NationStates Jolt Archive

*sighs* i am so fed up of lefties in this forum..

What is wrong with a sensible flat rate of tax?

An oversimplified solution, pretty much.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).

The two are not exclusive.

And by definition, tax cuts have to be for the rich: the poor DON'T PAY taxes!
(At least, not in the US.)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Note table 1:
The top 50% of earners pay 97% of all income tax!
The top 5% of earners pay 55% of all income tax!

(I won't even get into why there is no party that is better or worse for these programs, nor why you are not entitled to food, housing or childcare under the Constitution...)

*sighs* i am so fed up of lefties in this forum..

What is wrong with a sensible flat rate of tax?

Also, is this UK or US? Because I'm not really clued up on the tax system in the US...

Nothing, so long as it was at an acceptable rate. I've always liked California's Jerry Brown for the 13% idea.

It would also take out the regional tax issues in the US: suppose you make $31,000 a year. Is it fair that you get taxed the same all over the US, even though you can live on that pretty comfortably in Arkansas but are nearly in poverty in New York or Los Angeles?

Have you had to move lately? Do you have any idea how much it costs to relocate? Unless you can get a company to pay for your move, its all out of your own pocket, moving trucks, temporary lodging, weeks perhaps months or years of unemployment while you go through a job search, apply for citizenship, deposits and utility hookups, etc, etc, etc. How you gonna pay for that Johnnyboy?

Yeah - that is why so few people relocate from Mexico to the US every day!

increase the tax to the ultra rich and lower the taxes of the poor, the middle class tax could be slitghtly modified as well, accordingly.


ROFLMAO!!! You numbnut - the poor don't pay tax. In fact their federal income tax is negative - they MAKE money on it. Sort of a credit to cover any incidental taxes they may otherwise have paid.

So far nobody here has the nerve to define what they call 'rich'. The whole conversation is pretty pointless without that. Maybe someone has the courage to suggest that the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax) defines 'rich'? Maybe - but I doubt it.

Nobody has even bothered to discuss how much 'tax' the 'rich' should pay. More telling - nobody seems to care what happens to the tax dollars anyone is giving up. I mean - really - should the government be funding $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/15/163651.shtml)?

I laugh at the profound ignorance demonstrated by the vast majority of posts on this thread. I certainly hope that most of you are either too young or lazy to vote. I also hope that each one of you someday gets to pay the AMT - welcome to prosperity!

So far nobody here has the nerve to define what they call 'rich'. The whole conversation is pretty pointless without that. Maybe someone has the courage to suggest that the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax) defines 'rich'? Maybe - but I doubt it.

I certainly hope that most of you are either too young or lazy to vote. I also hope that each one of you someday gets to pay the AMT - welcome to prosperity!

Hear hear!!
The AMT is in woeful need of realignment. I mean, WTF? You can barely get a house in the greater NYC area for $400,000-$500,000.

How can you ever pay off that mortgage earning less than $75,000/year if you have a couple of kids and enjoy things like having food on the table and heat in the winter? ARGH!

Never mind that:
* The AMT is an extremely complicated system of rules, leading to high compliance costs.
* The AMT does not correct for inflation, leading to unplanned effects as time goes by. Starting around 2004, the AMT began affecting middle-class incomes, at least by the standards of areas with high cost of living.
* The AMT disproportionately affects citizens of states with high taxation, since local and state taxes are considered deductibles under current federal tax law but not under the AMT. Because many of these states have voted Democratic in recent Presidential elections (for example New York, California, New Jersey) and many of these states also have high per capita incomes but also high cost of living, AMT is sometimes referred to as the "Blue State Tax".
* AMT is not a tax on profits, but a tax on "fake profits". For example, if you have a carryforward loss from stock trades, you cannot use them for AMT. Regular tax calculation allow you to carry forward losses.
* AMT causes market distortion in capital markets. For example, you would pay less taxes to hold on to a losing stock until you can balance the sale of the money losing stock with the sale of a money making stock during the same tax year. This leads to inefficiency in free markets.
* AMT reduces investment in companies (and reduces job creation by making capital harder to attract) by increasing the capital gains tax.

OH come on!!! Those people are RICH and should be forced to pay for indoor rain forests in Iowa! Who cares if they have to file a complicated form or can't pay off their $500,00 house? Those rich bastards!

