Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#51 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,770 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

I'll take "Whine about it on a hippie droog board" for $500, jbetty.  Or 3 grilled cheese. No Deals!



#52 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

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. 

 

You've been found wanting. :lol:



#53 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

So ok then private wealthy companies will do a shitty job or not at all job of upkeeping infrastructure. Because you know, they care a lot about everything but their bottom lines...

#54 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,736 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:44 PM

You've been found wanting. :lol:

 

 

 

I have no problem with that.



#55 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

I think we may be better off with our current system vs whatever TASB feels might work (leaving it up to private companies to pay for the public wellfare...really?!)

#56 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

So ok then private wealthy companies will do a shitty job or not at all job of upkeeping infrastructure. Because you know, they care a lot about everything but their bottom lines...

 

OK, you're found wanting. This is not the question and you're not convincing of anything except what your opinion is about the job private companies do. You probably hate that nifty phone and computer you're using there too. Damned bottom lined private companies. :lol:



#57 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,770 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

So please... tell me how you're going to get all those Wall Street trading firms to maintain the roads in NYC so they can keep the peasants pouring them grande mocha double shot lattes?

 

*Insert Willy Wonka meme



#58 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

Id rather pay my % for barely maintained pre WW2 germany rooooo-ads than walmart-maintained rooo-ads

#59 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

OK, you're found wanting. This is not the question and you're not convincing of anything except what your opinion is about the job private companies do. You probably hate that nifty phone and computer you're using their too. Damned bottom lined private companies. :lol:

Id like to hear your plan to avert disaster when no one pays taxes anymore...

#60 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:48 PM

Id like to hear your plan to avert disaster when no one pays taxes anymore...

 

What? How about you start a thread on that and provide a convincing argument why compulsory taxation is not theft here. :lol:



#61 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:54 PM

I gave my input on why not paykng taxes is akin to theft.

#62 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

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)

 

I think there would be more dead beat's who do not pay there taxes.

 

Then eventually when people would not pay there taxes, they would passlaws to put you in jail.

 

 

 

PS.  Isn't this why we started this country?  Taxation without representation? (and religious freedom?)

 

Only in this case, you have no real represenation when it comes to spending?



#63 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:01 PM

I was jnder the impression that every tax we have on the books was voted on and not just created out of thin air. Coild be wrong here

#64 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:09 PM

I was jnder the impression that every tax we have on the books was voted on and not just created out of thin air. Coild be wrong here

 

It was, but did you support it?  or support every single law?

 

What if your representative voted for something because it gave your representative power to get reelected but screw the people?



#65 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,839 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:12 PM

481823_346438828799347_1394330082_n.jpg



#66 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

It was, but did you support it? or support every single law?

What if your representative voted for something because it gave your representative power to get reelected but screw the people?

If the rep was elected fairly, then why cant we abide by his vote?

#67 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:31 PM

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

 

I would love to see a society that depended on the largesse of its members to do things like provide clean water, sewer systems, etc. Fucking nightmare of epic proportions.



#68 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

If the rep was elected fairly, then why cant we abide by his vote?

 

That is the whole point of this thread.

 

The laws were voted on by your representative.  What this country was founded on, taxation with representation.

 

TASB seems to think this is theft because of the government in general not doing what is best for us, and doing what is best for them.



#69 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

 

I would love to see a society that depended on the largesse of its members to do things like provide clean water, sewer systems, etc. Fucking nightmare of epic proportions.

 

They paid taxes back in 1700's England.  Was that a civilized society?  (Playing devils advocate).



#70 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:35 PM

I d like to hear TASBs ideas on what to do when everyone just opts out of paying taxes.

#71 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:37 PM

They paid taxes back in 1700's England.  Was that a civilized society?  (Playing devils advocate).

 

Dunno - I slept through History of England in the 1700's.

 

Were there societies elsewhere at that time that were more civilized?



#72 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

Dunno - I slept through History of England in the 1700's.

 

Were there societies elsewhere at that time that were more civilized?

 

France would say so.



#73 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

Is it theft to force you to buy auto insurance? Or health insurance? Just like taxes, you are being forced to pay for a service that you may or may not ever want or use....



#74 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:40 PM

France would say so.

 

Don't even get me started on the French.

 

France, in the 1700's, didn't make the rich nobility pay taxes...just the poor folks. VERY civilized....



#75 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

Is it theft to force you to buy auto insurance? Or health insurance? Just like taxes, you are being forced to pay for a service that you may or may not ever want or use....

Fair point

#76 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

Is it theft to force you to buy auto insurance? Or health insurance? Just like taxes, you are being forced to pay for a service that you may or may not ever want or use....

 

No, it is not theft, it is coercion. In the case of auto insurance, no one is forcing you to buy an automobile (yet, anyway). Health insurance mandated by professional psycopaths at the federal level is unconstitutional per the supreme court. That;'s why it is a tax.

Anyway, this is again, not a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft.

 

We are doing a lot of dancing around it, but not addressing it here.



#77 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:52 PM

K. I, of all people, am gonna take a stab at this. Many, if not all of the definitions I'm finding of theft include it being unlawful or felonious that property is being taken. Technically, therefore, taxes may not be theft.

 

Income taxes are, however, the taking by force of someone's property. They are inconsistent, in my mind, with living in a free society. And they are immoral.

 

Excise taxes may be another story...



#78 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:52 PM

That is the whole point of this thread.

 

The laws were voted on by your representative.  What this country was founded on, taxation with representation.

 

TASB seems to think this is theft because of the government in general not doing what is best for us, and doing what is best for them.

 

That's actually besides the point. What I am contending here, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft. I hear a lot of appeal to emotions, appeal to established laws (by the very govt Im charging with theft, at that) and reasoning for the theft. But i've yet to hear why this type of taxation is not theft.



#79 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:55 PM

Theft is, by definition, illegal. Taxation is not. Ergo, taxation is not theft. (Thanks Tim)



#80 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

Income taxes are, however, the taking by force of someone's property. They are inconsistent, in my mind, with living in a free society. And they are immoral.

 

Immoral? Please tell me what is immoral about the government requiring you to pay a share of the costs to maintain this country.



#81 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 08:58 PM

K. I, of all people, am gonna take a stab at this. Many, if not all of the definitions I'm finding of theft include it being unlawful or felonious that property is being taken. Technically, therefore, taxes may not be theft.

 

Income taxes are, however, the taking by force of someone's property. They are inconsistent, in my mind, with living in a free society. And they are immoral.

 

Excise taxes may be another story...

 

OK. Now we're getting somewhere if only semantically. It is true that government has a monopoly on the rule of law and may therefore pass laws that legalize things such as theft (at least from their perspective).

 

The definition of theft also happens to involve stealing, which by definition involves taking someone's property without their consent. So while a majority percentage (or not) of the population may have voted favorably for the removal of their property by consent, there are those who did not give their consent. Meaning they are being stolen from. Which in action is theft. Even legalized theft is still theft, no?



#82 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:02 PM

OK. Now we're getting somewhere if only semantically. It is true that government has a monopoly on the rule of law and may therefore pass laws that legalize things such as theft (at least from their perspective).

 

The definition of theft also happens to involve stealing, which by definition involves taking someone's property without their consent. So while a majority percentage (or not) of the population may have voted favorably for the removal of their property by consent, there are those who did not give their consent. Meaning they are being stolen from. Which in action is theft. Even legalized theft is still theft, no?

 

NO.  Because of the taxation by representation.



#83 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:03 PM

I think, and this is all semantic, really, that you can say taxes are stealing:

 

 

to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

 

but not theft:

 

 

the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it


#84 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:04 PM

NO.  Because of the taxation by representation.

 

It is, however, taking someone's property under threat of force.



#85 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:06 PM

NO.  Because of the taxation by representation.

 

Even for those who are not represented? It is a myth to say taxation by representation because again, even if a representative has 70% of the populations support, there is still 30% that is not represented at all. They are subject to the whims of the majority without representation.



#86 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:07 PM

Oh, and that representation the founders referred to wasn't the representation of corporate interests, which is what is being represented in our legislative houses today.



#87 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:08 PM

It is, however, taking someone's property under threat of force.

 

and therefore repugnant. To me.



#88 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

Sooo....if you are against taxxation, how do you suggest that things work?

 

Seriously. Who pays for the roads and the fire fighters and the sewerage?



#89 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,770 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:14 PM

K. I, of all people, am gonna take a stab at this. Many, if not all of the definitions I'm finding of theft include it being unlawful or felonious that property is being taken. Technically, therefore, taxes may not be theft.

 

Income taxes are, however, the taking by force of someone's property. They are inconsistent, in my mind, with living in a free society. And they are immoral.

 

Excise taxes may be another story...

 

Ah ha!  See:

 

 


The Penn Mutual case

 

Although the Sixteenth Amendment is often cited as the "source" of the Congressional power to tax incomes, at least one court has reiterated the point made in Brushaber and other cases that the Sixteenth Amendment itself did not grant the Congress the power to tax incomes, a power the Congress had since 1789, but only removed the possible requirement that any income tax be apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. In Penn Mutual Indemnity, the United States Tax Court stated:[45]

 

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation... and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the Tax Court, stating:[46]

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.
It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label. Indeed, the tax upon the distillation of spirits, imposed very early by federal authority, now reads and has read in terms of a tax upon the spirits themselves, yet the validity of this imposition has been upheld for a very great many years.
It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. We do not think it profitable, however, to make the label as precise as that required under the Food and Drug Act. Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.
 


#90 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:17 PM

Even for those who are not represented? It is a myth to say taxation by representation because again, even if a representative has 70% of the populations support, there is still 30% that is not represented at all. They are subject to the whims of the majority without representation.


I dont agree with everything my elected representatives do - does that mean that I am unrepresented on those issues? no.

 

Whether or not you agree with them, your senators and congresspeople are indeed representing you.



#91 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:20 PM

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax;

 

An excise tax is an indirect tax. Which makes this argument laughable. An income tax is a direct tax on your labor. And "based upon the receipt of money"? :lmao:

 

In other words, you can barter for your labor, but if you receive a medium of exchange such as currency, that maybe indirectly taxed as it passes hands?

 

Wow.



#92 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:23 PM

Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.

 

:lmao:

 

Holy shit. You just can not make thsi stuff up! So the compulsory tax created by the government is lawful, and therefore you can call it whatever you want. Fuck off. :lmao:



#93 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:25 PM

I dont agree with everything my elected representatives do - does that mean that I am unrepresented on those issues? no.

 

Whether or not you agree with them, your senators and congresspeople are indeed representing you.

 

No they do not. I did not vote for them and they do not represent my interests at all. I am not represented. I am to abide regardless, for fear of the use of force and violence against me if i do not comply.



#94 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:31 PM

Even for those who are not represented? It is a myth to say taxation by representation because again, even if a representative has 70% of the populations support, there is still 30% that is not represented at all. They are subject to the whims of the majority without representation.

 

That is different.

 

What you said is because you do not support it, does it matter?

 

What I said was, you have to pay taxes because your voice was "supposed" to be heard through your representative.  Meaning you were represented, and a vote cast for you and your constituents.

 

Implying you were represented, even if you decide not to vote or participate.  

 

 

If you chooce not to decide you still have made a choice.



#95 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:32 PM

No they do not. I did not vote for them and they do not represent my interests at all. I am not represented. I am to abide regardless, for fear of the use of force and violence against me if i do not comply.

 

As I just stated, that is your choice of living in this country.  You do not have to participate, but you do have to abide.



#96 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:33 PM

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax

 

You'd have a very hard time making that case to me.

But we live in a country where the highest court in the land has decided that growing something on your own property, for your own use, falls under the heading of interstate commerce, so what makes sense to me is irrelevant, I guess...



#97 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

That is different.

 

What you said is because you do not support it, does it matter?

 

What I said was, you have to pay taxes because your voice was "supposed" to be heard through your representative.  Meaning you were represented, and a vote cast for you and your constituents.

 

Implying you were represented, even if you decide not to vote or participate.  

 

 

If you chooce not to decide you still have made a choice.

 

 

Implying representation?

 

I caste no vote, for i represent myself since the so called representatives do not, and have not in my lifetime represented my interest. What is my interest? To be left unmolested by thugs, including my productivity.



#98 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,104 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

Whether or not you agree with them, your senators and congresspeople are indeed representing you.

 

I understand that  "representation" in this sense, refers to society at large. But society isn't represented in Congress any longer. Congresspeople and moneyed interests are.



#99 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,550 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:37 PM

As I just stated, that is your choice of living in this country.  You do not have to participate, but you do have to abide.

 

And in so the compulsory taxation is theft by force and violence. Witht he caveat left that if you do not like being stolen from, you can leave the country. So in the end, compulsory taxation is theft and if you dont like it fuck off and leave. Yep, Im not convinced.



#100 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

I understand that  "representation" in this sense, refers to society at large. But society isn't represented in Congress any longer. Congresspeople and moneyed interests are.

 

This is the point, but in theory you are represented.  

 

 

And TASB, come on.  You know better than anyone the not voting but live by the rules of the country.  I never said leave, just you have to abide as you have been.