Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

OK, Boardies. Convince me that compulsory taxation isn't theft.


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:32 PM

That's right. I want someone, or many of you, to put forth your best argument to me that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

Now I'll wait.....

 

:popcorn:



#2 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,971 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

Because it's for the children!



#3 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,444 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:39 PM

why do you hate America?



#4 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

That's right. I want someone, or many of you, to put forth your best argument to me that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

Now I'll wait.....

 

:popcorn:

 

 

Money itself is an illusion created by the government. It holds no true intrinsic value. Since there is no true value, your loss is zero. Or, to quote the real Mr. Wonka: "you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!"

 

I agree with those that say if we all got our full paycheck every month and had to write an actual check monthly to the govt to pay our taxes, that a tax revolution would occur.



#5 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:50 PM

I personally can't.  There's prolly a Supreme Court decision or two that spells it out.  Closest I can come is "do you want a military, roads, rail, water, wastewater treatment, electricity, educational opportunities for most,..?" Not necessarily in order of preference.  Granted, all of these things could be had today through private institutions if we wanted because we've built a modern society, but that wasn't the case on our journey here.  There wasn't always mega-corporations to fund interstates, bridges, electricity, etc. and the ones that existed were just as corrupt as government. If we had to start all over today, I'm still not convinced that the mega-corps would step up - not unless they could turn a relatively quick profit as shareholder timelines are far shorter than government ones. "Want to cross the GWB? That'll be $22...."  Think anyone would privately finance the disaster that is roads and bridges just in NYC alone? How would that work? 



#6 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,444 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:00 PM

Money itself is an illusion created by the government. It holds no true intrinsic value. Since there is no true value, your loss is zero. Or, to quote the real Mr. Wonka: "you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!"

 

I agree with those that say if we all got our full paycheck every month and had to write an actual check monthly to the govt to pay our taxes, that a tax revolution would occur.

 

 

words and contracts don't inherently have value either but we agree to believe they do. we hold people responsible for them, send them to jail for them, etc...

 

FRNs may not have intrinsic value but they are a medium of exchange--in some sense they have value simply because we agree to believe they have value. right? or maybe i'm way off here.



#7 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:04 PM

Why cant we write a check to pay taxes, instead of it being automatically withheld?

When did that happen?

#8 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:07 PM

words and contracts don't inherently have value either but we agree to believe they do. we hold people responsible for them, send them to jail for them, etc...

 

FRNs may not have intrinsic value but they are a medium of exchange--in some sense they have value simply because we agree to believe they have value. right? or maybe i'm way off here.

 

it was a facetious answer :)  that said, it is still the best one the thread has seen :lol:



#9 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,024 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:16 PM

When did the government put into effect their Payroll laws?

 

This is what leads to the government being paid in such a timely manner.

 

As a business owner I found this out pretty quickly.  If you do not pay an employees federal taxes by a selected date (twice a month, once a month, quartyely ...), there could be very stiiff fines.

 

I think this law is what leads to taxes being paid in a timely manner.  When was this put into effect?  How was the system run prior to this?



#10 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,149 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:21 PM

How else, exactly, do you expect governments to pay for military, police, road repairs, education, etc? Should each community be responsible for this? if so, how does that happen? individuals pitching in to fix their own roads? Poorer communities having faulty bridges because thier residents cannot afford to pay?
Oh, yeah, and because the constitution says they can:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


#11 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,444 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:26 PM

it was a facetious answer :)  that said, it is still the best one the thread has seen :lol:

 

fair enough :lol:



#12 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:27 PM

You're all doing a wonderful job conversing civiliy amongst each other. :)

 

You're, however, all doing a terrible job convincing me that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

:lol:



#13 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:31 PM

Is it theft when you have to pay someone for services?  In effect, taxes = paying for government services.  You might not like the bill, but how often do you like your plumber's or mechanic's bill?



#14 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,024 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:35 PM

Is it theft when you have to pay someone for services?  In effect, taxes = paying for government services.  You might not like the bill, but how often do you like your plumber's or mechanic's bill?

 

a bridge to no where does not fall into the same category as plumber bill I did not like.



#15 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:35 PM

It is not theft to have to pay for services. It would be theft for a service provider to show up for something you did not want and demand payment. Actually i believe they call that extortion.



#16 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,059 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:37 PM

would you still consider it theft if it weren't all teribly mismanaged?

 

 

roooooo-ads



#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:43 PM

Yes, I would. Why?

 

Because it is not voluntary, which is what makes it theft. Regardless of the fact I pay the highest taxes in the country and my roads look similar to post WW Germany streets. This mismangement, inefficiency, overpricing and corruption are only salt to the wound.



#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:44 PM

I'm not sure that this can even be done. Playing devil's advocate on my own request leaves me with a blank slate. I can not come up with an argument that is convincing that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

I've got nothing on it myself.

 

:dunno:



#19 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,024 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:45 PM

I'm not sure that this can even be done. Playing devil's advocate on my own request leaves me with a blank slate. I can not come up with an argument that is convincing that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

I've got nothing on it myself.

 

:dunno:

 

Then explain why it is theft.



#20 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:50 PM

Its theft in the same way it is theft if everyone in the office throws in for a pizza party, but i dont throw in, but i still eat my share of pizza. In a large enough company, no one may notice me takin a few slices. I still am notreally entitled to eat the pizza if i didnt chip in.

#21 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:57 PM

Yes, I would. Why?

 

Because it is not voluntary, which is what makes it theft. Regardless of the fact I pay the highest taxes in the country and my roads look similar to post WW Germany streets. This mismangement, inefficiency, overpricing and corruption are only salt to the wound.

 

Get the fuck out of NYC and its tax zone. Move to NH and "Live Free or Die!"  And be prepared to pay high property taxes  :lol:



#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:58 PM

Then explain why it is theft.

 

That's easy. Compulsory taxation is theft because the government taxes an individual without their consent, for "services" that the individual did not ask for, and can not opt out of (at least not without giving up their property and leaving for another compulsory sector of the world...el la, the usual argument). A group of men, calling themselves government and taking a portion of an individuals labor production (or capital production for that matter), claiming legal authority and impunity, is no different than a group of men in ski masks breaking into your home and stealing from you at gun point. Neither group of men are offering you a choice.

The only thing that separates these two groups of men is that one has laid claim to monpoly on the use of force and violence. That and one is at least honest about the theft (except maybe hiding their identity if that matters to you).



#23 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:03 PM

That's easy. Compulsory taxation is theft because the government taxes an individual without their consent, for "services" that the individual did not ask for, and can not opt out of (at least not without giving up their property and leaving for another compulsory sector of the world...el la, the usual argument). A group of men, calling themselves government and taking a portion of an individuals labor production (or capital production for that matter), claiming legal authority and impunity, is no different than a group of men in ski masks breaking into your home and stealing from you at gun point. Neither group of men are offering you a choice.

The only thing that separates these two groups of men is that one has laid claim to monpoly on the use of force and violence. That and one is at least honest about the theft (except maybe hiding their identity if that matters to you).

 

Bullshit.  There's something called the 16th amendment, which was voted into law by elected representatives of the people and then ratified by the states through more people elected to act as their representatives. 

 

If you don't like that system of democracy you can either fight to change it or move elsewhere, but an amendment to the Constitution hardly equates to ski mask robbery...



#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:04 PM

So I'm gonna run a google search and see what kinds of arguments people are making to rebuttal the "tasxation is theft" slogan/argument.

 

Here is the first one I came upon.

 

http://www.philosoph...-not-theft.html

 

Saturday, June 25, 2005
Why Taxation Is Not Theft
 
Right-wingers are rather fond of claiming that taxation is a form of theft (for some recent examples, see here and here). This objection presupposes that individuals are entitled to their holdings, and that the state has no right to some portion of those holdings. In this post, I want to explore (and challenge) those assumptions.

The main problem is that the objection rests on the inadequate foundation of libertarian entitlement theory. This political philosophy is badly misguided, for the many reasons outlined here and here. In particular, I argue here that there is no way that one could justly acquire an absolute property right over any natural resource. This then provides a libertarian justification for redistributive taxation towards a universal basic income:
it is the 'ground rent' or compensation that is owed to each human being for the land and natural resources that have been deprived them by others' illicit appropriations. All property derives from these ill-gotten gains, and compensation must be paid accordingly.

The second justification for taxation is to remedy market failures with regard to "externalities". To adapt an argument made in a recent post (though in a somewhat different context):
It highlights two major trends of the modern economy: (1) the "spread of significant environmental externalities"; and (2) the development of wealth "held in the form of information rather than material goods". What these trends have in common is that "they greatly enhance the importance of property rights which are extremely difficult to define and enforce." Van Parijs continues: "[I]t seems safe to predict that these trends will persist, and hence that it will become increasingly difficult to make sure that whoever is responsible for wealth destruction/creation actually pays/is paid for the damage/benefit caused."

Redistributive taxation is a fairly blunt instrument in this case, though its egalitarian nature might help to smooth out some of the arbitrary disparities caused by the malfunctioning market. But a better argument would highlight the need for specific taxes which target externalities. This justifies extra taxes on petrol, carbon emissions, garbage, and all other pollutants. Such taxation is manifestly just, for it ensures that people are responsible for the damage they inflict, rather than offloading the costly consequences of their actions on to others (including future generations).

A third justification for taxation is communitarian in nature. Wealth is not created in isolation, it is as much a product of society as it is the individual. After all, society provides the enabling conditions for the individual to flourish -- your success would not be possible were it not for the opportune conditions of the society one works within, and the actions of your fellow citizens. Thus the community might rightfully claim "dues" on wealth that is created within the safety of its confines. Wealth is a social product -- a fact which the atomistic view (common to liberalism and libertarianism) leads us to overlook.

(I think there are actually two arguments here which I am in danger of conflating. First, society is a precondition for individual flourishing -- so even if you create wealth yourself, you couldn't have done it without the prior benefits bestowed upon you by society. Secondly, wealth is a social product: you don't just create wealth yourself, it is a product of your interactions with other social agents, etc.)

These latter arguments take us beyond the theoretical apparatus of libertarianism, but, given the inadequacy of the theory, that's not a bad thing. Indeed, I think the libertarian has framed the debate in a very misleading fashion. They treat property as if it were a natural (pre-political) right, emerging from the 'state of nature', with which government may not interfere. But natural rights are a political fiction -- "nonsense on stilts", as Bentham put it. We have no reason to think that such bizarre entities exist. (We can ground morality just fine without them -- see my recent post on constructivist non-cognitivism.)
 


#25 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 21,176 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:05 PM

That's easy. Compulsory taxation is theft because the government taxes an individual without their consent, for "services" that the individual did not ask for, and can not opt out of (at least not without giving up their property and leaving for another compulsory sector of the world...el la, the usual argument). A group of men, calling themselves government and taking a portion of an individuals labor production (or capital production for that matter), claiming legal authority and impunity, is no different than a group of men in ski masks breaking into your home and stealing from you at gun point. Neither group of men are offering you a choice.

The only thing that separates these two groups of men is that one has laid claim to monpoly on the use of force and violence. That and one is at least honest about the theft (except maybe hiding their identity if that matters to you).

 

 

Nobody is forcing you to live here in the U S of A. 



#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:06 PM

Bullshit.  There's something called the 16th amendment, which was voted into law by elected representatives of the people and then ratified by the states through more people elected to act as their representatives. 

 

Governments tax individuals, not groups of people. The bullshit here is implying that those who elected a "representative" and the representative actually represent every individual they sign up for compulsory taxation. It's a myth. Even if 70% approve, does that mean the other 30% of the population are represented?

 

Fuck no. 



#27 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:06 PM

Nobody is forcing you to live here in the U S of A. 

 

Yes, as indicated in my response, this is the common go-to argument when no other one can be concocted. So if you dont like theft by force, you can LEAVE! :lol:



#28 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,739 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:07 PM

Dude, just bend over and take your compulsory colonoscopy like a real man. (It's for your own good) 



#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:12 PM

Oh, Im taking it anyway. I just thought I'd extend the opportunity to have my mind changed on whether or not taxation is theft. So far you've all been heard and been found wanting. :lol:



#30 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 21,176 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:13 PM

Yes, as indicated in my response, this is the common go-to argument when no other one can be concocted. So if you dont like theft by force, you can LEAVE! :lol:

 

 

Absolutely! 

If you hate it here so much, why do you choose to stay?   :dunno: 



#31 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:15 PM

Governments tax individuals, not groups of people. The bullshit here is implying that those who elected a "representative" and the representative actually represent every individual they sign up for compulsory taxation. It's a myth. Even if 70% approve, does that mean the other 30% of the population are represented?

 

Fuck no. 

 

That's the way our government works. Propose an alternative that everyone can get behind.  You're unlikely to get 51% to agree with you, much less 100% which seems to be your basis for consensus.  Although that might not be true on taxes, but that's a fool's promise:  "Who doesn't want to pay taxes?" "Me, me, me..." "Who likes roads and drinking water and not having to dump your night pan out the window?" "Me, me, me..."  Figure it out.  



#32 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,059 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:16 PM

i would like to tax my local government when my car needs repairs from being driven along my local governments fantastic roooo-ads.  can i do that?  is that theft?  i should do that



#33 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:16 PM

That wasn't the question. Try to stay on topic. Now, jbetty, can you put forth a convincing argument as to why taxation is not theft? Or is it just more force? Either shut up and take the theft like the rest of us, or leave?

 

We sure are a forceful bunch here on earth. :lol:



#34 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:17 PM

i would like to tax my local government when my car needs repairs from being driven along my local governments fantastic roooo-ads.  can i do that?  is that theft?  i should do that

 

Get the fuck out of NYC! :lol:



#35 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:17 PM

If one could opt out, what would be the ramifications of it?

#36 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:17 PM

i would like to tax my local government when my car needs repairs from being driven along my local governments fantastic roooo-ads.  can i do that?  is that theft?  i should do that

 

You would be taxing yourself and your neighbor. Seems absurd.



#37 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,059 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:19 PM

Get the fuck out of NYC! :lol:

oh, how i wish :lol:



#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:20 PM

If one could opt out, what would be the ramifications of it?

 

How can ONE opt out? Ramifications of what? The typical argument is that you use the roads, blah, blah blah... Except there are already sales and usage taxes on these things. You get taxed at the pump over roads every time you go to the pump. So if by ramifications you mean some sort of punishment such as not being allowed to use the roads, it's not a solid argument.



#39 jnjn

jnjn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,059 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:20 PM

You would be taxing yourself and your neighbor. Seems absurd.

pretty much



#40 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:21 PM

I mean, as a thought experiment, what would happen in the nation at learge if everyone were able to "opt-out" of paying any income tax?

Taking it out as far as you could, what kind of insight moght be gained?

#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:21 PM

That's the way our government works. Propose an alternative that everyone can get behind.  You're unlikely to get 51% to agree with you, much less 100% which seems to be your basis for consensus.  Although that might not be true on taxes, but that's a fool's promise:  "Who doesn't want to pay taxes?" "Me, me, me..." "Who likes roads and drinking water and not having to dump your night pan out the window?" "Me, me, me..."  Figure it out.  

 

OK, that's the way our govt. works. Yes, I know. It still is not an argument that compulsory taxation is not theft.



#42 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 24,003 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:22 PM

If one could opt out, what would be the ramifications of it?

 

 

Room & board with restrictions on physical freedoms?



#43 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

Room & board with restrictions on physical freedoms?

An even more broke governmet?

#44 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:25 PM

I mean, as a thought experiment, what would happen in the nation at learge if everyone were able to "opt-out" of paying any income tax?

Taking it out as far as you could, what kind of insight moght be gained?

 

It seems the government would a have a shit ton less revenue. Which means they would not be able to promise sycophants gifts from the Robber's coffer. Just look at all the bleating Obama is doing over 85 billion in increased expenditure cuts. :lmao:

 

The point being that we'd have a different, more independent society. Probably a lot more productivity too considering handouts would be off the table (both to corps and individuals with a special interest)



#45 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,739 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:34 PM

Oh, Im taking it anyway. I just thought I'd extend the opportunity to have my mind changed on whether or not taxation is theft. So far you've all been heard and been found wanting. :lol:

We want for nothing, The Obama will provide for us all



#46 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,781 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:35 PM

There's an easy solution to all of this.  You can choose to live a modest life working for yourself, off the banking grid, never own real estate, have little if any credit, and never have any expectations of Medicare or SS.  You too can be an undocumented worker with just a little effort ;)



#47 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:35 PM

I dint see how no one paying any taxes would help anything be more productive, as esential serices and infrastructure would fail wothout upleep paid for by taxes.

I disagree with your insinuation that taxes are used to pay sycophants. Far too paranoid and inaccurate.

Being objective for a secord, what other ramifications of no citizen paying any income tax might we see happen?

#48 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 21,176 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:39 PM

That wasn't the question. Try to stay on topic. Now, jbetty, can you put forth a convincing argument as to why taxation is not theft? Or is it just more force? Either shut up and take the theft like the rest of us, or leave?

 

We sure are a forceful bunch here on earth. :lol:

 

 

Right. 

You have many choices.

 

1. Ignore the problem and maybe it will go away

2. Make a concerted effort to change it.

3. GTFO.

4. Whine about it on a hippy droog board. 



#49 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:40 PM

If so many people agree it is a bad odea to pay income tax, why does everyone keep paying it?

#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,966 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

"Essential services and infrastructure" would be problems of the place where all money/wealth is generated from in the first place. The private sector. Lest we forget that governments have no money that they do not steal from individual citizens. Which is, shockingly, the entire point here, Hoag. :lol: