Taxes = theft ??????

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (134 posts)

60
Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago
Even said something quite well that I disagree with completely. It's not that I'm picking on him, but what he said is making the rounds in various forms and it's IMPORTANT! I think anyone & everyone should look closely and decide where they stand.

Again, not to be picking on Even - this is the quote.

"I fail to see how you can agree... but then say that forcing me to pay money to people i don't want to give money to is is NOT theft...

If i choose to not pay taxes, I go to jail. Even if I disagree with health care, warfare, etc, I need to pay or have my freedoms stripped.

That's theft."

I will phrase my opinion as a question.

In all of human history has there EVER been a successful government who asked for voluntary - not compulsory - payment of taxes? Anywhere - at any time - in all of human history?

OK - Maybe we are proposing something completely new. Does anyone think that the USA can survive by passing a collection plate around once a year - everyone toss in what they think they can afford or want to pay?
reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  not to be a jerk, I know it's just a simple typo, but the name's EvAn.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  EVAN! My educated nemesis. Get his name right. He deserves that...he is wrong usually, but he does put in the effort to research. Smart dude that Evan. Wrong, but intelligent. I've got your back buddy
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do apologize. It was a typo, not an intentional slur.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, I didn't take offense. I hope it didn't come across as me being angry!
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - I thank you for recognizing that it was accidental.
  reply report
2. 0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We have some of the lowest income taxes on the entire planet. Part of being in a society is taxes, as that is how to fund government. If you don't want government in general...too bad. Go find an island. With regard to paying taxes...seriously people, we pay under $3 per gallon for gas, average $.15/kwh for energy, our food is dirty cheap comparatively speaking...grow up! You are acting like a 5 yr old who wants to burn down the house because he didn't get a pony.
  Additionally, EVERY governed society in HUMAN HISTORY used taxes. So, has there ever been a successful governed society. Seriously people, do you look anything up before you post it? Good lord...Solomon used taxes. The Sumerians had taxes, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Rome, Greece, Sparta...come on folks! This is basic history.
  reply report
  62
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  These are incredibly rude statements. To suggest that Evanneezer should move to an island, or into a shack in Montana, or become a mountain top hermit...
  
  I'm really pissed off now!
  
  Evantarians may be few in number, but they will lead us to the promised land some day, just wait and see.
  reply report
3. 58
  caderade2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People are greedy so a collection plate would never work.
  But the harder you work the more taxes you pay is the wrong way of doing things.
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe that the harder you work, the more you get paid?
  
  Does the average corporate CEO work 364 times as hard (or as long) as the average worker?
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hard work doesn't necessarily mean that you get more money.
  
  Compare the lumberjack to the college professor.
  
  The price of ANY thing (labor, cheese, services etc) is NOTHING more than the amount of money that Jim is willing to pay John, and the amount of money that John agrees to accept for his services.
  
  In order for something to ACTUALLY be a price, both parties need to agree on the transaction.
  
  This is why when a government spends money, it isn't really a price - the government is using stolen money.
  
  This is why I'm an anarchist -- government has to steal money to pay for things (and then it doesn't even get a good deal), whereas a market transaction requires all parties to consent.
  reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago
Are The Income Tax Laws Legal? Is It Mandatory To File A Return In The United States?
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you should ask Al Capone.
  reply report
2. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that you have to provide numerous pieces of information to the government -- even if you don't want to -- and if you fill out any piece of information incorrectly, you can be fined.
  
  I believe that this goes against the entire "5th amendment" thing -- y'know, you don't have to provide information against yourself if you don't want to.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yeah pretty much.
  
  Consent is needed,
  
  Lawful Rebellion!
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
  
  READ the fifth amendment!! It does NOT say you don't have to provide information against yourself if you don't want to. It says "nor shall be compelled IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE to be a witness against himself.." That's a whole different thing, but Libertarians play fast and lose with the Constitution when it suits them.
  
  On that subject the Constitutional basis for eminent domain - which libertarians don't believe in - is spelled out in the fifth amendment explicitly. That's another example of the hypocrisy of advocating a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution - until it doesn't suit them.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How can "fill out this information or go to jail... oh and if you screw it up we'll fine you $10k" be consistent with what you've written?
  
  Oh, and I don't see how "we're taking your land against your will. Here's an arbitrary amount of money" is the same thing as "due process of the law".
  reply report
59
Milla Mahnoposted 13 years ago
Noooooo, taxes are not theft. Thieves take your possessions secretly, robbers force you to part with your possessions. So, by definition, taxes = robbery.
reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  HA!
  
  Thank ye
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your wisdom is showing.
  reply report
3. 60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I like the way you think. "Arbitrary taxation is plunder authorized by law." I can think of few things more arbitrary than "fair" as in "fair share." What ever the hell that is supposed to mean.
  reply report
4. 59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mila - or extortion.
  reply report
85
livelongerposted 13 years ago
With theft, you don't get anything in return.

The "taxes=theft" crowd want government services; they just want someone else to pay for them.
reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, i'd much prefer to have my roads, safety, and countless other things provided voluntarily in a free-market. They'd be more efficient and they'd cost less!
  
  And If they sucked, they'd go bankrupt!
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In many cases, business does a better job than government.
  
  But there are many, many exceptions.
  
  How about healthcare? Why is it that the rest of the developed world pays half as much for healthcare, gets better outcomes overall, and covers everyone? This was *before* the recent reform.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  why is it that the US has the best hospitals in the world?
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is that true? I don't doubt it if it's true, but I hadn't heard that.
  
