Taxes are a form of Theft

[Alvecia]

Similarly, you think the tax people are gonna go...

"Oh wow he REALLY doesn't want to pay his taxes. Send in the army."

Saying the tax people are gonna shoot you for not paying your taxes is like saying the police are gonna shoot you for not having your drivers license during a routine traffic stop......

oh wait...

only if you make them

but usually people are already convinced by a much smaller fraction of the state's complete power

when a god wants to smite an ant out of existence, does he feel obligated to use his full power? No. Clearly, a small incentive is usually enough... but that doesn't detract from the fact that a fear of the god's complete powers (which one understands to far exceed one's own capabilities), is a driving force for compliance.

Does the state NEED to send the military to force a non-compliant taxpayer? No, usually it can persuade or coerce the person to do with a much smaller fraction of its total power. But can it if it the person chooses to escalate things and takes up arms? Absolutely.

So......

in order to avoid people fearing tax collectors you would what?
Get rid of all government so that the firepower can never be used?
Or get rid of all the firepower so there's nothing to threaten people with?

What about the people who pay taxes because they believe it is the morally correct thing to do? They aren't being coerced at gun point. There are two ways to gain loyalty. One is through fear, the other is through respect. I would imagine that most people fall into the latter category. They are not paying taxes because they are afraid of what may happen if they don't but because they know the good it causes.
As for those who only pay taxes because of fear? They don't like it, they can get out. Pay their dues, leave the country and free themselves from fear. The only thing stopping that is them.
"Oh but there's nowhere to go". Well tough, I guess. You should have been born earlier. Or later. Made do with the hand you are dealt, find somewhere where you are happy to pay your taxes or deal with being the minority. We can't please everyone all at once.
Personally I think that if you would rather keep the money for yourself than pay it as tax then you are being extremely selfish and could do with finding a bit more compassion for everyone else you share this world with.

[Alvecia]

Read it. Then reconsider your views on taxes.

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

*blink*

I'm done

[Infected Mushroom]

only if you make them

but usually people are already convinced by a much smaller fraction of the state's complete power

when a god wants to smite an ant out of existence, does he feel obligated to use his full power? No. Clearly, a small incentive is usually enough... but that doesn't detract from the fact that a fear of the god's complete powers (which one understands to far exceed one's own capabilities), is a driving force for compliance.

Does the state NEED to send the military to force a non-compliant taxpayer? No, usually it can persuade or coerce the person to do with a much smaller fraction of its total power. But can it if it the person chooses to escalate things and takes up arms? Absolutely.

So......

in order to avoid people fearing tax collectors you would what?
Get rid of all government so that the firepower can never be used?
Or get rid of all the firepower so there's nothing to threaten people with?

What about the people who pay taxes because they believe it is the morally correct thing to do? They aren't being coerced at gun point. There are two ways to gain loyalty. One is through fear, the other is through respect. I would imagine that most people fall into the latter category. They are not paying taxes because they are afraid of what may happen if they don't but because they know the good it causes.
As for those who only pay taxes because of fear? They don't like it, they can get out. Pay their dues, leave the country and free themselves from fear. The only thing stopping that is them.
"Oh but there's nowhere to go". Well tough, I guess. You should have been born earlier. Or later. Made do with the hand you are dealt, find somewhere where you are happy to pay your taxes or deal with being the minority. We can't please everyone all at once.
Personally I think that if you would rather keep the money for yourself than pay it as tax then you are being extremely selfish and could do with finding a bit more compassion for everyone else you share this world with.

You don't have to get rid of the military, but you do have to get rid of the institutionalised robbery that occurs on a yearly basis across Western jurisdictions by the government.

The people who pay taxes because they think it is the right thing to do and don't do it out of fear can continue to do so in the form of voluntary donations. The rest of us shouldn't be forced and robbed.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I guess you could say taxes are theft. You don't exactly get a choice, do you?
But if you reckon taxes are so awful, why don't you kick up some change and resist them? Tax dodging can't be that hard- look at Greece.

I trust you're aware that, in most countries, tax evasion is a felony, right?

[Vadia]

Taxes exist because people want them to exist.

The swarm of people who came on this thread to defend taxes? That is why taxes exist.

People want to have police, they want to have a common defense, they want to have education, they want to have roads.

And people decided that since everyone uses these things, everyone should pay for them.

Duh.

It's not theft, it started off as a way to pay for all the people wanted but didn't want to pay for on their own.

Taxes exist because some people want them to exist. I'm perfectly fine with the taxes I pay for what I receive.

The problem is that some people don't just desire taxes, they desire to force them on others.

No.

Clinton lowered taxes, Bush lowered taxes, and Obama lowered taxes.

This is why we owe people money, mostly ourselves; but we still do.

