Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Ovisterra]

How so?

It only applies to income above a certain level.

I wasn't talking about income tax. I was talking about tax. I said:

I personally agree with this. I think that there should be government, but it should only protect those who pay for it's protection

[The Government] does. It protects (or is supposed to protect) everyone, and everyone pays it.

[New Genoa]

Almost half the population.

How so?

It's a myth... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jma ... tax-anyway

Or a more so a misdirection.

[Sibirsky]

I do pay for my own healthcare.

And the people with genetic conditions that cost a few million just to stay alive?

What about them?

[Risottia]

Theft by Definition: The act of stealing property.

Definition of stealing: the act of illegally taking something from someone else.

So, income taxes, are when the government forces you to give up your property. How is that not stealing property?

Because it's not illegal. Hence it's not stealing.

I believe that taxes are an act of theft. I believe that since theft is illegal, then taxes are illegal.

Beliefs are wonderful. They allow you to live in an imaginary world that has none of the constraints of reality. I also believe there's a dragon about to stomp on your house. Go check.

[Ovisterra]

How so?

It's a myth... http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jma ... tax-anyway

Or a more so a misdirection.

See above. I wasn't just talking about income tax.

[Wikkiwallana]

Turn about is fair play. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean that it is any less telling that you object to hearing your own argument. Because this isn't even a comparison, it's the same damn thing.

The fuck it is. Only in your mind, is moving to a different country, the same as say, going to a different store.

Have you ever moved to a different country? Do you have any fucking idea what it entails, or are you just spouting shit like usual?

That's my whole fucking point, the argument is entirely bullshit, but you don't seem to get the hypocrisy of complaining about it being used on you after using it yourself for years.

[Sibirsky]

I do pay for my own healthcare.

Technically you also pay for other peoples' and other people pay for yours

Not directly. But my coverage is directly funded by me.

[Ceannairceach]

Have you ever used a government-provided service?

If your answer is yes, then you need to pay for that. Income tax is how you do that.

[Great Nepal]

And if he doesn't use them? What choice does he have in not paying taxes?

Hmm should Taxes be more like subscriptions?

Personally, I would say yes.
You pay for what you use and nothing more.

[Wikkiwallana]

Theft by Definition: The act of stealing property.
So, income taxes, are when the government forces you to give up your property. How is that not stealing property?
I believe that taxes are an act of theft. I believe that since theft is illegal, then taxes are illegal.
So, NSG, what do you think about income taxes? Illegal, legal, good, bad?

It IS theft. But so is exploitation of labor, like paying a chinese worker 1 dollar a day to produce 100 lacoste shirts to be sold at 50 dollars each!

If one wants to abolish the state (which i agree with) one must also do away with private ownership of the means of production, to be fair with all the thieves.

At first I misread that as "lactose" shirts, and I was like, that can't be good.

[The Congregationists]

It IS theft. But so is exploitation of labor, like paying a chinese worker 1 dollar a day to produce 100 lacoste shirts to be sold at 50 dollars each!

If one wants to abolish the state (which i agree with) one must also do away with private ownership of the means of production, to be fair with all the thieves.

I think both of these ideas are flawed, and ultimately for the same reason - the worker objecting to his wage being "exploitation" must first demonstrate that he's provided ALL of the factors of production that allowed his work to be done in the first place. He cannot - the machine he uses, the customers to whom his product are ultimately sold and other factors that increase his productivity and hence his standard of living were provided by his employers, and therefore, a portion of the value of his product is rightly theirs. A case can be made that the sweatshop worker is being undercompensated, probobly due to lack of overall bargaining power and legal protection, but the notion that wages entail exploitation is, I think, fundamentally flawed.

[Gravlen]

Taxes are an investment. If you give the government money and they give you education and roads you can use and other stuff back, it's an investment. If they tax you just to take money, then it's theft.

Not that hard of a concept.

Breaking news. None of the shit you listen is paid for by income taxes.

Breaking news. Entire world discovered outside the US.

[Seven7]

Hmm should Taxes be more like subscriptions?

Personally, I would say yes.
You pay for what you use and nothing more.

Then you may as well just pay for the things you need directly, cutting out the middle man. Which is a great idea, by the way.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Taxes are an investment. If you give the government money and they give you education and roads you can use and other stuff back, it's an investment. If they tax you just to take money, then it's theft.

Not that hard of a concept.

Breaking news. None of the shit you listen is paid for by income taxes.

Actually, all of the shit he listed is paid for by income taxes.

[Sibirsky]

and roads: a monopoly on travel.
Hospitals: I'll give you that one
police: a monopoly on enforcement of laws that are artificial and serve no value
fire fighters: a monopoly lacking a pricing mechanism to fight fires.
healthcare: Sort of

1. So you'd prefer that there were no roads?
2. Indeed.
3. Stopping people killing people is pointless?
4. Stuff catches fire. It needs to be put out. If you have a national service, all fires get responded to. If it's private, the first thing that gets checked is whether you're paying them, not if you're badly in need of help.
5. Elaborate.

