Taxation is nothing but theft.

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: Aristotelian1

So I had this discussion with a libertarian...on our way to a dinner paid for by my parents by their social security...Him: all taxes should be covered by donations. Me: You mean if you got a raise at work you would donate it to the cause. Him: NO I don't make enough. ME: What would constitute "enough". Him: I don't know. Me: You really need to think about this...and after the dinner we broke up.

Sounds like he got lucky.

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: Aristotelian1

So I had this discussion with a libertarian...on our way to a dinner paid for by my parents by their social security...Him: all taxes should be covered by donations. Me: You mean if you got a raise at work you would donate it to the cause. Him: NO I don't make enough. ME: What would constitute "enough". Him: I don't know. Me: You really need to think about this...and after the dinner we broke up.

In other words, Taxes should be paid for by people other than him, while he enjoys the benefits from those taxes without putting anything into them himself. Until of course he decides for himself that he's rich enough to pitch in for them, which we all know would be never.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: EveStreet
a reply to: Aristotelian1

So I had this discussion with a libertarian...on our way to a dinner paid for by my parents by their social security...Him: all taxes should be covered by donations. Me: You mean if you got a raise at work you would donate it to the cause. Him: NO I don't make enough. ME: What would constitute "enough". Him: I don't know. Me: You really need to think about this...and after the dinner we broke up.

In other words, Taxes should be paid for by people other than him, while he enjoys the benefits from those taxes without putting anything into them himself. Until of course he decides for himself that he's rich enough to pitch in for them, which we all know would be never.

If you put all your good stuff out on the side of the road for people to take, it will probably all be gone by tomorrow. Try selling it in the same amount of time. You'd be lucky if you can sell a really nice TV for half of what you paid for it. It would take ages to sell a whole house worth of perfectly good stuff for a fraction of what it's worth.

People are always willing to take freebies even if they don't need it or it's not that great or whatever. People won't pay for stuff they don't want or need. People have to pay for stuff they actually need. How can you argue with this? If the government is willing to give you somebody else's money you'd be a fool not to take it. That says absolutely nothing about the morality of the thing. It just says people will take a handout if you offer it to them. Duh.

If you have a decent car, put it on Craigslist for free and tell them to come and get it. Tell them you just want them to have a nice car. The phone will probably ring in less than an hour. That doesn't mean those people would buy the car. It means they'll take it if you give it to them.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

My point is that people take things for granted and don't give any attention to how many benefits they're getting already.

This guy won't pay taxes but does he think about all the services that are out there now and what it would be like if nobody was taxed?? Imagine no Fire Dept., Police Dept., EMS, Public Parks, etc. Even things that we do pay for but are also supported by Gov. money as well, like Sewage, Plumbing and even Power aren't Private fully. They are also regulated by Government. Or education and a million other things. We all take many of these things for granted but they are being supported by Government funding that we don't think about.

But we would notice and society wouldn't be functioning as it is, like it is here in America if they weren't being paid for, or waiting for people to give what they want.

Besides, I'm not talking about Freebies. They are being paid for by taxes, just not a Libertarians taxes because he doesn't feel the need to pay. But doesn't think twice about taking without paying.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
People have to pay for stuff they actually need. How can you argue with this?

Stuff like roads, infrastructure, fire departments, police, etc, etc? No-one's arguing with that.

What you haven't shown is how this stuff would carry on working for the general public if taxation were abolished. And that's because you can't, because it wouldn't.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
People have to pay for stuff they actually need. How can you argue with this?

Stuff like roads, infrastructure, fire departments, police, etc, etc? No-one's arguing with that.

Not so. You have argued that a voluntary tax system would mean we wouldn't have those things because people would not voluntarily pay for things they need. Most people need cars and people actually buy cars without being required to by law. So people obviously do choose to pay for things they actually need. In the case of cars, people even go into debt for things they need.

What you haven't shown is how this stuff would carry on working for the general public if taxation were abolished.

What you haven't done is actually read most of my posts. I was saying the current system should be abolished in favor of a voluntary system in which people choose to pay for things they feel are worth paying for. I assume that most sane people would pay for roads if they knew exactly where the money was going and they could actually withhold their contributions from the things they don't need or support.

Clearly some people would abuse this but some people already do abuse the progressive tax system by simply not working (and therefore paying virtually no taxes at all). While someone who is working their butt off 12 hours a day and barely making enough to pay their bills is paying a hefty tax rate.

The argument that some people wouldn't "do the right thing" is not that persuasive in this light.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: BrianFlanders

My point is that people take things for granted and don't give any attention to how many benefits they're getting already.

And my point is that people should not have to pay for things they don't support. If the majority of people feels that a certain thing is not worth paying for to the point to where it would be severely underfunded without a mandatory tax system, it probably actually is either not worth paying for or there is something deeply wrong with the way it is being implemented or utilized. Either way, the money is being wasted and everyone is paying higher taxes to support half-baked ideas (and often outright corruption and abuse).

Often a law or a program or whatever will be sold to the public as a stripped down version of what the government actually wants (but they know the public doesn't want to pay for it). Then later on they gradually tweak it and the price goes way up. Basically, they lied and they get away with it because people can't just stop paying for it. They're forced to keep supporting things they never voted for. Obamacare is a perfect example. The people who voted for Barrack Obama did not vote for the individual mandate. They voted for the guy who said there wasn't going to be an individual mandate in the law he would sign. But look what happened. And he got away with it. And now we have this mess that no one knows what to do with that is law because politicians can lie and make false claims and promises (basically commit fraud) and leave us with the mess.

And also, my point is that people go to the store every single day and they choose to buy the things they need. Once the dust settles and things stabilize, people do what they need to do. The only thing that gets left out of voluntary spending is waste. And people who aren't willing to pay for roads and bridges and so forth don't get them. Just like if you aren't willing to buy groceries you have no food to eat.

You (and others) have correctly pointed out that these things are basic necessities. So people who can afford to pay for them should be willing to pay for them without being forced to. And if they aren't, they go away. How long is that going to last before people start looking into funding the things they care about?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
What you haven't done is actually read most of my posts. I was saying the current system should be abolished in favor of a voluntary system in which people choose to pay for things they feel are worth paying for. I assume that most sane people would pay for roads if they knew exactly where the money was going and they could actually withhold their contributions from the things they don't need or support.

Clearly some people would abuse this but some people already do abuse the progressive tax system by simply not working (and therefore paying virtually no taxes at all). While someone who is working their butt off 12 hours a day and barely making enough to pay their bills is paying a hefty tax rate.

I am not entirely convinced that the abolition of taxation, in order for very rich people to keep all of their money, would result in those same people giving voluntarily to the things that used to be funded by taxation.

Well, I say "not entirely", I mean "not even remotely". As in, this claim wouldn't even pass initial reading at a sci-fi publishing house.

I don't need to go any further than that to dismiss it, because you haven't gone beyond simply claiming it's true. All the evidence says that it's not true, and never would be.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

And my point is that people should not have to pay for things they don't support. If the majority of people feels that a certain thing is not worth paying for to the point to where it would be severely underfunded without a mandatory tax system, it probably actually is either not worth paying for or there is something deeply wrong with the way it is being implemented or utilized. Either way, the money is being wasted and everyone is paying higher taxes to support half-baked ideas (and often outright corruption and abuse).

That's fine. When you have a situation like that where everyone agrees then it's pretty easy to change that. If everyone thinks it's useless and wasteful then they decide to stop funding it. But how often does everyone agree like that?? Not too often. Usually it's a mix of opinions, some for, some against and some in the middle. But as a single society in general you can't have it be three different ways. You have to decide on 1 choice and we collectively go with that. But that means sometimes you pay for things you don't use or don't want and other times someone else is paying into something they don't use or don't like but you do.

Often a law or a program or whatever will be sold to the public as a stripped down version of what the government actually wants (but they know the public doesn't want to pay for it). Then later on they gradually tweak it and the price goes way up. Basically, they lied and they get away with it because people can't just stop paying for it. They're forced to keep supporting things they never voted for. Obamacare is a perfect example. The people who voted for Barrack Obama did not vote for the individual mandate. They voted for the guy who said there wasn't going to be an individual mandate in the law he would sign. But look what happened. And he got away with it. And now we have this mess that no one knows what to do with that is law because politicians can lie and make false claims and promises (basically commit fraud) and leave us with the mess.

Yeah. Things don't always work out as planned. Government is often Corrupt and abuses their power over people. These are things that need fixing for sure, but is far more than just taxes and what this thread can cover on it's own. But I get what you're saying and agree that is a problem.