OH come on!!! Those people are RICH and should be forced to pay for indoor rain forests in Iowa! Who cares if they have to file a complicated form or can't pay off their $500,00 house? Those rich bastards!

Yes! While the poor lounge around on welfare all day eating Mac & Cheese all day FOR FREE! :D

(Boz- I bet you 2 sheckles and a dinarae that there will be people that take this and your post as non-sarcastic...)

helllll no! when the rich get tax cuts, the taxes are just passed on to the middle and lower classes that get higher taxes, resulting in the rich getting richer while the lower and middle classes get poorer.



GWB :sniper:

helllll no! when the rich get tax cuts, the taxes are just passed on to the middle and lower classes that get higher taxes, resulting in the rich getting richer while the lower and middle classes get poorer.



GWB :sniper:

Thank you for that substantial argument with proofs, and the gratuitous sniping of the President.


:rolleyes:

Education: Fair enough.
Childcare: If people were married when they had children they wouldn't need childcare, because the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children.
Healthcare: We have healthcare, I should know, I work for HCA.
Housing and Food: Get a job.

I'm surprised no one yet has made commentary on the "the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children". Aren't we past that mentality decades ago? Both men and women should be able to pursue a fulfilling career even when there are children involved. Adequate, good quality childcare makes it easier/more possible.

I don't buy the "trickle down" argument, at least not in this day in age. The middle class is disapearing into crap jobs like Walmart since the private sector in the states is becoming increasingly dominated by the service industry. Why? In a globalized economy, the "trickle down" argument is more like "trickle out" as we see the money we give back to the rich going overseas for investment in manufacturing and tech jobs in countries like china and india.

Sure, you can still argue that people should be able to do whatever they want with their mone. But please don't say it benefits us, because in the globalized economy, it benefits other countries.


*sighs* i am so fed up of lefties in this forum..

What is wrong with a sensible flat rate of tax?

And I'm so sick of pompous "libertarians" who only cry about taxes.

Why is this so hard to understand? Take a 15% flat tax, for example. Having $3000 taken out of a $20,000 paycheck is a LOT more painful than having $15,000 taken out of a $100,000 paycheck. There's a base line of money that people need to have to survive and every dollar above that you take away is taking away their leisure money. Say in this case that $15,000 is the minimum amount needed to survive after housing, food, etc. The fellow we just taxed for $3,000 now has $2,000 to spend above that limit, we just took away 3/5ths of his leisure money. The guy who has $85,000 left has $70,000 of leisure/luxury money to spend. All we did was take 1/6th of his leisure money.

So basically, the first guy took a large hit to his lifestyle (which I'd wager to say isn't very hot in the first place) because of taxes, while the second was much less effected. So yes, a flat tax would hurt the poor more than the rich.

I also disagree with the idea of a flat % rate tax because the costs of goods and services aren't indexed to a percentage of an individual's income. regardless of how much you earn, richer people are going to be more able to afford basic goods and services than poorer people.

I also disagree with the idea of a flat % rate tax because the costs of goods and services aren't indexed to a percentage of an individual's income. regardless of how much you earn, richer people are going to be more able to afford basic goods and services than poorer people.

That's the incentive to work hard and improve your lot, no?

I'm surprised no one yet has made commentary on the "the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children". Aren't we past that mentality decades ago? Both men and women should be able to pursue a fulfilling career even when there are children involved. Adequate, good quality childcare makes it easier/more possible.

What mentality would that be? That the children get a parenting figure at home while the other puts food on the table?

Sure. And being a latch-key kid makes it easy, too. Personally, I disagree with you... I'd have loved a home life like on a 50s sitcom. Both my folks worked in factories, dad from 6:00-18:00 (the overtime helped alot), mom from 20:00-4:00. :(
(This was in the 70s and 80s...)

Believe it or not, that way of life is not demeaning in any way, only if you make it so. The question is if the couple in question is persuing two careers with kids because they WANT to, or because they NEED to.

I'm surprised no one yet has made commentary on the "the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children". Aren't we past that mentality decades ago? Both men and women should be able to pursue a fulfilling career even when there are children involved. Adequate, good quality childcare makes it easier/more possible.

What are you? Some kind of feminist?

