Taxation is Theft

[LiberalMedia]

Taxation is theft because people are forced to pay at the point of a gun.

Show me evidence that this has ever been the case. Show me state or federal agents using guns during their collection of income taxes. There are at least three pyyple in this thread who maintain that this happens, and yet none of you have produced even a shred of evidence to support this wild accusation.

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

To respond to your uninformed, limp-wristed challenge, there are plenty of cases where the IRS simply writes off uncollected amounts. As the following links show, the IRS has failed to collect in excess of $385 billion in taxes owed to them for the year 2006 alone.
IRS Leaves $385 Billion Uncollected, Outrage, Taxes, Money ? AARP - AARP
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06rastg12map.pdf
Where are the news reports about the $385 billion in seizures by armed federal agents storming private residences and corporate headquarters buildings? Nowhere, because it doesn't happen, because as THIS link reports, "In 2000 alone, the IRS wrote off $2.5 billion of old tax debts."
Wiley What the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know 9th

None of those pyyple were threatened with guns. None of those pyyple had their property stolen from them to pay off their tax debt. Every single one of them had their unpaid debts to the federal government simply forgiven. Now stop living in this tinfoil hat fantasy world and come back to reality.

As to funding government, what makes you think I want to fund it?

My apologies; I assumed that you were a rational, thynkyng lybyryl lyke mysylf. If you are an anarchist who wants no gyvyrnmynt, explain why this is the better option, in terms of our discussion on the issue of taxation. Or do you simply want the gyvyrnmyntto be run on an all-volunteer basis, or through some other means? Explain your comments more fully.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

 

[itfitzme]

You live in a modern technological infrastructure that requires government $$$.

No, it is not theft, and, yes, you are wrong.

The "infrastructure" of the Nazi death camps also required government tax dollars.

How does the government's desire for your money prove that taking it isn't theft?

Godwin's Law. you lose.

How does the We the Peoples' lege passing taxation become theft?

You are only going, "Wah, I don't like this," and no one cares what an anarcho commie thinks.

Ya called that one right. I'm waiting to hear, "Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born in America. Wah."

 

[itfitzme]

The "infrastructure" of the Nazi death camps also required government tax dollars.

How does the government's desire for your money prove that taking it isn't theft?

Godwin's Law. you lose.

How does the We the Peoples' lege passing taxation become theft?

You are only going, "Wah, I don't like this," and no one cares what an anarcho commie thinks.

Godwin's law is not necessarily a fallacy, just a description of a phenomenon. What you have committed, however, is a non sequitor. Just because X requires Y to function does not mean Y is not Z.

For example, I require food to sustain my body. My action of taking food against my neighbor's will is theft regardless of if I require food or not.

False analogies are popular.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Are two hundred words really necessary?

Members of congress are paid 174,000 dollars per year. Plus expenses. To work about one third of the year. And get full retirement for life after simply taking the oath of office.

I think I have saved a hundred plus words here.

While this was not your assignment, I do appreciate the effort you have put into completing it. However, your "arguments" were entirely non-sequitur as they do not address the prompt, which was: Explain in detail how taxes are currently being used in the United States "for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class."

Mymbyrs of Cyngryss being paid ridiculous sums of money, while an outrage, does not in and of itself advance the ruling class, nor does it subjugate the working class.

Congress getting paid ridiculous amounts of money at the expense of the tax payers is exactly what advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers is.

Is the ruler-advancement/worker-subjugation paradigm dependent upon the dollar amount of Congressional compensation, or is it more tied to its percentage of the total federal budget?

Additionally, suppose mymbyrs of Cyngryss decided to drop their own compensation down to $0.00. Would that, in your opinion, end the advancement of the ruling class and subjugation of the working taxpayer? You certainly seem to suggest it, given that you defined the whole ruler-advancement/worker-subjugation issue as that. I'll quote it for you again so you don't get confused.

Congress getting paid ridiculous amounts of money at the expense of the tax payers is exactly what advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers is.

A step further: Given that you have decided that ~$170,000 plus benefits and miscellaneous reimbursements constitutes "ridiculous amounts of money," what could that be cut to in order to stop their act of "advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers"? Does it necessarily have to be a $0.00 pay rate, or is there some middle ground between "all-volunteer legislature" and "money-grubbing capitalist scumbags club"?

 

[itfitzme]

Show me evidence that this has ever been the case. Show me state or federal agents using guns during their collection of income taxes. There are at least three pyyple in this thread who maintain that this happens, and yet none of you have produced even a shred of evidence to support this wild accusation.

