Taxes are by definition without something in exchange.
No, this is utterly, spectularly wrong - and it's probably the core dishonesty of the conservative world view.
Taxes are paid in exchange for social services, social stability and freedom of opportunity. Goals are set - or should be set - democratically.
Interest on money is something which gives the payer nothing in exchange, except access to a resource which is only limited by fiat - a nice trick, if you're one of the lenders and can make it work for you.
I used to think this, but I have come to the view that credit intermediaries aka Banks provide the value of an implicit guarantee of the borrower's credit, which they support with an amount of proprietary capital.
ie interest is a charge made for a framework of trust, and of a small amount of capital backing it.
Unfortunately excess profits are made in the good times (over and above the bank's operating costs, and the cost of defaults) and Society picks up the guarantee in the bad times. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
From wikipedia: Als Steuer wird eine Geldleistung ohne Anspruch auf individuelle Gegenleistung bezeichnet, die ein öffentlich-rechtliches Gemeinwesen zur Erzielung von Einnahmen allen Personen auferlegt, die einen steuerlichen Tatbestand verwirklichen, wobei die Erzielung von Einnahmen wenigstens Nebenzweck sein sollte (Definition der deutschen Abgabenordnung [so this is the definition by law. Not all words get such honour]). Damit sind Steuern eine öffentlich-rechtliche Abgabe, denen keine bestimmte staatliche Leistungen gegenübersteht und die zwecks Deckung des allgemeinen Finanzbedarfs ohne Ansehen der Person alle zahlen müssen, die den Tatbestand der Steuerpflicht erfüllen.
So people that don't pay taxes don't get social services or social stability? How can people without income than get anything from the welfare state? Why would the police hunt robbers of some driving through Dutchmen? Or are there other things they do to get these goodies instead of paying taxes or what? Maybe you should tell that trick.
And yes, goals are set democratically. The payment of taxes hasn't even influence on the role you take in the process what is done with the money.
This is utter nonsense. Interest is like the rent on money. You use the car of a car rental, so you pay car rent. You borrow a DVD from a shop, so you pay DVD rent. You borrow money from somebody else, so you pay money rent. And yes, money is limited by fiat. But if you borrow the money just to have the money laying around, you are a complete idiot. But most people that borrow money use it to buy something, that is limited NOT by fiat, e.g. a machine, or rent of something else. So a very similar thing to borrow money would be to borrow whatever you buy with the money and paying rent for that. With appropriate contracting there is no practical difference. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
They get them because other people pay taxes. Distribution of taxation is a different question.
In the limit, if no one paid taxes, none of these services would exist - at least not in a form that most people would want to experience and live with.
Interest is like the rent on money.
Yes, exactly - and getting people to pay rent on something which doesn't exist physically and which some people are allowed to create out of thin air for the most arbitrary reasons, while others aren't, is the nice trick.
