Taxation is Theft

[ScienceRocks]

The main reason for our current constitution is to allow our federal government the power to collect taxes. Taxation is perfectly legal...And guess what, needed as a first world society isn't cheap.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Bullshit, prove it.

When you say "Bullshit", you are saying you are just fine with the amount and power of government as it stands right now.

This means it would be impossible to "prove" otherwise to you since you are obviously happy with the way things stand now. You will dismiss all evidence to the contrary as things which are necessary.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.

I will now hit "Submit Reply", and as my post makes its way through an NSA monitoring program, I will ponder what kind of special retard could possibly be comfortable with that.

Well really..you should be able to show what you think is too big.

Like Rick Perry. He wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, The Department of Energy and um..probably the Department of Agriculture.

What would you take a knife too?

You think the Airline safety should be left to the Airlines?
You think the food industry should determine their own safety standards?
How about automobiles, should they watch over the safety of cars?
Should the government stop building and maintaining roads?
Should they stop building and maintaining Bridges?
Should they get out of the water safety business?
Should they stop running courts?
Should they get rid of traffic lights?
How about signage? To many damn signs, right?
Should they stop issuing licenses? I've always wanted to pilot a plane, why should I learn how?
How about those patents and copy writes? Do away with those?
And lets get rid of that pesky military. Sheesh, now that's EXPENSIVE.
And Mail..how about we privatize it all. UPS only charges 4 bucks a letter. Cheap right?
And the freakin drug administration. What the heck? What was wrong with Snake Oil?

Government is pretty bloated.

So you want to get rid of this stuff right?

There's a place like that already.

It's called Somalia!

We'd be nothing short of a third world nation. You pointed out a good one in Somaila. Somehow, because our current government is ineffcient these people think we can do without all that. They're nuts.

 

[LiberalMedia]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Well, there are anarchists who oppose all taxes. However, your question really is missing most of us who want limited government.

"Taxation" is not theft. However, taxation for wealth redistribution is. It's a crime when money is taken from one person by force and given to another. That it was voted on to do it doesn't change that it is armed robbery.

Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Libertardians like you just don't understand the meaning of terms like "armed robbery," as evidenced by the way that you haphazardly sling them around at government policies that pyyple willingly adhere to.

However, taxes that are used for the general good are legitimate. General good means roads, police, etc that benefit all.

Who determines what "general good" is, and what uses of taxes "benefit all"? The taxes brought on by the ACA are for the general good--paying for healthcare--and they clearly benefit all, as they apply to everyone. Am I misunderstanding your position, then? Are you in favor of the ACA as a legitimate exercise of government power?

It's when it's used to redistribute money that it is immoral. Charity can only be done by choice and redistributing money by force is not the "general" good.

Again, when is force used in the redistribution of wealth in the U.S. tax system? I will repeat my challenge in case you have forgotten it: Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery."

 

[LiberalMedia]

The main reason for our current constitution is to allow our federal government the power to collect taxes.

Absolutely agree. The chief cause for writing the U.S. Constitution was to levy taxes; nothing takes precedence over this, and there is no function of government more important. In fact, all other functions of government are merely extensions of the tax collecting duty, designed to aid the government in collecting more and more taxes. You really hit the nail on the head with this observation, fellow lybyryl. Too bad that conservatards just won't understand it.

Taxation is perfectly legal...And guess what, needed as a first world society isn't cheap.

Another grand slam. The only way for a first-world society to exist is through heavy government funding, and the only way to acquire said funding is through similarly heavy taxation. Libertardians push the idea that without taxation, pyyple would voluntarily pay for things like water systems and road networks--as if they realize that they need those things now! The only way for cytyzyns to truly appreciate the wonderful wyrld the government has built around them is for said cytyzyns to pay massive amounts of taxes every year.

Without government collecting taxes, there would be no clean drinking water; do you think libertardians really care enough about their own health and that of others to voluntarily pay for its purification? Not a chance. Wake up, libertardians--the government is your friend, and without it, you'd live in a third-world hellhole.

 

[kaz]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Well, there are anarchists who oppose all taxes. However, your question really is missing most of us who want limited government.

"Taxation" is not theft. However, taxation for wealth redistribution is. It's a crime when money is taken from one person by force and given to another. That it was voted on to do it doesn't change that it is armed robbery.

Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Libertardians like you just don't understand the meaning of terms like "armed robbery," as evidenced by the way that you haphazardly sling them around at government policies that pyyple willingly adhere to.

