Taxation is Coercion

[Dyakovo]

Gold stores value. You're not seriously asking this question are you? In the year 2000, in the year 2000 I have $2000. I decide to store it for 10 years. I store half of it in gold. Half in US dollars. So I buy 3.58 ounces of gold. And I keep $1000 in cash next to it. Today, 10 years later, I still have the $1000 in cash. Consumer prices have eroded the purchasing power of it to $789.87 (in year 2000 dollars). Value has eroded due to inflation. I can go sell my gold on the open market for $4,417.61. Adjusting for the CPI erosion that is $3.489.33 (in year 2000 dollars). The dollar has not stored value, while gold has increased the value of my holdings.

Are you under the mistaken belief that gold never decreases in value?

[Sungai Pusat]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!

In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

[Great Nepal]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!

In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

[Dyakovo]

There is no consent.

The consent comes from you no leaving. You are free do 'not consent' and leave, if you so choose.

There is a claim on labor.

Given that civilizations arose from government/leadership style organizations that allowed people to specialize, without a government, most people would find their 'labor' non-existent, and they'd have to do everything they might need.

And claims the government might feel that have for providing you the sort of environment your job might exist in, are therefore valid.

And I may never come visit. And I have to pay an exit tax. No, I am not free to leave at all.

Yes, you are. You just choose not to.

[Mikedor]

How can it be theft if you are receiving services in return?

[Dyakovo]

Why it isn't? Well I don't know... maybe because you get something in return from taxation such as functioning roads, an organized school system, functioning hospitals and protection from an organized police force.

What if I believe those things can not only be achieved, but achieved more efficiently without a government by the private sector? What if I don't want one or any of those services? The mere fact that the government provides us with services we don't necessarily want does not make it non-violent or coersive.

So act to change the that or go somewhere where it is not the case.

[Sungai Pusat]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!

In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

Well, it is theft. Besides, how do you think politicians get their salaries? From a job? I don't think so. In USA, bureacracy manages to suck at least 20% of the money meant to go to people. And I do want to live in a civilised world. And I am OK by paying those services to businesses. Ask me further to ask why if you do not believe so.

How can it be theft if you are receiving services in return?

Because many people either prefer to get them from businesses or they do not want to have those services in the first place. And you are forced to pay thet taxes. If you don't, you are jailed.

[Dyakovo]

Would you at least admit that the personal income tax is worse than other taxes?

No.

[Sungai Pusat]

Would you at least admit that the personal income tax is worse than other taxes?

No.

Why not? It is taxation from people and technically, no one can be forced to pay for anything.

[Dyakovo]

So my choice to living in tyranny is to hop the border, evade authorities until I can stow away on a ship. Then jump off when passing by a deserted island, swim ashore and die from lack of food or clean water.

Can you finally admit taxation is coersive?

Can you stop using a deserted island as a country of choice for migration? You're whole premise is that the world outside the US is a deserted waste land. It's not. there's all kinds of people out there, different colors and cultures and everything.

I know, it sounds like science fiction, or fantasy "Others? Outside the US? Impossible!!!" But I assure you that there is a non-deserted world out there.

Name a place other than a deserted island that wouldn't tax me?

Somalia (haha)

But seriously, there's all kinds of countries around the world that are tax havens in some sense.

Name one. And tell us how to leave without having to pay the exit tax.

Andorra, Bahamas, Brunei, Kuwait, Maldives, Monaco, Nauru, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu

Don't pay it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Would you at least admit that the personal income tax is worse than other taxes?

No.

Why not? It is taxation from people and technically, no one can be forced to pay for anything.

What kind of commie nonsense is this?

People who want to take but don't want to give?

[Sungai Pusat]

So my choice to living in tyranny is to hop the border, evade authorities until I can stow away on a ship. Then jump off when passing by a deserted island, swim ashore and die from lack of food or clean water.

Can you finally admit taxation is coersive?

Can you stop using a deserted island as a country of choice for migration? You're whole premise is that the world outside the US is a deserted waste land. It's not. there's all kinds of people out there, different colors and cultures and everything.

I know, it sounds like science fiction, or fantasy "Others? Outside the US? Impossible!!!" But I assure you that there is a non-deserted world out there.

Name a place other than a deserted island that wouldn't tax me?

Somalia (haha)

But seriously, there's all kinds of countries around the world that are tax havens in some sense.

Name one. And tell us how to leave without having to pay the exit tax.