  It just underscores my point...
  Why don't the double of spending, "best hospitals in the world", and a mostly privatized health care system, then, lead to better health outcomes than the rest of the developed world?
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am inclined to agree we have the best hospitals in the world - for the rich. Evan would be right that rich people from around the world do come to the USA for medical care (though it would be arrogant and false to suggest we are the ONLY country with top-quality medical care).
  
  The final result of libertarian philosophy is usually the best quality for the richest people. In this the USA stands out, but some of us would consider the quality of care for the POOREST and the MIDDLE-CLASS as critical metrics in evaluating a medical system. It's largely due to our failure in those classes, that the USA is ranked #37 against other industrialized nations in health care.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it isn't so much that "the rich get the best and the poor suffer in the streets dying in their own filth"
  
  it's just that we actually have to ask ourselves to make choices. Rich people SHOULD (but must not be required to) donate money. Poor people should still have to pay for their own way. Sorry your poor, but (and here's the part that will forever erode liberty): there will always be someone who's poorer than others.
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's right. If some want an 'everything equal' society, then we have to go for all or nothing. Either we all get everything, or I'm not paying for it.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I must urge you to choose the "I'm not paying for it" part.
  
  Everytime that "we all get everything" has been strived for, death has followed.
  reply report
  77
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever seen what happens when these types of services go private? I can tell you this, they suck and they cost way more. It stops being about providing the best service at the best price possible but becomes about turning a profit, and a bigger profit next year too. If they can get away with doing a poorer job of providing the service and charge more while doing it they will not hesitate to do just that. Look at London, with Thames Water in charge we see water wastage all the time, and I do mean all the time. The 'fixes' seem to break with in a year or so and so seem to be being repaired all the time and all the while our water rates go up and up. Now I am not saying that the Victorian water systems don't need fixing, they do, but as a tax payer I have recourse if I see fixes being done poorly and wastefully and can put pressure on my government to improve the effectiveness of their fixes. It's my taxes that are paying for it, as it is it's my bills that are paying for it and there is not a huge amount I can do.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good point! For profit medicine is the most expensive and least effective.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how would a business make a profit by providing crappy service at a high price?
  
  It wouldn't, you say? hmm...
  reply report
  62
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The same ways they always have. Deception, cartels, monopolies, inside deals....
  
  Your failure to acknowledge reality does not negate its existence.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  cartels and monopolies that harm consumers don't/can't exist without governments to back them up.
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because often they are the only game in town.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  that's not the way it is anymore. Don't know about you, but a 10 minute drive grants me access to countless shops that all sell a huge variety of things.
  
  And if you're the only business selling a good or service in a town... GOOD FOR YOU! If you price gouge, then 1) people will stop buying what you have to sell, and 2) people will want to price gouge with you.
  
  Thus: price gouging leads to competition, leads to a wide market.
  
  After katrina, everyone was crying about people who ACTUALLY drove hundreds of miles with giant bags of ice and were selling the bags for (estimate) $30 a bag. Does that make sense to anyone? No one else was delivering ice to them, and this guy was. He WOULD have made a fortune (but the police actually arrested him), and people would have heard about it and started selling ice. Competition would have swung down and neutralized the prices.
  
  But instead they threw the guy in Jail, and the people went without ice.
  reply report
  59
  EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In a genuine free-market, there are several businesses competing to sell the same goods and/or services. This gives you plenty of power as a consumer, since you decide where your money goes. You can choose amongst businesses that are competing for your dollar, providing the goods/services that you need at a competitive rate. This tramples any power the tax payer may have.
  
  Having competition puts pressure on businesses to satisfy the customers that choose them. If they don't do the job right, somebody else will, and they will lose business.
  
  When big companies operate at an unsatisfactory standard but still turn profits, it is because of Washington being in bed with big business. Success is attributed to political connections, not good business practice. Monopolization of the market is due to government distortions, and it hurts the little guy.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Utopian BS! You guys are young, idealistic and deluded by your ideology. Grow up!
  
  The fact is we have Global Crony-Crapitslistic Darwinsim that trumps democracy more often than not.
  
  Smaller fish are eaten by bigger fish that then increase in size, power and influence. They corner the markets and then buy the lobbyists, the media and, in turn, the crony politicians who then write laws in the dead of night for their masters.
  reply report
  59
  EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Providing stability, fairness, equality, and wealth through the centralization of power is more Utopian than any idea I have proposed.
  
  Small fish are fried because they cannot keep up in a market so encumbered by government regulation. The fish who are already big got that way/stay that way because of their political connections.
  
  You seem like a smart enough guy. Maybe you'll come around.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, you avoid the fact that small, successful fish get eaten up by bigger more successful fish.
  
  Your ideological blinkers brought in the fish being "fried", and then you jujitsu my meaning into your naive belief that free markets are the only answer.
  
  Moreover, why should I come around to your thinking, when knowledgeable and informed people like Alan Greenspan have "come around" to my awareness of what works and what doesn't?
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  so, what you're saying is that "when company x does better than another company y, and that reason is because all the consumers in a given area agree that it's better... we need government to make sure that Company y still exists... because otherwise... we'd all have more convenience...
  
  ... am I getting that right?
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, not at all. You continue to ignore my points and make up your own interpretation, rather than prove that my facts are incorrect or that my argumentation is faulty in some way.
  
  You're an ideologue without any facts to prove your case--like the fools who watch Fox News, you mistake opinion, belief and propaganda for reality and facts.
  
  How do you stop Darwinian greed and global exploitation with anarchy and an unregulated (you would call it free) market?
  
