Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Conserative Morality]

Incorrect.

Most commodities do not indefinitely rise or rise and then flatline, so far as I know.

[Sibirsky]

Savers are. That's the whole fucking point, if you actually read what I wrote. At no point in time have I claimed that production decreased. I did however claim that our money is not a good store of value.

Gold is far more stable in value than the paper currencies.

How do you get around the problems of switching to a gold standard?

1) The government doesn't have enough gold to buy back all the dollars.

2) Gold isn't really connected to our standard of living. Say there were massive mines discovered and gold flooded the markets. Would our standard of living increase? In theory the disconnect between the value of money and living standards doesn't necessarily have to cause problems. Drastic changes in purchasing power have the potential to cause chaos on an economy. As mentioned, the massive supply of gold discovered. Countries might find it in their interest to lay thousands of tons of gold on the markets.

3) Doesn't mining consume resources? Resources used in production of useful things would be directed to dig for gold. As more gold is found and purchased, would it not devalue existing money?

4) How do you keep governments from abusing it's citizens with inflation? Lock it away in vaults?

5) What would be the increased costs of hording and vaulting? Think of the electrical conducting aspects. It's found in many things such as refrigerators, TVs, etc. Think of it's ability to withstand corrosion. Now you have Computers, Aerospace, medical, space.

What about the production of glass?

There would have to be one damn good plan to do this.

Simply expecting everybody (ie the lower classes) to "take one for the team" will not work.....

1. It doesn't need it.
2. We have that now. Without new mining discoveries.
3. Yes, as far as consuming resources. The supply of gold is typically added to at a rate of 1-2% per year.
4. Government cannot print gold.
5. Certainly. Which is why I do not advocate a gold standard.

[Sibirsky]

Incorrect.

Most commodities do not indefinitely rise or rise and then flatline, so far as I know.

They do not indefinitely decline in value.

[Conserative Morality]

They do not indefinitely decline in value.

Neither does fiat currency. Admittedly, it is generally more useful for it to decline in value, but it does not do so as an inherent quality.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

A'ight, there was ample threadjacking going on here earlier by a number of you. Firmly confirmed here now folks: Knock It Off or there will be problems.

Sibirsky, you also assisted with the threadjacking to a point, but the real problem was baiting your opponents, gloating over your supposed superiority, and generally breaking the rules in doing so. Ya done crossed the line, and in looking at your history, and considering the tone over the last few pages, I'm going to give you a *** 1-day ban *** to think things over a bit.

Argue with some civility, and without the snarking and stooping to calling one another stupid, however sly you think you're being about it, or go do something else, folks.

[Jinos]

No, your example is again inaccurate because the cage is open and you can LEAVE at any time you want.

You DON'T have to pay a tax, it is your CHOICE to do so.

In order to be apart of this society, you must accept that you have to give back to it. IF you reject this, then society rejects YOU.

You may be born into this society, and thus, it will assume by default you accept this, but should you not, it is therefor your CHOICE to leave. If you do not wish to pay a tax, it falls on you to leave that society. Not for society to change in accordance to revolve around your narrow views.

You have the illusion of choice, after all, these "necessities" are provided purely at the exclusion of alternatives. If you don't pay taxes, you can go to jail; you can go to another country (with taxes) giving up much of your belongings and personal connections. You DO NOT have the CHOICE of not paying taxes and remaining where you were born or on land which you purchased. You have yet to justify such an absurd contract as that of the social contract. Your pool pending.

You give back to a society by working.

There are plenty of countries that don't collect taxes (but most of them don't have that (comparatively) luxurious society built upon taxes). Hell, I live right nearby a state that has the lowest taxes in the country. Granted, it's pretty much a shit hole, but you could move there.

It's not like the government of society or even you "chooses" for you to be born where you are, its just a fact of life. So you go somewhere else later if you don't like where you are living now. It's called immigration, billions of people have done it over the centuries. So can you.

So yes, you do have a choice. You don't have a fucking gun to your head so quit bitching.

You can weigh your options, and apparently, you have chosen to stay despite the fact you don't like taxes. And why not? A society which taxes provides a community that is better than one that doesn't; because it can afford to give back to the community.

[Norstal]

No. Taxes are legal, theft is illegal, therfore it is not theft.

The morality is a different story. But I still 'support' income taxes, I just (like most) don't like having to pay them. Such is life.

Theft is not consented to or illegal.

Theft is a law term. Like murder. Or treason.

