Income Taxes: Are They Theft?

[Forsher]

Yes, because English steals words willy-nilly from other languages.

True.

Though to be fair, other languages borrow from others too, just not as much as English does.

English doesn't steal words, it liberates them.

[Distruzio]

Renounced then. Apologies.

As to the rest of your nonsense:

That's because the object of "Staying" is essential to determine that taxes are a fee instead of a theft.

By "Staying" you consent to taxes.

No. By staying, I acknowledge that I have no choice to go. The fact of the matter is that renouncing my citizenship does NOT absolve me of my "responsibilities" to the US gov't. Once a citizen, always owe taxes. If I were to leave, I'd owe. I could not leave with the entirety of the monetary value of my property either. It is prohibited. I must pay a tax, to keep my money, that is proportional to the amount of wealth I maintain... and I must pay taxes.

Taxes are theft. Forever.

[Sibirsky]

**

the part where, if there are no taxes, they have no viable to give you care. Medial supplies don't come out of thin air, they cost money. Money the hospital won't have if they don't deny you coverage in a government without taxes.

Now that I painted the obvious in bright red letters, maybe you will notice.

Now do you remember how you ran away from our little debate? I'll be back with the road debate shortly

I was having dinner. You think I need to run away from your inept arguments?

[Mad Monarch]

Hedonics-the branch of psychology that deals with pleasurable and unpleasurable states of consciousness.
geometric weighting- doesn't exist in any online dictionary
substitution- Do I even have to define this?

He is throwing around big words that are in no way connected in an effort to make a point.

My response: 911, terrorism, intercourse, INTERCOURSE!

Facepalm eh? I look at several dictionaries to try and find those words and I found 1 of them. The other one was told to me and the third is well known. Taken together, it makes zero sense and has a non-existent reason to be on this thread. Now, unless you can show me how this has anything to do with the topic, admit you are wrong or go back to trying to ignore me.

[United Dependencies]

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.

[Yootwopia]

It's simple logic. Government can't have valid legal right because it gives itself the right, that's a circular argument and totally invalid.

Let me guess, you're also one of those people that believes there isn't a free market in the world, when the truth is that there is a naturally free market, and that government has 'won', not you?

[Death Metal]

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.

That's fair, but unlike feudalism, you still have the choice of abandoning your "caste" as it were.


Also, complete tangent and just out of curiosity, so anyone (with a reliable source, mind you) feel free to jump in: Do the Amish pay any taxes, including property taxes?

[Mad Monarch]

Now do you remember how you ran away from our little debate? I'll be back with the road debate shortly

I was having dinner. You think I need to run away from your inept arguments?

Actually, this debate was made 10 pages ago (and you are on almost every one of them). It was also referenced several times since then.

Try again. This time with an argument and less insults.

[Shnercropolis]

So the idea is to take away the immediate self-influence of the country that we vote for and control, and give that power to corporations that work only for profit? This is utter BS

[Forsher]

Income taxes are payments for services rendered.

[Sibirsky]

Consumers may react like that to price changes. However, the BLS does not know to what degree, and more importantly, this does not measure the true rate of inflation.

Err yes it does, though. The problem is that a shitty model has been created. This is the problem that almost all of economics has in almost every area.

How does it know?

The basket of goods should be constant.

Is yours when you go to the shops?

No. But then it is no longer measuring a constant cost of living. Which is the point.

[Mad Monarch]

So the idea is to take away the immediate self-influence of the country that we vote for and control, and give that power to corporations that work only for profit? This is utter BS

Hey, someone who agrees with me!

On that note, night fellows. It's past midnight and I'm off to bed

[Yootwopia]

That's fair, but unlike feudalism, you still have the choice of abandoning your "caste" as it were.

Of course you don't.

You might think this is true, but how rich your parents are through your youth, things like your skin colour and accent, and where you're from make a massive difference to where you can end up in the world.

[Patriqvinia]

It's simple logic. Government can't have valid legal right because it gives itself the right, that's a circular argument and totally invalid.

Let me guess, you're also one of those people that believes there isn't a free market in the world, when the truth is that there is a naturally free market, and that government has 'won', not you?

One group of people imposing it's will over another has nothing to do with any person or group of people (being imposed over) making a choice.

[Jinos]

Social contract is bullshit. Birth isn't a valid contract.

It's the only kind of contract that works. A child is incapable of creating a contract on par with an adult, and thus cannot realize the ramifications of rejecting a social contract.