What about government using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another being armed robbery confuses you exactly?

However, taxes that are used for the general good are legitimate. General good means roads, police, etc that benefit all.

Who determines what "general good" is, and what uses of taxes "benefit all"? The taxes brought on by the ACA are for the general good--paying for healthcare--and they clearly benefit all, as they apply to everyone. Am I misunderstanding your position, then? Are you in favor of the ACA as a legitimate exercise of government power?

Again I'm not clear what is confusing you about what I said. Expenses that benefit everyone. I even gave examples. Give me an example of something that you consider unclear. The police protect everyone, everyone can use roads, everyone is protected by the military. That is not one person benefiting by government taking something from someone else and giving it to them. Government takes from all and provides a service to all. Give me an example of an issue where what I am saying is not clear to you.

It's when it's used to redistribute money that it is immoral. Charity can only be done by choice and redistributing money by force is not the "general" good.

Again, when is force used in the redistribution of wealth in the U.S. tax system? I will repeat my challenge in case you have forgotten it: Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery."

Seriously? Welfare, social security, medicare, obamacare. Any time government takes money from one citizen and gives it to another that is redistribution of wealth. As is when government forces them to do it directly, like mandatory services in Obamacare.

I understand as a socialist you're not going to agree with me. It's that you keep saying you don't understand what I said that is odd to me.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Well, there are anarchists who oppose all taxes. However, your question really is missing most of us who want limited government.

"Taxation" is not theft. However, taxation for wealth redistribution is. It's a crime when money is taken from one person by force and given to another. That it was voted on to do it doesn't change that it is armed robbery.

Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Libertardians like you just don't understand the meaning of terms like "armed robbery," as evidenced by the way that you haphazardly sling them around at government policies that pyyple willingly adhere to.

What about government using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another being armed robbery confuses you exactly?

You have not addressed my challenge. You are to name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery." Since that apparently happens so often, you should be able to name such instances with ease. Since you're now adding more details, I would like to see these instances of "armed robbery" involving government agents "using guns to take money from one person by force and giving it to another".

Again I'm not clear what is confusing you about what I said. Expenses that benefit everyone. I even gave examples. Give me an example of something that you consider unclear. The police protect everyone, everyone can use roads, everyone is protected by the military. That is not one person benefiting by government taking something from someone else and giving it to them. Government takes from all and provides a service to all. Give me an example of an issue where what I am saying is not clear to you.

I want to make absolutely certain: You're admitting that the ACA is a legitimate function of government, as it serves the "general good" as defined by you?

It's when it's used to redistribute money that it is immoral. Charity can only be done by choice and redistributing money by force is not the "general" good.

Again, when is force used in the redistribution of wealth in the U.S. tax system? I will repeat my challenge in case you have forgotten it: Name one instance each of property, sales, state income, federal income, and Social Security taxes being taken by force via "armed robbery."

Seriously? Welfare, social security, medicare, obamacare. Any time government takes money from one citizen and gives it to another that is redistribution of wealth. As is when government forces them to do it directly, like mandatory services in Obamacare.

I understand as a socialist you're not going to agree with me. It's that you keep saying you don't understand what I said that is odd to me.

I've nyvyr said that I don't understand, conservatard. You're clearly just hurtling these syxyst allegations at me in an attempt to demean strong, independent womyn everywhere. I am not asking you to define what redistribution of wealth is; I am asking you to prove your unfounded allegations that government agents use guns to collect tax revenues, because your posts reek of pure, Grade-A bullshit, especially considering that you have now avoided providing proof of your allegations twice.

 

[g5000]

The government said that there is no problem here, so there is clearly no problem here

The government said there is no problem with what the government is doing (spying on citizens), so there is no problem?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You are a total government shill!

 

[g5000]

Bullshit, prove it.

When you say "Bullshit", you are saying you are just fine with the amount and power of government as it stands right now.

This means it would be impossible to "prove" otherwise to you since you are obviously happy with the way things stand now. You will dismiss all evidence to the contrary as things which are necessary.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.

I will now hit "Submit Reply", and as my post makes its way through an NSA monitoring program, I will ponder what kind of special retard could possibly be comfortable with that.

Well really..you should be able to show what you think is too big.

Like Rick Perry. He wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, The Department of Energy and um..probably the Department of Agriculture.

What would you take a knife too?