  If you hold your beliefs to be true, why do you avoid my questions?
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I addressed all your points. Point blank I addressed them. They're further down in the posts.
  reply report
  59
  EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If there were two companies that existed and provided goods and services at an equally successful rate, then neither would have any reason to fail. They would compete and drive prices down. Unfortunately, not only does this not exist, but it isn't allowed in the crony capitalism our country runs.
  
  It is government intervention that allows inept, inefficient "big fish" to fry the "small fish". Big businesses operate with a decrease in risk, knowing that they will receive government subsidies, bailouts, and support regardless of customer satisfaction. Smaller up-and-comers can't get a foothold in the market because of the heavy regulation slapped on budding businesses. If they manage to surpass that, they still need to compete with politically connected monopolies, making success in the market they wish to compete in very hard.
  
  And Alan Greenspan? Man I'm actually starting to feel bad for you!
  
  Thanks for the laugh though, LOL!
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  EP: notice how he points out that what you said is wrong (with the BS-o-meter), and then agrees with you with his phrase "Crony-capitalism".
  
  The Crony Capitalism is pretty much defined as government giving handouts to favored companies.
  
  EP is talking about TRUE free-market forces. Not government.
  
  If you want FREE-market, then you're talking NO government, and thus NO Cronyism.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The one-track pony keeps kicking and biting!
  
  Crony capitalism is a term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
  Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.
  
  That describes exactly what I said is happening in this country to the industries of big media, entertainment, pharmaceuticals, banking, insurance, investments, medicine et al. And if you think no government regulation would help, then you're a bigger fool than words can describe.
  
  Morever, you totally ignore the Darwinian aspect in the curse of Crapitalism.
  
  I call it Crapitalism because it's a perversion of Capitalism where people like you don't want any regulation or guards for market forces of unbridled greed and exploitation.
  
  Nor will you address any of my points because you can't offer up how exploitation and unbridled greed can be controlled.
  
  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase from the Roman poet Juvenal, variously translated as "Who watches the watchmen?", "Who watches the watchers?", "Who will guard the guards?", "Who shall watch the watchers themselves?", or similar.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll address all of your points -- you just won't be swayed by them, and it will be wasted time.
  
  1) you agree with me that the vast majority of that which is wrong with capitalism is governments fault. Good, we agree with that. But for some reason you don't seem to think that "giving people almost unchecked power" is a bad thing. Oh well -- what's left to debate?
  
  2) you didn't outline AT ALL the "darwinian aspect" of capitalism. I assume you mean "the companies that give the consumer what they want survive better than those that don't"...
  
  ... why is this a bad thing? When my heater ain't working, I complain to my landlord. They fix it ASAP because they know I can easily pick up and move to a new place and bad mouth the company to all my friends and on the internet. THEY WANT TO PLEASE ME - why do you think this is bad?
  
  3) You seem to think that profits are a bad thing. Let me dispel the myth:
  
  What is a price? -- a price is when 2 people MUTUALLY AGREE UPON a contract whereby one gives another something/service for the others' good/service. It is mutual and voluntary.
  
  How does a COMPANY make a profit? -- by giving the consumer what they want at a price that both parties agree upon!
  
  How is giving" the consumer what they want" in any way a bad thing? -- it isn't.
  
  How does a GOVERNMENT make its money? -- by stealing it! Thus, nothing the government buys actually has a price!
  
  4) The only exploitation that I see is by government. Bring up some specific examples if you ACTUALLY want me to attempt to sway your mind. (haha, just kidding - i know you don't actually want to have your mind changed, nor do I think I CAN change your mind! -- I'm just proving that I'm not afraid of your ill-defined challenges).
  
  5) "Who will police the police?" -- good question. There is no one to police the police right now - Just ask Mr. "Don't taze me bro". The current governmentally sanctioned police-monopoly system clearly is a horrible one. "the one who tells the truth is always the police man" is a HORRIBLE business model, and If I had the choice of where to put my money, I would choose a different police force.
  
  Currently, our police have no real reason to ask civil - this is why I saw a cop turn on his lights right before a red light and then flick everyone the bird as he went through. If an employee did this for a company that had to compete on an open market, his ass would be fired.
  
  To sum up my argument here: COMPETITION WILL GUARD THE GUARDS.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1. Don't deceitfully misrepresent what I've said with your sophistry. My point is that the deregulation of the market caused this recession and it was made possible by greedy people who subverted democracy.
  
  "[2) you didn't outline AT ALL the "darwinian aspect" of capitalism. I assume you mean "the companies that give the consumer what they want survive better than those that don't"... "
  
  That's the same deviousness and pretense that politicians use and you accuse THEM of being corrupt. You know damn well what I mean but you have no way to attack it honestly with facts, so you make things up (like Glenn Beck)
  
  "3) You seem to think that profits are a bad thing. Let me dispel the myth:"
  
  Profits are fine and I never said I was against them--YOU DID! I'm against corporate extortion!
  
  "What is a price? -- a price is when 2 people MUTUALLY AGREE UPON a contract whereby one gives another something/service for the others' good/service. It is mutual and voluntary.
  
  " No that's a transaction, not a "price." Did you ever take an economics course?
  
  "How does a COMPANY make a profit? -- by giving the consumer what they want at a price that both parties agree upon!" {b] Now I know you never studied economics! A COMPANY provides a good or a service for a fair price where both parities in that transaction benefit.
  
  "How is giving" the consumer what they want" in any way a bad thing? -- it isn't."
  
