Taxation is Coercion

[The Adrian Empire]

DaWoad, what you have accomplished here is simply the creation of an over-complicated model of an argument that I am sure you would consider above your calibre, that is "The Libertards who don't like to pay taxes should go live in a forest" argument. Libertarians may be living in a society which has taxation but taxation is not all and alone what built it, we live in a world with little room for us, there are no free lands left to claim, perhaps one day it may be a simple argument of go live on moon base 9, or what have you, but as the current situation gives us no options to live according to our ideals that do not include the forceful invasion of some nation.

Which, IMO, is extremely unfortunate (ie. sucks . . .hard). I just don't believe that because that is the case, and it is terrible that it is the case, government taxation is equal to theft. I do believe that a government that did not allow one to leave and taxed them would be theft. I do believe that the system of taxation in the USSR was theft as is that of North Korea or any other nation of that brand. I simply do not believe that a nation where the choice to not use the services and therefore not pay for them is offered, can be considered to be perpetrating "theft" (leaving aside the semantics).

I agree with you, at least as far as you concede that the taxation of states which bar emigration is theft. And I agree that were there to exist a non-tax state to exist, there would be a legitimate argument to say that remaining in a taxed-state would have at least partial legitimacy for the taxes of said state. However I am not entirely in agreement that the current case where no such state exists, still gives legitimacy in taxes though one has a choice in taxer. As ultimately one cannot choose to be their own taxer, that is to say there is no non-coercive scenario, while even in the case of restaurant/mortgage, one can still simply choose not to have any and sleep on the street and beg for food, no such option in state choice.

Personally, my philosophy is that the state should operate as a voluntary organization, that one enters and leaves at their own discretion though with some sort of requirement to entry in order to prevent people living (in my nation's case a three to four year service), essentially an aggrandized version of Old Western Claims Associations. Not belonging to the state means forgoing privileges of it (like property protection) and paying your own way (everything would be privatized in this scenario, so no free rider problem inherent), but it also means that you are for full extensive purposes free.

[Sibirsky]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

[DaWoad]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

[DaWoad]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

[Lelouche]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance for one
That shiny example of how a mortgage house given to you by your parents is totally identical to taxes in every way.

[Sibirsky]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

[Sibirsky]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance, investments, winnings, property....

[DaWoad]

DaWoad, what you have accomplished here is simply the creation of an over-complicated model of an argument that I am sure you would consider above your calibre, that is "The Libertards who don't like to pay taxes should go live in a forest" argument. Libertarians may be living in a society which has taxation but taxation is not all and alone what built it, we live in a world with little room for us, there are no free lands left to claim, perhaps one day it may be a simple argument of go live on moon base 9, or what have you, but as the current situation gives us no options to live according to our ideals that do not include the forceful invasion of some nation.

Which, IMO, is extremely unfortunate (ie. sucks . . .hard). I just don't believe that because that is the case, and it is terrible that it is the case, government taxation is equal to theft. I do believe that a government that did not allow one to leave and taxed them would be theft. I do believe that the system of taxation in the USSR was theft as is that of North Korea or any other nation of that brand. I simply do not believe that a nation where the choice to not use the services and therefore not pay for them is offered, can be considered to be perpetrating "theft" (leaving aside the semantics).

I agree with you, at least as far as you concede that the taxation of states which bar emigration is theft. And I agree that were there to exist a non-tax state to exist, there would be a legitimate argument to say that remaining in a taxed-state would have at least partial legitimacy for the taxes of said state. However I am not entirely in agreement that the current case where no such state exists, still gives legitimacy in taxes though one has a choice in taxer.

I certainly see the validity of that argument it's just that in my opinion (and it is just my opinion) the onus for there not being a tax-less state doesn't lie on the government and therefore the government is "allowed" if you will to act as if there were one. That being said, again, that's an opinion not a factual statement one way or the other and you could make a point either about governments being responsible for acting in accordance with the way the world is and/or the traditional role of government in the suppression of taxeless states by what amounts to force.

Personally, my philosophy is that the state should operate as a voluntary organization, that one enters and leaves at their own discretion though with some sort of requirement to entry in order to prevent people living (in my nation's case a three to four year service), essentially an aggrandized version of Old Western Claims Associations. Not belonging to the state means forgoing privileges of it (like property protection) and paying your own way (everything would be privatized in this scenario, so no free rider problem inherent), but it also means that you are for full extensive purposes free.

I, personally, probably wouldn't choose to live in that state but I very much would like one to exist primarily because I do believe in the freedom of an individual but, personally prefer to go with equality of opportunity (if that makes any sense).