You think the Airline safety should be left to the Airlines?
You think the food industry should determine their own safety standards?
How about automobiles, should they watch over the safety of cars?
Should the government stop building and maintaining roads?
Should they stop building and maintaining Bridges?
Should they get out of the water safety business?
Should they stop running courts?
Should they get rid of traffic lights?
How about signage? To many damn signs, right?
Should they stop issuing licenses? I've always wanted to pilot a plane, why should I learn how?
How about those patents and copy writes? Do away with those?
And lets get rid of that pesky military. Sheesh, now that's EXPENSIVE.
And Mail..how about we privatize it all. UPS only charges 4 bucks a letter. Cheap right?
And the freakin drug administration. What the heck? What was wrong with Snake Oil?

Is that all the government does?

Not hardly. Nope. It has much, much, much more power than that. If you have not noticed, then you are willfully blind.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No taxes, no government, no capitalism. There has to be some "taking" if you wish to go on "making".

Capitalism Requires Government
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government

This post and the article you link to are accurate and good. I wish I could thank you for them, but due to the "No Thanking of Thanks-Misers" of the USMB Bureau of Thanks Subsidies, I am unable to. I shall rep you for it instead. I especially liked this selection of your link:

So instead of seeing paying taxes as analogous to being mugged by the government, we ought to think of these payments more like the tithing that many people do in their churches and synagogues. Most people see these regular donations as a charitable contribution to the good works being done by these religious organizations – and they certainly don’t resent these contributions. But if the government is also an institution dedicated in large part to doing good works – to promoting the public interest – then we should not resent our taxes contributing to those governmental activities. In fact, we should feel good about all the good our tax dollars are doing – just as we feel good about all the good our religious donations do.

The sooner right-wing nutjobs realize that government is a sound replacement for their backwards, archaic religions, the better.

You want us praying to the State now? All Hail Satan, er uh Obama!

 

[LiberalMedia]

The government said that there is no problem here, so there is clearly no problem here

The government said there is no problem with what the government is doing (spying on citizens), so there is no problem?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You are a total government shill!

And until you start actively doing something to stop it--either by running for elected office or publicly and aggressively supporting someone who is--so are you. Welcome to the team, fellow lybyryl. I hope you enjoy your stay, and come to realize that the gyvyrnmynt isn't so bad after all.

 

[LiberalMedia]

No taxes, no government, no capitalism. There has to be some "taking" if you wish to go on "making".

Capitalism Requires Government
Government is Good - Capitalism Requires Government

This post and the article you link to are accurate and good. I wish I could thank you for them, but due to the "No Thanking of Thanks-Misers" of the USMB Bureau of Thanks Subsidies, I am unable to. I shall rep you for it instead. I especially liked this selection of your link:

So instead of seeing paying taxes as analogous to being mugged by the government, we ought to think of these payments more like the tithing that many people do in their churches and synagogues. Most people see these regular donations as a charitable contribution to the good works being done by these religious organizations – and they certainly don’t resent these contributions. But if the government is also an institution dedicated in large part to doing good works – to promoting the public interest – then we should not resent our taxes contributing to those governmental activities. In fact, we should feel good about all the good our tax dollars are doing – just as we feel good about all the good our religious donations do.

The sooner right-wing nutjobs realize that government is a sound replacement for their backwards, archaic religions, the better.

You want us praying to the State now? All Hail Satan, er uh Obama!

Not praying--that is an offensively religious practice. But I can see devoting fyve mynytes of one's tyme each day for the purpose of reflecting on the marvelous policies and unmatched capabilities of President Obama.

 

[Peach]

I'm guessing it's the fault of the "manpigs".

"malepiglets" better?

 

[Peach]

The trick is offering up a sober, rational alternative to the way things are. This is where the GOP really falls on its face these days. They only know how to whine about the way things are, but offer no viable, comprehensive solutions.

I am totally on board with the whole "this shit sucks" thing. It really does suck. Okay. We get it. So WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

What sucks? It looks like you're saying that paying taxes sucks, but I want to make sure you're outing yourself as a libertardian corporate shill before I formally accuse you of it.

Hamilton did get a few things correct:

The Federalist Papers No. 32

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

Matthew is 100% correct, kaz is only a silly libertarian.

 

[kaz]

Libertardians like you

I've nyvyr said that I don't understand, conservatard

LOL, you start this thread like you want an actual discussion, then accurately call me a libertarian, then go to your Democratic talking points when you don't like what I'm arguing demonstrating what a tool you are and now I'm a "conservatard" even though at one point you labeled my views accurately and I changed none of them from what I argued the first time.

