Taxation is nothing but theft.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.

You seem to think that living in a high-tech modern society with common infrastructure and services should be free. Seriously, if you want to avoid taxation you'll need to move somewhere where the benefits of society are nonexistent. Maybe the bottom of the ocean?

Free? No. I don't think that.

Good. That's a start. So SOME of the taxes are NOT theft because you receive the societal benefits of said taxation? Like, for example roads, schools, common infrastructure, police, fire departments, crews that maintain public infrastructure....

I mean, these things do cost something.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
a reply to: Dudemo5
"A highly a-typical situation during a time of World War hardly equates to a normal, everyday function of democratic societies such as taxation." You missed the point entirely. They were persecuted in a democracy, regardless of their vote. They did not consent and voting did not help them. They were the persecuted minority.

That has nothing to do with taxation. And women getting raped also has nothing to do with taxation. Your comparisons are absurd.

Look, you are old enough to know that taxation forms a decent chunk of how we pay for the basic building blocks of the society in which you have chosen to live.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The very fact that people have wealth/income to tax comes from society. The laws to enforce property rights, the roads to move goods even the very money we use.

Taxation is necessary for society to function.

Back when the "income tax" was being pushed through, it was sold to the public as meaning a tax on income, which wasn't considered earnings from working. The definition back then for income was money made on investments and things not including the money you made at a job. That was a big lie exactly like Obamacare was was a big lie. Obamacare is a carbon copy reproduction of the exact same thing that happened with the income tax birthing. And then after it was enacted, the definition of "income" was changed so that it included wages and earnings from business and jobs. Those pushing for it knew in advance they were lying to the people, just like most every politician today does when they hide the real undisclosed goal of some new law.

It was a diabolical way for the federal government to redefine itself to expand massively. Before the income tax, the federal budget was a little over 1 billion dollars annually. The lack of the income tax kept the federal government from becoming the run amok monster it is right now today.

The income tax was indeed a theft on America because it was done with premeditated theft in mind. Just like Obamacare was.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The very fact that people have wealth/income to tax comes from society. The laws to enforce property rights, the roads to move goods even the very money we use.

Taxation is necessary for society to function.

Back when the "income tax" was being pushed through, it was sold to the public as meaning a tax on income, which wasn't considered earnings from working. The definition back then for income was money made on investments and things not including the money you made at a job. That was a big lie exactly like Obamacare was was a big lie. Obamacare is a carbon copy reproduction of the exact same thing that happened with the income tax birthing. And then after it was enacted, the definition of "income" was changed so that it included wages and earnings from business and jobs. Those pushing for it knew in advance they were lying to the people, just like most every politician today does when they hide the real undisclosed goal of some new law.

It was a diabolical way for the federal government to redefine itself to expand massively. Before the income tax, the federal budget was a little over 1 billion dollars annually. The lack of the income tax kept the federal government from becoming the run amok monster it is right now today.

The income tax was indeed a theft on America because it was done with premeditated theft in mind. Just like Obamacare was.

Not sure what period you are talking about as to the best of my knowledge income tax in the US had always included earned from work.

The nature of how governments tax is also a separate argument from the legitimacy of taxation at all.

Governments need to tax in order for society to function. How much to tax and the fairest way to tax should be part of the democratic process.

Taxation systems in most developed nations are undoubtedly over complicated which does result a lack of transparency. If people don't understand how and how much they are taxed it is difficult to have an informed opinion on taxation generally.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

I consent to earning a living,

Then you consent to paying taxes. I don't care if you say you don't because it doesn't work like that.

If you consent to work and earn money legally, you consent to the same legal system to pay taxes.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.

You seem to think that living in a high-tech modern society with common infrastructure and services should be free. Seriously, if you want to avoid taxation you'll need to move somewhere where the benefits of society are nonexistent. Maybe the bottom of the ocean?

Free? No. I don't think that.

Good. That's a start. So SOME of the taxes are NOT theft because you receive the societal benefits of said taxation? Like, for example roads, schools, common infrastructure, police, fire departments, crews that maintain public infrastructure....

I mean, these things do cost something.