  More deceitful intent and self-satisfied bullshit!
  
  "How does a GOVERNMENT make its money? -- by stealing it! Thus, nothing the government buys actually has a price!"
  
  That's you talking, not me!"
  
  4) "The only exploitation that I see is by government. Bring up some specific examples if you ACTUALLY want me to attempt to sway your mind. (haha, just kidding - i know you don't actually want to have your mind changed, nor do I think I CAN change your mind! -- I'm just proving that I'm not afraid of your ill-defined challenges)."
  
  Really, then why did you not address any of my points with factual examples and cogent argumentation--instead of the childish bravado of an ill-informed fanatic?
  
  5) "Who will police the police?" -- good question. There is no one to police the police right now - Just ask Mr. "Don't taze me bro". The current governmentally sanctioned police-monopoly system clearly is a horrible one. "the one who tells the truth is always the police man" is a HORRIBLE business model, and If I had the choice of where to put my money, I would choose a different police force."
  
  "Currently, our police have no real reason to ask civil - this is why I saw a cop turn on his lights right before a red light and then flick everyone the bird as he went through. If an employee did this for a company that had to compete on an open market, his ass would be fired."
  
  "To sum up my argument here: COMPETITION WILL GUARD THE GUARDS."
  
  So let me get this straight--if you're advocating NO GUARDS, how can a NOUN (competition) guard anything?
  
  Man, you don't even have the good sense to be embarrassed by what you say in public? Using your logic, why have referees at any sporting events--why bother to have rules or laws at all? If that isn't Darwinism, I don't know what is! May the greediest tyrants win and long live anarchy and extortion by the fittest!!!
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1)here's YOUR quote:
  
  "Crony capitalism is a term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth."
  
  You show me exactly where this - IN ANY WAY - shows that government is NOT to blame for the problem.
  
  2) sorry - if you don't want to define your terms, then i'm going to have to try, don't get pissed off at me if I define your undefined terms incorrectly.
  
  "You know damn well what I mean " is not a specific enough definition for me. So, cut the curses out and define your terms.
  
  3) I assumed you hated profits because you wrote:
  
  "I call it Crapitalism because it's a perversion of Capitalism where people like you don't want any regulation or guards for market forces of unbridled greed and exploitation."
  
  If you can explain to me how this doesn't mean you hate profits, then please enlighten me. I truly fail to see the disconnect: greed and profits go hand in hand; exploitation goes hand in hand with profits as well.
  
  "Now I know you never studied economics!" Thanks for insulting me. I've spent the last 3 years of my life reading about the Austrian Economic School's understanding of the Business cycle -- F.A Hayek won a nobel prize for it. And I fail to see how "two people coming together to mutually agree to trade things/services at an agreed upon exchange rate" is anything other than the price of something.
  
  I suppose I should have said "that's how a price is determined", but... would it be so hard to assume?
  
  "That's you talking, not me!" I am still waiting for someone to show me how taxes are not theft. 5 people enter your home at night, tell you you're part of a new gang - against your will. Then they vote (5-1) that they should steal your tv, then sell it to a pawn shop for 1/3rd it's normal price, and then they keep 75% of the money, and give the remainder to an orphanage. When you argue that it's YOUR money, they tell you that you hate babies.
  
  That's theft.
  
  4) "Really, then why did you not address any of my points with factual examples and cogent argumentation--instead of the childish bravado of an ill-informed fanatic?"
  
  HA!! The kettle is charred black, but the pot remains clean, I see.
  
  5) "How competition will police the world: a report", a report by: Evan Rogers.
  
  The same reason why you enter a McDonald's and can be reassured that the food your eating is actually food; the same reason you can be sure that when you buy turkey, it is actually turkey; the same reason why gas prices fluctuate 3 times per day, but never do they fluctuate up to $75 /gallon. Competition.
  
  Competition is the way that the monopolies will crumble. Competition is the reason why only government-enforced programs treat you like crap. Competition is the reason why those in need will get their resources.
  
  If you buy a sandwich that tastes horrible, you are not forced by a government's military to continue to visit that same sandwich shop; you are free to go to any restaurant you want. If none of the sandwich shops you go to taste good, then you are free to start your own: you'll have the best sandwiches in town!
  
  If you see a chance that you could make money by selling an inferior product for a much cheaper price (for example, used cars for half their original price), then you can easily do so!
  
  Remember, profits just mean that you are providing a good or service for a price that gets you more "money" (that paper crap in your wallet isn't really money) than you spent. Thus, ANY chance to get a profit is a chance to compete.
  
  Competition counters greed and greed counters competition because Competition IS a form of greed, and greed is a form of competition.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Crony capitalism is a term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth."
  
  You show me exactly where this - IN ANY WAY - shows that government is NOT to blame for the problem.
  
  Obviously, you have trouble with English. "Government" is a noun that describes something and a noun can't be blamed for events or actions. It's an amorphous label and a totally non-specific idea.
  
  But I give up. You're deluded . . . or just plain crazy, Evan. I pity anyone who has to deal with you--here or in real life.
  
  My only hope is that you persist in your folly and that it may someday make you wiser.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, Government is a noun, thus it can't be blamed for any actions?
  
  That's good to know! "Evan" is also a noun... MURDER SPREE HERE I COME!!!
  
  ... I noticed that, after you accused me of skipping your challenges, you failed to address mine...
  
  ... LOL.
  reply report
  59
  EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  checkmate.
  report
  59
  EPmanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, Evan. You saved me much typing with your informative responses.
  
  Unfortunately some will never get it.
  