And also, my point is that people go to the store every single day and they choose to buy the things they need. Once the dust settles and things stabilize, people do what they need to do. The only thing that gets left out of voluntary spending is waste. And people who aren't willing to pay for roads and bridges and so forth don't get them. Just like if you aren't willing to buy groceries you have no food to eat.

Things are more interconnected for a society than it is for just a person doing what they do. Someone who chooses not to use roads so they don't get taxed for them loses more than just road access. No roads means no deliveries happening. Which means no stores get supplies. No supplies, no stores, less jobs, less economy to support town and people, pretty soon no town and now people because no food, because no stores to hold the food, because no no roads to ship food on, etc. So even if guy doesn't use roads, he's still taxed for them because they are a component of a stable working society which he is a part of also, even if he chooses to hike around in that society instead of drive around it.

You (and others) have correctly pointed out that these things are basic necessities. So people who can afford to pay for them should be willing to pay for them without being forced to. And if they aren't, they go away. How long is that going to last before people start looking into funding the things they care about?

What people "should do" is rarely the thing that they actually do though. People are short sighted, selfish, greedy and simply careless sometimes. They cheat, lie, cut corners, etc. They don't always act in their own best interest. Sometimes don't even consider options. They're impulsive, illogical, spiteful, etc. In other words you can't rely on what people "should do" because it's right to do it. Because that isn't what people "actually do."

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, look at it this way.

You live in a country. The state is the land. Consider taxation as rent. You are paying for the privilege of living in that state. Anyway, you do receive something for your rent: You get security, justice, societal institutions and the basics for civilised life. The tax taken does not just disappear, it is spent. You may not like how it is spent, but that's the way it works.

I suppose it all boils down to being a citizen of the country you live in. Here I talk about the developed West where every person has rights and responsibilities. You cannot abdicate your responsibilities when choosing to live in the society where there is common cause and common humanity. You have a right to change society, but also to accept the society’s norms.

If you don’t like it, then move somewhere else. That, or be the catalyst for political change, although there is a reason why people who think “tax is theft” don’t get into power.

So You are advocating that some people need to pay to breath where as another group gets paid to breath. I think it's pretty #ed up that You create two sorts of classes the slave class and the master class whom benefits off of the slaves labor. I assure You if everyone was treated equally and taxed equally Your attitude would change completely.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
So if you were to kidnap someone off the street and lock them in your basement and feed them and provide everything they could ever want (except they could never leave) that would be fair?

How on Earth do you equate paying taxes to being forcibly taken and locked in a basement for the rest of your life?

Let's just say for the sake of argument this person was homeless and you provide them with things they would have never had otherwise but they are still unhappy and would not choose to stay if they didn't have to. This is essentially the situation millions and millions of people are living in.

So millions and millions of people would prefer to ride horses along game trails to barter for what they need? Roads don't create and maintain themselves, so if you use roads, and you want to continue using roads, you should pay taxes.

The argument isn't whether or not taxes do awesome things. The argument is about whether or not it's ethical and moral to do this to people and tell them to just deal with it because it works.

Your argument is nonsense thus far. Like I said before, if you want to sever yourself from society, then I could see an argument for why property tax would be unfair. If you want to partake in a civilized (for lack of a better word) world, then pay your damn taxes.

originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: BrianFlanders

How on Earth do you equate paying taxes to being forcibly taken and locked in a basement for the rest of your life?

It's best not to ask him questions like that.

He ALSO thinks taxes are like "being raped." One wonders what he could possibly know about such a thing.

And being taxed is like "living in slavery."

Clearly he wants the rest of us to pay for the things he takes for granted in this society. And he has the gall to call other people lazy.

a reply to: Dudemo5

"flojo in the nojo" eh? Never heard that expression, but ya, he's not the sharpest knife in the crayon box lol.

originally posted by: scojak

How on Earth do you equate paying taxes to being forcibly taken and locked in a basement for the rest of your life?

I don't. I equate being fined for existing to being a prisoner (or a slave).

So millions and millions of people would prefer to ride horses along game trails to barter for what they need? Roads don't create and maintain themselves, so if you use roads, and you want to continue using roads, you should pay taxes.

Well, there are millions and millions of people who feel there are better ways of doing things, aren't there? I didn't say anything about riding horses. Although people did do that for ages and the human race is here, isn't it? That must mean that it is possible to live that way. Not the same way we do. But we weren't consuming vast quantities of finite resources in those times either. This technological wonderland just might come to a screeching halt eventually. Taxes or no taxes.

Your argument is nonsense thus far. Like I said before, if you want to sever yourself from society, then I could see an argument for why property tax would be unfair. If you want to partake in a civilized (for lack of a better word) world, then pay your damn taxes.

When you go to the store and buy your groceries, you pay for them, don't you? Why? Is there a law that requires you to buy groceries? Of course not. It's a necessity. You buy them because you have to. You don't gather up a bunch of homeless people and take them with you and buy their groceries too. You buy your own groceries. If you should CHOOSE to buy groceries for a bunch of homeless people, fine. Good for you. If you were to extort money from 30 of your neighbors to feed the homeless, you would be guilty of extortion. Because you have no business forcing other people to support homeless people. It's awesome if you want to help them. Don't get me wrong. But it should be your choice to make.

At any rate. Electricity is a basic necessity and most people are paying for it voluntarily, are they not? There probably actually is a law that says you can't live without electricity but even if there wasn't, most people would pay the power bill anyway because they want power.


And let's not forget that homelessness has a cause. And often, that cause is irresponsible behavior and careless/reckless breeding. And it never ends because the tax system takes up the slack and no one has to wonder how they're going to feed their kids or clothe them or send them to school or where they're going to live. It just goes on and on. Creating more and more dependents on the government.

People often forget that roads and bridges and the fire department aren't the only things they're paying for when they pay taxes. You are paying for things you don't even agree with (or at least most people are). And worse, you don't even know what a lot of those things are. Because you have no bargaining power when taxes are compulsory. They don't have to account for what they spend. They don't answer to anyone. Least of all the taxpayers. As I said, you can vote them out of there from now on and nothing will ever change just because you voted against them. They still have an unlimited supply of funds and resources and they own us as a result. We are slaves. That's what being kidnapped and locked in someone's basement has to do with mandatory taxes. It's a crude comparison but it is fairly accurate. Most of us were born on a farm and we're NOT the farmers. If dairy cows or chickens were humans, they'd basically be slaves, don't you think?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
It's a crude comparison but it is fairly accurate.

No.

Most of us were born on a farm and we're NOT the farmers. If dairy cows or chickens were humans, they'd basically be slaves, don't you think?

No.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
We are slaves. That's what being kidnapped and locked in someone's basement has to do with mandatory taxes. It's a crude comparison but it is fairly accurate.

The bolded bit is the most recklessly extravagant assertion I have read in quite some time.

I'm not going to argue against it, because it discredits itself quite adequately.

Taxation is necessary, but it is actually to fall upon business and commerce. Roads and bridges are supposed to be free for the people. It is important to understand however that ALL taxes fall upon the people. Take the people out of the equation, and no taxes are paid. The people have the unalienable right to life and property, and neither can be taxed by the state or federal government. Our government has become evil, and predatory upon its own creator via deception and fraud. It has become drunk on power and money.

a reply to: craterman

The people have the unalienable right to life and property, and neither can be taxed by the state or federal government. Our government has become evil, and predatory upon its own creator via deception and fraud. It has become drunk on power and money.

Yes they have, something somewhere has gone horribly wrong .

a reply to: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

I don't. I equate being fined for existing to being a prisoner (or a slave).

First off, work on that vocab.

Fine - Monetary charge imposed upon individuals who have been convicted of a crime or a lesser offense. A fine is a criminal sanction.

Taxes are not given as penalties for criminal actions, unless of course you think 'existing' is criminal.

Second, "I equate being fined for existing to being a prisoner (or a slave)"... this statement is the reason I will not respond again to one of your posts. Being forced to contribute money to the society in which you live in order to maintain that society has absolutely nothing to do with spatial confinement, let alone forced servitude. You clearly have a skewed outlook on reality.

Well, there are millions and millions of people who feel there are better ways of doing things, aren't there? I didn't say anything about riding horses. Although people did do that for ages and the human race is here, isn't it? That must mean that it is possible to live that way. Not the same way we do. But we weren't consuming vast quantities of finite resources in those times either. This technological wonderland just might come to a screeching halt eventually. Taxes or no taxes.