30% more 4 the rich 10% less 4 the poor and 60% forr those who can get work but they cant be bothered(live on the nation's money)

30% more 4 the rich 10% less 4 the poor and 60% forr those who can get work but they cant be bothered(live on the nation's money)

U mk 0 $0.01s!!!

If we had higher taxes for the poor and less for the rich and middle class, we would have more incentive to become rich.

What mentality would that be? That the children get a parenting figure at home while the other puts food on the table?

Sure. And being a latch-key kid makes it easy, too. Personally, I disagree with you... I'd have loved a home life like on a 50s sitcom. Both my folks worked in factories, dad from 6:00-18:00 (the overtime helped alot), mom from 20:00-4:00. :(
(This was in the 70s and 80s...)

Believe it or not, that way of life is not demeaning in any way, only if you make it so. The question is if the couple in question is persuing two careers with kids because they WANT to, or because they NEED to.

i'm not saying that it is definitely degrading to have a stay at home parent, i'm saying that there should be mechanisms that allow for quality care of children should both parents want to pursue careers.

What are you? Some kind of feminist?

feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

yes i am a feminist... what are you? :p

i'm not saying that it is definitely degrading to have a stay at home parent, i'm saying that there should be mechanisms that allow for quality care of children should both parents want to pursue careers.



feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

yes i am a feminist... what are you? :p

I am for family values. This means more emphasis on kids and less on women working in men's jobs. Economic equality = husbands and wives both having joint bank accounts and names on the mortgage.

i'm not saying that it is definitely degrading to have a stay at home parent, i'm saying that there should be mechanisms that allow for quality care of children should both parents want to pursue careers.


Kind of an odd arguement:

1) If the parents genuinely HAVE careers, they can afford childcare.

vs.

2) If the parents have JOBS and are barely making ends meet (and thus cannot afford child care), then that's quite different.

However, The State of Georgia's point was against single parenting/out of wedlock births. I don't think anyone can argue that affordable anything is a bad idea. :)

I am for family values. This means more emphasis on kids and less on women working in men's jobs. Economic equality = husbands and wives both having joint bank accounts and names on the mortgage.
So basically you're not for equality at all.

I also disagree with the idea of a flat % rate tax because the costs of goods and services aren't indexed to a percentage of an individual's income. regardless of how much you earn, richer people are going to be more able to afford basic goods and services than poorer people.
I think this post requires a DUH.
Of course someone with more money can afford goods and services than someone with less money.

Another response should be, so?

I am for family values. This means more emphasis on kids and less on women working in men's jobs. Economic equality = husbands and wives both having joint bank accounts and names on the mortgage.
Perhaps you should say "I am for family values. This means more emphasis on kids and less on both spouses working at same time."

So basically you're not for equality at all.

No. I think everyone should be equal before the law. I also think that women should vote. Single women should be able to do just about anything. However, when a couple has a child, it is ok for a woman to go and have kids and stay at home for a bit and lose seniority or promotion opportunities in the meantime. Also, I am glad that women can do a lot of stuff they couldn't before.

I think this post requires a DUH.
Of course someone with more money can afford goods and services than someone with less money.

Another response should be, so?

well, isn't the argument for a flat rate tax supposedly because it's "fairer"? it's not really then is it, if goods and services have absolute rather than relative costs.

Kind of an odd arguement:

1) If the parents genuinely HAVE careers, they can afford childcare.

vs.

2) If the parents have JOBS and are barely making ends meet (and thus cannot afford child care), then that's quite different.

However, The State of Georgia's point was against single parenting/out of wedlock births. I don't think anyone can argue that affordable anything is a bad idea. :)

it takes a long time to establish careers, and people have to start off from somewhere, usually lowly paid entry-level jobs. A lack of childcare places appears to be a sad be true deterrant for families to have kids.

This is to extreme, either or.

I have all those things as public rights where I live and still got a marketsystem.

If forced I actually say no, becouse I think it's to much to have special tax for being rich unless you work out compromising details.

I assume that the poll yes, represent a total tax cut of all the difference from average middle class standard.

I do believe that society to some extend need rich people who have more personal power than others.

Laws should regulate so that those who earn most are the most gifted in society and naturally they should also rule society.