  Keep educating the masses.
  reply report
  0
  GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Utopian BS! You guys are young, idealistic and deluded by your ideology. Grow up!
  
  The fact is we have Global Crony-Crapitslistic Darwinsim that trumps democracy more often than not.
  
  Smaller fish are eaten by bigger fish that then increase in size, power and influence. They corner the markets and then buy the lobbyists, the media and, in turn, the crony politicians who then write laws in the dead of night for their masters.
  
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's hilarious to read what people think of free-markets when they don't even bother to think about it.
  
  The last panel alone shows the idiocy of the author. Libertarians don't want to ONLY lower taxes, they want to cut spending and THEN lower taxes. ... was that so hard to comprehend, Mr. Singer?
  
  Panel 3 shows that Mr. Singer has never heard of the Austrian Business Cycle theory, and likely has no idea who Henry Hazlitt or F.A. Hayek are (very libertarian economists who would be good to read up on if you want to insult their ideology).
  
  Panel 2 shows a misunderstanding of supply and demand.
  
  And panel 1 just shows that Mr. Singer really has no clue what he's talking about at all. Just about every libertarian i've talked to wants to restrict government with a passion. They've ACTUALLY read the constitution.
  
  And, ultimately, Orwell was almost unable to print his books because they were seen as anti-communist. If you want to talk about Orwellian logic, then please apply it to statism.
  reply report
  60
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose if I looked at the world as a series of comic panels, bumper stickers, slogans, solipsisms and cliches I would want to be a liberal, too. I find it amazing that liberals gobble up this mindless garbage and vomit up hatred of anything they perceive as illiberal only to accuse the objects of their hostility and derision of the most hate filled and heinous prejudices when it is the liberal who is hateful and cruel.
  
  One need only engage a liberal in a conversation in which one is unwilling to yield any ground to find oneself called Nazi, fascist, racist, bigot...everything but a child of God. The perception of human nature among liberals is so skewed as to render a philosophical debate with one useless.
  
  One need only observe the tone of the conversation to understand that precious intellectual energies are best employed in keeping one's own council rather than wasted in trying to change the mind of someone not using theirs.
  reply report
60
secularist10posted 13 years ago
It's not theft if you ask for it.
reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  so if 50.0001% vote FOR a tax, and 49.9999% vote against it,
  
  then it's NOT theft for 50.0001% of the population, but it IS theft for the other 49.9999% ?
  
  That makes sense?
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No.
  
  Because you vote down a specific tax doesn't mean you believe it's a form of theft.
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever been asked to vote on a tax?
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, several times. I live in California; we have a ludicrous referendum process here.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  whether or not you vote against a tax because you THINK it's theft or not does NOT change the fact that it is theft.
  
  Sure, you can vote against something because you think it's stupid, and still think that taxes aren't theft.
  
  But the government is still taking the money of people who don't want to pay for something. And that's the definition of theft.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan:
  
  It's a majority rules system. That's how it works. Not saying I like it, but that's the way it is.
  
  As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
  
  In the scenario you gave, if the society is that closely divided, then it's not much of a society, sounds more like two nations in one.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Either way, it's tyranny of the majority. And I'm speaking out against it.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, well that's your right. If you have a better idea than democracy or something like it, I'm sure many people would be very receptive. (And no, anarchy is NOT a viable alternative--it's been demolished many times over.)
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Anarchy is the only consistent political ideology.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Any proof of a society that has been successfully ruled by anarchy? Anywhere, in history?
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't say anything about history, just said consistent.
  
  Ask anyone on the street if spending other people's money for what you want is theft, they'll say yes.
  
  Yet, every non-anarchist will then tell you that taxes aren't theft.
  
  It's nonsense.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know you didn't. I asked if there was an example from history that justifies your point.
  
  Guess not. I'd say that's pretty telling as to anarchism's viability as a political order.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  there are some examples. But they aren't really "governments".
  
  Despite the way that it has been portrayed in movies, the Wild West was actually pretty boring, and there was very little federal governing back then. Most "governments" in the "wile" west were simply people coming together and forming private courts to settle disputes -- and this was even with people who didn't speak the same language.
  
  I could probably hunt and peck for other examples, but it WOULD be slim picking.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Wild West is a terrific example of what has happened countless times through history--a primitive or simplistic legal/ political order being subsumed by a larger and more complex one.
  
  For all their independence, as Wild Westerners sought more economic development, more stability, more protection from foreign invaders, more trade and contact with prosperous easterners and Europeans, they favored deeper integration with the federal system of the United States (such as Texas, which was originally an independent country).
  
  Anarchy gave way to a more normal political order, as it has countless times in history. So there you go.
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Secularist - welcome to America.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. The American politically active class is largely center-right (maybe 60-40 or 65-35), but about half of the eligible population doesn't vote, so they just go whichever way the wind blows. I do agree, though, that among the politically active there is a significant amount of division.
  reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago
Could someone define income?

Could anyone point me in the direction of the law mandating the filing of a tax return?
reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. I don't believe that there has ever been a law. However the 16th amendment is quite possibly the ONLY section of the Constitution that our government pays attention to.
  
  Here's an awesome video that shows a jury setting someone free!
  