[Lelouche]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

Repo men also don't use guns to evict you, or throw you in prison

And agreed on Canada, (and the "Choice of country to work in" fallacy)

[DaWoad]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance, investments, winnings, property....

Ineritance is a "gift" for the purposes of this argument, investment required capital that must be gifted or worked for as do winning and property (unless the winning/property fall into the gift category).

[Sibirsky]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance, investments, winnings, property....

Ineritance is a "gift" for the purposes of this argument, investment required capital that must be gifted or worked for as do winning and property (unless the winning/property fall into the gift category).

And your point is? I am refuting your point that one can not work, and therefore not pay taxes. We are taxed multiple times per day.

[DaWoad]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

Repo men also don't use guns to evict you, or throw you in prison

And agreed on Canada, (and the "Choice of country to work in" fallacy)

Hey now I like Canada! and am in Canada, uh . .. . was that the point???

and you DO choose the country in which you work,. You may not have much of a choice but unless that's the fault of the government that is taxing you, it's not a valid argument for coercion (just as the fact that every other restaurant is asking you to pay is not the fault of the restaurant in which you chose to eat and is, therefore, not coercion). If it is the fault of the government then it is coercion ( point I've made many times already) because, in that case, the guy who owns the restaurant is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to eat there.
EDIT: covered this already Lelouch, repomen forcibly evict you and may take more than your house to cover the debt owed to your bank depending on where you live, you may also face jail time and anywhere you go if you use a service that requires payment without paying for it you face jail time. That doesn't make charging for said service coercive (because you are free not to use it in the same way that you are free to [insert argument siber hates here ])

[The Adrian Empire]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

As a Canadian, I completely agree. Everything is better in America. I traded better tasting food, more products for cheaper prices and frankly more friendly people for "free" healthcare, taxes and a queen

[DaWoad]

DaWoad, there is not threat of violence for not paying for a mortgage. It is not coercive. You made a choice to finance a house. It is nothing like taxes.

sure there is, don't pay your mortgage and you'll be violently expelled and, depending on country and situation, possibly jailed and (this has already been said) if you inherit your parents house you didn't chose to finance it your parents did (just like you didn't chose to be born in your country your parents did). It's everything like taxes.

(man all the liberalists are on tonight *grins* you, JJ, Lelouch and bendira all in one thread! I'm kinda flattered)

I honestly don't know enough about mortgages, as I have said several times on this thread, to have total confidence in debating whether they are coercive or not. But my understanding is, you can walk away from it at any time. The only time you would be violently expelled is if you are squating on the property after it no logner belongs to you, in which case you are violating somebody else's property rights.

If you refused to pay your house would be repossessed and you would lose alot of good credit and might face jail time depending on where you live.

When you mortgage a house you do not own it, the bank owns it, and it does until you pay the total cost of the house, when they expel you they are expelling you from their house and their property. It only becomes your property after you have paid them in full, after which time the bank cannot remove you from your house for any reason. Were their no taxes applied to you from that point on, you would be free to live according your will on your property with no force having any legitimate cause to remove you, you could just as easily then set up your own little community on said property, and never pay another cent to anyone against your will ever.

However in a place with property tax, you never own your land, because there is never any point in which the state cannot remove you from "it's property" for failure to pay what is tantamount to rent. You must continue to pay or otherwise be made homeless. You could not simply shut yourself off from the world, because eventually you will have the state knocking on the door asking you to leave "their" property

sure, you're paying the bank for a service as you are paying society for a service. The second you feel you no longer need that service (build sufficient capital to pay off the bank, build sufficient capital to buy your own country) you can cease to pay for it.

What the hell did you even read the second paragraph? I already answered this.

Fine, I'll reiterate. In the first scenario, once the bank has been paid off and you own your own land, you no longer are required to pay anyone anything, though this example is extreme you could simply build your own community on said piece of land cutting off all outside communication. Your property is your own and no one has the legitimate authority to remove you.

In the second scenario, there is no point in which the land you are currently living on will ever become your own, because you are renting it eternally from the government, by their levying taxes. Were you to build your own self-sufficient community on that piece of land and cut off all communication with the state, they would still demand payment and should you fail to pay they would remove your person from said property.

Sorry I was going for the argument about service rendered rather than property rights primarily because I believe that it is a more solid argument and one that is less subjective (plus I have toruble figuring out where I stand on property rights exactly). You continue to pay the bank as long as they are offering you a service (ie. the payment of the house until you have paid them back) in the same way you pay a country in taxes for a service (society as we, currently, know it) until you are no longer using it (leave and, in the case of the states at least, renounce citizenship).

[Lelouche]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

As a Canadian, I completely agree. Everything is better in America. I traded better tasting food, more products for cheaper prices and frankly more friendly people for "free" healthcare, taxes and a queen

you poor soul
Come back to America

[DaWoad]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

As a Canadian, I completely agree. Everything is better in America. I traded better tasting food, more products for cheaper prices and frankly more friendly people for "free" healthcare, taxes and a queen

As a Canadian with a lot of family in the states who I used to visit regularly I disagree but believe that this is an argument for another thread

[DaWoad]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance, investments, winnings, property....

Ineritance is a "gift" for the purposes of this argument, investment required capital that must be gifted or worked for as do winning and property (unless the winning/property fall into the gift category).

And your point is? I am refuting your point that one can not work, and therefore not pay taxes. We are taxed multiple times per day.

you're refuting a point I wasn't making. If you're taxed on money that belongs to someone else and they consented that a portion of said money would go to taxation that is not coercion . So if, for example, my grandmother sends me 2000 dollars she knows and is consenting to the fact that some of it will go taxation ie. not coercion. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well :\ but it boils down to "the person who gave you the money consented to taxation when they gave it to you".

[The Adrian Empire]

Hey now I like Canada! and am in Canada, uh . .. . was that the point???

and you DO choose the country in which you work,. You may not have much of a choice but unless that's the fault of the government that is taxing you, it's not a valid argument for coercion (just as the fact that every other restaurant is asking you to pay is not the fault of the restaurant in which you chose to eat and is, therefore, not coercion). If it is the fault of the government then it is coercion ( point I've made many times already) because, in that case, the guy who owns the restaurant is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to eat there.
EDIT: covered this already Lelouch, repomen forcibly evict you and may take more than your house to cover the debt owed to your bank depending on where you live, you may also face jail time and anywhere you go if you use a service that requires payment without paying for it you face jail time. That doesn't make charging for said service coercive (because you are free not to use it in the same way that you are free to [insert argument siber hates here ])

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
If the government intends to continue charging static taxes like those on property, then I suggest they no longer tell us that we own property. But just call it what it is, mass renting.

Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.
Edit: Sorry the above was sort of a thinking out-loud moment, I wrote exactly what I was thinking, separate thought.

[DaWoad]

Almost every action is taxable. Working is almost irrelevant. Buy something, pay sales tax. Or excise tax. There is no choice.

If you don't work you don't own the money you're spending and therefore the taxation is not theft nor coercive as the person who's money you are spending DID make the choice to give it to you knowing that meant it would be taxed.

People can have assets without working or getting gifts you know.

really? how?

Inheritance for one
That shiny example of how a mortgage house given to you by your parents is totally identical to taxes in every way.

thatd be a gift . . .

[The Adrian Empire]

No, just no
The Bank, and the Restaurant, don't send uniformed men to your house to "collect" on debts owed
The restaurant does not provide food
The Bank takes back their house, (cause it belongs to them)

The country however, belongs to the people, and not the government, the government is a tenant, an occupier, not an owner, "Government Property" is a lie perpetrated by statist, to justify their own fascism.

Last I checked repo men generally wear uniforms and Restaurants generally charge you with theft (given that you pay after the meal or, in this case, fail to).

As to the second part that's an ideological "property rights" argument which would need it's own thread to get into.

Repo men do not wear uniforms. And what's your point? It's irrelevant.

You made a choice to go into the restaurant and order food. If you gibe me your choice of country to work in bullshit one more time I am going to make a choice to go to Canada and.... Nevermind. Canada sucks.

As a Canadian, I completely agree. Everything is better in America. I traded better tasting food, more products for cheaper prices and frankly more friendly people for "free" healthcare, taxes and a queen

you poor soul
Come back to America

Well, I'm actually a born Canadian. But I'm headed to the states anyways.

[Sibirsky]

Statism has failed. The state has at their disposal nearly $4 trillion (US) annually to address problems. Yet the problems are not only not getting solved, but are only getting worse. It's time for another solution.

DaWoad, is there a limit to the power you want? Would $14 trillion be enough?

[Bendira]

Could you also explain your theory of property rights and where they come from and why they should be respected in modern society without reference to or any linkage to social contract theory?

Property rights are a necessary component to owning ones own body and actions. It has absolutely nothing to do with social contract theory in that regard, if my understanding of social contract theory is correct.

[Lelouche]

Hey now I like Canada! and am in Canada, uh . .. . was that the point???

and you DO choose the country in which you work,. You may not have much of a choice but unless that's the fault of the government that is taxing you, it's not a valid argument for coercion (just as the fact that every other restaurant is asking you to pay is not the fault of the restaurant in which you chose to eat and is, therefore, not coercion). If it is the fault of the government then it is coercion ( point I've made many times already) because, in that case, the guy who owns the restaurant is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to eat there.
EDIT: covered this already Lelouch, repomen forcibly evict you and may take more than your house to cover the debt owed to your bank depending on where you live, you may also face jail time and anywhere you go if you use a service that requires payment without paying for it you face jail time. That doesn't make charging for said service coercive (because you are free not to use it in the same way that you are free to [insert argument siber hates here ])

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

Nope, it would collapse quicker then a house of cards, we would have to have 100% income tax to support 100% usage of services.

