Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Sibirsky]

Inflation is closer to 10%. But who's counting?

Where the hell did you get 10%? I've seen estimates as high as 6% (most of which I don't believe), but 10%?

You obviously do not do any of your own shopping. 10% or so, is the likely real world figure.

Living next to someone in a nation with fiat currency. So far I've neither been blown up or experienced hyperinflation.

Inflation has been high. The money supply has exploded.

1-2% inflation for last year. That's not factoring cost of living increases fueled by investors believing that demand will increase even as demand decreases.[/quote]
It's "officially" at 2.9%.

Which uses tricks like hedonics, geometric weighting, and substitution to artificially reduce the rate. Using the formula from 1990, before they changed it, CPI would be over 6%.

[Wikkiwallana]

As opposed to you, yes.

Yes. You know, that why people vote for me. Because I'm a fucking liar and I deny economic reality.

Works for plenty of other candidates. "Reaganomics" is still really popular in the GOP, for example.

[Gauthier]

This thread is one of the longest Vote Mitt Romney campaigns I've ever seen on NSG.

[Wikkiwallana]

I find it hilarious that the person who subscribes to a school of thought that believes evidence is worthless in studying a physical phenomenon is the one accusing me of dishonesty.

What the fuck are you smoking? Evidence is on my side.

You follow the Austrian School, correct?

[Wikkiwallana]

They were horrible because it was the 18th century.

You now, the few private roads we do have are usually of much higher quality than state roads. So your claim is incorrect.

Private Roads now! Cut public healthcare so people can learn about something called: save money for retirement and buying health insurance (which has better value than public healthcare). Public healthcare just gives all the money to the fat and the lazy! Make welfare SHORT TERM ONLY!

Are you being serious or sarcastic? I've never seen you before so I really can't tell.

[United Dependencies]

Look I know we're not in agreement here but I'm not trying to be an ass or show anyone up or anything. I'm certainly not trying to flame, flamebait, or troll.

I'd really appreciate something a little more substantive than a facepalm smiley. Please.

[Shnercropolis]

I suppose the government should just magic money out of the air to pay for the roads, hospitals, and emergency services.

Obviously

[Sibirsky]

Inflation is closer to 10%. But who's counting?

Source?

Go shopping?

These are the numbers as they would be using the 1990 formula (still dragged down).

[Occupied Deutschland]

So... the thief happens to drop something you like... now he didn't take from you?

Taxes are not comparable to theft. Theft is unlawful. The law allows the government to collect taxes.

Comrades! Good news from the Eastern Front! Under a new mandate from garnering51% of the popular vote, El Jefe has removed laws that had forbid the government from, quote, Raping and pillaging whatever nice-looking village we want for its foodstuffs, beer and womens! endquote.

See a problem here?

[Patriqvinia]

A government takes my money without permission. I don't care about "legal right" because it writes the laws and to accept the "legal right" would be as logically ridiculous as saying "the man is honest; he says he tells me what honesty is".

If you do not like the government taking your money you can:

elect someone who will stop taxation(or run for office yourself)
sue the government

Your consent comes from the fact that you have avenues with which to display your disagreement. Such as: you and enough of your like minded compatriots voting to put someone into office who then removes all income tax.

<new statement>

This country has countless people from countless backgrounds and upbringings. It is impossible for us all to agree on certain issues (like taxation). The government of our society acts in such a way to let us all voice our opinions and try to influence policy.

There are people in this nation who want higher taxes on the rich and more money towards a safety net. There are people in this nation who want no income tax and want to government to step out of the way.There are a variety of other opinions as well. As a result the government may institute a plan that trys to balance what everyone wants. There may be taxes but not as high as the first person wanted. The second person may still have to pay taxes, but not as much as they could have paid had the first person gotten their way.

Having taxes isn't just about one group getting its way because it's the majority. It's about trying to balance the large group of diverse needs and wants in this nation. If you can't deal with the idea of our federal government not catering to your every want, then you really ought to find somewhere else to live.

I don't play the Social Contract game.
Displaying disagreement is worthless. Acting on disagreement (being able to say no) is the only ethical recourse, but it is not an option without punishment.

[Astrolinium]

I hear Antarctica is nice this time of year.

So pack your fucking bags and go there.

No thanks. I like civilization, and I can't wait to start paying income tax so I can help fund the things I use every day and spite whiny libertarians like you.

Ron Paul gave him that power, AUMF remember?

Plus the bill was veto-proof anyway, and by signing it Obama was also able to pledge in writing not to use the power on citizens, so your argument is still invalid.

Oh he promised not to use it?

You believe a politician?

You seem to believe Ron Paul.

[New Conglomerate]

Where the hell did you get 10%? I've seen estimates as high as 6% (most of which I don't believe), but 10%?

You obviously do not do any of your own shopping. 10% or so, is the likely real world figure.

In that same post I addressed what I believe is actually causing the rise in fuel and food prices.

Don't pick and choose my words just so you can act smug.