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 738729234#
  reply report
2. 0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ARE YOU PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR MINDS? If you want to define income, LOOK IN THE DICTIONARY! That is what it is for my man. What law mandates income taxes? Try the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  Evan, how many amendments would you need? It is clearly in the Constitution...period.
  Folks, I am really disheartened. "Could someone define income?"; "Could anyone point me in the direction of the law mandating the filing of a tax return?"
  You are on the internet. Did you really no think of checking the dictionary or a dictionary website? Ever consider checking the Constitution or wikipedia or anything? Seriously?
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Answer to the opening question - if you are referring to the crowd who is all for the Constitution, but opposed to taxation - despite the fact hat it's a clearly defined function of the federal government in the original draft of the Constitution- the answer is yes.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  sigh.
  
  I suppose that my position of "Anarchy, but I'll settle for the Constitution" is a bit difficult to understand.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i never said it wasn't in the Constitution. Did you read my post?
  
  OH, i see, you think that "the constitution" is the same thing as "an act of legislation by congress"
  
  Let's quote the 16th right here:
  
  "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."
  
  Congress is granted the power. I believe my objection was that I have yet to find the law. And then I posted a video of a jury who reached the same conclusion.
  
  ... so... yeah....
  reply report
3. 59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the problem is not that the government has the constitutional right to collect taxes 'to support the necessary function of government'. The problem is that the government has drastically lost sight of what their role and function is. They have attempted to come into every aspect of our lives and believe they are responsible for the care and feeding of the masses. They are only people just like we are. They do not know what is best for me and moreover, they have caved to the prospect of power and dominance, believing that they do know what is best for the rest of us.
  reply report
85
livelongerposted 13 years ago
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ … tNoLaw.htm
reply report
1. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Tnx. Nothing like a fact once in a while.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  really quickly, I was just showing that video because it highlights the fact that - in that one court case - the law wasn't even brought up.
  
  The jury actually sided with the man who wasn't paying his income tax.
  reply report
60
Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago
We have lots of people who think taxation is theft.

OK. If we don't make paying taxes mandatory - then payment of taxes will be voluntary. IMO, the USA would collapse. Seniors would be without Medicare, without Social Security payments to name the biggest and most popular and most important social programs.

So nobody pays taxes and millions perish for lack of health care and money for food, heat and/or shelter. What's absolutely incredible is that seniors are voting for conservatives whose beliefs (if implemented) would make seniors destitute.
reply report
1. 60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong. By the time those policies are affected, today's seniors will be long gone.
  reply report
2. 60
  logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Seniors will make themselves destitute if they do not prepare for their retirement. It is not inherent that the rest of us pay for those who make bad judgements and fail to secure their future.
  A reasonable amount of taxes for defense, infrastructure, and a sensible cost of administration is not what people object to. What most object to is the strongarm tactics to take our money to fund abuse of social programs and some social programs themselves. I choose the people I want to help and I do not need others to choose how to spend my money. If you and others want to pay more in taxes, you are welcome to send whatever you want to the U.S. Treasury. I personally bust my ass every day to get by and maybe put a little extra aside for my future. The tax burden I carry is large enough. The rich have not put the burden on me, rather it is those who think we have to do everything for everyone. While that may be well meaning, it is not possible.
  reply report
62
Paul Wingertposted 13 years ago
To answer the origional post asking is taxing considered theft. My answer would be no, it is not theft. It is extortion. If we don't pay, we get seriously fined or get thrown in jail. Of course you can look at a majority of the laws on the books and come to the same conclusion. The only difference between taking something from someone and the government forcing some to pay, it that taxing is legal. Now if you want to live in a society where there arn't taxes and pub;ic services are free to the citizens, that would be a basic description of communism. As history shows, pure communism doesn't work, unless the country has vast resources and doesn't get involved in wars or supporting neighboring countries. On the other hand, pure capitalism doesn't work very well either. In both types of government, the ones who suffer are the lower class. In our case, we are described as a capitalist country, but we have a lot of public services that are govenment ran and supported by taxes. So actully were are not a pure capitalist country. The problem with some people in the US is that everybody wants this and that from our government, but doesn't want to pay for it. The lates if the Healthcare Reform Bill. Most of us were all for and we knew before Obama took office how much it was going to cost. But some of the supporters started to protest as soon as they got the actuall bill. Our new healthcare isn't perfect but it's a start. Nobody needs to go broke because they got sick. Compaired to other industrialized countries, we rank #37 in healthcare. So those of you who wave their foam number one finger and shouting "USA is Number One", put the foam fingers away. We also not number one in free speech and personal freedoms (Holland is) and we also suck at education, but that's another story.
reply report
1. 60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Damn, I guess I better put my foam number 1 finger away, haha. I was wondering why it was so hard to type!
  
  I agree with most of what you say. However, as I indicated above, talking about taxation as "theft" or "robbery" or whatever pejorative term is only useful when taxation is viewed relative to alternative systems (like absence of government).
  
  But if you are living in the country, that is your system, so there is no alternative, by definition. Just by living there, you are asking for it (whether you realize it or not), and therefore it can't be theft. Because you are asking for it. You are submitting to the laws and rules of that society.
  
  BTW, where can I some of that information on free speech and personal freedoms you mentioned?
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  *where can I *find* some of that information...
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Freeman on the Land (FOTL)
  reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago
The question resides in the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was it passed in a legal manner and is it in fact an Act that should be deemed illegal?

Philander Knox, The United States Secretary of State in 1913, committed Fraud when he made the declaration that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was legally ratified. The Amendment was never Legally ratified, at least there is no evidence to prove that it was ratified legally.

There was thirty eight States that made up the Union in 1913. There is no legal documents proving that the majority of the 38 States had sanctioned the 16th Amendment that was presented to the States by U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox.
reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago
I will ask this once again.

Please read very slowly!