Andorra, Bahamas, Brunei, Kuwait, Maldives, Monaco, Nauru, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu

Don't pay it.

You know what most of the nations here have? Brunei, Kuwait, Monaco, Oman, Qatar and the UAE have oil as their main revenue. And what is th reason to ignore stateproperty, huh? And the rest mostly have poor services given mostly by big laws preventing the making od new, better services. By the public. And I mean by businesse people.

[Dyakovo]

You paying for your fair share so your government can provide the sort of services it does (including, I might add, the police force, public education, the military, the judicial system, as well as many other, might I add essential, services) is hardly theft. You are just a greedy bastard and wish for the benefits without the cost, so taxation must be enforced, which I might add is another expense that must be now covered by the rest of the nation. Else, this wouldn't be an issue. Geez man, I must seriously wonder what exactly peoples huge problem with taxes is, that they will vote someone out of office for even the implication of raising them.

Fair share? What if the person went to private school? How is paying for public education fair?

Sure, how about those publicly financed roads you drive upon, or that clean water which you so love to drink? So you pay for schools privately. What about the other public utilities you so enjoy? Just because a family opts out on a public education, does not negate the other benefits of taxation and public infrastructure they utilize on a daily basis.

I have well water. I pay for roads through the gasoline excise tax. I pay more than my "fair" share, and I'm coerced into making that payment.

You think your taxes pays just for that? It pays for the police, fire fighters, the army, parks, everything around you that is not owned by private businesses.

If you really don't like taxes, don't pay taxes then. The government won't send you to jail. You'll just be homeless.

So I pay for the police to arrest me for breaking a law I don't agree with. What if I don't want to fund the police, and don't want their protection?

Then leave.

[Sungai Pusat]

You paying for your fair share so your government can provide the sort of services it does (including, I might add, the police force, public education, the military, the judicial system, as well as many other, might I add essential, services) is hardly theft. You are just a greedy bastard and wish for the benefits without the cost, so taxation must be enforced, which I might add is another expense that must be now covered by the rest of the nation. Else, this wouldn't be an issue. Geez man, I must seriously wonder what exactly peoples huge problem with taxes is, that they will vote someone out of office for even the implication of raising them.

Fair share? What if the person went to private school? How is paying for public education fair?

Sure, how about those publicly financed roads you drive upon, or that clean water which you so love to drink? So you pay for schools privately. What about the other public utilities you so enjoy? Just because a family opts out on a public education, does not negate the other benefits of taxation and public infrastructure they utilize on a daily basis.

I have well water. I pay for roads through the gasoline excise tax. I pay more than my "fair" share, and I'm coerced into making that payment.

You think your taxes pays just for that? It pays for the police, fire fighters, the army, parks, everything around you that is not owned by private businesses.

If you really don't like taxes, don't pay taxes then. The government won't send you to jail. You'll just be homeless.

So I pay for the police to arrest me for breaking a law I don't agree with. What if I don't want to fund the police, and don't want their protection?

Then leave.

Almost no place in the world are not offering services you'd rather let the businesses give or those services you do not want to have.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!

In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Of course...

How bad of the government to take away your money and build hospitals, schools, roads and infrastructure! How sick are they to actually make you pay for the services you use! Surely there must be another way to keep the civic features in proper working order than actually charging the civillians!

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

[Sungai Pusat]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

[Great Nepal]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!
In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

Well, it is theft.

How exactly is it theft as you are using service and you want to live in civilized world which costs.

Besides, how do you think politicians get their salaries? From a job? I don't think so. In USA, bureacracy manages to suck at least 20% of the money meant to go to people.

Presidency is a job and people indirectly employs them and they work for people.

And I do want to live in a civilised world. And I am OK by paying those services to businesses. Ask me further to ask why if you do not believe so.

You cant depend on private sector for everything. There are huge disadvantages of private sector. For example:-

Police:- Company may be actually associated by criminals and leave criminals who pay them.
Roads:- Monopoly will be disastrous. A person/company who owns main highway can charge insanely and person will have no other option than to pay for it.
ETC.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

[Dyelli Beybi]

Like it or not you, as a human are property of a State. For all your claimed freedoms you are not in fact free to do whatever you like, the State controls the way you act. For instance does its best to stop you murdering your neighbours. In order to do stuff like that it needs your money.

It steals from you and stops you killing! How evil is that?