As long as the option presents itself to you to renounce that contract at such time as its effects can be understood, you're bound to it. But even then, only in a supremely limited capacity, since your primary authority in infancy is your parents rather than the government. This is why "Full citizenship" is only awarded at the threshold of "adulthood" (18 years old for America).

You could have "rejected" the social contract then, when the government became your primary authority, but you didn't, you accepted the contract. You continue accepting the contract as long as you do not renounce it. Until such time as you reject it, you are lawfully subjected to the rights and responsibilities which are enumerated as part of that contract. One of those responsibilities is the upkeep of the community through a membership fee (aka Tax).

[Sibirsky]

It's in the real world where a constitutional lawyer and professor, which you likely voted for, rapes the document every single day.

That's not the real world at all. That's the InfoWars and Lew Rockwell version of the world, which is about as true to the real world as Candy Land is.

Apparently you also have no idea what the Bill of Rights is.

[United Dependencies]

No, it wouldn't. It's simple logic. Government can't have valid legal right because it gives itself the right, that's a circular argument and totally invalid.

Government doesn't "give" itself the right.

It has the right by virtue of being our government.

[Death Metal]

That's fair, but unlike feudalism, you still have the choice of abandoning your "caste" as it were.

Of course you don't.

You might think this is true, but how rich your parents are through your youth, things like your skin colour and accent, and where you're from make a massive difference to where you can end up in the world.

Well I was using "caste" as an allegory for citizenship, not any of those things.

[Patriqvinia]

Social contract is bullshit. Birth isn't a valid contract.

It's the only kind of contract that works. A child is incapable of creating a contract on par with an adult, and thus cannot realize the ramifications of rejecting a social contract.

As long as the option presents itself to you to renounce that contract at such time as its effects can be understood, you're bound to it. But even then, only in a supremely limited capacity, since your primary authority in infancy is your parents rather than the government. This is why "Full citizenship" is only awarded at the threshold of "adulthood" (18 years old for America).

You could have "rejected" the social contract then, when the government became your primary authority, but you didn't, you accepted the contract. You continue accepting the contract as long as you do not renounce it. Until such time as you reject it, you are lawfully subjected to the rights and responsibilities which are enumerated as part of that contract. One of those responsibilities is the upkeep of the community through a membership fee (aka Tax).

When someone is incapable of making a contract, it doesn't mean the contract just happens, since the person is unable to make the contract. That's entirely putting the car before the horse.

[Sibirsky]

Apparently you don't know much about business.

Ok, so they have zero leverage over me and they want me to pay them? That is not how business works. They either sell a good to you or sell a service. You don't do a service and then demand payment. All that'll get you is someone saying "lol, you funny dude. Now get off my lawn".

Except you know, I am actually a real fucking person, that deals with real fucking businesses, and knows the real fucking deal.

Stop spouting your bullshit.

[Patriqvinia]

No, it wouldn't. It's simple logic. Government can't have valid legal right because it gives itself the right, that's a circular argument and totally invalid.

Government doesn't "give" itself the right.

It has the right by virtue of being our government.

Um.... Check your logic. What the fuck is "virtue of being our government"? Pure mysticism.

[Conserative Morality]

Sib, I'm a little confused about your position on Fiat currency's worth. Could you elaborate?

[Jinos]

It's the only kind of contract that works. A child is incapable of creating a contract on par with an adult, and thus cannot realize the ramifications of rejecting a social contract.

As long as the option presents itself to you to renounce that contract at such time as its effects can be understood, you're bound to it. But even then, only in a supremely limited capacity, since your primary authority in infancy is your parents rather than the government. This is why "Full citizenship" is only awarded at the threshold of "adulthood" (18 years old for America).

You could have "rejected" the social contract then, when the government became your primary authority, but you didn't, you accepted the contract. You continue accepting the contract as long as you do not renounce it. Until such time as you reject it, you are lawfully subjected to the rights and responsibilities which are enumerated as part of that contract. One of those responsibilities is the upkeep of the community through a membership fee (aka Tax).

When someone is incapable of making a contract, it doesn't mean the contract just happens, since the person is unable to make the contract. That's entirely putting the car before the horse.

The contract happened at 18. Did you even read what I wrote?

If you don't have full citizenship at birth, then that means the contract is not fully enumerated.

[Zeppy]

When someone is incapable of making a contract, it doesn't mean the contract just happens, since the person is unable to make the contract. That's entirely putting the car before the horse.

You could consider the parents temporarily signing the contract for the underage person.

[Ifreann]

I suppose I'm a bit late for "No, don't be ridiculous".