All taxes are theft, regardless of what the money is allocated to. "Benefits" of taxation have no bearing on the means by which the money is obtained.

a reply to: [post=22625698]Aristotelian1[/post
We need to raise taxes.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.

You seem to think that living in a high-tech modern society with common infrastructure and services should be free. Seriously, if you want to avoid taxation you'll need to move somewhere where the benefits of society are nonexistent. Maybe the bottom of the ocean?

Free? No. I don't think that.

Good. That's a start. So SOME of the taxes are NOT theft because you receive the societal benefits of said taxation? Like, for example roads, schools, common infrastructure, police, fire departments, crews that maintain public infrastructure....

I mean, these things do cost something.

All taxes are theft, regardless of what the money is allocated to. "Benefits" of taxation have no bearing on the means by which the money is obtained.

Again, you're old enough to know that you're choosing to live in a democratic republic whereby taxes are used to pay for said society. It's not theft. It's how the society in which YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE sustains itself and its members.

If you don't want to pay for the benefits of living in a democratic republic with common infrastructure, MOVE.

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

Premise 1: All dogs have four legs.
Premise 2: All cows have four legs.
Conclusion: Therefore, a cow is a dog.

Taxation is legal; theft is not. And nor is tax evasion.

If you don't like living in a society in which we all contribute to the continued running of society, you can apply for Somalian citizenship (if they have anything that formal, otherwise just go move there).

Some indication of the idiocy of this libertarian "tax = theft" can be gained from the fact that not even the USA's founding fathers agreed with it. Their sticking-point was that if you pay tax, you deserve democratic representation.

That's because the Founding Fathers knew what was a fair and appropriate way to run a modern nation, and fruit-loops like Rand Paul do not. What libertarians are telling you, virtually in so many words, is that you (or rather, they) can in fact put a price on your liberty, and that that price is the total amount of tax you pay. If you think you are worth so little, that's your business.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it.

But its so easy to refute (as evidenced above). I take it you'll continue to proclaim it unrefuted in direct contravention to the preponderance of evidence/explanation herein. Unfortunately for your sake that still doesn't make you right.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

The absence of a meaningful (and/or satisfactory) choice is the complete opposite of consent.

You might as well tell a woman if she doesn't want to be raped she should stay away from men.

Please. There are plenty of decent politicians running at the local/state level all across the country. Are you specifically complaining about federal taxes?

Either way, we get the government we deserve. Stop bitching and get involved if you're not happy with your representation.

As I said, this is not a realistic solution to the problem and I think you know it. But on the off chance that you don't, you are hereby informed. Now. If you can't accept that this is not a satisfactory solution, you really have nothing left to say (having said the same thing at least twice). So your actual response to the entire argument is "I don't care".

As far as your hyperbole about women staying away from men if they don't want to be raped, at least it's safe to say you've mastered the art of ridiculous comparisons.

OK. Why is it a ridiculous comparison? I guess it's easier to say it's a ridiculous comparison than it is to explain why it's a ridiculous comparison. But if you're really that intellectually lazy, why did you get involved here in the first place?

originally posted by: audubon

Taxation is legal; theft is not. And nor is tax evasion.

Taxation is legal because theft is not illegal when the government does it. Is that right?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Governments need to tax in order for society to function. How much to tax and the fairest way to tax should be part of the democratic process.

Instead of taxing the population, how about the Government setting up "Federal Corporations" like the "Crown Corporations" in some places in the world, and make a profit, use that profit to pay for the things taxes currently pays for?

For example, in the US taxpayers provide $18 Billion USD to the US Postal Service for the delivery of mail,

American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year

but over in neighboring Canada, none of the taxpayers dollars go to Canadian Postal Services,

FACT: Canada Post doesn’t run on any taxpayer money. It has actually put more than a billion dollars back. Canada Post became a Crown Corporation in the early 1980s so it could survive off its own revenues.

That's an example, of how to provide Government services without taxation.

Simply establish a group of "Federal Corporations" that both provide services and make a profit doing so, and use the excess profits to pay for things that the public needs.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Taxation is legal because theft is not illegal when the government does it. Is that right?

