Taxation is Coercion

[Sibirsky]

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.

Tax money pays for a lot other service than it. And as I said, you dont want to pay tax - then you are free to go to Somalia.

There's not really any unclaimed land on earth, so avoiding civilization is almost impossible. Making your "If you don't like it, go to ____" argument moot.

You dont have to pay tax in nation like Somalia on the downside you dont get protection from murderers, robbers etc and you dont get facilities.

Yes, you do.

[Sibirsky]

Leave to go where? Another nation with taxation? Do you know what it takes to leave? Well, a plane ticket, but what it takes to be exempt from income tax forever? Do you? You have to renounce your citizenship. That means you cannot come visit ever again. You have to pay an exit tax. You then have to continue paying income taxes for the following decade. After that, you can earn all the money you want and not owe a penny in US income taxes. That is not a choice.

You realize the exact same argument applies to an inherited house, or car? and yet no-one would claim that was theft.
and I'm gonna need a source on having to pay tax for a decade after renouncing citizenship.

How is that anything like a house?
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/int ... 45,00.html

It seems they got rid of the 10 years tax. Damn, a tax law that was improved. I am genuinely shocked.

You do realize that the page you linked to is under the heading of business tax rules, yes?

Nope, didn't see that. Regardless, there is an individual exit tax as well.

[Sibirsky]

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?

It never decreases in value to 0.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Have been addressed.

[Abdju]

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?

It never decreases in value to 0.

But it might fall in value faster than inflation devalues your dollars.

[Sibirsky]

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?

Yes. We want to abolish taxes. For everyone. For everyone that does not post on NS using the name Grave_n_idle that is.

[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?

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?

Yes. We want to abolish taxes. For everyone. For everyone that does not post on NS using the name Grave_n_idle that is.

Meh, Royal monopoly FTW.

[Great Nepal]

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.

Tax money pays for a lot other service than it. And as I said, you dont want to pay tax - then you are free to go to Somalia.

There's not really any unclaimed land on earth, so avoiding civilization is almost impossible. Making your "If you don't like it, go to ____" argument moot.

You dont have to pay tax in nation like Somalia on the downside you dont get protection from murderers, robbers etc and you dont get facilities.

Yes, you do.

Legally yes - but if you dont there is no one to get you. So practically you dont have to pay tax.

[Sibirsky]

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

How did he slip by?

[Kazomal]

As I said, living in a civil society is what you get in exchange for taxes. Unless you live in a house you built yourself, grow all your own food, and fight off bands of attackers regularly, you derive benefit from living in society. Not to be taxed would be to free ride.

As for the roads thing, for there to be roads for you to use in the first place, someone's taxes had to pay for it.

As I said, it is unreasonable to want to derive benefits from living in a civil society without paying in to help support that society.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

How did he slip by?

Because securities lawyers don't really know anything about finance regardless of whether they currently work in the public sector or the private sector.

[Sibirsky]

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

How did he slip by?

Because securities lawyers don't really know anything about finance regardless of whether they currently work in the public sector or the private sector.

So when presented with something they don't understand, they ignore it? That doesn't seem logical at all.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

How did he slip by?

Because securities lawyers don't really know anything about finance regardless of whether they currently work in the public sector or the private sector.

So when presented with something they don't understand, they ignore it? That doesn't seem logical at all.

Sorry?

[Sibirsky]

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

How did he slip by?

Because securities lawyers don't really know anything about finance regardless of whether they currently work in the public sector or the private sector.

So when presented with something they don't understand, they ignore it? That doesn't seem logical at all.

Sorry?

The SEC was presented with evidence of Madoff's scam. You said the lawyers don't know anything about finance. So they ignored it, because they didn't understand it?

[Lyserl]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

[New Heliopolis]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

I actually disagree with this. People deserve, I believe, to receive an amount equivalent to what they've given in labour. This may seem like an "apples to oranges" comparison, but if the people involved don't have any defects, it's not. The employed produces a certain amount of valuable labor for their employer, and the employer must then, in return, give the employed an equal value. (honestly, though, I don't think results are the best metric, just the most easily measurable, this is a simplification)

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

He didn't say that.

