Is all taxation theft?

[loosecannon]

Where was said attack?

Your dishonest poll thread, dipshit, see the OP for full clarification. DUH!

You weren't attacked by me anywhere in that thread.

That entire thread and poll were a blindside attack against me just to exonerate yourself on false grounds.

We aren't kids here, Kennedy, grow up.

 

[loosecannon]

A counterargument to what? You calling me a deadbeat? Sorry, my life isn't any of your business.

Wow, this went way over your head ...

Sweetie, I don't give a rat's ass about your personal life. What we are discussing here is what you said - your point of view - about taxes. That is all. What I wrote about a kid living in his mom's basement was supposed to be an analogy, I didn't know it was going to touch a nerve with you ...

The reason why I concluded you were just a teen is because it's mostly teens and other immature folk that hold this sort of hostile-to-all-authority point of view. It is also typical 'to grow out of it' as you live your life, work, actually pay taxes and realize what it's all about - when you realize that some people actually rely on you and you rely on others and there is NO TRUE INDEPENDENCE.

Kapish? You don't have to answer that question.

"You're a scrub. You're the little brother that lives in momma's basement never paying a dime for food or rent and just uses everyone elses's shit up."

So I'm not supposed to take that as an insult?

You kinda self characterized yourself with you claim that you wouldn't pay taxes even tho you consume services we all pay for.

 

[loosecannon]

Here's the question I want answered. If 50% of the population can get representation without taxation is it fair that the rest of us have to pay?

Everybody pays taxes in this nation, EVERYBODY.

 

[Londoner]

Some actions by the government might have a 'socialist' undercurrent, but they are not socialist per se.

I just wish people didn't just use this word so carelessly.

This is fair. I did not mean to suggest that the private sector, by seeking government help, was advocating the public ownership of the means of production. I was employing the pejorative, slang version of "socialism" used by opponents of the Left, who believe that any government involvement in the economy is "socialism", and that taxation (especially the progressive version) ... is "socialism". By their metric, socialism is so broad as to include nearly every economy in history. Ironically, the biggest advocates of [the improperly called] "socialism" come from business, who crave regulatory favors, i.e., they want Washington to intervene not just in the national economy but the global economy, so they can have access to far-flung resources and labor markets. Business doesn't want less government, they want a dynamic interventionist state-sector which protects their market interests. However, you are correct. This is not socialism any more than the New Deal or the GI Bill or the Glass-Stegall Act or the Welfare State. It's a form of managed capitalism, fathered in large measure by Keynes and implemented in the USA by FDR (who -- some would argue -- saved capitalism from itself).

 

[Madeline]

Kevin, allow me to try and answer your question as to why your earning capacity would be zero without government.

You were born in a hospital, I assume. Tremendous government investment assured you and your mom were safe there. Government investment protected the vaccines you were given (and forced all the other kids to get them) so you survived your infancy. Same with safe water, safe food, etc.

You were not a homicide victim, again, thankies to government.

You were educated -- obvious government investment there.

I can go on and on, but presumably, you take my meaning.

Okay, now you are an adult. Let's assume you dun earn a living from robbery, receiving stolen goods, etc. You do something legal.

Well, the bank you use is safe thankies to government investment....in fact, banks as we know them exist due to government investment, as stand alone warehouses for gold and silver bars are hardly the functional equivalent of today's modern banking system.

If you run a business, the customers you sell to all enjoyed the same government investment as children and as adults that you did and do, and without customers, you would earn nothing.

If you are someone's employee, the fact that you have a legal right to your wages, a safe place to work, a courthouse to sue in if your employer cheats you, etc. are all government investments. And of course, your employer has no customers or suppliers absent government investment in them.

In short, Kevin, there is an unavoidable cost associated with living in a group and if you evade your taxes unlawfully, you are defrauding your fellow citizens of what it costs to provide for you. Alternatively, any attempt to live in a group without funding these costs would look something like a Bosnian refugee camp -- or worse.

There's always going to be heartfelt disputes about how effectively the government meets these costs, which costs exactly should be funded, etc. and it is more'n fine to complain -- everyone else does. But advocating against the duty to pay your share is unpatriotic and unAmerican because essentially, what you are saying is, you want to embezzle from everyone else.

 

[The Infidel]

Here's the question I want answered. If 50% of the population can get representation without taxation is it fair that the rest of us have to pay?

The way I see it is... we need to be pay taxes, but why should I, as an earner and contributor have to pay when the family down the street who makes less then me get all the breaks?

We should all pay the same.... a fair tax or flat tax of some kind?

That way the "rich" dont get their loopholes, and the poor pay what they can through the fair/flat tax, and they can feel they have a say in what happens... rather than always voting for those who want to give them more (i.e Dems) and have them dependent on the gov't hand outs.

If there was'nt such oppressive gov't oversight and taxation.... businesses would flourish and we would all reap the benefits.

 

[Madeline]

Here's the question I want answered. If 50% of the population can get representation without taxation is it fair that the rest of us have to pay?

The way I see it is... we need to be pay taxes, but why should I, as an earner and contributor have to pay when the family down the street who makes less then me get all the breaks?

If the family down the street from you would starve without government aid, and they receive it, you and your family are more secure. That's not to say there aren't fairness arguments that can be made -- there most certainly are.

We should all pay the same.... a fair tax or flat tax of some kind?