No, taxation is based on positive law, is intended to be equitable, is used in the public's interest, and it doesn't deprive people of something that they lawfully possessed.

Theft is defined by positive law, is not intended to be equitable, is for private gain, and it deprives people of something that they lawfully possessed.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
I'v given this argument here on ATS before and nobody has been able to refute it. Since it was a little while back and there are new minds to evaluate it, here it is:

Premise 1: All cases of theft are cases of taking somebody else's property or money without their consent.
Premise 2: Taxation is the taking of somebody's money without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore, taxation is theft.

The conclusion necessarily springs from the premises and the premises seem rather obvious. Thoughts?

Except, you did give your consent, via your elected representatives. Didn't vote for that particular representative? Well, we live in a Democratic Republic. You might try moving to an uncharted island.

The absence of a meaningful (and/or satisfactory) choice is the complete opposite of consent.

You might as well tell a woman if she doesn't want to be raped she should stay away from men.

Please. There are plenty of decent politicians running at the local/state level all across the country. Are you specifically complaining about federal taxes?

Either way, we get the government we deserve. Stop bitching and get involved if you're not happy with your representation.

As I said, this is not a realistic solution to the problem and I think you know it. But on the off chance that you don't, you are hereby informed. Now. If you can't accept that this is not a satisfactory solution, you really have nothing left to say (having said the same thing at least twice). So your actual response to the entire argument is "I don't care".

As far as your hyperbole about women staying away from men if they don't want to be raped, at least it's safe to say you've mastered the art of ridiculous comparisons.

OK. Why is it a ridiculous comparison? I guess it's easier to say it's a ridiculous comparison than it is to explain why it's a ridiculous comparison. But if you're really that intellectually lazy, why did you get involved here in the first place?

You're calling me intellectually lazy when your arguments look like this ^^^ ?

You seriously just said something wasn't a viable solution without presenting ANY rationale at all.

Weak, son. Weak.

I did explain why those comparisons were ridiculous. More than once.

Being RAPED is not a reasonable expectation. Being raped does not benefit the public good. Being raped deprives someone of something in a manner which is ILLEGAL per the laws agreed upon by the society in which you live.


I could go on.

This is not in any way related to taxation, which is a reasonable expectation for anyone who lives in any modern society, especially when you have representation, and which DOES benefit the public interest, and which is NOT illegal per the rules of the society in which you have chosen to live.

Again, you're calling me lazy, when apparently you think it's hunky dory to benefit from shared infrastructure and services while at the same time calling it "theft" when it comes time to pay for those things.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: audubon

Taxation is legal; theft is not. And nor is tax evasion.

Taxation is legal because theft is not illegal when the government does it. Is that right?

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Is that right?

Here's my counter argument (it's lame yeah, but slightly less so than the fruitastic argument in the OP):

1) Using something without paying for it is theft.
2) People who don't pay taxes often benefit from public infrastructure and services: roads, police departments, fire departments.

Therefore, people who drive on public roads without paying taxes are theives.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww yeah, son. Consider yourself suckaflickamajoed right in the hamhole! Wooh yah!

I just starred myself 5,000 times! Can I get a Rick Flair wooooooooo!?

Double, son.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Yeah. It's BS, but that's how it is.

You've been sold out a long time ago into playing a game you can never win. But here you are along with the rest of us all playing the same unwinnable game.

If the government accumulates debt I am not culpable for its repayment.

Try explaining that to the Government then and see if they agree with you.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Taxation is legal because theft is not illegal when the government does it. Is that right?

No, taxation is based on positive law, is intended to be equitable, is used in the public's interest, and it doesn't deprive people of something that they lawfully possessed.

In other words, it's a decree.

Therefore, how would you address the example I put forth of the homeless person taken by force off the street and kept as a slave by a wealthy person? This person would be provided with absolutely everything they need and the person who kidnapped them actually intends to help them and believes it's a fair deal. They would demonstrably benefit greatly from this arrangement. The only problem is they don't want to be a slave and they would rather be homeless than be deprived of their right to choose.