At the same time, we are trying to afford welfare or a strong military; both of which are expensive.

I guess you could say taxes are theft. You don't exactly get a choice, do you?
But if you reckon taxes are so awful, why don't you kick up some change and resist them? Tax dodging can't be that hard- look at Greece.

I trust you're aware that, in most countries, tax evasion is a felony, right?

Greece has given it's people money for years on end and the people have refused to pay them back.

It has ruined the image of the nation before the world.

[Webus]

Greetings NSG,

I have just realised that in my view, the fact that the government forces you give them money on a regular basis (in the form of income tax) from income you rightfully and assiduously earn... is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned theft.

In my view it can be described in no other way. The fact that we consider taxation a normal thing and a legitimate thing is simply a form of Might Makes Right. If a person wrote letters to you to try to compel you to give them a part of your property every Nth period (and if you don't they will do bad things to you like imprison you), you would rightfully and instinctively call such a person a robber. Likewise, If a band of robbers wrote a letter to you and threatened the same, you would rightfully and instinctively call such an organization an organization of robbers.

I've just made the revolutionary connection that the government is in that business too. I mean think about it. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, the tax collectors will send their enforcers to grab you and throw you into a cell (isn't this similar to how a mafia operates?). Except they trick you into thinking its alright by making it a part of the Law. They also trick you into thinking that you've somehow legitimised this Theft because every 4 or so years you get to cast a statistically insignificant ballot that's supposedly a form of consent.

I can't believe it...

What do you think NSG? Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful? Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

I hate to break it to you, but the Government knows better than you do.

[Infected Mushroom]

Greetings NSG,

I have just realised that in my view, the fact that the government forces you give them money on a regular basis (in the form of income tax) from income you rightfully and assiduously earn... is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned theft.

In my view it can be described in no other way. The fact that we consider taxation a normal thing and a legitimate thing is simply a form of Might Makes Right. If a person wrote letters to you to try to compel you to give them a part of your property every Nth period (and if you don't they will do bad things to you like imprison you), you would rightfully and instinctively call such a person a robber. Likewise, If a band of robbers wrote a letter to you and threatened the same, you would rightfully and instinctively call such an organization an organization of robbers.

I've just made the revolutionary connection that the government is in that business too. I mean think about it. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, the tax collectors will send their enforcers to grab you and throw you into a cell (isn't this similar to how a mafia operates?). Except they trick you into thinking its alright by making it a part of the Law. They also trick you into thinking that you've somehow legitimised this Theft because every 4 or so years you get to cast a statistically insignificant ballot that's supposedly a form of consent.

I can't believe it...

What do you think NSG? Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful? Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

I hate to break it to you, but the Government knows better than you do.

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

[Hydesland]

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

Yeaah, even assuming that's true, in this specific case they probably still know better than you personally.

[Vadia]

You don't have to get rid of the military, but you do have to get rid of the institutionalised robbery that occurs on a yearly basis across Western jurisdictions by the government.

The people who pay taxes because they think it is the right thing to do and don't do it out of fear can continue to do so in the form of voluntary donations. The rest of us shouldn't be forced and robbed.

There wouldn't be a goverment without taxes. There is not a single case of a healthy government that is not funded by taxes.

There is not a single case of a stable nation without a stable, tax-funded government.

There is only places in the world without taxes and plagued with anarchy because there is nothing to keep order in place.

Taxes have been lowered four times in America and spending needs to increase because that's what the voters want. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if anything taxes are to low.

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

And if there wasn't a government, then corporations would simply run anything that way.

There would be medications that WILL KILL YOU sold on every corner, fire-departments will charge you money, police won't solve any crimes without a payment or bribe, the air will be smog, and we will all work long hours till we die of heart disease from unhealthy food.

[Infected Mushroom]

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

Yeaah, even assuming that's true, in this specific case they probably still know better than you personally.

I disagree.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yeaah, even assuming that's true, in this specific case they probably still know better than you personally.

I disagree.

So, wait, are you telling me that you, personally, know better than the government regarding taxes? Really?

[Immoren]

I hate to break it to you, but the Government knows better than you do.

not when they are run by corporate puppets elected by the largely incompetent masses

Do you want some champagne with that Classism?

[BK117B2]

I thought the whole point of this thought experiment is that we were assuming the extreme outcome. That's the basis of my point. If there is a "relatively easily applied solution that would negate any possible need to collect in that manner" then yes. Absolutely. That, do that. But.....if that doesn't work....

Then we'd be dealing with some other, hypothetical world rather than the one in which we live. As that hasn't been mentioned, it doesn't seem relevant.

That's a bit of a false equivalence, only 1 of my 4 options actually involved violence being done. A more accurate comparison would be "I won't sexually assault you, I won't burn down your residence, I won't chop off your hand, I won't kidnap a loved one. If you don't pick one of these, I'm going to kill you." There you have several options that do not involve harm to yourself and you can voluntary pick one of those. In this example, the involuntary choice becomes irrelevant.

So you undeniably missed the point. The number of options given under the threat of force does not negate the threat of force or diminish the nature of extortion.

I don't think I'm confused at all. You previously stated that you would have no problem paying taxes that you "consent" to. This implies that there are some taxes that you believe are involuntary and some that are voluntary. I would like to know which taxes you believe to be involuntary and why you think that.

If not confused, then you would already know which taxes I believe to be involuntary as I've already explicitly stated it.

Taxes which people do not voluntarily pay are involuntary. What about this concept is still causing you difficulty?

That is a typo on my part I think, it should have read "They only do not require force if the person whose assets are being seized refuses to consent to their removal.
It should be noted, as I believe it relevant to the first point, that when I state "force" I don't mean at gunpoint. There are of course, better ways to subdue a person.

Well thank you Captain Obvious, that IS how threats of force work. Now, would you like to actually apply that to anything at hand?

[BK117B2]

Taxes exist because some people want them to exist. I'm perfectly fine with the taxes I pay for what I receive.

The problem is that some people don't just desire taxes, they desire to force them on others.

No.

Clinton lowered taxes, Bush lowered taxes, and Obama lowered taxes.

This is why we owe people money, mostly ourselves; but we still do.

At the same time, we are trying to afford welfare or a strong military; both of which are expensive.

You say "No" but then don't discuss the point any further. Would you like to actually make an argument or is that it?

[Vadia]

No.

Clinton lowered taxes, Bush lowered taxes, and Obama lowered taxes.

This is why we owe people money, mostly ourselves; but we still do.

At the same time, we are trying to afford welfare or a strong military; both of which are expensive.

You say "No" but then don't discuss the point any further. Would you like to actually make an argument or is that it?

I explained my point.

People want high governmental spending, but elect people who lower taxes.

Taxes are not theft, they are paying backfees for things you demanded from the system.

People don't want to force taxes on others, they want us to ether lower spending or increase taxes so we can stop owing people money.

[United Dependencies]

Now with the American Revolution, don't use a American viewpoint because its made to make you feel patriotic and a nationalist.

So the admiralty courts weren't a thing? The suspension of local legislatures was not a thing? The Intolerable Acts never happened? Prohibitions on trade never occurred? Restrictions on westward expansion? The quartering of soldiers? Yeah, outrage over taxes played an important role in the lead up to the American Revolution, but they were not the only factor.

Oh, and don't tell me what arguments I can and cannot use.

Back to the point:

I will explain what I said. In the last republican debate Christ Christie's whole time was based upon the American people having control, and being the vip in all of this, only because they have votes. As a citizen, he only has one votes, he needs the other citizens votes to become President. So, lets say we do have President Christie, which I pray doesn't happen, if those same people were able to schedule a meeting at the White House, which would likely not happen, and gave President Christie a strategy on how to govern the nation, their ideas and thoughts would not matter, unless they gave him more votes for the 2020 election cycle.

Americans power is only vested during election time to politicians, after that politicians hold the power, and the people who fund their campaigns buy that power for private use.

The president isn't a tyrant you know. Taxing power (at the federal level) is vested in the House of Representatives. The losing party may not have full control of Congress, but as we see right now, they will probably have enough people to maintain a say in taxing and spending. Furthermore, people will also have an opportunity to elect state and municipal officials who can also adjust tax rates as well.

More specifically though, this is how representative government works. Every so often the people elect representatives and government officials, and then those officials go and make decisions and pass laws for a period of time after which they are up for election again. The next president will have a leading voice in US policy for the next four years because that's how the system was set up. The influence of moneyed interest is unfortunate, but that will happen in any political system.

So that's how representative democracy works, do you perhaps have a better alternative?

[BK117B2]

You say "No" but then don't discuss the point any further. Would you like to actually make an argument or is that it?

I explained my point.

The problem is that you explained something different than the post to which you were responding and to which you said no.

People want high governmental spending, but elect people who lower taxes.

Taxes are not theft, they are paying backfees for things you demanded from the system.

People don't want to force taxes on others, they want us to ether lower spending or increase taxes so we can stop owing people money.

Demanding money from Person A in order to pay for what was requested by Person B.....

Obviously some people DO want to force taxes on others. If nobody wanted that to happen, then it would be impossible for it to currently be law.



If no one wants it, then who wrote the bills? Who voted for them? Who signed them into law?

[Vadia]

The Early United States was a Confederation, without any strong taxes. However, the system wasn't working and a stronger federal government was needed. Thus the president was given more power and a bureaucracy was made to serve under him.