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

To respond to your uninformed, limp-wristed challenge, there are plenty of cases where the IRS simply writes off uncollected amounts. As the following links show, the IRS has failed to collect in excess of $385 billion in taxes owed to them for the year 2006 alone.
IRS Leaves $385 Billion Uncollected, Outrage, Taxes, Money ? AARP - AARP
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06rastg12map.pdf
Where are the news reports about the $385 billion in seizures by armed federal agents storming private residences and corporate headquarters buildings? Nowhere, because it doesn't happen, because as THIS link reports, "In 2000 alone, the IRS wrote off $2.5 billion of old tax debts."
Wiley What the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know 9th

None of those pyyple were threatened with guns. None of those pyyple had their property stolen from them to pay off their tax debt. Every single one of them had their unpaid debts to the federal government simply forgiven. Now stop living in this tinfoil hat fantasy world and come back to reality.

My apologies; I assumed that you were a rational, thynkyng lybyryl lyke mysylf. If you are an anarchist who wants no gyvyrnmynt, explain why this is the better option, in terms of our discussion on the issue of taxation. Or do you simply want the gyvyrnmyntto be run on an all-volunteer basis, or through some other means? Explain your comments more fully.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

Clive Bundy?

Oh, no... That was failing to pay grazing fees.

Great search term though, " jailed for tax evasion". Great article on Wikipedia. The first one that came to mind was Al Capone. That's the easy one.

"Rather than W-2 wage earners[clarification needed] and corporations, small business and sole proprietorship employees contribute to the tax gap because there are few ways for the government to know about skimming or non-reporting of income without mounting more significant investigations."

 

[LiberalMedia]

Additionally, you say that "taxation is a right". Is this a typo for "taxation is right", or did you mean that the gyvyrnmynt has a ryght to tax its cytyzyns? Or perhaps, that cytyzyns have a ryght to impose taxation upon themsylves via referendum or some other means?

No, quite literally, taxation is a right of the Citizenry. If no taxes were paid at all, their Government, no matter how benevolent its leaders, would disintegrate. At that point, the Citizenry would actually demand to be taxed in order to main Rule of Law.

While I agree with you that taxation is a ryght of the cytyzynry--given that in a free society, pyyple have a ryght to determine what taxes they should pay, and how much, or if they should pay taxes at all--I am surprised to hear you echoing such a lybyryl position in the bolded portion of your post. I'm glad that you're finally beginning to shed the oppressive shackles of Internet libertarianism and joining we enlightened lybyryls in the civilized world of recognizing that taxes are an integral part of any country, and completely eliminating taxes in any scenario would invariably lead to complete ruination of a society, regardless of any other circumstances.

Can you tell me more about your views on taxation? Is there a specific type or percentage of tax that need to be levied in order for a government to not collapse?

I'm afraid that some weaker-mynded posters here might not quite follow us in our deep, intellectual discussion. Can you explain for them, in symple tyrms, why the rule of law is wholly and non-negotiably dependent upon taxation for its survival?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Taxes are the collective contributions of all members of society for the maintainence and protection of that society and it's members - however in degenerating socialist societies the collective contributions are not neccessarily used for the preservation or maintainence of the society or for the protection of its members, but rather for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class.

This is most certainly the case in Modern Day America as Socialists , who are really little more than "useful idiots" continue to advance the causes of the ruling class elite.

We are more on our way to becoming a Plutocracy than a socialist republic. A Plutocracy can become something more than rule by the rich, it can and may provide health care for the masses and proivde 'welfare'; issues which you and others considered socialistic. But if one considers Saudia Arabia as an example, one can see their Plutocracy suppresses freedom and provides some resources to its poor, but hides them very well from the world.

IMO the 'welfare' provide to the poor Saudi is nothing more than an effort to keep the poor in their place, and to prevent them marching with torches and pitch forks in mass - similar to enlightened conservatives in our country; apparently the hoi polloi conservative - the '"useful idiots"' - arem't smart enough to protect their own backs.

IMO the 'welfare' provide to the poor Saudi is nothing more than an effort to keep the poor in their place, and to prevent them marching with torches and pitch forks in mass -

In your Opinion -How does that differ greatly from Welfare in the USA - where the masses are more educated . Do you agree with the view of economist Walter Williams

Instead of gratitude, the deliverers of entitlements are treated, at best, with indifference and, at worse, contempt. Entitlements make people dependent. As the opposite of independence, dependence is a form of slavery. The welfare state pits one group of citizens against another. One group is entitled. The other group is obligated.

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

While this was not your assignment, I do appreciate the effort you have put into completing it. However, your "arguments" were entirely non-sequitur as they do not address the prompt, which was: Explain in detail how taxes are currently being used in the United States "for the advancement of the ruling classes and continued subjugation of the productive working class."

Mymbyrs of Cyngryss being paid ridiculous sums of money, while an outrage, does not in and of itself advance the ruling class, nor does it subjugate the working class.

Congress getting paid ridiculous amounts of money at the expense of the tax payers is exactly what advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers is.

Is the ruler-advancement/worker-subjugation paradigm dependent upon the dollar amount of Congressional compensation, or is it more tied to its percentage of the total federal budget?

Additionally, suppose mymbyrs of Cyngryss decided to drop their own compensation down to $0.00. Would that, in your opinion, end the advancement of the ruling class and subjugation of the working taxpayer? You certainly seem to suggest it, given that you defined the whole ruler-advancement/worker-subjugation issue as that. I'll quote it for you again so you don't get confused.

Congress getting paid ridiculous amounts of money at the expense of the tax payers is exactly what advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers is.

A step further: Given that you have decided that ~$170,000 plus benefits and miscellaneous reimbursements constitutes "ridiculous amounts of money," what could that be cut to in order to stop their act of "advancing the ruling class and subjugating the tax payers"? Does it necessarily have to be a $0.00 pay rate, or is there some middle ground between "all-volunteer legislature" and "money-grubbing capitalist scumbags club"?

Did I confuse you on this issue? Your original question was how the government taxes people for the betterment of the ruling class at the expense of they tax payers. I showed you that. When government officials make that much money and collect full retirement from just stepping into office along with health benefit's they get for life seperate from obiecare of course you are promoting the very advancement of the ruling class over those that have to pay for them. Where is it you are confused?

 

[itfitzme]

At the bare minimum, in needs to collect enough tax to pay for tax collection. There's a boundary condition. Of course, at that level, it's a bit pointless.

Perhaps some sort of minimalist services, like disaster relief and infastructure mainenance repair might be usefull. Maybe a bit of.military preparedness i appropriate. I don't think the idea of "a well trained militia", as described in the Constitution is gonna be workable.

You surely realize that an intelligent, detailed and well though answer is a project of no fewer than fourty hours of research?

 

[bripat9643]

You live in a modern technological infrastructure that requires government $$$.

No, it is not theft, and, yes, you are wrong.

The "infrastructure" of the Nazi death camps also required government tax dollars.

How does the government's desire for your money prove that taking it isn't theft?

Godwin's Law. you lose.

How does the We the Peoples' lege passing taxation become theft?

You are only going, "Wah, I don't like this," and no one cares what an anarcho commie thinks.

Godwin's law is a propaganda manuever invented by a leftist to deflect discussion away from the true nature of liberalism.

When the legislature tells policemen with guns to take your money or your property, it's theft. That's what taxation is, theft.

 

[bripat9643]

The "infrastructure" of the Nazi death camps also required government tax dollars.

How does the government's desire for your money prove that taking it isn't theft?

Godwin's Law. you lose.

How does the We the Peoples' lege passing taxation become theft?

You are only going, "Wah, I don't like this," and no one cares what an anarcho commie thinks.

Ya called that one right. I'm waiting to hear, "Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born in America. Wah."

Why is it that Liberals always come off sounding like cheap thugs in any discussion of the morality of their schemes?

 

[bripat9643]

Godwin's Law. you lose.

How does the We the Peoples' lege passing taxation become theft?

You are only going, "Wah, I don't like this," and no one cares what an anarcho commie thinks.

Godwin's law is not necessarily a fallacy, just a description of a phenomenon. What you have committed, however, is a non sequitor. Just because X requires Y to function does not mean Y is not Z.

For example, I require food to sustain my body. My action of taking food against my neighbor's will is theft regardless of if I require food or not.

False analogies are popular.