Could anyone point me in the direction of the law mandating the filing of a tax return?
reply report
1. 85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://tinyurl.com/2v9p8wo
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry for the confusion. I asked for laws, not statutes or codes
  
  That was an awesome effort though thanks for your time and patience.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A statute is a law.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For a corporation, not for a human being. Not for a Freeman on the Land.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure where this is going, but corporations are considered human beings in most ways by the law.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Not exactly, human beings are considered and do hold a corporate presence under law. If the human beind consents to be responsible for the government created corporation based on your certficate of live birth. It is also proven by your taxpayer identification number. (ss#)
  
  This is why YOUR NAME is spelled in all capital letters on government and commercial instruments.
  
  IBM, AT&T, MICROSOFT, GOOGLE, YOUR NAME
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You lost me.
  
  A codified statute is a law, for everyone. Humans, dogs, cats, corporations, and whoever else applies.
  
  And anyway, if there really was not a statute or law mandating the filing of a tax return, don't you think the legislature would have remedied that many times over by now?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is getting deep. We have an Admirality/Maritime Court system. Human beings only fall under common law jurisdiction. Do no harm to others unless in defense, Do no harm to anothers property, and remain true in all contracts, commit no fraud.
  
  Corporations fall under the Laws of the seas.
  
  I have written on these subjects, many 5000 + word hubs, so it is hard to get all the information in a forum.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A quick check of Wikipedia tells me that there is some anti-tax conspiracy theory about courts with flags with gold fringes? Is that what you're referring to?
  
  And anyway, as I said, don't you think Congress would have passed a law mandating it by now if it wasn't already mandated?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you file a return you are waiving your Fifth Amendment Rights. Your return will be used against you to instigate an investigation as well as being entered as evidence against you in a legal proceeding.
  
  Filing a tax return is a voluntary act. Only YOU can consent to waive your Rights, no entity has that power over you.
  
  And yes I am referring to our courts operating under the Law of the seas with no jurisdiction over a human being.
  
  Their only jurisdiction is over your corporate strawman, if you consent to the responsibility.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evidently this stuff has been rules as frivolous.
  
  But in any case, I will ask now a third time: if there really was not a statute or law mandating the filing of a tax return, don't you think the legislature would have remedied that many times over by now?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  They cannot mandate that you waive your 5th Amendment Rights. No they cannot.
  
  Unless you consent!
  report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reality Bytes is originally referring to Constitutional law. There is no language referring to the 'filing of income taxes' in the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 refers to "direct taxes" and the Congress has given themselves, in the 16th Amendment, "the power to lay and collect taxes on income". One would naturally assume they should be the ones doing the legwork to collect the tax and they do so in the form of income tax statements to be filed by us.
  
  Where the Constitution was written with a very broad pen, allowing it to be interpreted by the courts, codified law is specifically stated and includes statutes. This includes federal, state and city, etc.
  
  As far as corporations are concerned, a company which is incorporated, (this does not include LLCs and SPs) is treated in a court of law as 'having the same rights as a human being'. Unfortunately, when the corporation was evaluated in a study of psychological traits applied to humans, the corporation was diagnosed as being a psycopath.
  
  Criminal versatility
  Parasitic lifestyle
  Grandiose sense of self worth
  Cunning/manipulative
  Emotionally shallow
  Lacks remorse or guilt
  Fails to accept responsibility for its own actions
  Lacks empathy
  Displays amoral conduct
  Antisocial behavior masked by an ability to appear outwardly friendly
  
  Hmmm...come to think of it, sounds a lot like some members of congress.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I have doubts as to the legal ratification of the 16th Amendment.
  
  There was thirty eight States that made up the Union in 1913. There is no legal documents proving that the majority of the 38 States had sanctioned the 16th Amendment that was presented to the States by U.S. Secretary of State Philander Knox.
  reply report
  60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, Love it! Makes sense that a psychopath would enjoy special privileges from the government, lol.
  
  I certainly don't think a corporation should be treated like a human being by the law, but I was just making the point that it is.
  
  Now, you said:
  
  "There is no language referring to the 'filing of income taxes' in the Constitution."
  
  That's correct. There is also no language referring to the "requirement to purchase auto insurance if you buy a car" in the Constitution. And yet the law/ statute is on the books, passed by legislatures, that car insurance is mandatory.
  
  There is no language referring to 90% of anything the legislature does in the Constitution--otherwise it would be a pretty long document. But that doesn't mean they don't have that power. Because it falls under larger powers that are specifically granted by the Constitution.
  
  BTW,
  
  "One would naturally assume they should be the ones doing the legwork to collect the tax"
  
  Uhh... no thanks. Not interested in another bureaucracy the size of the Chinese army to go around knocking on doors asking "have you paid your taxes yet this year?" on the public dime.
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Secularist - I'm agreeing with you.
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Statutes are ____________.
  
  I love that you think attempting to convince a handful of people in a forum will magically make taxes disappear.
  
  How ever will we fund wars without taxes? Voluntary contributions?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I am trying to engage in some intelligent conversation. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you do not wish to participate in conversation, you are free to ignore my posts. Okie Dokie.
  
  Income tax does not fund war? Income tax covers the interest on the national debt. Barely!
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're dodging the question. Revenue will eventually have to cover expenditures, not only interest.
  
  How will we pay for our future (and past and current, to your point) wars without taxes?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Property taxes, sales taxes. Alcohol, tobacco, gasoline etc...
  
  Income is profit from investment. Income taxes are fine IMO it is the definition of income that I am confused with.
  