Unemployed should have welfare but be encourage to improve

The question is what is fair?
Tax cut for being rich is wrong.
What you should have is this.

An relative tax on any earning any profit that still lets you keep most of the profit.
Everyone should pay high taxes and if you can't pay them just admit you need welfare and you aren't relevant anymore.

I think that they people in my society become stupid and lazy becouse they are too equal in sallary in all jobs
but sure everyone must have free good equal welfare and pension.

I know I sound cold, but I don't love mankind as much as I love intelligence
and I'm so tired of stupidity.
Sadly I'm not a virtuous person and I don't want to be.
I simply dream of a better life for myself.

I am for family values. This means more emphasis on kids and less on women working in men's jobs. Economic equality = husbands and wives both having joint bank accounts and names on the mortgage.

So what, do you still live in the seventeenth century or something?

Tax cuts for the rich are great, as long as the taxes decrease for everyone else too.

I don't buy the "trickle down" argument, at least not in this day in age. The middle class is disapearing into crap jobs like Walmart since the private sector in the states is becoming increasingly dominated by the service industry. Why? In a globalized economy, the "trickle down" argument is more like "trickle out" as we see the money we give back to the rich going overseas for investment in manufacturing and tech jobs in countries like china and india.

Sure, you can still argue that people should be able to do whatever they want with their mone. But please don't say it benefits us, because in the globalized economy, it benefits other countries.
It benefits us. I think that, on issues of globalization, some people overemphasize the competive aspect. The fact is that there is little or no competition for jobs on a macroeconomic scale.

If adding new workers to the job market (in this case allowing foreign workers to "compete" for the same jobs as Americans) increased unemployment or lowered wages we would see that effect simply as a result of increasing population. People who have jobs spend and invest the money they earn therefrom, and by so doing create as much demand as they fill. If goods are allowed to flow freely across international borders in both directions, then the job market will remain stable in the long term.

I grant that there may be some sort of "shock" effect as a result of adding all these individuals to the job market at one time, but that effect should wear off over time. Secondly, I admitt that the current state of affairs with regards to globalization doesn't exactly fit my model. Notice that, in the "if" clause in the last sentance of the previous paragraph, I said that goods must be allowed to flow freely both ways. This is, unfortunately, not always the case. Various policies in both China and India keep goods from easily entering those markets from the outside. Nevertheless, free trade agreements such as NAFTA do not negatively impact the job market, because they grant trade rights to all countries involved.

Finally, one must remember that free trade also drastically lowers prices. Even if it did hurt employment, the lower prices might still make globalization a beneficial outcome.

well, isn't the argument for a flat rate tax supposedly because it's "fairer"? it's not really then is it, if goods and services have absolute rather than relative costs.

Tax = payment to government. If someone who makes $22,000 pays 13%, and someone who makes $122,000 pays 13%, the richer pays more, but proportionally it's the same. That's fair.

Once you start making exemptions (ie: subsidize the poorer one), it is no longer a flat tax.

...and that's how modern tax codes developed. Once an expection is made, there is no end.

And besides, how the hell would an economy function if a shirt sold at $14 for somebody and $45 for someone else? In the old days, we called that "discriminiation".

it takes a long time to establish careers, and people have to start off from somewhere, usually lowly paid entry-level jobs. A lack of childcare places appears to be a sad be true deterrant for families to have kids.

So you're complaining specifically about poorer folks not being able to afford childcare. SoG's post was about marriage being superior to single parenting.

Seems you two are on two different issues.

Tax cuts for the rich are great, as long as the taxes decrease for everyone else too.

Bad news: tax cuts only benefit the rich.
Good news: only the rich pay taxes.

...so, according to some, if you make $36,000 a year, you're rich because you got money back after the tax cuts. Feel like "the man" now? :D

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).

Your premise is wrong. Tax cuts for the rich do not mean less money for government.

If you think government involvement in the issues you list, is the panacea, then you are sadly mistaken there also.

Your premise is wrong. Tax cuts for the rich do not mean less money for government.

Yeah, cutting taxes = more money for government. Sheesh, these people who don't understand doublemathspeak. You'd think 2+2=4 or something, when we all know full well 4=2-2.

Bloody Goldstein.

Your premise is wrong. Tax cuts for the rich do not mean less money for government.