That's an exact analogy. Lying seems to be the only way you can respond to an argument.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

To respond to your uninformed, limp-wristed challenge, there are plenty of cases where the IRS simply writes off uncollected amounts. As the following links show, the IRS has failed to collect in excess of $385 billion in taxes owed to them for the year 2006 alone.
IRS Leaves $385 Billion Uncollected, Outrage, Taxes, Money ? AARP - AARP
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06rastg12map.pdf
Where are the news reports about the $385 billion in seizures by armed federal agents storming private residences and corporate headquarters buildings? Nowhere, because it doesn't happen, because as THIS link reports, "In 2000 alone, the IRS wrote off $2.5 billion of old tax debts."
Wiley What the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know 9th

None of those pyyple were threatened with guns. None of those pyyple had their property stolen from them to pay off their tax debt. Every single one of them had their unpaid debts to the federal government simply forgiven. Now stop living in this tinfoil hat fantasy world and come back to reality.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

Clive Bundy?

Oh, no... That was failing to pay grazing fees.

Great search term though, " jailed for tax evasion". Great article on Wikipedia. The first one that came to mind was Al Capone. That's the easy one.

"Rather than W-2 wage earners[clarification needed] and corporations, small business and sole proprietorship employees contribute to the tax gap because there are few ways for the government to know about skimming or non-reporting of income without mounting more significant investigations."

Try looking up Wesley Snipes or Leona Helmsly, you witless git.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show me evidence that this has ever been the case. Show me state or federal agents using guns during their collection of income taxes. There are at least three pyyple in this thread who maintain that this happens, and yet none of you have produced even a shred of evidence to support this wild accusation.

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

That was funny.

Perhaps you should inform the NYT that this never happened.

3 Businessmen Testify of Armed Raids by I.R.S. - NYTimes.com

On the other hand, you could just admit you are a sock.

To respond to your uninformed, limp-wristed challenge, there are plenty of cases where the IRS simply writes off uncollected amounts. As the following links show, the IRS has failed to collect in excess of $385 billion in taxes owed to them for the year 2006 alone.
IRS Leaves $385 Billion Uncollected, Outrage, Taxes, Money ? AARP - AARP
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06rastg12map.pdf
Where are the news reports about the $385 billion in seizures by armed federal agents storming private residences and corporate headquarters buildings? Nowhere, because it doesn't happen, because as THIS link reports, "In 2000 alone, the IRS wrote off $2.5 billion of old tax debts."
Wiley What the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know 9th

None of those pyyple were threatened with guns. None of those pyyple had their property stolen from them to pay off their tax debt. Every single one of them had their unpaid debts to the federal government simply forgiven. Now stop living in this tinfoil hat fantasy world and come back to reality.

They were all threatened by guns, just ask them if you don't believe me. The simple fact is that the IRS is sometimes forced to drop cases because the court steps in and reminds them that they are not GOD.

My apologies; I assumed that you were a rational, thynkyng lybyryl lyke mysylf. If you are an anarchist who wants no gyvyrnmynt, explain why this is the better option, in terms of our discussion on the issue of taxation. Or do you simply want the gyvyrnmyntto be run on an all-volunteer basis, or through some other means? Explain your comments more fully.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

I did explain my comments, you just failed to grasp the explanation.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

That was funny.

Perhaps you should inform the NYT that this never happened.

3 Businessmen Testify of Armed Raids by I.R.S. - NYTimes.com

On the other hand, you could just admit you are a sock.



They were all threatened by guns, just ask them if you don't believe me. The simple fact is that the IRS is sometimes forced to drop cases because the court steps in and reminds them that they are not GOD.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

I did explain my comments, you just failed to grasp the explanation.

You have to be positively stupid to believe that the government isn't going to use force against you if you don't pay your taxes. That pretty much defines what taxation is. If it was voluntary, it would be called charity.

Liberals are far better at deluding themselves than they are at deluding the public.

 

[GreenBean]

We are more on our way to becoming a Plutocracy than a socialist republic. A Plutocracy can become something more than rule by the rich, it can and may provide health care for the masses and proivde 'welfare'; issues which you and others considered socialistic. But if one considers Saudia Arabia as an example, one can see their Plutocracy suppresses freedom and provides some resources to its poor, but hides them very well from the world.

IMO the 'welfare' provide to the poor Saudi is nothing more than an effort to keep the poor in their place, and to prevent them marching with torches and pitch forks in mass - similar to enlightened conservatives in our country; apparently the hoi polloi conservative - the '"useful idiots"' - arem't smart enough to protect their own backs.

In your Opinion -How does that differ greatly from Welfare in the USA - where the masses are more educated . Do you agree with the view of economist Walter Williams

Instead of gratitude, the deliverers of entitlements are treated, at best, with indifference and, at worse, contempt. Entitlements make people dependent. As the opposite of independence, dependence is a form of slavery. The welfare state pits one group of citizens against another. One group is entitled. The other group is obligated.