That way the "rich" dont get their loopholes, and the poor pay what they can through the fair/flat tax, and they can feel they have a say in what happens... rather than always voting for those who want to give them more (i.e Dems) and have them dependent on the gov't hand outs.

There will never be a Flat Tax. Ever.

If there was'nt such oppressive gov't oversight and taxation.... businesses would flourish and we would all reap the benefits.

Regulation is a different issue from taxation, The Infidel. We clearly need better regulation on such matters as mining, oil drilling food safety, banking, stocks, etc. "Better" could mean "simplier" in some cases, but not many.

What makes you think the level of taxation on businesses is "oppressive"? If we exempt more business income from taxation, who will pay those lost revenues? You and I?

 

[The Infidel]

Regulation is a different issue from taxation, The Infidel. We clearly need better regulation on such matters as mining, oil drilling food safety, banking, stocks, etc. "Better" could mean "simplier" in some cases, but not many.

What makes you think the level of taxation on businesses is "oppressive"? If we exempt more business income from taxation, who will pay those lost revenues? You and I?

Not sure I follow.... what lost revenue?

 

[shintao]

Here's the question I want answered. If 50% of the population can get representation without taxation is it fair that the rest of us have to pay?

The way I see it is... we need to be pay taxes, but why should I, as an earner and contributor have to pay when the family down the street who makes less then me get all the breaks?

We should all pay the same.... a fair tax or flat tax of some kind?

That way the "rich" dont get their loopholes, and the poor pay what they can through the fair/flat tax, and they can feel they have a say in what happens... rather than always voting for those who want to give them more (i.e Dems) and have them dependent on the gov't hand outs.

If there was'nt such oppressive gov't oversight and taxation.... businesses would flourish and we would all reap the benefits.

You want everybody to pay the same, but what kind of tax are you talking about? If we tax everybody 75%, business still won't flourish or you reap any benefits. What you want to do is go to a socialist economy so everybody pays the same and everybody works so you don't have the burden on your shoulders.

 

[Madeline]

Regulation is a different issue from taxation, The Infidel. We clearly need better regulation on such matters as mining, oil drilling food safety, banking, stocks, etc. "Better" could mean "simplier" in some cases, but not many.

What makes you think the level of taxation on businesses is "oppressive"? If we exempt more business income from taxation, who will pay those lost revenues? You and I?

Not sure I follow.... what lost revenue?

The cost of running the government doesn't go down, so where does the additional revenue needed come from?

 

[The Infidel]

Here's the question I want answered. If 50% of the population can get representation without taxation is it fair that the rest of us have to pay?

The way I see it is... we need to be pay taxes, but why should I, as an earner and contributor have to pay when the family down the street who makes less then me get all the breaks?

We should all pay the same.... a fair tax or flat tax of some kind?

That way the "rich" dont get their loopholes, and the poor pay what they can through the fair/flat tax, and they can feel they have a say in what happens... rather than always voting for those who want to give them more (i.e Dems) and have them dependent on the gov't hand outs.

If there was'nt such oppressive gov't oversight and taxation.... businesses would flourish and we would all reap the benefits.

You want everybody to pay the same, but what kind of tax are you talking about? If we tax everybody 75%, business still won't flourish or you reap any benefits. What you want to do is go to a socialist economy so everybody pays the same and everybody works so you don't have the burden on your shoulders.

Are you retarded?

Who said 75%?

If all Americans paid a consumption tax of oh, say maybe 20% - 25% this country would be in good shape and all Americans would play a part.

I dont really think you want an answer to your OP.... you just want to argue.

 

[shintao]

The way I see it is... we need to be pay taxes, but why should I, as an earner and contributor have to pay when the family down the street who makes less then me get all the breaks?

We should all pay the same.... a fair tax or flat tax of some kind?

That way the "rich" dont get their loopholes, and the poor pay what they can through the fair/flat tax, and they can feel they have a say in what happens... rather than always voting for those who want to give them more (i.e Dems) and have them dependent on the gov't hand outs.

If there was'nt such oppressive gov't oversight and taxation.... businesses would flourish and we would all reap the benefits.

You want everybody to pay the same, but what kind of tax are you talking about? If we tax everybody 75%, business still won't flourish or you reap any benefits. What you want to do is go to a socialist economy so everybody pays the same and everybody works so you don't have the burden on your shoulders.

Are you retarded?

Who said 75%?

If all Americans paid a consumption tax of oh, say maybe 20% - 25% this country would be in good shape and all Americans would play a part.

I dont really think you want an answer to your OP.... you just want to argue.

It isn't my OP.

Are you an imbecile? Well, yes you are. You didn't state what kind of a tax until now, so don't blame others for you inability to articulate yourself. You don't like the 75% tax, but who is going to pay it? You already said business gets fucked, so unless you got a mouse in your pocket, you are going to pay it as higher rates. 36+36%=72%

We already pay a consumption tax, that only hurts the small guy and business, because the rich can buy their yachts & limos in other countries and avoid your taxation. And when they are here, they only consume as much as your neighbor. Who would want to buy anything here when we have the world at our feet? You just put business out to pasture.

 

[editec]

Is all taxation theft?

No.

If it were we wouldn't bother to have two different words to describe one thing.

CAn SOME taxation be thought of as theft?

Of course.

But here we're being asked to philosophically throw out the baby with the bath.

Such childish thinking is the hallmark of idealogues and the fools who buy into their goofy notions.