jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (134 posts)

Taxes = theft ??????

  1. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 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?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      not to be a jerk, I know it's just a simple typo, but the name's EvAn.

      1. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in 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

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I do apologize. It was a typo, not an intentional slur.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Lol, I didn't take offense. I hope it didn't come across as me being angry!

            1. Doug Hughes profile image61
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No - I thank you for recognizing that it was accidental.

    2. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in 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.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in 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! mad

        Evantarians may be few in number, but they will lead us to the promised land some day, just wait and see.

    3. caderade2 profile image59
      caderade2posted 6 years ago in 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.

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in 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?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    Are The Income Tax Laws Legal? Is It Mandatory To File A Return In The United States?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you should ask Al Capone.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Yeah pretty much.

        Consent is needed,

        Lawful Rebellion!

      2. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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".

  3. Milla Mahno profile image58
    Milla Mahnoposted 6 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.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      HA!

      Thank ye

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Your wisdom is showing. smile

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in 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.

    4. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Mila - or extortion.

  4. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 6 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.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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!

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          why is it that the US has the best hospitals in the world?

          1. livelonger profile image89
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in 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?

            1. Doug Hughes profile image61
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in 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.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

                1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                  couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in 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.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

      2. kirstenblog profile image75
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good  point! For profit medicine is the most expensive and least effective.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          how would a business make a profit by providing crappy service at a high price?

          It wouldn't, you say? hmm...

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The same ways they always have.  Deception, cartels, monopolies, inside deals....

            Your failure to acknowledge reality does not negate its existence.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              cartels and monopolies that harm consumers don't/can't exist without governments to back them up.

          2. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Because often they are the only game in town.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

        3. EPman profile image60
          EPmanposted 6 years ago in 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.

          1. profile image0
            GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/bsmeter.gif


            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.

            1. EPman profile image60
              EPmanposted 6 years ago in 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.

              1. profile image0
                GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in 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?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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?

                  1. profile image0
                    GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in 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?

                2. EPman profile image60
                  EPmanposted 6 years ago in 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!

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

              1. profile image0
                GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in 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.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in 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!!!

                  2. EPman profile image60
                    EPmanposted 6 years ago in 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.

          2. profile image0
            GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago in 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.

            http://politicalirony.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/343577.full_.gif

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in 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.

  5. secularist10 profile image88
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    It's not theft if you ask for it.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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?

      1. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No.

        Because you vote down a specific tax doesn't mean you believe it's a form of theft.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Have you ever been asked to vote on a tax?

          1. livelonger profile image89
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, several times. I live in California; we have a ludicrous referendum process here.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

      2. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Either way, it's tyranny of the majority. And I'm speaking out against it.

          1. secularist10 profile image88
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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.)

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Anarchy is the only consistent political ideology.

              1. secularist10 profile image88
                secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Really? Any proof of a society that has been successfully ruled by anarchy? Anywhere, in history?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

                  1. secularist10 profile image88
                    secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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.

        2. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Secularist - welcome to America.

          1. secularist10 profile image88
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    Could someone define income?


    Could anyone point me in the direction of the law mandating the filing of a tax return?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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#

    2. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in 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?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          sigh.

          I suppose that my position of "Anarchy, but I'll settle for the Constitution" is a bit difficult to understand.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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....

    3. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in 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.

  7. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 6 years ago
    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tnx. Nothing like a fact once in a while.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

  8. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 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.

    1. secularist10 profile image88
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong. By the time those policies are affected, today's seniors will be long gone.

    2. profile image65
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in 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.

  9. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 6 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.

    1. secularist10 profile image88
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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?

      1. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        *where can I *find* some of that information...

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Freeman on the Land (FOTL)

  10. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 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.

  11. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 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?

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this
      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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.

        1. secularist10 profile image88
          secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A statute is a law.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            For a corporation, not for a human being. Not for a Freeman on the Land.

            1. secularist10 profile image88
              secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not sure where this is going, but corporations are considered human beings in most ways by the law.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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

                1. secularist10 profile image88
                  secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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?

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                    This is getting deep. lol  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.

          2. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in 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.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image91
              Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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.

            2. secularist10 profile image88
              secularist10posted 6 years ago in 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.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Secularist - I'm agreeing with you.

        2. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 6 years ago in 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?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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!

            1. livelonger profile image89
              livelongerposted 6 years ago in 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?

              1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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!

          2. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in 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.

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's the "2 year war clause".  So, so long as there is war there will be taxes. sad

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in 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?

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in 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?

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am talking about FILING a tax return, not paying taxes. smile

  12. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 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!

  13. Jaggedfrost profile image83
    Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

    A good majority
    beg to be robbed
    when entitled
    they plead for
    That which no politician
    would give of self.

  14. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 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.

    1. secularist10 profile image88
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Haha, yes it is a bit inconvenient, isn't it?

    2. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in 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.

  15. A la carte profile image59
    A la carteposted 6 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.

  16. kephrira profile image58
    kephriraposted 6 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.

  17. profile image0
    GladYaMetMe!posted 6 years ago

    Here's where the theft occurs  . . .

    http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2010/11/18/12/jm111810_300FLA_Legis_GOP_Special_Interests.standalone.prod_affiliate.56.jpg

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Now, we were having a nice conversation and you had to go all partisan on us.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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.

  18. KeithTax profile image78
    KeithTaxposted 6 years ago

    Someone has been reading too much Ayn Rand.


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4168720_f248.jpg

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in 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"

  19. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 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.

    1. secularist10 profile image88
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      As usual, habee, you are a voice of clear-headed reason amidst the chaos of the forums!

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, Secularist! I'm going to make my hubby read this - he says sometimes I'm UNreasonable! lol

 
working