Did cat say that taxation is not theft because the government cannot commit theft, as it defines theft

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

[Sibirsky]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

How do they have a claim to it? You're just stating these things with no sort of backup. Even in your impractical libertarian fantasy world, you do not have a "right" to the fruits of your labor, just what your employer deigns to give you.

It's what you the employer and employee agree to. You have every right to it.

[Bendira]

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

He didn't say that.

Did cat say that taxation is not theft because the government cannot commit theft, as it defines theft

If you don't understand after it has been explained ad naseum how neither the legal nor ethical definitions of "theft" cannot possibly apply to government taxing property that you "own" through, by, and with government support, recognition, or protection, then you either never will or are being deliberately obtuse.

I will repost something from the last thread to which no one replied:

I've already addressed this topic more than it is worth, but I came across some food for thought.

From Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II, Part II (1776):

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." --Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a speech in 1904. See also Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting) ("Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure."). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

"Here, on the contrary, the incidence of the tax as well as its measure is tied to the earnings which the State of Wisconsin has made possible, insofar as government is the prerequisite for the fruits of civilization for which, as Mr. Justice Holmes was fond of saying, we pay taxes." -- Wisconsin v. JC Penney Co., 311 US 435, 446 (1940)

"[A]n expenditure made for Federal income taxes is not an expenditure made in consideration of any specific property or service received by the taxpayer. The payment of Federal income taxes is a civic duty, not a matter of business contract or investment advantage. All taxpayers, as well as others (citizens and noncitizens) receive benefits on account of the funding of the Federal Government." --Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 71-72 (1996) (Halpern, J., dissenting).

If you agree that the government can do no harm, you have to say that Hitler was completely justified in all of his actions while the Dictator of Germany.

Sure. That is clearly what I said -- almost word for word. I clearly believe that every "government" or "power" that has ever been used throughout history has been essentially the same, 100% legitimate, and unquestionable. Nothing any government ever has or will do should ever be questioned. Glad you made that clear for those who may have missed it in my post.

EDIT: And Adam Smith, John Locke, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and all past and current members of SCOTUS feel or felt exactly the same.

You say the government defines theft, and defines the taxation as not being a crime, correct?

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Where did I say anything even resembling that in my post?

How is that responsive to the points I did actually make in my post?

Are you so caught up repeating mantras that you can't think of anything else?

Cat, I get really annoyed when people quote Adam Smith and think that it is the end all be all of the argument. It is true that Adam Smith was one of the many "founding fathers" of capitalism, but the word capitalism does not need to be directly associated with him. Just as I could talk about Transcendentalism seperate from Emerson or Thoureau as a phenomenon, and not in reference to Emerson or Thoreau's works specifically.

You are correct that Theft technically is a legal term that the government defines. So technically, if you want to argue semantics, you are absolutely correct that taxation is not theft. This is something that I have realized from this debate. However, taxation is theft without the legal connotation. If I want to reword it and skip the semantic arguments, I would say that taxation is violent coersion.

The idea that I have to accept the institutions the government provides is ridiculous, especially since I don't use many of them, or I feel that a hypothetical privatization of the service would result in a better outcome. For instance, I walk to work and walk to most places around town. Yet my taxes go to pay for maintenance of the roads. Another example is when the police arrest me for a law I don't agree with. I pay for this mans salary, and I have no choice but to pay him, and if I break a law that is supposibly mandated by society, I have my liberty taken away and I am thrown in jail.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

[Bendira]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

That I don't use/need.

[Sibirsky]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

So you would not mind of I robbed you and left you some food? I promise the food will not be contaminated and will be perfectly suitable for human consumption.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

That I don't use/need.

Like roads, schools, police, national defense, Social Security, Medicare, cheap birthday balloons, etc.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

So you would not mind of I robbed you and left you some food? I promise the food will not be contaminated and will be perfectly suitable for human consumption.

Ok sure, I'll leave $5 out for you and await my pancakes.

[Bendira]

Damn government always stealing my money... and then using it to provide me services...

That I don't use/need.

Like roads, schools, police, national defense, Social Security, Medicare, cheap birthday balloons, etc.

Half of those the private sector would provide better for much cheaper, and half of those I don't want like social security or medicare.