My allusion to riding horses was to describe a society without paved roads, which taxes pay for.

Yes, it is possible to live that way, but now we don't. Why? Because people prefer driving cars on paved roads, which taxes pay for.

Resource consumption is an irrelevant tangent to this conversation.

When you go to the store and buy your groceries, you pay for them, don't you? Why? Is there a law that requires you to buy groceries? Of course not. It's a necessity. You buy them because you have to.

Odd that you just mentioned how people managed to commute by on horses way back when, yet you don't realize that people used to grow their own crops and hunt for their own meat. It's a privilege that grocery stores exist for you to use, a privilege that wouldn't exist the way it does without taxes.

You don't gather up a bunch of homeless people and take them with you and buy their groceries too. You buy your own groceries. If you should CHOOSE to buy groceries for a bunch of homeless people, fine. Good for you. If you were to extort money from 30 of your neighbors to feed the homeless, you would be guilty of extortion. Because you have no business forcing other people to support homeless people. It's awesome if you want to help them. Don't get me wrong. But it should be your choice to make.

While some taxes do go to the less fortunate, those programs are there to maintain a healthy society. Part of a functioning society is to help those who may not be able to help themselves. It's part of the reason there aren't dilapidated towns all over the place overrun with homeless and delinquents. Think if taxes completely stopped going to the less fortunate. The rate of homelessness would skyrocket, creating a much less pleasant country to live in.

At any rate. Electricity is a basic necessity

Since when? Are you going to die without electricity?

and most people are paying for it voluntarily, are they not? There probably actually is a law that says you can't live without electricity

Florida is the only state that requires you to be connected to the city's power grid. There's probably a reason why it's not wise to make assumptions.

but even if there wasn't, most people would pay the power bill anyway because they want power

What does any of this have to do with taxes?

And let's not forget that homelessness has a cause. And often, that cause is irresponsible behavior and careless/reckless breeding. And it never ends because the tax system takes up the slack and no one has to wonder how they're going to feed their kids or clothe them or send them to school or where they're going to live. It just goes on and on. Creating more and more dependents on the government.

Again, if there was no help at all, things would be a whole lot worse.

People often forget that roads and bridges and the fire department aren't the only things they're paying for when they pay taxes. You are paying for things you don't even agree with (or at least most people are). And worse, you don't even know what a lot of those things are. Because you have no bargaining power when taxes are compulsory. They don't have to account for what they spend. They don't answer to anyone. Least of all the taxpayers. As I said, you can vote them out of there from now on and nothing will ever change just because you voted against them. They still have an unlimited supply of funds and resources and they own us as a result. We are slaves. That's what being kidnapped and locked in someone's basement has to do with mandatory taxes. It's a crude comparison but it is fairly accurate. Most of us were born on a farm and we're NOT the farmers. If dairy cows or chickens were humans, they'd basically be slaves, don't you think?

By all means, spend the time finding out where each of your tax dollars goes and complain about the ones that go to something you don't agree with. The government, while faulty, has a lot to deal with, and I'm happy to let them worry about it so I don't have to. Keep in mind that most countries have taxes, because unless a country has significant natural resources, taxes are necessary to maintain a government and functioning society.

Ok, there's your lesson on taxes. Next time you feel like a slave when you get your W2, remember that life would really suck without taxes

a reply to: Aristotelian1

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. - Well no actually.

Tax in the US is voluntry if you read the tax code carefully. Somewhere in there it says that going by what I have seen quoted on a website once.

They like to deal with people on a 'voluntry' basis.

While not knowing this is not your fault (nobdy has ever told you) if one learns how, one can not pay tax.

AN exmaple, Forming a foundation and having your income 'donated' and not 'paid' into your foundation achieves a tax free income.

Another one; if you considered your labour was worth $20 per hour but your employer paid you $30 per hour, only then have earned an 'income' of $10 an hour. Had your employer paid you $20 per hour, that is not profit, its compensation for your knowledge, skills, expereince etc from which you did not earn any 'income' or profits.

If you were to write to the top tax dog and tell them that you are trying to complete your annual tax return but you in order for you to be able to complete it you require the tax man to provide you with an official documented defintion of income. But if you did that then you will be waiting a long time for it because the word "income" is not defined in ANY of the western worlds Income Tax Assemsent Acts.