  Wages, is labor, sweat, and time of an individual. No one has a right to expect a portion of the fruit of your labor.
  
  I am not against income taxes, I am against taxes on a working man's property. His life!
  reply report
  59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reality - you made an excellent point. We make a fair trade for our labor, we bargain our time and expertise for cash. Who's to say what amount over and above that is profit? The profit is the income we should be taxed on.
  
  livelonger - according to the Constitution, one of the functions of the U.S.Government is to protect the states. So collecting a tax to fund that particular function is legal. Most of the rest is not, if we interpret the Constitution correctly.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's the "2 year war clause". So, so long as there is war there will be taxes.
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not referring to the paying of taxes.
  
  My question is where is the Law that mandates a human being File a tax return with any government agency?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's why it's called a clause.
  
  I think it is Article 1 sec. 8 (though I could be way off but too lazy to look it up) actually does mandate that the government does have the authority to tax during war.
  
  Some more "justification" for it is "taxation/representation", so during times of war the government can mandate a tax. They have 2 years time to collect after a war has ended. After that, they cannot tax you.
  
  So, so long as there is war, you will be taxed.
  
  I am not sure what you mean by government agency. You mean the IRS or H and R Block?
  reply report
  75
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am talking about FILING a tax return, not paying taxes.
  reply report
75
Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago
The Fifth Amendment guarantees a Right against self-incrimination that is absolute and unalienable. There is not an exception to this right when it comes to matters related to the Federal Income Tax.

Although it has not been determined by our Justice system that the Citizen is protected by the Fifth Amendment when it comes to Tax returns, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the 5th Amendment does not apply to tax returns.

The ruling states that the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to Tax returns because the Amendment can only be applied to Compelled Testimony. This would mean that the filing of a Tax return is a voluntary act and a citizen cannot be forced to file a return!
reply report
60
Jaggedfrostposted 13 years ago
A good majority
beg to be robbed
when entitled
they plead for
That which no politician
would give of self.
reply report
84
psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago
In any case, I think people can opt out of tax so long as they agree to not use the roads or sidewalks, not expect police to help them, not use the courts or hospitals, not have a passport or drivers license and so not travel, not eat food inspected bu governent workers, not send their children to school and general not use any joint property of the US or whatever nation they are in--oh, which in the case of the US would include the Internet which is indexed by US government servers.

If they want to use some of those things, the have to pay their share and use political power to make sure it is a fair share and properly spent.
reply report
1. 60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, yes it is a bit inconvenient, isn't it?
  reply report
2. 59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  psych - most of the items you mentioned are locally funded, not federally. Federal roads are a small portion of roads, police are locally paid, as are courts, hospitals and drivers' licenses, passports are paid for individually, as is travel, food inspected by FDA and USDA could be considered a function of government (as protection of states), schools are locally funded, national lands could be considered part of federal jurisdiction, and the Internet may be indexed by government servers but if it were not, it would not effect the usability of the service. The government indexes the Web for their own purpose, not ours. Paying tax to support federal roads, lands and states' protection is a valid use of money. Paying congress to sit on their behinds, argue, pass laws in the middle of the night, the content of which they have not read, and abstaining themselves from the very laws they pass is unacceptable.
  reply report
60
A la carteposted 13 years ago
We need taxes to fund stuff and very few would willingly contribute to areas they were not interested in. How the government spends our taxes is a subject for debate but the fact it needs to tax us is self evident in my opinion.
reply report
61
kephriraposted 13 years ago
Has there ever been successful government without compulsory taxes? No. Of course not.

Has there ever been successful governance without taxes? Yes!

People used to govern themselves. Communities would govern themselves. Then some people started getting rich and powerful, and they used their power to force people to pay taxes to fund armies so they could fight against each other in the hope of becoming even more rich and powerful. People didn't like this, so they had to have rules to control people and stop them from doing anything that the powerful people didn't like.

Over time these overlords had to gradually start answering to the people more and more and democracy developed. But government and taxes are still inseparable and they are both basically an evolution from groups that we would today label as organized criminals.
reply report
0
GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years ago
Here's where the theft occurs . . .

reply report
1. 59
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Now, we were having a nice conversation and you had to go all partisan on us.
  reply report
  62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it's easy to twist this type of cartoon completely on its head.
  
  Notice how the COMPANIES are the ones who seem to be in control! Ask ANY gang/Company leader who calls the shots and they'll re-assuredly tell you "the government".
  
  The real way that the system works is that "Honest Jim-bob" gets elected to congress, he realizes he now holds immense power, and he sells of his vote in congress to those that helped elect him.
  
  If congress simply followed the 10th amendment, and the rest of the constitution, lobbyists would vanish: quit giving the dogs treats, and they'll quit salivating every time you open the pantry.
  reply report
72
KeithTaxposted 13 years ago
Someone has been reading too much Ayn Rand.

reply report
1. 62
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you're talking about me, I've never actually read a single one of her books.
  
  I was working on Atlas Shrugged, but then decided to switch to other books i had bought.
  
  I highly recommend the following two:"Defending the Undefendable", and "Economics in one lesson"
  reply report
92
habeeposted 13 years ago
I don't mind paying taxes for needed services - I just wish that American tax-payers had more say in how our tax money is spent.
reply report
1. 60
  secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As usual, habee, you are a voice of clear-headed reason amidst the chaos of the forums!
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, Secularist! I'm going to make my hubby read this - he says sometimes I'm UNreasonable! lol
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Taxes = theft ??????

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Taxes = theft ??????

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies