Taxation is nothing but theft.

a reply to: Akragon

Wouldn't your continued residence on "their land" be your consent?

originally posted by: Dudemo5
[q
The reason people react to you the way they do isn't because you have a minority opinion or because you believe in "small government." It's because you think taxes and rape have something important in common.

Well, I do have to admit that I think a lack of consent is important. The legal system (usually) does too. Except when it doesn't. It kind of makes me nervous when the law is arbitrary like that.

Well you know what I think? I think you wanting to use our roads without paying for them is sorta like rape. Why are you raping our roads?

Nope. You consented to everything because you didn't move to Somalia to keep moochers from raping your roads.

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.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Nope. You consented to everything because you didn't move to Somalia to keep moochers from raping your roads.

Seems like you agree with what I posted above.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

It is .. but who would pay for the repaved streets? parking lots, park upkeep?

People want a nice place to live, but must be willing to help with it's upkeep. Without that, we'd all be living in squander, unkept unmaintained territory.

It's simply a question of how much each of us should pay, to what, why and how. There are ways to make it work, if everyone's in agreement on how to go about it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Akragon

Wouldn't your continued residence on "their land" be your consent?

sure...

but again... consent isn't needed

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
In other words, it's a decree.

No, it's the law.

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.

I wouldn't address it at all, because it's just irrelevant flapdoodle.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
In other words, it's a decree.

No, it's the law.

Summary executions are legal in some places (or have been). So, again, the argument is might makes right. So, outright slavery is right if you can make it legal and prevent your slaves from liberating themselves.

Now. Why do we have the 13th Amendment, again? Is it because slavery is morally wrong or is it because someone lost a war? If you're only wrong when you lose, there's no such thing as "the right thing to do" as long as you won. In other words, your argument is that if you can get away with it, it's the right thing to do.

EDIT - I should point out that my personal opinion is that slavery is morally/ethically wrong no matter what you call it. I am just pointing out that your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the law is just and fair simply because it exists and should not be challenged for the same reason. Which is crazy, IMO

a reply to: Akragon

But it changes it from theft to willful payment for services.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Summary executions are legal in some places (or have been). So, again, the argument is might makes right. So, outright slavery is right if you can make it legal and prevent your slaves from liberating themselves.

There you go again. You are unable to talk rationally about your subject (taxation) without veering off into obviously over-emotive (and false) analogies involving gory and unpleasant things like execution and slavery.

There is no conceivable way in which taxation can be meaningfully considered analogous to slavery or execution, and the only reason these subjects are being raised at all is to produce strong moral revulsion in readers.

It is deceptive and manipulative, and you ought to stop doing it and argue your case on its own merits.

EDIT - I should point out that my personal opinion is that slavery is morally/ethically wrong no matter what you call it. I am just pointing out that your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the law is just and fair simply because it exists and should not be challenged for the same reason. Which is crazy, IMO

You are indeed wrong. Hope that helps.

originally posted by: audubon

There you go again. You are unable to talk rationally about your subject (taxation) without veering off into obviously over-emotive (and false) analogies involving gory and unpleasant things like execution and slavery.

There is no conceivable way in which taxation can be meaningfully considered analogous to slavery or execution, and the only reason these subjects are being raised at all is to produce strong moral revulsion in readers.

It is deceptive and manipulative, and you ought to stop doing it and argue your case on its own merits.

Well, I've spent my allotted time using lots of words to argue with a wall.

You seem to be one of those people who protests too much. I apologize for making you have unpleasant thoughts about the nature of our existence and circumstances in this world.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Well, I've spent my allotted time using lots of words to argue with a wall.

You seem to be one of those people who protests too much. I apologize for making you have unpleasant thoughts about the nature of our existence and circumstances in this world.

Not at all, I think you vastly over-estimate your own competence. That's the kindest interpretation.

If you want to discuss the moral basis of taxation, I will be glad to join you. If you want to carry on talking about various physical crimes against humanity from the historical past, I'll just skip those bits because you're only doing it to get a cheap reaction.

originally posted by: audubon

Not at all, I think you vastly over-estimate your own competence. That's the kindest interpretation.

You may be right. I might just be a hero in my own mind. My solace in said admission is that if I am, I'm not the only one.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

You suspect that your mind contains more than one person? It might account for the repeated intrusion of irrelevant topics into your posts, I suppose.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: BrianFlanders

You suspect that your mind contains more than one person? It might account for the repeated intrusion of irrelevant topics into your posts, I suppose.

