Taxes are a form of Theft

[United Dependencies]

Read it. Then reconsider your views on taxes.

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

You probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

You probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

too late

[BK117B2]

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.

Oh, it's very clear now. You're not sure what is being discussed.

The services provided with tax revenue are not relevant since we're talking about people who don't want them from the government anyway.

If you wish to quote me, try actually addressing what you've quoted for a change

[Geilinor]

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?

Does he even read our posts?

[Narland]

Greetings NSG,
What do you think NSG?
Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful?

Direct taxes that are representative like property taxes by bonds or levies that are directly voted on; taxes legitimately passed by our representatives; and excises for disorderly behaviour are not theft. However, taxation without representation is tyranny. Taxes, fines, fees, and assessments that are arbitrary, based on fraud, or taken through misfeasance or malfeasance are theft.

Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

In a country like ours we get the government (and the taxes levied) we they deserve. Governments tend to get away with as much as possible, while doing the least amount expected. Combine that with a new generation with no sense of conviction for objective truth nor a desire for moral excellence and the corruption increases dramatically. There is no justifiable philosophically consistent ethical standard against corruption when everything is relative.

It won't change until enough people demand moral excellence and high ethical standards from their public servants. Would you trust someone like Hilary or Trump to be servants of your estate (if you had one)? Why would you trust them to serve you in the body politic--except that you think they could take it from some else to give to you? If they are powerful enough to take from someone else to give to you, what is to stop them from taking things you want or need from you should a new policy call for it? Organize, mobilize, run for office, create civic education organizations, and vote en masse for permanent fiscal change.

[Dyakovo]

You probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

too late

Doubtful.

[Ifreann]

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?

Nah, if he knew any stoners he'd turn them in to the police.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

too late

Man, we've got some real jokers in this forum nowadays.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

[Calimera II]

You could also argue that, in many cases, the way many people earn their income is theft. Immorally profiting from other people can be considered theft too. It's just perception.

[Infected Mushroom]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

[Galloism]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

I'm not sure you can refer to something as more ethical when it would result in the starvation, disease, and death of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people compared to the course of action it is intended to replace.

[Geilinor]

You're only able to earn and retain that income because of the services and institutions provided by the government. You owe the government that money. And beyond that, taxation is a form of redistribution, which allows those who don't earn much of an income to still access basic necessities using a portion of your income.

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

It isn't stealing when you owe your money to those public works.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

It isn't stealing when you owe your money to those public works.

What a brilliantly circular argument.

[Galloism]

It isn't stealing when you owe your money to those public works.

What a brilliantly circular argument.

I mean, it's kind of circular, but it also happens to be true.

You wouldn't HAVE United States dollars without the United States Treasury. The United States Treasury extracting a fee for using its medium of exchange does not seem in any way more coercive than say... the ISP charging me a fee for using its medium of transmission.

[Infected Mushroom]

Not really, it is possible to envision a society where redistribution is voluntary (based on free will and the charitable contributions of individuals and organisations) and the government finances a very limited but relatively functional range of public services by running its own for-profit businesses or working closely with the private sector; whatever the government can't afford to pick up, the market will fill the void with cost-effective services

under such a system, stealing from the people to finance public works would not be necessary and it would be far more ethical as a whole

It isn't stealing when you owe your money to those public works.

you don't owe the money, they are a gift, flowing from a fiduciary obligation flowing from the state to the individual (the state, having power over the individual, has a duty to provide for and protect the individual to the extent that is reasonable/practical/possible)

in order for the money to be owed, you would have to sit down with the government, talk to them and negotiate a contract (without their being coercion) in which corresponding rights and obligations are set up forming an Offer and an Acceptance etc

There was never such a moment. You don't owe the government anything. There was never a contract. You never had that moment where you sat down facing the government and said to them, ''I agree to pay Nth percentage of my income every year how about you provide me in exchange with X... Y ... Z... etc'' and the government says ''Fine.''

This moment is a creation of fiction. There is no such meeting. The government merely imposed its terms from the get go. And stealing from the people is clearly a violation of a fiduciary obligation.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Read it. Then reconsider your views on taxes.

