Is Taxation Theft?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Tori Higgs, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    35,185
    Likes Received:
    10,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly not. If he can show he and his property are not protected by the nation's defense forces and law enforcement agencies, if he does not make use of the nation's infrastructure to travel or obtain goods, never participates in the exchange of currency, nor takes advantage of any of the other myriad benefits that the nation's taxpayers make possible, his presence would be quite innocuous and he would incur no such debt.
     
  2. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still not buying into the idea that a law that simply transfers ownership of a person's property to someone else (the government) is ethically justified. People (and the government) are certainly free to provide whatever services they wish, but they have no right to force anyone to buy these services. It would be preposterous for Smith to approach Jones and say, "From now on, I'm going to protect your house from robbers, so you owe me $1000 this year." I can't support a law that would essentially do the same thing.
     
  3. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I broke my teeth on protection rackets in the eighties. I recognize it whan I see it. My first 'job' was collecting. I'm not like that any more.
     
  4. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay Mr. Smith, let's stop here for a second.

    If you wish to have a rational conversation of the topic at hand, I am your man. However, if your intent is to trade barbs such as you do with the Georgists, then I am not your man. I do not engage with them (except for geosit) for that same reason. I am here for rational, civilized conversation of any particular topic, but I am not here to shout insults across a school playground like a group of third graders. it is a waste of my times, and I am sure you would agree a waste of yours as well.

    Now I ask you, do you wish to continue the conversation, or not?

    Thank you,
    Ted
     
  5. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a person wishes to partake of these services, it should be via an individual contact of citizenship and not legalized theft of taxes, just like any other group of services.
     
  6. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,497
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that was the case, the current version of America (a.k.a. the current evolution of the Great Experiment derived from the Age of Enlightenment) would not exist either!
     
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not exist as it is or not exist at all? Of course, either way, I'm asking you to speculate. I do not mean to imply that you could possibly know.
     
  8. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63


    The contract is the U.S. constitution and the laws authorized by it. You agreed to those terms when you (or your legal representative) signed form SS-5 asserting you wanted to be recognized as a U.S. citizen and have a social security number issued to you.




     
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. To the extent that each of these services are sold, each ought to be purchased voluntarily (or not purchased) by individuals. I would be in favor of a law in which no seller of services (including the government) could charge people without an explicit contract that specifies the service being provided and the terms of the agreement.
     
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see. So form SS-5 is the infamous social contract.

    So what about those who choose not sign form SS-5?
     
  11. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll help you pack to leave the country.
     
  12. TBryant

    TBryant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The founding fathers had their own "unfair" taxes, and rather than repeal them they took troops out to enforce them.

    http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/whiskey.htm
     
  13. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are parasitizing the commons if you are not paying taxes. That's just the way we have to work,, as a long tradition of experimentation has shown us. Pay the kitty or go find your own infrastructure in some other country.
     
  14. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please note, that I am not talking about myself specifically.

    Are you saying that a person must sign the contract or otherwise they will be forcibly expelled from their property? If that's the case, then I would certainly support changing the law such that no person (or government) has the right to forcibly expel a person from their property because they haven't signed a contract. I can see no ethical justification for forcing a person into signing a contract.
     
  15. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just said that any seller of services has right set the price for the services he sells. Once a purchaser agrees to a sale, he is then obligated to pay what he owes. What I object to is laws that allow anyone (including the government) to provide a service and then retroactively claim money owed from people who never agreed to the sale in the first place. I cannot, in good conscience, do that to people, so I can't support such a law.
     
  16. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Filing form SS-5 is optional. There is no penalty for electing not to file it.



     
  17. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And those people would not be a party to the contract.
     
  18. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Those people will not be issued a tax ID (social security number) and will not receive the benefits which require it. They will not be recognized as U.S. citizens (unless they take other steps to acquire or assert citizenship).



     
  19. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,394
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Using eminent domain the government takes private and personal property...
     
  20. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Governments also claim ownership to (and then take) private and personal property via tax laws.
     
  21. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63


    They do. It is an often misused process (imho). That being said, a government takes title by claiming ownership under the right of eminent domain and that ownership can be contested and either refuted or established in court.



     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,394
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I believe the government also takes ownership of personal and private property if caught growing illegal drugs or at least holds on to these things for a long time...
     
  23. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,394
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When government decides to place another freeway through a neighborhood, or expand the runway at an airport, or run a high-speed rail through your town, they will offer 'fair value' but fighting them is futile and would bankrupt the average person...
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Under current law, the government can claim ownership of people's property for many reasons. I would favor changing the law so that this is not the case. I can't justify any person (including) the government simply claiming what belongs to others and then taking it by force.
     
  25. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    63


    They're required to by the fifth amendment. If the project is big enough, then that likely demonstrates the public need and you'd loose no matter how much cash you throw at it. You would loose because they can prove their case.

    But eminent domain is also used by cities or towns for frivolous things (which I would argue is an abuse) and you can back them off just by challenging the claim in court, requiring they demonstrate that public need exists and can't be met without the property in question. If someone is threatening you with eminent domain take a close look at their argument.



     

Share This Page