+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 152

Thread: Is Taxation Theft?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    The only context you have suggested is theft. Theft is the unlawful taking of something that belongs to another.

    Yes, the key is it's unlawful. You had asserted that the difference between theft and taxation was that "Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*) I provided an example of which you agree is theft, which also paid for services which people may be able to avail themselves of. I did this as a way of showing you that what the seized wealth provided is not the distinction between taxation and theft. The distinction is whether the law allowed them to be seized.(*)

    If someone took your car or home and sold it, illegally -- it would be theft. If someone took your car or home and sold it, legally -- it could be a tax. Whether the money from the sale was used to build a well or just handed to J.P. Morgan... well, the fed has done both (and worse). They still call it a tax.
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    Yes, the key is it's unlawful. You had asserted that the difference between theft and taxation was that "Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*) I provided an example of which you agree is theft, which also paid for services which people may be able to avail themselves of. I did this as a way of showing you that what the seized wealth provided is not the distinction between taxation and theft. The distinction is whether the law allowed them to be seized.(*)

    If someone took your car or home and sold it, illegally -- it would be theft. If someone took your car or home and sold it, legally -- it could be a tax. Whether the money from the sale was used to build a well or just handed to J.P. Morgan... well, the fed has done both (and worse). They still call it a tax.


    The distinction is embodied in the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..."

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...nts_11-27.html


  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    The distinction is embodied in the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..."





    I'm familiar with the constitution. It doesn't define either word. What point are you trying to make?
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

  5. Default

    Is Taxation Theft?<<<<OP

    Answer: According to all resources I have seen and that which I have cited in addition to the very idea, why there needs to be a tax, the answer is NO.

    That is the point.


    To go further and create hypothetical situations where an actual theft takes place and then try to fit the concept of taxation in is more than contrived; it is outrageous.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Is Taxation Theft?<<<<OP

    Answer: According to all resources I have seen and that which I have cited in addition to the very idea, why there needs to be a tax, the answer is NO.

    That is the point.

    To go further and create hypothetical situations where an actual theft takes place and then try to fit the concept of taxation in is more than contrived; it is outrageous.

    ... we've already established the answer is no. You just seem to be confused as to the reason the answer is no.

    Your post:
    "Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*)

    My response:
    "That's not the reason. I could steal your car, sell it, and use it to pay for a well in the center of town that people may be able to avail themselves of. That doesn't mean stealing your car isn't theft.

    Taxation isn't theft because theft means illegal seizure and taxation isn't illegal."
    (*)



    My hypothetical example was to help you understand your error by providing a counter example. Seriously, I don't see how a person could be more clear than saying "That's not the reason." or "Taxation isn't theft."
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    ... we've already established the answer is no. You just seem to be confused as to the reason the answer is no.

    Your post:
    "Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*)

    My response:
    "That's not the reason. I could steal your car, sell it, and use it to pay for a well in the center of town that people may be able to avail themselves of. That doesn't mean stealing your car isn't theft.

    Taxation isn't theft because theft means illegal seizure and taxation isn't illegal."
    (*)



    My hypothetical example was to help you understand your error by providing a counter example. Seriously, I don't see how a person could be more clear than saying "That's not the reason." or "Taxation isn't theft."
    Thank you, nonetheless, I did not need your assistance. Your hypothetical was superfluous, condescending and plain old wrong.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Thank you, nonetheless, I did not need your assistance. Your hypothetical was superfluous, condescending and plain old wrong.




    *shrug* I don't think so. It truly is an example of theft which "pay(s) for services which people may be able to avail themselves of." It therefore truly demonstrates that "pay(ing) for services which people may be able to avail themselves of" does not make something "not theft."

    The example might be inconvenient for you... but if it's wrong you have yet to show me the error.

    Anyway: you're welcome.
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    *shrug* I don't think so. It truly is an example of theft which "pay(s) for services which people may be able to avail themselves of." It therefore truly demonstrates that "pay(ing) for services which people may be able to avail themselves of" does not make something "not theft."

    The example might be inconvenient for you... but if it's wrong you have yet to show me the error.
    Next time you consider how society benefits from the turd that flows down the sewage system, the criminal that is tried by the judicial system or an armed force that protects a country so it's citizens can stand around a decry the tax system that pays for such services as thievery then perhaps you will realize that society as a whole takes advantage of the tax scheme whether actively or passively. As such it is not a theft but a payment for such services.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer View Post
    Next time you consider how society benefits from the turd that flows down the sewage system, the criminal that is tried by the judicial system or an armed force that protects a country so it's citizens can stand around a decry the tax system that pays for such services as thievery then perhaps you will realize that society as a whole takes advantage of the tax scheme whether actively or passively. As such it is not a theft but a payment for such services.




    I don't understand your comparison between excrement and a soldier. Seems rather insulting and the analogy doesn't seem to demonstrate anything.

    You are also going off topic again, it seems you are now suggesting that folks who provide value cannot be thieves. Gangsters who keep the peace in a neighborhood but break into your home at night to collect payment for their services are thieves.

    It's not the providing of service that makes taxes different than theft. The difference is that taxation is allowed by law.
    Henry George's theories were based on land ownership and how far a business was from a public resource like a mill or waterway. The man lived and died a decade before the model T was produced much less modern transportation and communication. Not only did Henry George never hear of the Internet, he barely lived long enough to see the electric light. Applying the theories of Henry George to modern nations is about as risky as letting the most brilliant caveman design your next airport.

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
    I don't understand your comparison between excrement and a soldier. Seems rather insulting and the analogy doesn't seem to demonstrate anything.
    No I was clear: taxes pay for services. It appears you just want to win some internet argument at all costs, including the integrity of your own argument...

    You are also going off topic again, it seems you are now suggesting that folks who provide value cannot be thieves. Gangsters who keep the peace in a neighborhood but break into your home at night to collect payment for their services are thieves.
    Your assertion simply does not makes sense.

    It's not the providing of service that makes taxes different than theft. The difference is that taxation is allowed by law.
    Try living in a place that has no taxation I am sure you will be back in the US in no time.

    The US Constitution speaks authorizes and even directs it. "Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

    The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."


    "In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that "the federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law;"
    Last edited by Kramer; Jan 09 2012 at 06:48 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Taxation on derivatives
    By thediplomat2.0 in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Feb 11 2012, 08:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks