Taxes are theft

[Souseiseki]

Is it?

Yes. We're talking about taxes. You're talking about employee's pay, vs. the money the employees make for their employers.

you were talking about people taking more of their share of their labour home while also supporting a system that is based entirely around paying employees less than they are worth and taking the surplus, so you don't really seem to have a problem with people taking their bit off the side

it seemed like a "what people take home" and "what people take home" ):

[Neo Art]

There are other ways of paying for the services of those that cannot pay or those services themselves.

OK. What?

Or, rather, to put it simply, what means are there to pay for fundamentally necessary services for those who cannot pay for those services themselves that would not be as equally coercive as taxation?

[Souseiseki]

There are other ways of paying for the services of those that cannot pay or those services themselves.

OK. What?

Or, rather, to put it simply, what means are there to pay for fundamentally necessary services for those who cannot pay for those services themselves that would not be as equally coercive as taxation?

charity lol!

[Mavorpen]

And you are aware of the alarming amount of scandals revolving around private hospitals, and the huge tuition to go to a private school, right?

Yes. What is your point?

You are aware that competition for the masses, would reduce costs, right?

And it would still leave out a good bit of people. Or do you think businesses would continue to lower costs past the point where they make a decent profit?

[Sibirsky]

What? Are you high?

You've heard of private roads, schools and hospitals, right? You are aware that they exist?

Private roads: the minority in the country, and few people can afford to make them

Private schools: the minority in the country, and few people can afford it

Private hospitals: I'd estimate the majority hospitals in the country, but are still obliged to provide medical care in the case of an emergency... few are public in the US, because the US does shit about health care.

Do you have a point? All you said is that there are a few of them.

On roads, what you said is complete nonsense. Most people can afford them.

On everything, the reason we have so few, and that they (mostly) cater to those with means, is that because the government already provides those services for the masses.

[Kengburg]

And you are aware of the alarming amount of scandals revolving around private hospitals, and the huge tuition to go to a private school, right?

Yes. What is your point?

You are aware that competition for the masses, would reduce costs, right?

But there would still be a cost present, and when you reduce costs you have to reduce quality, because there is a point where you can go no lower without making a profit, which, myself being in private school for the elementary-middle school period of my life know that even with financial aid they aren't cheap

[The Black Forrest]

You obviously have no idea how contracts actually work.

See, I can refuse to be constructive too. You want to end this stupid and childish game and actually debate?

A contract is an AGREEMENT. With clearly defined terms. And can only be changed when all parties agree to the changes.

Show me where agreed to this social contract. Show me where I agree to the numerous changes to it.

If only social contracts were that simple.

Your argument only works between businesses, people and lawyers.

What are you going to do if I "X" out your changes because I don't like them?

[Liberated Symbionesia]

NATIONSTATES

"Where the political backwash of society come to express their extremley radical beliefs"

Home of the famous Circular Logic

Extremely radical /=/ wrong.

[Sibirsky]

What?

Rarely is the 'keeping the product of one's labors' line brought up outside of communist circles, and with good reason: capitalist systems do not allow workers to retain the products of their labor in most cases.

Semantics.

A firm, lets call it XYZ Corp and I agree to terms. I will do ABC action and they will pay me $X.

After taxes, I get less than $X. By "more or all of the product of my labor" I was referring to the entire $X.

[Sibirsky]

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

i dunno, it seems like a lot of people are into it

A lot of people are into a lot of weird things.

[The Black Forrest]

There are other ways of paying for the services of those that cannot pay or those services themselves.

OK. What?

Or, rather, to put it simply, what means are there to pay for fundamentally necessary services for those who cannot pay for those services themselves that would not be as equally coercive as taxation?

But but it's better because it goes to business coffers rather than the government.

[Sibirsky]

Yet another, old, tired, and useless GTFO argument.

The social contract is a myth.

Ah yes, because a random person on the internet dispels centuries of philosophical thought with nothing more than, "lul its stoopid."

No, because it is not a valid contract.

[Mavorpen]

Ah yes, because a random person on the internet dispels centuries of philosophical thought with nothing more than, "lul its stoopid."

No, because it is not a valid contract.

Yes it is.

[Conserative Morality]

Semantics.

A firm, lets call it XYZ Corp and I agree to terms. I will do ABC action and they will pay me $X.

After taxes, I get less than $X. By "more or all of the product of my labor" I was referring to the entire $X.

You agree to terms. You do not receive the products of your labor, you receive compensation for employment. It doesn't matter if you produce $10,000 of *insert product or service here* or $100, you are paid for employment under the terms given until renegotiation of employment contract or termination of employment in most cases.

[Conserative Morality]

No, because it is not a valid contract.

Who defines valid contracts?

[The Black Forrest]

Ah yes, because a random person on the internet dispels centuries of philosophical thought with nothing more than, "lul its stoopid."

No, because it is not a valid contract.

So in everything we are going to have a contract? How are you going to manage all that?

[Kengburg]

Yes, but like I always say when I leave one of these type of threads: Your views will never be voted into power because they are so radical even the GOP wouldn't agree with you, so keep on dreaming, less than 1% of the American population does, or will ever, agree with your extremely misguided views.

[Sibirsky]

Yes, obviously choosing a country to live in, is just a choice. Like choosing Burger King over McDonald's.

So again, you admit that on certain things you do not have real choice over? Glad you agree to pay taxes then.

I have been paying taxes longer than you have been alive, I bet. Doing something, is not agreeing with it.

[The Black Forrest]

No, because it is not a valid contract.

Who defines valid contracts?

Err? The privatized courts?

[Conserative Morality]

Err? The privatized courts?

Right now?

[Sibirsky]

A contract is an AGREEMENT. With clearly defined terms. And can only be changed when all parties agree to the changes.

Show me where agreed to this social contract. Show me where I agree to the numerous changes to it.

Sure. It's called living here, voting, and using any public service.

What, do you seriously think contracts must be in standard written form?

Living here? Voting? What if I don't vote?

So, being born means you agree?

And that is why, it is not a valid contract.

[Conserative Morality]

Living here? Voting? What if I don't vote?

So, being born means you agree?

And that is why, it is not a valid contract.

No, failing to reject the government means you agree.

[The Black Forrest]

i dunno, it seems like a lot of people are into it

A lot of people are into a lot of weird things.

Like reading Ludwig von mises and arguing for Austrian economics.

[Sibirsky]

Yes. We're talking about taxes. You're talking about employee's pay, vs. the money the employees make for their employers.

you were talking about people taking more of their share of their labour home while also supporting a system that is based entirely around paying employees less than they are worth and taking the surplus, so you don't really seem to have a problem with people taking their bit off the side

it seemed like a "what people take home" and "what people take home" ):

Aly, you know I disagree with the LTV. I don't know why you are even bringing it up.

An employer and employee agree to terms. The employer provides capital that allows the employee to be more productive. The employee is not being paid less than they are worth. The employer is being compensated for capital investments and risk taking.

[Souseiseki]

Sure. It's called living here, voting, and using any public service.

What, do you seriously think contracts must be in standard written form?

Living here? Voting? What if I don't vote?

So, being born means you agree?

And that is why, it is not a valid contract.

have you never been on a site where it says

"by posting on these forums you agree to these rules"
"by continuing to browse this site you accept cookies"