[Sungai Pusat]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

No, in fact I am NOT! I am against the laws against bad drugs because it hs done nothing to stop the use of it, but I am not going to take bad drugs any day. I may want no taxation, but I am willing to pay education or other services. Just by some other means as the government is most inefficient. You know why? Cause it is a monopoly. Here are the only things I want to restrict:
Force and fraud.

I want force to be restricted as that is taking away someone's liberties. I want fraud to be taken away as it either gives a false sense of hope or despair, which is again no freedom. Bad drugs are a different case as you have a choice not to take the drug and end up unfree yourself. If that is what you want to be, there is nothing that anyone can do if you want to be like that.

[Sungai Pusat]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!
In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

Well, it is theft.

How exactly is it theft as you are using service and you want to live in civilized world which costs.

Yes! But I do not want to get it by government since I've already explained in another post: It is monopoly, thus the most inefficient.

Besides, how do you think politicians get their salaries? From a job? I don't think so. In USA, bureacracy manages to suck at least 20% of the money meant to go to people.

Presidency is a job and people indirectly employs them and they work for people.

Technically, they are not for the people. They are for the constitution or the law.

And I do want to live in a civilised world. And I am OK by paying those services to businesses. Ask me further to ask why if you do not believe so.

You cant depend on private sector for everything. There are huge disadvantages of private sector. For example:-

Police:- Company may be actually associated by criminals and leave criminals who pay them.
Roads:- Monopoly will be disastrous. A person/company who owns main highway can charge insanely and person will have no other option than to pay for it.
ETC.

Police; I said in another thread that for a hundred rotten apples, there will be one which is clean and good. That is why by then, more people come to the clean apple. The other rotten apples will then change.
Roads: I mean, can you tell me that people only use cars or only go on highways? Even if the majority do, you can't deny that you can just drive on the other roads there. The streets? The roads? Avenues?

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

No, in fact I am NOT! I am against the laws against bad drugs because it hs done nothing to stop the use of it, but I am not going to take bad drugs any day. I may want no taxation, but I am willing to pay education or other services. Just by some other means as the government is most inefficient. You know why? Cause it is a monopoly. Here are the only things I want to restrict:
Force and fraud.

I want force to be restricted as that is taking away someone's liberties. I want fraud to be taken away as it either gives a false sense of hope or despair, which is again no freedom. Bad drugs are a different case as you have a choice not to take the drug and end up unfree yourself. If that is what you want to be, there is nothing that anyone can do if you want to be like that.

What is it with all this government intrusion? Why limit the individual's right to use force and fraud?

Even if you don't want to use force and fraud, yourself, why should others not be allowed to?

You said, yourself, that government is 'most inefficient'' - so why not completely remove all government intervention in force and fraud, and let the REAL 'free market' reign?

[Sungai Pusat]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

No, in fact I am NOT! I am against the laws against bad drugs because it hs done nothing to stop the use of it, but I am not going to take bad drugs any day. I may want no taxation, but I am willing to pay education or other services. Just by some other means as the government is most inefficient. You know why? Cause it is a monopoly. Here are the only things I want to restrict:
Force and fraud.

I want force to be restricted as that is taking away someone's liberties. I want fraud to be taken away as it either gives a false sense of hope or despair, which is again no freedom. Bad drugs are a different case as you have a choice not to take the drug and end up unfree yourself. If that is what you want to be, there is nothing that anyone can do if you want to be like that.

What is it with all this government intrusion? Why limit the individual's right to use force and fraud?

Even if you don't want to use force and fraud, yourself, why should others not be allowed to?

You said, yourself, that government is 'most inefficient'' - so why not completely remove all government intervention in force and fraud, and let the REAL 'free market' reign?

I am. OK, so I did not make myself clear. Here is something else we can do:
No taxes
Laws on force and fraud apply
The government is still there in the courts and police, but not anywhere else.
This time, the government has to compete with the private sector. The government works under free market laws, just like the rest of us would.
This time, if the government does badly, the private sector do better and warns the government that they can win. The government does better and the private sector will then bulk up. It is win win. Besides, it is the simplest to set up shop in a free market economy precisely because of the force and fraud laws.

[Abdju]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

yes because no one is the boss of me i am an individual and operate in an absolute vacuum where nothing i do has any effect on anyone else whatsoever where everything i use or create is 100% due to my own actions and labour and thus anything that impinges of my own wants in anyway whatsoever is a violation of my freedoms godammit

* The passage above contains 100% Pure Libertarian Truth, and as such needs no grammar or punctuation, which would serve only to dilute it's Purity of Essence.