Now that hurts. I've been online since the late 90s and I've never been insulted by a random person on the internet (*Unless you count the countless times I have been and didn't care).

originally posted by: Sapphire

It's simply a question of how much each of us should pay, to what, why and how. There are ways to make it work, if everyone's in agreement on how to go about it.

And to that, I say the only way to do it is to let people decide what the government they're getting is worth to them and pay for it as they see fit.

If you can really afford to give a thousand dollars a month to the government and you believe the government is working for you, so be it.

Most of the people I know actually can't afford to pay any taxes (even though they do). If you have to use credit to live you cannot afford to give money away. That's money you don't even have.

There are people making minimum wage who pay taxes. These people can't afford a used car and a one room apartment with utilities and they're paying taxes. You're better off unemployed than you are barely employed in this country and it's pathetic.

And now the government has turned to directly using the tax system to punish people. The Obamacare mandate. Now the government can tell you to do something and fine you if you don't and call it a tax. And the Supreme Court has signed off on this terrible precedent. So now taxes and fines are the same thing. Which I would argue progressive taxes were always punitive. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. That is direct punishment for being more successful. Unbelievable. A disincentive that encourages people to stay poor.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
We must have at least a couple of government employees in this thread. LOL

I haven't seen anyone work this hard to defend the IRS in a long time.

Was this comment for me?? I had a link in my messages but couldn't tell which one it was.

If so, I'm not defending the IRS. But I am trying to demystify anyone's false idea about how independent and free from Government control you may think you are. Setting the record straight doesn't always mean that the person likes it, but it is what it is.

Taxes aren't theft because you're getting something for those taxes you're paying. You may not always use all the services that are provided from those taxes but they are still there if you did want them.

I think the real problem is that corruption has made it so our tax dollars are being misappropriated so we aren't seeing a decent return on what we put in. There are also too many loopholes for certain entities of extreme wealth.

Oh yeah, I don't work for the Government in any way either.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. That is direct punishment for being more successful. Unbelievable. A disincentive that encourages people to stay poor.

It is a well-known fact that every single rich person in the history of the USA has sooner or later decided "You know what? I'd be better off as a pauper than I am while I'm paying all this goddam tax!" and given away all their wealth in order to live in a tent and eat nettles, and thus spare themselves from the ordeal of hiring an accountant to fill in their tax returns.

Oh, no, hang on, that's the exact opposite of the truth. They clutch tightly on to every penny, like a barnacle to a keel, because it is their mindset to do so, which is why they are rich in the first place.

Rich people pay more tax than other people, because they can afford to pay more tax than other people, what with being (duh!) rich.

What you're claiming here, almost in so many words, is that billionaires are a persecuted minority deserving of special protection. I invite you to stop and think about that for a moment, if you can.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. That is direct punishment for being more successful. Unbelievable. A disincentive that encourages people to stay poor.

It is a well-known fact that every single rich person in the history of the USA has sooner or later decided "You know what? I'd be better off as a pauper than I am while I'm paying all this goddam tax!" and given away all their wealth in order to live in a tent and eat nettles, and thus spare themselves from the ordeal of hiring an accountant to fill in their tax returns.

Oh, no, hang on, that's the exact opposite of the truth. They clutch tightly on to every penny, like a barnacle to a keel, because it is their mindset to do so, which is why they are rich in the first place.

Rich people pay more tax than other people, because they can afford to pay more tax than other people, what with being (duh!) rich.

What you're claiming here, almost in so many words, is that billionaires are a persecuted minority deserving of special protection. I invite you to stop and think about that for a moment, if you can.

As you well know, you don't have to be a billionaire to get taxed harder to punish you for making more money. If you make $50k a year you're barely in the middle class but you're being taxed harder anyway. You can't afford it but oh well.

Tell people who have loans to pay out the wazoo they can afford to give 20% (or more) of their income to the government. And most of these people are living average lifestyles. Nothing fancy. All of them are working their butts off to pay for a roof and four walls to sleep in so they'll be ready to go back and slave another day away tomorrow.

We're not talking strictly about billionaires here. We're talking about everyone who pays taxes. The vast majority of people who pay taxes can't afford to. Which is why the ads for mortgages and refinancing and credit cards and every kind of insurance under the sun are all over the place. If you can afford to pay 25% taxes on your income, you don't need a credit card or an insurance policy of any kind.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

That's an argument for tax reform, not an argument for the abolition of taxation.

Assuming that what you're saying is accurate in the first place, on which matter I reserve judgement.