Washington put down a uprising on the taxation of corn whiskey during his time in office.

[United States of Natan]

No, they're not. Taxes are rent.

More or less, yeah. they are like room and board fees. How else would the government be able to keep us safe, enact and uphold legislation, and pay other expenses?

hundreds of years ago, when the US was just starting out, the Federal Government (though at that time it was more of a Confederacy) had limited powers. They couldn't tax, only States and Municipalities could. The Federal government basically had to beg the states for money, since our first constitution, the articles of confederation, prohibited it. That was only 1 of the many issues with it that led to the constitution of 1789 (they actually convened a constitutional convention to revise the articles, but they decided the articles were so bad they should just scrap them and write a new constitution). It was at that time that the modern US government was born (prior to that Congress was pretty much the whole federal government and operated not unlike a parliamentary system), and this time the Federal Government could tax, and I'd say it was a good thing, or this nation would not have survived. Seriously, no taxation would be nearing anarchy (Governments wouldn't be able to operate, and as such, would result in no police force, no military, and a host of other issues leading to a meta-anarchic society.) Think the Gov't shutdown of 2013, but about 10 times worse (if not more). Not only would the non-essential functions be defunct, they'd likely be non-existent, as would most essential functions. We'd have no paid elected officials, which would mean only wealthy people could run for office, practically no services which I'm sure you are unaware practically run your life.

[United States of Natan]

The Early United States was a Confederation, without any strong taxes. However, the system wasn't working and a stronger federal government was needed. Thus the president was given more power and a bureaucracy was made to serve under him.

Washington put down a uprising on the taxation of corn whiskey during his time in office.

Actually, we didn't technically have a president during the Articles of Confederation period, just Congress (which operated pretty much as a parliamentary system). The closest we had was the president of congress, who was hardly an executive, at most he resembled perhaps a Prime Minister.

[Vadia]

Let me simply this for you.

People want stuff for free, but you can't have it for free.

So they have to pay for it.

That's it. It's that simple.

If you want to make it complicated, I can point out that the very people who want to lower taxes are the people who drain the most tax money from the budget.

Mc-Ds tries so hard not to pay taxes, but they pay their workers so little they need welfare to survive.

Wall-mart used to do the same thing, they raised their wages slightly; now they are somewhere between bearable and okay.

At the same time, Republicans champion low taxes and yet want to increase the amount of military spending we have.

Democrats have been lowering taxes, while they try to increase welfare.

My state has given taxes cuts in the past, which is why we are 47th to 48th in school spending and quality. We also have issues with transportation that keep coming up, which is why taxes lately have been going up.

The Early United States was a Confederation, without any strong taxes. However, the system wasn't working and a stronger federal government was needed. Thus the president was given more power and a bureaucracy was made to serve under him.

Washington put down a uprising on the taxation of corn whiskey during his time in office.

Actually, we didn't technically have a president during the Articles of Confederation period, just Congress (which operated pretty much as a parliamentary system). The closest we had was the president of congress, who was hardly an executive, at most he resembled perhaps a Prime Minister.

It's still a president. Also, a Prime Minster is more or less like a president; but with different operating rules and methods of gaining power.

My standard point of taxes being implemented very quickly after we won the war is still solid.

[United States of Natan]

Let me simply this for you.

People want stuff for free, but you can't have it for free.

So they have to pay for it.

That's it. It's that simple.

If you want to make it complicated, I can point out that the very people who want to lower taxes are the people who drain the most tax money from the budget.

Mc-Ds tries so hard not to pay taxes, but they pay their workers so little they need welfare to survive.

Wall-mart used to do the same thing, they raised their wages slightly; now they are somewhere between bearable and okay.

At the same time, Republicans champion low taxes and yet want to increase the amount of military spending we have.

Democrats have been lowering taxes, while they try to increase welfare.

My state has given taxes cuts in the past, which is why we are 47th to 48th in school spending and quality. We also have issues with transportation that keep coming up, which is why taxes lately have been going up.

yes, taxes are a necessity, one that wee need to keep this nation running. No taxes, no government.

[Ifreann]

Where IM thinks he is.

Fortunately for him, he isn't. If the White Walkers don't get you, the dragons will. And the humans are even worse!

And you still have to pay taxes.

---

Read it. Then reconsider your views on taxes.

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

He said on a text based medium.

[Immoren]

Fortunately for him, he isn't. If the White Walkers don't get you, the dragons will. And the humans are even worse!

And you still have to pay taxes.

---

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

He said on a text based medium.

Perhaps it explains everything-

[Vadia]

And you still have to pay taxes.

---

He said on a text based medium.

Perhaps it explains everything-

Does this mean he has never read anything about taxes at all?

Is he getting all his ideas from taxes, via like a stoner or something?