You want the word "stealing". Don't know how it's stealing though, since it's not yours in the first place.

[Norstal]

I argued this same thing with ML a while ago.

I got pwned.

And Norstal is worse than you.

At least I can read.

That was inflation, not economic growth.

Ah my bad. You see, this is why I'm not an economist.

You see Sib, I come here to learn. You're hindering that process. I don't even know why you're here if all you do is shoot down arguments with one liners, a smiley, and subtle flamebaits. You don't participate in social threads that often. Really, I don't get the appeal of going to an online forum if all you're going to do is increase the blood pressure of the posters you're replying to. If you don't have anything to add except "LOL YOU STUPID" or any other derivatives of, don't post it. I'll gladly add you to my ignore list.

[Distruzio]

Eh? You can have taxation without theft whatsoever, its called voluntary taxation, though that depends on the level of coercion and the consequences involved from leaving the tax structure, with many services being under the monopoly or control of the state.

In the United States, there is no escape whatsoever. If you renounce any and all "services" the State "provides," the State declares you dead after a short time (I'm fairly certain it's 7 years) and then, should you be found, seizes your assets and kidnaps (imprisons) you as subversive.

Those that don't wish to pay tax don't have to, and can die from lack of education, health-care, and vise versa.

Education does not extend life, healthcare is not tax provided, and vise versa, but I take your meaning.

The rich can avoid being involved in the system, and squander their wealth without serving the interests of the state. You could call that unethical, but its not theft.

It isn't theft when the wealthy keep their wealth. It isn't unethical either. What IS unethical is society determining that a single citizen owes it anything. Society owes the citizenry, not the other way around.

[Forsher]

It isn't theft when the wealthy keep their wealth. It isn't unethical either. What IS unethical is society determining that a single citizen owes it anything. Society owes the citizenry, not the other way around.

An individual must contribute to allow society to be greater than the sum of its parts and therefore input more into society than it takes from it. Taxation is the best way to do this.

[Distruzio]

It isn't theft when the wealthy keep their wealth. It isn't unethical either. What IS unethical is society determining that a single citizen owes it anything. Society owes the citizenry, not the other way around.

An individual must contribute to allow society to be greater than the sum of its parts and therefore input more into society than it takes from it. Taxation is the best way to do this.

Taxation may be the best way, but it's theft.

[New Rogernomics]

It isn't theft when the wealthy keep their wealth. It isn't unethical either. What IS unethical is society determining that a single citizen owes it anything. Society owes the citizenry, not the other way around.

Well the main flaw I find with mainstream economics, is that it focuses on trying to keep down levels of poverty, rather than eliminate the problem of poverty altogether, which could easily be done with the uplifting of the lower and middle class to upper class. Till there are further advances in robotics and agricultural production methods, that would require a transition to a high income economy, and the use of short term migrants for lower income jobs. However due to the institutionalization of education, and the lack of focus on training people to fit in with job shortages of private companies, actually having a society without substantial unemployment (and thus low incomes and poverty) is an impossible task. The main reason why attempts to eliminate poverty fail however is the squandering of government funds by bureaucracy and politicians, who then attempt to divert attention by blaming the wealthy for their own incompetence or otherwise engaging in class warfare.

[Death Metal]

First of all, I'm sorry about my previous behavior, frustration got the better of me.

Now.

Eh? You can have taxation without theft whatsoever, its called voluntary taxation, though that depends on the level of coercion and the consequences involved from leaving the tax structure, with many services being under the monopoly or control of the state.

In the United States, there is no escape whatsoever. If you renounce any and all "services" the State "provides," the State declares you dead after a short time (I'm fairly certain it's 7 years) and then, should you be found, seizes your assets and kidnaps (imprisons) you as subversive.

Okay, first of all, you're thinking of death in absentia, which applies to missing persons and has nothing to do with renouncing taxes. If you go missing without any trace, police will first nicely knock on your door to make sure everything's okay, then place a stakeout for about a day or so. After this time if nothing happens, that's probable cause that you are missing or dead and they will look in your house for clues. Should you not be there, they will monitor your phone and bank records, as well as any possible sightings. If nothing concrete comes up after about sevens years (assuming nothing that would make it seem like you died sooner), then yes you are declared legally dead.

Arresting you for it isn't kidnapping either. Even if you don't consider tax evasion a felony, which it is, voluntarily faking your own death is tantamount to fraud. People who commit fraud typically go to jail or at the very least get fined for it. And if you had legally renounced your citizenship, guess what, you can still be arrested for fraud. You don't get full immunity from law by being a non-citizen. That is why diplomatic immunity privileges exist.

Thirdly, neither of these things happen if you renounce your citizenship, if you're going to make wild claims like these you should be ready to provide a credible source (not a conspiracy site like Infowars) to back it up.

[Distruzio]

That would be a satisfactory response, had I any choice as to the manner of gov't that I preferred. Since I do not, and I never did, I find that feudalism, or as near to that as the current paradigm is, is not to my liking, regardless of the "benefits" that such an existence grants me.

I imagine you know how constitutional amendments work, so I'm just going to ask you to explain why you think that doesn't actually do what it is supposed to do.

That would threadjack too much. I'll, instead, revisit your contention that services rendered by the State warrant a debt from me. To suggest I have a debt to the State is to assume that I have engaged in commercial transactions with the State. I haven't. There is no contract, no proof of purchase, no legitimate way for the State to prove that I, myself, owe for the roads already built, or any other "services" it provides. You also assume that I was free, at the time I neglected to absolve myself voluntarily (which cannot be done, mind you) of my citizenship, to negotiate the price I was willing to pay for services rendered. Such is an obvious function in commerical transactions and yet... where did I negotiate the amount of taxation I was willing to endure for the debt they cannot prove that I, myself, have taken?

You also assume that this debt I owe, is proportional to the use I have for the services rendered. Finally, you assumes that a debt can convey an equity interest in the life, property, or profits of the debtor, minus me having consented to any such equity interest. In other words, I might not use the services they provide, for I have no reason to, nor do I profit from those services, nor can they prove I owe, how much I owe, nor when I took on this debt. Therefore, they rob me.

Debts cannot be legitimately created without the express consent of the debtor. Consent cannot be presumed. No court would ever, ever, ever, defend this position were I to presume that, since you haven't told me otherwise, you owe me $500k right now. Would they? How does the State defend your position that taxation is not theft based upon services rendered?

It's even more ridiculous to present "representatives" as though they can take a debt on my behalf. They cannot. That debt is not legitimate. I cannot purchase a car for you without you there to sign for it. Where is my road? Where is my tank, my aircraft carrier? If I benefit from what someone else has done, I haven't agreed to make compensation to that person, therefore I do not owe - there is no debt.

And finally, a debt, which presumes a commercial transaction, suggests that I have a choice between competitors. Since you assert that my consent was assumed at birth, despite the fact that no child can legitimately agree to legal exchanges, I should like to know at what point my choices were presented to me? What if I wanted a road made of marshmallow? Or a tank that could float? Or a soldier that fired t-shirt guns?

Taxation is theft. There is no refuting it.

[Distruzio]

First of all, I'm sorry about my previous behavior, frustration got the better of me.

Now.

In the United States, there is no escape whatsoever. If you renounce any and all "services" the State "provides," the State declares you dead after a short time (I'm fairly certain it's 7 years) and then, should you be found, seizes your assets and kidnaps (imprisons) you as subversive.

Okay, first of all, you're thinking of death in absentia, which applies to missing persons and has nothing to do with renouncing taxes. If you go missing without any trace, police will first nicely knock on your door to make sure everything's okay, then place a stakeout for about a day or so. After this time if nothing happens, that's probable cause that you are missing or dead and they will look in your house for clues. Should you not be there, they will monitor your phone and bank records, as well as any possible sightings. If nothing concrete comes up after about sevens years (assuming nothing that would make it seem like you died sooner), then yes you are declared legally dead.

Arresting you for it isn't kidnapping either. Even if you don't consider tax evasion a felony, which it is, voluntarily faking your own death is tantamount to fraud. People who commit fraud typically go to jail or at the very least get fined for it. And if you had legally renounced your citizenship, guess what, you can still be arrested for fraud. You don't get full immunity from law by being a non-citizen. That is why diplomatic immunity privileges exist.

Thirdly, neither of these things happen if you renounce your citizenship, if you're going to make wild claims like these you should be ready to provide a credible source (not a conspiracy site like Infowars) to back it up.

Kindly reread my quoted post? Any and all means no banks, no lights, no cars, no mortgage, no nothing. Off the grid, completely. And it was precisely fraud that I had in mind when I mentioned kidnapping, which arrest, most accurately, is.

And what does infowars have to do with anything? Have I posted a single word from that site?

[West Failure]

I saw this thread starting just before I went to sleep. Wake up and there are forty or so pages. I really cannot be bothered to read that many posts.