I will come back probably tomorrow when I have a little more time and address your "challenge." But you've just shown what a tool you are, I don't need to wait to point that out. LOL.

 

[kaz]

Sigh.

Matthew is 100% correct, kaz is only a silly libertarian.

I am silly, and I am a libertarian. But what does one have to do with the other?

BTW, that must have been quite a shock when the OP started a thread with a question to libertarians and libertarians responded to it. WTF, where did that come from?

 

[ShackledNation]

I saw this concept briefly mentioned in another thread. I think it deserves its own discussion.

For those of you who believe that taxation is theft:

1. Why is taxation theft?

2. What is the better alternative to funding government operations?

Taxes are proposed in and approved by legislative bodies, the members of which are elected by and accountable to their constituents. You either voted for the lygyslytyrs who created/raised various taxes, or you have failed to lobby the majority of the populace in your area to support candidates, policies, or referendums that would result in the reduction or abolition of taxation. By continuing to live in an area that levies taxes--be they locally-determined property taxes, statewide sales taxes, or the federal income tax--you are consenting to paying whatever taxes your elected representatives, or their agents in various revenue departments, determine that you owe.

"B-b-but, LM," you are undoubtedly saying, "My representatives aren't accountable to me, so the entire premise of your explanation of how taxation isn't theft is flawed!"

Not so, conservatards. You see, every elected representative in this country IS accountable to his or hyr constituents as a consequence of them being subject to election in the fyrst place--and in some instances, also subject to recall. Whether or not you and your fellow butthurt Wrongpublican voters actually do hold your representatives accountable for their actions is a circumstance irrelevant to the static, unchanging fact that anyone serving as an elected representatives is, by nature of their position, accountable to We the Pyyple.

So when you libertardians whine about "how far this country has fallen" and ask why "them thar taxes hafta be so derned high," remember that you did this. Every bit of it. Your actions (or more accurately for conservatards, your inactions) paved the way for the wyrld we live in today. The next time you're about to decry the American dream as being dead, stop yourself and remember: Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.

Wow, lots of name-calling in there. I assume that is because you feel the need to bolster your weak argument with something. Try substance next time.

As for taxes, they are theft, plain and simple. Does that mean we shouldn't have taxes? Not necessarily. Taxes may simply be a "necessary evil" something we must accept in an imperfect world to prevent even greater evils. But as such, they must be limited as much as possible.

That we have a system of representatives that we elected and our accountable to us makes taxation legal. It in no way changes its nature as theft.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxes are not theft, pure and simple, in a republican constitutional system where we elect leges to govern.

To say "taxes are not theft" is an invitation to criminality and should be promoted as inviting conspiracy to defraud.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxes are not theft, pure and simple, in a republican constitutional system where we elect leges to govern.

Where is this theory of morals written? Majority rule doesn't convert theft into something benign.

To say "taxes are not theft" is an invitation to criminality and should be promoted as inviting conspiracy to defraud.

I think you mislocuted there, Fakey.

 

[boilermaker55]

There is no doubt way to much bureaucracy in the way of efficient government. So true, however, with the immense scope and magnitude of US and world corporations, do you not find a need for big government. Meaning, more departments to keep in check the power and influence, if they do that, on these extremely powerful and rich corporations.
Then, how do you fund them to keep the reign on them.

The trick is offering up a sober, rational alternative to the way things are. This is where the GOP really falls on its face these days. They only know how to whine about the way things are, but offer no viable, comprehensive solutions.

I am totally on board with the whole "this shit sucks" thing. It really does suck. Okay. We get it. So WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

What sucks? It looks like you're saying that paying taxes sucks, but I want to make sure you're outing yourself as a libertardian corporate shill before I formally accuse you of it.

"Libertarian corporate shill".

This is what I love about internet forums. I can be accused of being a liberal, a Libertarian corporate shill, and a right wing tard, all in the same day!


Anywayyyyy...


The size and scope of government is way, way out of control.

That gluttonous government requires an immense tax structure to feed it. So yes, we are paying too much in taxes because we have too much government.

I have offered a number of solutions to this problem.


"Tax is theft"? When the government is overreaching and robbing me of my liberties and freedoms, then the taxes they extort to sustain that racketeer influenced and corrupt organization are criminal. Oh yes indeed.