Acquiring revenue through 'taxation' in America

To all of those tax-buffs out there, I recently finished editing the newest version of a circular entitled the “Crux on Federal ‘Taxation’" (CFT), it is intended to provide a solid background for obtaining a better grasp on federal powers of taxation as a thorough and compact read -while also addressing related constitutional aspects, it's available for consumption at (as a PDF):

www.ctcwarrior.defendindependence.us...

So, please do enjoy and converse in truth to others. As always comments are welcomed and thank you.

reply to post by RexxCrow


And for all the tac buffs Answer This -

When attempting to justify government expenditure on utilitarian grounds, how do you take the coercive nature of taxation into account? When answering, please consider these four points:

1.Taxation is coercive — There are no written, signed and witnessed contracts agreeing to the relationship. True, the taxpayer may not rise up against the government, but it does not then follow that he consents to the arrangement. It could mean that he submits in the face of officially-endorsed threats of force (such as property confiscation and imprisonment for tax evasion). How can it be proven otherwise? Obeying government and paying taxes no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into babysitting. If the kidnapper protects the kid from other kidnappers, he is still a kidnapper, and has still failed to justify why he himself kidnapped the kid, especially since he denies others the right to do so.

2.Taxpayer does not want to pay tax — A forced transaction means the victim is not putting his money where he most wants to. Therefore, he experiences a disadvantage. How can this disadvantage be measured in a way that shows it to be offset by any possible advantage received later from government expenditure? Prices cannot be used, since what is not for sale has no price, and government-imposed “prices” fail to take the coercive nature of taxation into account.

3.Taxpayer would have put his funds elsewhere — The taxpayer, if he was allowed to keep his money and spend it as he wishes, would possibly experience some advantage from his own spending. This cannot be calculated, since it has not happened yet. To base your analysis on how the taxpayer has chosen to spend his money in the past, means your analysis must take into account, that, wherever he chose to spend his money, is where he most wanted to spend it. In any case, one must be careful predicting the future from the past: such things as innovation and changing one’s spending habits have happened in the past; how are they taken into account?

4.Whether public good or not irrelevant — The existence of public goods are often used to answer the question, but it just delays answering it, and dealing with the three points above. How can the benefits of government provision of public goods be shown to offset the disadvantages in taxing people to pay for it? They would not just have thrown their tax money in the rubbish bin, and they may not want to use the “public good” that others force on them anyway. Why should they be forced to fund something that they never contracted to fund, and that would not be viable if they were not forced to fund it?

Joseph A. Schumpeter

reply to post by Seagle

I'm going to have to ask for a little help with your post. Please allow me to give you my impressions of the four points, then I'd appreciate it if you would tell me where I'm going wrong.

Points 1, 2, and 3. The taxpayer has some use in mind for his money. He doesn't want to give it to the government, but they take it anyway. Ok, no problems. I understand that. Yep, that's what happens all right.

Point 4. Well, wait a minute now. Point 4 seems to be saying 1) that no public good is legitimate and 2) the taxpayer never contracted to fund it. I disagree with both arguments.

1) Do the citizens want protection from violence, either internal or external? Police and military are needed. Do we want to deal in any way with other countries? Embassies are needed. What about courts? Who resolves disputes between states? Will we have any law making body with it's necessary support? Do we bother to have borders with customs officials? I maintain that some public goods are acceptably funded by taxation, the question is, which?

2) My father had a power of attorney giving authority to his wife to conduct some of his affairs for him. I would argue that citizens as a whole have given their power of attorney to representatives who make laws. As above, the scope of that authority can be discussed, no one believes that representatives can do absolutely anything they want, but we have agreed that they can do some things.

As an additional reference material to provide further support and understanding to the CFT, here is the first completed draft entitled “Points in Further Support of the CFT” (it essentially runs through various aspects in an organized manner):

Download Points in Further Support of the CFR

UPDATE

Please be advised that the URI location has changed, the above links are no longer correct.


This is a new improved version of (several errors were cleaned up and several new pages of information included): “Points in Further Support of the CFT” is now available for download at:

PDF for Points in Further Support of the CFT

Which is intended as a reference for the The Crux of Federal ‘Taxation’ (CFT): PDF for the CFT