My take would be that it all boils down to whether you think all governments are entirely predatory or not. Personally I think a lot of governments and rules have been purely predatory, but that is not necessarily the case with all of them. I would rather live in a country like the UK and pay income tax because I like think most of my tax is used for things that directly benefit me that I could not even hope to provide for myself if I had kept the money.

[Death Metal]

Okay.

There's a difference between being off the grid and faking your own death, though, as the latter means you waste the state's time in investigating your missing persons case.

[Awesomeland]

The idea that any tax is "theft" is about as fatuous an argument as the idea that copyright infringement is also "theft". That is, to say, neither is properly "theft" but both are commonly compared, not entirely accurately, to theft, because, frankly, people don't really intuitively comprehend either concept like they comprehend "theft", which provokes an immediate knee-jerk reaction.

That said, the income tax in its present form is kind of a BAD tax: It is inefficient to maintain and collect and easily manipulated.

[Syvorskji]

Simply, yes, for example. I don't want my money to be invested in some kind of ecoduct, then I disagree with that. But still the goverment uses my money to make the ecoduct. I disagree, but it is still my money. De facto it is a theft, de jure it is a tax.

[Distruzio]

The idea that any tax is "theft" is about as fatuous an argument as the idea that copyright infringement is also "theft". That is, to say, neither is properly "theft" but both are commonly compared, not entirely accurately, to theft, because, frankly, people don't really intuitively comprehend either concept like they comprehend "theft", which provokes an immediate knee-jerk reaction.

That said, the income tax in its present form is kind of a BAD tax: It is inefficient to maintain and collect and easily manipulated.

kindly consider my post here to see how taxation is, indeed, theft.

[Death Metal]

That said, the income tax in its present form is kind of a BAD tax: It is inefficient to maintain and collect and easily manipulated.

I can see the logic behind that. I prefer it a lot more than sales tax, which IMO is even more dependent on economy, and if sales taxes were removed in favor of higher income tax on the highest earners, while keeping the current brackets, the poorest half of the population would have a more sustainable wage, the wealthiest of the wealthy will not suffer too greatly.

In a perfect world tax collection would be unnecessary. This is not a perfect world.

[Kilobugya]

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?

Stealing by definition : « To take, and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another. » If it's law it's by definition not "feloniously" nor "without right". You can be in favor or against some taxes, but "theft" is by definition illegal, taking property when it's conform to the law is not "stealing". The same way that when you're sentenced to give compensation to someone you hurt, it's not "theft", even if someone is taking your property by force.

Now, arguing "by definition" is quite pointless. Just keep the offensive words like "theft" and "stealing" away, and explain why you are against taxes.

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

That's circular logic

So, NSG, what do you think about income taxes? Illegal, legal, good, bad?

They are absolutely required. Both to have a functioning society (infrastructure, education, police, ...) for the gain of everyone and because what matters at the end if that people are alive, in good health, well fed and happy, not the amount of material wealth they have. Private property is an instrumenal goal ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_action ) which is important to keep (since it's instrumental to many terminal goals) but not a terminal goal in itself, and therefore, it should never be considered more important than the terminal goals themselves. So an income ta that increases people's education level, health status, freedom of movement (by building a good network of public transports), and overall happiness is benefical. An income that doesn't is harmful.

[Awesomeland]

Despite the points raised in your previous post, I continue to maintain that to say that are equivalent remains fatuous. While it is true that there are certainly many similarities, the fact of the matter is that taxation has been employed by most societies since the dawn of civilization. Even America, a nation of people who rebelled out of sheer unwillingness to pay their taxes, ultimately instituted their own taxes. Whatever the similarities, we have classified taxation as being a separate beast from "theft" just as we have classified birds as a separate beast from dinosaurs. Sure, you could argue that, by cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but ultimately when we say "dinosaurs", we mean DINOSAURS, and not your parrot.

People grumble about their taxes, and we would all like to see them done away with, but ultimately when your alternative is machete-wielding rape gangs terrorizing the streets? We put up at least some of it. Are there better ways? Possibly. Are those better ways things you can manage to implement right now? Probably not. To insist that "all taxation is theft" is ultimately a purposeless argument being waved about purely to be inflammatory.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No.

[Distruzio]

To insist that "all taxation is theft" is ultimately a purposeless argument being waved about purely to be inflammatory.

To deny it, in the face of admittedly undeniable proof otherwise, is self-righteous effrontery of the highest order.