It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Taxation Must Go Global

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

...the number of taxpayers who make an adequate contribution to financing public goods and services is decreasing.

The resulting tensions between national fiscal sovereignty and the borderless scope of today's business activities can be resolved only through international dialogue and uniform global standards.


Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

When I tell people that stealing is taking someone's property without their permission, and taxes is also taking someone's property without their permission and is therefore stealing, a typical response is that there people who pay taxes have agreed to it, so there is permission. To be clear, I do not agree to be taxed because it is against my morals. The one nice thing about the way the world works is that I can move to a country that participates less in the immoral theft of property.

Taxation is theft. Taking someone's property without permission is stealing. Taxes takes my property without permission.
Taxation is extortion. A letter threatening someone with jail if they don't pay money is extortion.
Taxation is slavery. How would being forced to contribute to a collective be any less wrong than being forced to contribute to an individual. The fair share is zero.
Taxation is a violation of free speech. The freedom of speech gives me the right to remain silent. I therefore don't have to report to the IRS on anything in any circumstance.
Taxation is a violation of justice at least in the US. In the US, taxation presumes guilt until proven innocence. Another violation of civil rights. I'm not sure if you are guilty until proven innocent in other countries in matters of taxes but that is definitely true in the USA.

In times of feudal slavery, a slave sometimes manages to get a few bucks out of the deal here and there. So, its like working for a 90% tax rate. How is there a difference between being a slave a couple hundred years ago and paying a tax rate of 90%? If you are paying a 1% tax rate then you are 1% a slave. The only proper tax rate in a civilized society is 0% which means you are 0% a slave.
edit on 3-11-2014 by wayforward because: Post not appearing correctly.




posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward




When I tell people that stealing is taking someone's property without their permission, and taxes is also taking someone's property without their permission and is therefore stealing, a typical response is that there people who pay taxes have agreed to it, so there is permission. To be clear, I do not agree to be taxed because it is against my morals. The one nice thing about the way the world works is that I can move to a country that participates less in the immoral theft of property.


.


Do you use the infrastructure that taxes pay for like roads, bridges, schools, National forests, FAA, law enforcement and the military, etc? Letting others pay your fair share is also a kind of theft and immoral as well.

So move!!!

And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward
Start with the NFL and GE...plenty more where they come from. Put the Tax Code back the way it was before Ronald Reagan reversed it, that's where we got our infrastructure.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Yup there has to be SOME BASIC level of taxation or we would have no infrastructure, no police, no fire-fighters , no roads , no military (and we have to have some sort of military), no border patrol, no customs ect.......



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

I thought I was going to have to come in here and tear someone a new brain, from that thread title. Typical HuffPo globalist vomit.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
"NO ONE RULES IF NO ONE OBEYS"- David Icke
edit on 3-11-2014 by HUMBLEONE because: Typo



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

We agree to it.

We accept it.

We are the problem.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold
Ya watched a good documentary called "we're not broke" or something to that nature and it is about the top grossing companies back in little to no taxes



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: olaru12

Yup there has to be SOME BASIC level of taxation or we would have no infrastructure, no police, no fire-fighters , no roads , no military (and we have to have some sort of military), no border patrol, no customs ect.......


I for one don't mind being taxed fairly to maintain the infrastructure. I don't like being taxed to fight wars without end that only profit the companies dealing in death and blood. Wars for profit isn't infrastructure!!



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

In America, the Funding Fathers set it up so the government (a "limited" government) could pay for its limited budget by charging tariffs on imports. This places the burden of operating costs on businesses importing goods to the country instead of the American people.

Any tax on the people was to be limited to during war time for defense and only ten percent. The tax ended when the war did, not become permanent and progressive (go up).

Taxes were to be collected by government tax agents not the companies people work for.

How far down the road are we from all that?

If anyone tells us that its a different more complex world today and the "constitution" needed changing, tar and feather them for me.

edit on 3-11-2014 by intrptr because: clarity



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward
In times of feudal slavery, a slave sometimes manages to get a few bucks out of the deal here and there. So, its like working for a 90% tax rate. How is there a difference between being a slave a couple hundred years ago and paying a tax rate of 90%? If you are paying a 1% tax rate then you are 1% a slave. The only proper tax rate in a civilized society is 0% which means you are 0% a slave.


Your logic is wrong. Feudalism was not slavery.

In a society, if there were no taxes there would be no public anything.

As to taxation being theft... That's not right too because taxation is enshrined in laws and therefore it's legal. If the majority did not like the law, then change the government and change the law. Simple.

Regards



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I am willing pay for exactly what I use which would be roads and bridges (1% to 3% of what tax money goes for?) and national forests (1% of what tax money goes for?). So, are you going to have me put in jail for paying for exactly what government services I use and no more? Because that would be 96% less than the bill I'm sent?

No police sounds nice. See thefreethoughtproject.com... for what actually happens with no police force. I live in a rural area and therefore a fire department is of minimal value to me. I could do without it without any difference. Japan has gone without a military for decades. Switzerland is a great example of how a military is run... maybe if the US adopted the Swiss model I would actually want a military force in my country.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
When the founding fathers were around, there weren't multi-national corporations. The closest they had was "The British Empire". Now you have all sorts of tax shenanigans where a shipping company earning billions puts up a little flag on a cargo ship and declares itself under ownership of some tiny island and not have to pay any tax. Or you have corporations hiring hundreds of accountants to exploit every single loophole so that billions of dollars in taxable revenue is eliminated by several billions in tax rebates.

Then you have billionaires who use a similar strategy to keep their money out of high-taxation countries and into tax haven island states.

Those need to be sorted out first before they start claiming "oh, those naughty middle classes, they're not paying their fair share".



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
We let the camel's nose in the tent with the 16th Amendment which levied a permanent income tax and opened the door to the current tax code which gets used to punish and reward as the government sees fit. And the revenues are likewise used the same way and abused horribly with no real budget made and stuck to because they can always just find ways to tax more thanks to the 16th Amendment.

The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed. A specific tax should only be levied to pay for it's specific purpose, no more, no less, and every tax item ought to be its own revenue bill.

As for the military, well the COTUS tells the government they must provide for the common defense which means maintaining a military.

But about 90% of what our federal government has been enabled to become by the 16th Amendment is pretty much illegitimate and should have been left to the states.

Oh, and a global tax? That would most definitely be taxation without representation and it would most definitely hurt those of us who are hurt the most by taxation now. If you think it would make the corporations pay their "fair share" (whatever that is), you're fooling yourself. It's only opening the door to global governance and stripping you of any representation you may have in your governance now.
edit on 3-11-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Was owning a black person not slavery 150 years ago because the law said it was permissible? Just because something is legal does not do anything to make it right. The USA corporation has a set of legal definitions but they are in a strange legalize with little bearing on reality. Their set of definitions isn't more valid than any other corporation's set of definitions. I think what would be more important would be how most people actually use words in real life. When people use the word "theft" in real life like "John stole my watch", they mean "John took my watch without my permission". If a gang of people from the USA corporation gives itself permission to take John's watch, without getting John's permission, it doesn't suddenly make what happened not stealing.

Or put another way, lets say the government makes a new definition of slavery to be "owning another person, unless you are the US government". So, lets say hypothetically that the US government then corals blacks onto a farm where they work. But they have changed the law and it is no longer slavery... but rather "happy servicing". Oh, those are not slaves you say, they are happy servicers because that is what the US government says? The USA corporation can change the definitions how they see fit but I don't see how that should affect my own definitions or your definitions.

You can call theft whatever you want. You can call it taxes. But its still taking another person's property without their permission, which is wrong.

Also, if public means "open to the general public" then there would still be lots of public places. Shopping malls are private but it they are also a public place in some regard. Depends what definition you use. In any case, in a society without taxes there would be more places that everyone is welcome and would feel safe. Disney Land is a private place but its roads are as easy to use if not easier than on any government-owned land.
edit on 3-11-2014 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


To be clear, I do not agree to be taxed because it is against my morals


I see what you want to say here, however, I'm reasonably certain "morals" is the wrong term. It might be against your "morale" (lol) ............

Otherwise you have it backwards. It's quite immoral not to pay taxes.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

In regard to your linked story re: cops go on strike and no one cares, there is this to consider:

What happens to all the KC's(†) who, unable to work as parasites that kill, are now set loose on the streets?

In my opinion, KC (and former KC) ought be prevented from any access to firearms, or pets. They have shown their mental disposition simply by their choice of career as looter-executioner for the NWO state.

I won't go so far to suggest that all KC applicants ought be held to this safeguard, because many of them are turned away for having too much integrity or for not being stupid enough. 'They' only select bad apples. If they are rejected, it means, most likely, that they are of good moral fiber.

If I were in Acapulco, I would have a dedicated ex-KC watch program in place. They should open up some institutions specializing in mental dysfunction and psychopathic entrainment, and have specialists who are expert at ECT on call 24-7.

Breeding would still be allowed so long as they offer up their offspring to one-way avenues of adoption with no chance of tracing where their spawn landed.

KC's perform crimes and executions all day and night, as a livelihood, for their NWO masters. What makes you think they'll change and start doing something constructive for a living, just because they no longer get paid to do evil?

If anything, they be even more uninhibited about rape and theft and murder once they have their colors cashiered.

Not only are they rewarded for this, they are well practiced at it. Old habits die hard, especially lustful urges like absolute power and corruption. So, now you have hundreds or thousands of KC's waking up each afternoon and wondering what to do. Somehow, I don't think good-housekeeping and a new career-search are on their itinerary. But they have to do something.

(†) Killer Cops

# 317




edit on 3-11-2014 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Lets say I move next door to you. Me and your other direct neighbor on the other side of you sign you up as a group of three to donate $10 to the Red Cross which is a wasteful charity organization in my opinion. Would it then be true that you have agreed to donate $10 to the Red Cross? So, our neighborhood has agreed to donate $10 to the Red Cross. You are in our neighborhood. Therefore, you have agreed to donate $10 to the Red Cross?

I am not society. I am an individual. I am part of society. So if society agrees to pay something to a person, then that collective known as "society" must open a bank account in the name of "society". They must pay the bill under the name "society".

A good contract has negotiating power on both sides. A good contract is something with provisions to cancel or otherwise terminate. A good contract is in writing. So, if the United States is GOOD, then I negotiate with them on what I will give them in exchange for specific services. To date, I have not been approached for such a contract. At best, there is a very bad and questionable contract... not up-holdable in any well-run court system.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I would say it depends on how much and why you are being taxed.

I have no problem being taxed to pay for basic infrastructure, but that should be local taxation, not federal.

Why am I being taxed exorbitantly to pay for myriad social programs, many of which I will never use? Why am I being taxed to pay for things like NPR and art? What say do I have over the taxes for those things? Next to nothing because they are all passed through bills in Congress and if I am in a district where my vote is a minority, then my wishes may not be represented.

So what business does the Federal Government have in giving tax money to these things again? At least if they are funded locally my vote is much more likely to count on whether or not my money goes to those things.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

In American society, we enjoy living in a certain way. We agree to share burdens, to boost the quality of each other's lives by providing hospitals, schools, highways, bridges, and all those many things to assist one another.

It's an agreement. Some people may never have children to use the schools they contribute taxes to, or they may never be hospitalized, but they contribute towards those things anyway. Some people might have a serious illness and need disability; some might not. Some might need assistance with groceries for a while; some might not.I've never needed the fire department.... but I don't mind my contribution for those who do.

We help each other in this way. It's the way our society is structured, without which we could become just another third world country. I personally enjoy our standard of living, and want to keep it. I don't mind paying a few extra bucks for things I might never need.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join