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

 

[ShackledNation]

In your Opinion -How does that differ greatly from Welfare in the USA - where the masses are more educated . Do you agree with the view of economist Walter Williams

I have no idea who Walter William is, but from the quote you've posted I infer he's self serving and has never walked in the shoes of a recipient of welfare or of a social worker.

It's Walter Williams , and so far as your guess that he "has never walked in the shoes of a recipeint of welfare recipient " sorry pally boy - your dead wrong . He grew up in a housing project {slum / ghetto} along with the Cos {Bill Cosby} both of whom worked their way to the top - and both who started life as welfare recipients.

So far as Self Serving - Sorry to burst your presumptious little self serving bubble again there Pal - but he was a Civil Rights advocate before it was fashionable and has served with many non profit organizations.

So far as your statement "I have no idea who Walter William is" -lol- that being the case - you have no business enagaging in a debate pertaining to economics and taxation alongside people much more educated and informed that you apparently are . Walter Williams is one of the leading economists in America - respected by both left and right wings - oh yes - and guess what Pally boy -it gets even better - just so you can't accuse him of being an "angry old white man" see the image below .

That man is brilliant. If we had listened to him more than Krugman over the years, we would be in a much better place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has failed, so let's get out there today, you workers, and make some money.

We retirees will enjoy our day doing the neat things you will do when you retire.

 

[bripat9643]

The OP has failed, so let's get out there today, you workers, and make some money.

We retirees will enjoy our day doing the neat things you will do when you retire.

Yeah, like sucking off the swag stolen from taxpayers.

 

[LiberalMedia]

No one is as stupid as you are pretending to be. Taxes are always collected by force, that is the only way the government can collect them. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing any government that does not take action against people who refuse to pay taxes.

If taxes are "always collected by force," because "that is the only way the government can collect them," then you should have no problem in producing a mountain of cases where federal agents armed with guns have attacked a non-compliant taxpayer in an attempt to collect. Strangely, I have yet to see a SINGLE case where this has happened, and you and the rest of your paranoid Internet libertarians have failed to post any evidence of even one such instance occurring, despite my repeated requests for it.

That was funny.

Perhaps you should inform the NYT that this never happened.

3 Businessmen Testify of Armed Raids by I.R.S. - NYTimes.com

Really? 3 alleged incidents from the 90's are all you can come up with? You'll have to do better than that, conspiratard.

If you'd actually bothered to read your article, you'd know that only two of those three raids were said to have involved "armed agents"; in the detailed summaries of the case presented further down in the article, and not just the first few lines of yellow journalism that conspiratards like to read, it never states that the armed agents were with the IRS. It says that IRS agents were there, but they are not stated to have been armed themselves.

The IRS agents were, however, accompanied by drug-sniffing dogs--who were more than likely being handled not by some pencil-pushers from the IRS, but by police officers or federal drug agents. The armed law enforcement officers were there because they were investigating--and I quote from your article--claims of "money laundering, gunrunning and drug dealing", claims at least partially substantiated by the raids turning up "a fairly sizable quantity of marijuana".

They were all threatened by guns, just ask them if you don't believe me.

"Those accused drug dealers were abused by the government, just ask the one who was caught with drugs in his home, he'll tell you!" It's ridiculous that you think this is what constitutes a logical, level-headed argument. The claims put forth by those suspected criminals were so absurd, U.S. Senators were publicly mocking them.

The simple fact is that the IRS is sometimes forced to drop cases because the court steps in and reminds them that they are not GOD.

"Sometimes forced" by the courts? No, the IRS drops cases often and completely voluntarily. It openly acknowledges a massive tax gap--the difference between reported income and actual income, representing the amount of taxes left unlevied and uncollected--in the billions of dollars and routinely writes off uncollected amounts.

I am rational, which is why I asked what makes you think I want to fund government. The mere fact that I do not want to fund the government we have is not proof that I am an anarchist, it just proves I object to the system we have now.

Again, when I ask you for more details, you only respond with more evasiveness. Explain your comments more fully. Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?

I did explain my comments, you just failed to grasp the explanation.

You did not explain your comments, not in the least. The shitposting you refer to as your "explanation" was limited to "hurrr u hav no proofs i's a anarchist durr lol umad", which explains nothing about your views at all. You, for whatever reason, have yet to deny being an anarchist, and are limiting your statements to legalistic "no proof, lololol" evasions of the topic at hand. So, for the third time: Why do you "object to the system we have now"? What would you prefer to replace it with?