1. We can have private roads. In fact we did mostly have private roads, way back when.
3. The police do no such thing.
4. Income taxes do not pay for fire departments.

[Risottia]

Have you ever used a government-provided service?
If your answer is yes, then you need to pay for that. Income tax is how you do that.

Not just income tax btw. There's also other taxes (sales taxes, VAT, transaction taxes, luxury goods taxes, taxes on medical examination, taxes on monopoly goods, taxes on property, taxes on real estate, sojourn taxes... you name them).

[JJ Place]

100 Posts in 30 Minutes. I'm disappointed; this should be in the hundreds by now.

[New Genoa]

Hmm should Taxes be more like subscriptions?

Personally, I would say yes.
You pay for what you use and nothing more.

I don't think everyone is quite aware how much they use in tax-funded public services. And that system would more than likely create more red tape.

[Ceannairceach]

Hmm should Taxes be more like subscriptions?

Personally, I would say yes.
You pay for what you use and nothing more.

That would be a good idea, if it were feasible. Is it feasible?

[Wikkiwallana]

And the people with genetic conditions that cost a few million just to stay alive?

What about them?

How are they to pay for their own health care?

[Ravineworld]

and roads: a monopoly on travel.
Hospitals: I'll give you that one
police: a monopoly on enforcement of laws that are artificial and serve no value
fire fighters: a monopoly lacking a pricing mechanism to fight fires.
healthcare: Sort of

1. So you'd prefer that there were no roads?
2. Indeed.
3. Stopping people killing people is pointless?
4. Stuff catches fire. It needs to be put out. If you have a national service, all fires get responded to. If it's private, the first thing that gets checked is whether you're paying them, not if you're badly in need of help.
5. Elaborate.

1. I never said that. I would prefer if there was no monopoly on roads, therefore keeping toll prices down and allowing the free market to supply our travel needs.
3. The state's monopoly in stopping people from killing people has failed. In a truly free society, the state would only stop people from killing those who pay the state to protect them. If they don't pay, then private defense organizations can protect people from aggression.
4. Do you really think that humans are so vile and evil that they won't help people stuck in a fire first and then ask for money
5. Socialism doesn't work. Before medicare and all of that, healthcare costs remained relatively low.

[Revolutopia]

Hmm, someone disagrees with a State Government policy told by Libertarians if they don't like it they can go "Vote with their Feet" by leaving the State. Libertarian bitches about Federal Policy gets told if they don't like it they can go "Vote with their Feet" by leaving the Country. Seems to me like it is comparable as the solution is the same in both scenarios. Not all Nation-States have income taxes thus you have the option of moving there.

Really? I thought you were smarter than that.

Like moving to another nation, including paying an exit tax and renouncing your citizenship, is anything at all like going to a different store.

Again I never mentioned store so your continued reference to stores while interesting is not really relevant to the discussion.

[Ceannairceach]

Have you ever used a government-provided service?
If your answer is yes, then you need to pay for that. Income tax is how you do that.

Not just income tax btw. There's also other taxes (sales taxes, VAT, transaction taxes, luxury goods taxes, taxes on medical examination, taxes on monopoly goods, taxes on property, taxes on real estate, sojourn taxes... you name them).

Which I'm entirely sure contribute to the same payment for the use of government services and property.

[Ovisterra]

1. So you'd prefer that there were no roads?
2. Indeed.
3. Stopping people killing people is pointless?
4. Stuff catches fire. It needs to be put out. If you have a national service, all fires get responded to. If it's private, the first thing that gets checked is whether you're paying them, not if you're badly in need of help.
5. Elaborate.

1. We can have private roads. In fact we did mostly have private roads, way back when.
3. The police do no such thing.
4. Income taxes do not pay for fire departments.

1. Indeed. But public roads do not mean private roads cannot exist.
3. They really do. You know those bits where they arrest murderers? That's not only making sure they get punished appropriately, but also protecting people from future threats.
4. I've said this before, just because it's not directly funded via income tax does not mean that if income taxes disappeared that it would be unaffected.

[Wikkiwallana]

1. So you'd prefer that there were no roads?
2. Indeed.
3. Stopping people killing people is pointless?
4. Stuff catches fire. It needs to be put out. If you have a national service, all fires get responded to. If it's private, the first thing that gets checked is whether you're paying them, not if you're badly in need of help.
5. Elaborate.

1. We can have private roads. In fact we did mostly have private roads, way back when
-snip-

And they were fucking horrible, so the interstate system was established. You want to go back to private roads you can kiss the whole automotive shipping industry good-bye.