I don't like reading

it dulls the senses

That's unfortunate, it also explains a lot.

[Galloism]

It isn't stealing when you owe your money to those public works.

you don't owe the money, they are a gift, flowing from a fiduciary obligation flowing from the state to the individual (the state, having power over the individual, has a duty to provide for and protect the individual to the extent that is reasonable/practical/possible)

in order for the money to be owed, you would have to sit down with the government, talk to them and negotiate a contract (without their being coercion) in which corresponding rights and obligations are set up forming an Offer and an Acceptance etc

There was never such a moment. You don't owe the government anything. There was never a contract. You never had that moment where you sat down facing the government and said to them, ''I agree to pay Nth percentage of my income every year how about you provide me in exchange with X... Y ... Z... etc'' and the government says ''Fine.''

This moment is a creation of fiction. There is no such meeting. The government merely imposed its terms from the get go. And stealing from the people is clearly a violation of a fiduciary obligation.

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

[Occupied Deutschland]

What a brilliantly circular argument.

I mean, it's kind of circular, but it also happens to be true.

You wouldn't HAVE United States dollars without the United States Treasury...

Which assumes 'United States dollars' or any similar medium of exchange is the primary or a necessary component of 'public works'.
Neither of which is true.

It also ignores where the analogical 'startup capital' for aforementioned United States Treasury arose from, which sends us back into the circular territory.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You probably shouldn't become a lawyer.

too late

Being a lawyer requires an awful lot of reading, just so you know.

[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.

Oh, it's very clear now. You're not sure what is being discussed.

The services provided with tax revenue are not relevant since we're talking about people who don't want them from the government anyway.

If you wish to quote me, try actually addressing what you've quoted for a change

When you were born, you were in a government funded hospital.

You were driven home on government funded roads.

You went to a government funded school.

You come into this world owing the government money, you don't just opt out of that.

[Galloism]

I mean, it's kind of circular, but it also happens to be true.

You wouldn't HAVE United States dollars without the United States Treasury...

Which assumes 'United States dollars' or any similar medium of exchange is the primary or a necessary component of 'public works'.
Neither of which is true.

My point was merely the government has ample logical and ethical right to extract taxation.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Which assumes 'United States dollars' or any similar medium of exchange is the primary or a necessary component of 'public works'.
Neither of which is true.

My point was merely the government has ample logical and ethical right to extract taxation.

And mine was that arguing such based on the public works created by said government allowing one the income that is then taxed was a circular argument (as one then must answer where the money for those previously created public works came from, and how those people who paid for those works earned the taxed income that created previous public works that allowed [etc, etc, ad infinitum]).

Separate arguments, really...

[Vadia]

you don't owe the money, they are a gift, flowing from a fiduciary obligation flowing from the state to the individual (the state, having power over the individual, has a duty to provide for and protect the individual to the extent that is reasonable/practical/possible)

in order for the money to be owed, you would have to sit down with the government, talk to them and negotiate a contract (without their being coercion) in which corresponding rights and obligations are set up forming an Offer and an Acceptance etc

There was never such a moment. You don't owe the government anything. There was never a contract. You never had that moment where you sat down facing the government and said to them, ''I agree to pay Nth percentage of my income every year how about you provide me in exchange with X... Y ... Z... etc'' and the government says ''Fine.''

This moment is a creation of fiction. There is no such meeting. The government merely imposed its terms from the get go. And stealing from the people is clearly a violation of a fiduciary obligation.

Let's make sure I understand this correctly. If a contract is not specifically negotiated, but goods/services are rendered with an expectation of payment and payment is not given, there's no obligation to pay for the goods/services provided?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what your position is.

How does an unborn baby negotiate payment for it's birth in a hospital?

[United States of Natan]

Oh, it's very clear now. You're not sure what is being discussed.

The services provided with tax revenue are not relevant since we're talking about people who don't want them from the government anyway.

If you wish to quote me, try actually addressing what you've quoted for a change

When you were born, you were in a government funded hospital.

You were driven home on government funded roads.

You went to a government funded school.

You come into this world owing the government money, you don't just opt out of that.

Exactly, its similar to the Kim davis issue: an elected official cannot just opt out of upholding a government law.