[Wikkiwallana]

Where the hell did you get 10%? I've seen estimates as high as 6% (most of which I don't believe), but 10%?

You obviously do not do any of your own shopping. 10% or so, is the likely real world figure.

Anecdotes are not data. Nor is a local increase in prices the same as systematic inflation of the money supply.

[Patriqvinia]

So... the thief happens to drop something you like... now he didn't take from you?

Taxes are not comparable to theft. Theft is unlawful. The law allows the government to collect taxes.

George is right because George says he is right.

[United Dependencies]

Of course

However, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic.

Which changes... nothing.

Actually there is quite a difference.

Republics are much better at protecting minority rights and allowing people such as yourself to enact change in the face of majority opposition.

[Sibirsky]

The govenment needs the money so we can have
1.Defense
2.Hospitals
3.Roads
4.Fire stations
5.Police
6.Postal system [I know you can have ups but thats way more expensive its cheaper to have the government if you want to transport things]
7.Power [Its run by a company but the government makes the power lines to transport the power to your house].
Trust me thiers more but I don't want to go there right now.
Also why do you think they are illegal? It makes no sense to think that.

That does not answer the question. And all those could be provided privately.

[New Conglomerate]

Taxes are not comparable to theft. Theft is unlawful. The law allows the government to collect taxes.

Comrades! Good news from the Eastern Front! Under a new mandate from garnering51% of the popular vote, El Jefe has removed laws that had forbid the government from, quote, Raping and pillaging whatever nice-looking village we want for its foodstuffs, beer and womens! endquote.

See a problem here?

Yes.

Those laws would violate the rights of the minority. You don't have a right to not pay taxes, if that's what you're asserting.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Which changes... nothing.

Actually there is quite a difference.

Republics are much slightly, sometimes, with God-Allah-Vishnu AND Shiva's grace better at protecting minority rights and allowing people such as yourself to enact change in the face of majority opposition.

Fixed

[Patriqvinia]

Which changes... nothing.

Actually there is quite a difference.

Republics are much better at protecting minority rights and allowing people such as yourself to enact change in the face of majority opposition.

Because the power hungry can compete in popularity contests?

[New Conglomerate]

Source?

Go shopping?

These are the numbers as they would be using the 1990 formula (still dragged down).

You do realize that there is a reason that they changed that formula, right?

[Death Metal]

Oh he promised not to use it?

You believe a politician?

You seem to believe Ron Paul.

And unlike Ron Paul's bullshit, Obama's pledge is legally binding.

[Sibirsky]

Not only do you suck at economics, but basic math also.

2007.
2001 (6 years)
1990-1991 (10 years)
1981-1982 (8 years)
1980 (1 year)
1973-1975 (5 years)
1969-1970 (3 years)
1960-1961 (8 years)
1957-1958 (2 years)
1953-1954 (3 years)
1948-1949 (4 years)
1945 ( 3 years)

Not a single fucking expansion, lasted the 20 years you claim. Never mind 30.

Also, not a single depression lasting 20-30 years. Not to intrude in the conversation regarding the business cycle (which, you are right, there truly hasn't been any exponential expansion of the US economy in years).

The point is that, with the exception of 2008, none of those contractions have been large enough to erase all of the gains made during the period of economic expansion preceeding them. The purpose of Keynesian and Monaterist economic policy is not to eliminate the business cycle (which, I believe, is probably impossible) but to ensure that the business cycle is as mild as possible. So, yes, you do sacrifice some growth, but you also prevent much of the contractionary losses.

Are you claiming that previous recessions eliminated all the growth during the preceding expansions? That would be incorrect.

[New Conglomerate]

Actually there is quite a difference.

Republics are much better at protecting minority rights and allowing people such as yourself to enact change in the face of majority opposition.

Because the power hungry can compete in popularity contests?

No, because the minority is granted rights that cannot be denied by the majority.

[Salvarity]

The govenment needs the money so we can have
1.Defense
2.Hospitals
3.Roads
4.Fire stations
5.Police
6.Postal system [I know you can have ups but thats way more expensive its cheaper to have the government if you want to transport things]
7.Power [Its run by a company but the government makes the power lines to transport the power to your house].
Trust me thiers more but I don't want to go there right now.
Also why do you think they are illegal? It makes no sense to think that.

That does not answer the question. And all those could be provided privately.

Would any of those privately be effective?

[New Conglomerate]

Also, not a single depression lasting 20-30 years. Not to intrude in the conversation regarding the business cycle (which, you are right, there truly hasn't been any exponential expansion of the US economy in years).

The point is that, with the exception of 2008, none of those contractions have been large enough to erase all of the gains made during the period of economic expansion preceeding them. The purpose of Keynesian and Monaterist economic policy is not to eliminate the business cycle (which, I believe, is probably impossible) but to ensure that the business cycle is as mild as possible. So, yes, you do sacrifice some growth, but you also prevent much of the contractionary losses.

Are you claiming that previous recessions eliminated all the growth during the preceding expansions? That would be incorrect.

Some of them came pretty damn close.