I suggest you take a good long hard stare at the Laffer Curve. There is an optimal rate of taxation - too high and too low can reduce revenue.

If you think government involvement in the issues you list, is the panacea, then you are sadly mistaken there also.

Yeah, I think he was forgetting that only the wealthy diserve such luxuries as a bandage if they break their arm and to learn to read/write.

I suggest you take a good long hard stare at the Laffer Curve. There is an optimal rate of taxation - too high and too low can reduce revenue.



Yeah, I think he was forgetting that only the wealthy diserve such luxuries as a bandage if they break their arm and to learn to read/write.


Since I am an economist, I know that you are correct in your statement - as far as it goes. But the part of the picture that you forget is that at least in the United States, we are still on the "too high" side of the curve.

The rest of your post is just pure poppycock so I will not respond further to it.

Yeah, cutting taxes = more money for government. Sheesh, these people who don't understand doublemathspeak. You'd think 2+2=4 or something, when we all know full well 4=2-2.

Bloody Goldstein.


You are mistaken, it is NOT a zero sum game. When you take a lower percentage in taxes, it creates a pool of money for investment. That investment helps to start new companies, the new companies make money for themselves AND they create new jobs.

The better example is this:

10 people with jobs before a tax cut make 10,000 each. With a tax rate of 25% - the total tax taken in by the government would equal 10 x 10,000 x .25 or 25,000


Because of a tax cut, 3 new jobs are created. So the math is like this: 13 people with jobs make 10,000 each with a tax rate of 20 %

13 x 10,000 x .20 = $26,000 in government taxes collected.


It is not fantasy, it has happened in the United States just in the last 3 years. Government Revenues were falling after the Recession that had it's roots in the crash of the first quarter of 2000. We then had 911 which further prolonged our economic problems. In 2003 the US had a tax cut specifically targeted at freeing up investment capital and guess what, government revenues have expanded by double digits since then, More than 5 million jobs have been created and wages have increased.

I live in Bardon. Anyone who's from Brisbane, Australia will understand why I support tax cuts for the rich

I support tax cuts for the rich. If anything, the rich need more money. We should start paying them to be rich. :p

Yes! While the poor lounge around on welfare all day eating Mac & Cheese all day FOR FREE! :D

(Boz- I bet you 2 sheckles and a dinarae that there will be people that take this and your post as non-sarcastic...)


I'd better take that bet now before internet gambling becomes a high crime.

Yeah, cutting taxes = more money for government. Sheesh, these people who don't understand doublemathspeak. You'd think 2+2=4 or something, when we all know full well 4=2-2.

Bloody Goldstein.


That's right - everyone knows that retailer make less money when they have a sale. That's why they do it so often. Sheesh. How dense can you get!

Yeah, cutting taxes = more money for government. Sheesh, these people who don't understand doublemathspeak. You'd think 2+2=4 or something, when we all know full well 4=2-2.

Bloody Goldstein.
Because we all know that an economic system has a grand total of 2 variables.

all i have to say is that u get what u earn

That's right - everyone knows that retailer make less money when they have a sale. That's why they do it so often. Sheesh. How dense can you get!
hahaha! (Nice name, BTW)

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?
I support that idea that taxation should end for everyone. Taxation is theft.

That's right - everyone knows that retailer make less money when they have a sale. That's why they do it so often. Sheesh. How dense can you get!
That's a remarkably good analogy...

Thanks 'mate.

No.
The whole idea of giving larger tax cuts to the rich was the trickle down theory.

The theory that giving rich people more money will encourage growth in their companies, making more jobs, making more money for the lower class people.
That doesn't work though. Most, not all, but most, people who get those enormous cuts keep the money for themselves and screw over their workers even more.

Sowwy, I'm a little bitter :mad:

Do rich people pay taxes? Yes, and a lot of them. So yes, they do deserve tax cuts. And the tax cuts they get should be more than what say a guy making 20k a year would get, because they get more taken from them than the rich person.

It's a moot point-you "give" more, you get more back

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?
No. Because I'm not one of them.

I support lowering taxes for everyone, preferable to 0%.

I support lowering taxes for everyone, preferable to 0%.
Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.

Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.

Income taxes, yes, national sales tax, no...

I could go for that-no income taxes, only a flat national sales tax. Mmm...

Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.
Income tax /= other forms of tax. Remember, before WWI there was no income tax in the US.

Edit: I agree with the guy above me with the sales tax. Something like 5-8% on all goods (except essencials like food) is plenty of money for the government. At least, it should be.

But that aside, I believe only essencial services should be paid for by the government. Schools should be private.

No.
The whole idea of giving larger tax cuts to the rich was the trickle down theory.

The theory that giving rich people more money will encourage growth in their companies, making more jobs, making more money for the lower class people.
That doesn't work though. Most, not all, but most, people who get those enormous cuts keep the money for themselves and screw over their workers even more.

Sowwy, I'm a little bitter :mad:
But that theory has been proven time and again. Government revenue has gone up when taxes were cut.

What is it you are bitter about? That someone else has and you don't? That's just jealousy.

In some circumstances yes.

No. Because I'm not one of them.

So go agains't standard economic theorys, lessen economic freedoms and incentives and risk economic stagnation just so you can be better off. Right its the rich people who are the greedy ones...


But that aside, I believe only essencial services should be paid for by the government. Schools should be private.

I want my country to be well educated. Not only for the sake of democracy and living in a society with more intelligent people, but its clearly better for the economy to have individuals with skills who will encourage companys to start up with skilled labour and higher paying jobs. Not only will this produce greater revenue and a stronger economy (which will most likely pay for the cost of education) but a better country to live in.

No.
The whole idea of giving larger tax cuts to the rich was the trickle down theory.

The theory that giving rich people more money will encourage growth in their companies, making more jobs, making more money for the lower class people.
That doesn't work though.


Yes, the economy now is so much worse than it was in 1980...

I want my country to be well educated. Not only for the sake of democracy and living in a society with more intelligent people, but its clearly better for the economy to have individuals with skills who will encourage companys to start up with skilled labour and higher paying jobs. Not only will this produce greater revenue and a stronger economy (which will most likely pay for the cost of education) but a better country to live in.

Education is as much a development of natural resources as public roads. I do think that a public education is important - but I don't believe that it should be 'standardized' to the extent it is in the US. The federal govt. should get out of the school administration business - completely - including the funding part. Let states and communities fund their own education and set their own agenda and standards. Schools should reflect the values of their communities - not Washington politicians and lobbyists.

Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.
As if those can only be provided by a government. Wake up and smell the brainwashing.

As if those can only be provided by a government. Wake up and smell the brainwashing.

Police can be provided for without government? Surely their job is to enforce the law, how can this be done without atleast a legislative branch of government.

Police can be provided for without government? Surely their job is to enforce the law, how can this be done without atleast a legislative branch of government.

Simple. Privatise the police, and all those without police insurance get shot.:confused:

Police can be provided for without government? Surely their job is to enforce the law, how can this be done without atleast a legislative branch of government.

There are plenty of private police forces. Plenty. Some even work for the military.

There are plenty of private police forces. Plenty. Some even work for the military.

But the basic police force still needs to be present for all areas even if additional private stations may exist. Not to mention a government still needs to exist to define and write the law for which police can enforce.

Police can be provided for without government? Surely their job is to enforce the law, how can this be done without atleast a legislative branch of government.
There's nothing about law itself which requires a government to create it.

There's nothing about law itself which requires a government to create it.

Who else do you want to do it, god?

Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.

Actually, in my town we pay a seperate fire tax. We also pay seperate sewer bills and sanitation/garbage bills (both quarterly).

The fire tax is $150 or so a year. The other two are $120 a year and $200 a year, respectively.

I assure you that other nearby towns get those services for free with their town taxes. And I'm sure they pay more than $470 a year for them. :(

Then enjoy having no firemen, no policemen, no schools.

Actually, in my town we pay a seperate fire tax. We also pay seperate sewer bills and sanitation/garbage bills (both quarterly).

The fire tax is $150 or so a year. The other two are $120 a year and $200 a year, respectively.

I assure you that other nearby towns get those services for free with their town taxes. And I'm sure they pay more than $470 a year for them. :(

IF ONLY schools and police were likewise paid for!

Who else do you want to do it [create laws], god?
Private legal firms could create codes, which are sold to private police or private insurance agencies, which then re-sell the codes to individuals.