Furthermore, if it is "Payment of services rendered" and not "Civic Duty" as the legal precedent (and the social contract) actually says, then why does 1 man pay anymore then the other man, when we all theoretically use the same amount of "Government services"?

It is the actual case, that those that use the most tax, pay the least amount of it, and those that use the least tax, pay the most amount of it.

[The Adrian Empire]

Hey now I like Canada! and am in Canada, uh . .. . was that the point???

and you DO choose the country in which you work,. You may not have much of a choice but unless that's the fault of the government that is taxing you, it's not a valid argument for coercion (just as the fact that every other restaurant is asking you to pay is not the fault of the restaurant in which you chose to eat and is, therefore, not coercion). If it is the fault of the government then it is coercion ( point I've made many times already) because, in that case, the guy who owns the restaurant is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to eat there.
EDIT: covered this already Lelouch, repomen forcibly evict you and may take more than your house to cover the debt owed to your bank depending on where you live, you may also face jail time and anywhere you go if you use a service that requires payment without paying for it you face jail time. That doesn't make charging for said service coercive (because you are free not to use it in the same way that you are free to [insert argument siber hates here ])

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

Nope, it would collapse quicker then a house of cards, we would have to have 100% income tax to support 100% usage of services.

Furthermore, if it is "Payment of services rendered" and not "Civic Duty" as the legal precedent (and the social contract) actually says, then why does 1 man pay anymore then the other man, when we all theoretically use the same amount of "Government services"?

It is the actual case, that those that use the most tax, pay the least amount of it, and those that use the least tax, pay the most amount of it.

Exactly what I was thinking, though I am sure I have already read this in some textbook or article, I had never really had given thought to it the statist system which is gaining more and more control over our lives is entirely dependent on us under-utilizing it's services.

[DaWoad]

Though to make this argument again, the difference is that, in both the restaurant and mortgage situation you don't own the food you are eating, or the house you are living in, the forcibly removal of your person for failing to pay for these makes sense, they still own both the food and the home, if you don't pay they seek recompensation.
However with the government they at least in terms of rhetoric say you own what you live on, however regardless of whether you ever use the governments services again, you must still pay them. It would be as if in the restaurant scenario, they sent you bills in the mail for the same meal over and over and over regardless of whether you ever bought one at their restaurant.
Which brings up a questionable aspect, if you did since they were charging you anyway go and eat the meals and so did everyone else, that is if every person made full use of what their tax dollars were collected for, would said tax system work.

here is an "ownership or property" argument here which is IMO a shaky one but there is also a much simpler argument. You are paying the restaurant for offering you a service ( in the form of both literal service and a meal) you are paying the bank for a service (essentially paying for your house until you pay them back) You pay the government for a service (society, defense etc.). You can, without fear of repercussion or force make a choice to stop using said services whenever you want (restaurant=go to another restaurant, grocery store or don't eat)(Mortgage=sell house, pay off bank, buy new house with mortgage at another bank or sell house and move into street)(Government, stop using governmental services and gain citizenship in another country where you will likely pay tax or move into a place without taxation). If, however, you simply stop paying for these services but continue to use them they employ one kind of force or another. In the restaurant hey can't exactly recoup their food so they would jail you (or put you to work sometimes?). With the government they can;t exactly recoup the services they provided you so they jail you. With the mortgage they CAN recoup the service they provided by simply taking ownership of the house and they often will while forcibly ejecting you. If they cannot I expect you'd be jailed (fraud charges in some cases for getting a mortgage on a house that isn't yours or doesn't exist).

Every person does make full use of their tax dollars, in fact, most people probably make more than full use of their tax dollars due to the fact that doing something in bulk is always cheaper than doing it individually. (it would be alot more than what anyone pays in taxes each year for you to fund your own fire department, emergency services, roads, paying for health services for those around you so they don't transmit disease to you, potable water, sewage etc.)
Edit:
no problem man. Also this is probably an argument for another thread? Equality in taxation and the idea that taxation is theft are two separate debates.

Edit2: not to say that there couldn't be privatization of governmental services (though in some cases I have trouble figuring out how that would work) just saying you get back more in services than what you pay in taxes. (in the same way that a pool on, well for lack of a better example, a pool for their neighborhood would each get more than they'd individually paid for.