not allow free movement of people through their borders.

Somolia has taxes. If you don't want to pay (income) tax there is Monaco, UAE, Bermuda, Bahamas, etc. Somehow they manage to have roads and firemen.

Those countries all have various forms of (non-income) taxation.

Could you please elaborate a bit?

Because on the surface it looks like USA also has non-income taxation, such as sales tax (in lieu of VAT), property tax and so on.

Sales and property tax don’t go to the federal government.

If you like taxes why don’t you move to the country with the highest tax rate? What a stupid argument.

If I was as passionate about it as the parent, I would. For me, there are other factors to where I live besides taxes. Also, it's hard migrate to countries with high taxes, because they are deseriable places to live. It's not hard to migrate to Somalia. It's also not deseriable to live there. That's the point.

They are trivial to relocate to if you have money and would be the one actually paying the high taxes (top half of middle-class income and above).

There is a reason people making 6 figure+ salaries aren’t clamoring to move to France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden. They aren’t actually all that desirable if you are the one paying the brunt of the taxes.

If you’re actually “passionate about taxes” and you don’t make good money, you would be happy to relocate to the country with the highest taxes for low income... Swaziland. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/highest-t...

Both you and the parent aren’t actually fans of high taxes it sounds like. Instead you just like social programs paid for by someone else.

Are there more rich people in Somalia or "France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden". It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig).

Obviously you can over-do it, but parent compared taxes to protection money from the mafia and that is ridiculous.

Also people who are “passionate about taxes” think that rich people benefit more from a properly funded society then more poor people, so they should pay more. So as the parent says "what a stupid argument" Also, of course we are my passionate about high taxes. We are passionate about the society that high taxes provide.

All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.

> Are there more rich people in Somalia or "France/Portugal/Brazil/Sweden".

Are there more rich people in the US or those countries?

> It's almost like everyone including rich people benefit from a society where government is properly funded. It's also seems properly funded governments generate more capable people(see incomes over 6 fig).

It’s almost like the high taxation levels of France/Sweden/Portugal/etc have no advantage over the US for “everyone benefitting”, at least not monetarily.

> All of your arguments seen quite disengenious.

I don’t think you’re using that word correctly or you’re not understanding. I’m being quite genuine when I say it’s ridiculous to “be a fan of taxation” and when most people say that they are just generally a fan of some level of government services.

You need to discuss which government services you like socialized to have any meaningful discussion. Otherwise it’s just “I love the government taking money from the people”.

Somalia has taxes in the form of warlords taking whatever they want. And Somalia is always trotted out as an example of Anarchy (or more uncharitably as an example of Libertarianism) by people ignorant of its history, often willfully so. Somalia is just another failed Socialist state:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Revolutionary_Sociali...

By failed you mean the government was couped, right? And it being called socialist is a bit of a funny thing, with encouraging private investment and high degree of authoritarianism, even totalitarianism.

This is not the same thing at all.

>And it being called socialist is a bit of a funny thing, with encouraging private investment and high degree of authoritarianism, even totalitarianism.

Yes, like every other failed Socialist and Communist state, they made promises of economic inequality and instead becane authoritarian genocidal maniacs.

Our governments are empires that have had democracy patched into them. Yes taxes pay for security and infrastructure, but this isn't why taxes are collected, taxes are collected because government is a self sustaining system largely populated by self serving individuals drawn to power. Unlike my anarchist and libertarian friends, I don't think there is a better strategy than iterating on what we have, so we really don't have a better alternative that continuing to fix what we have, but that doesn't require us to pretend that our current systems are the benevolent commonwealths we would like the to be. (let's see how mars works out)

Black Somalia would have to raise to taxes to defend itself against white countries that bomb it.

Instead of getting plundered you pay taxes. The rulers learned the fear of plunder is enough.