Is Taxation Slavery?

[Black Dog]

What right does the state have to tell me not to earn capital through my labour? If I stop paying taxes I will be arrested and whipped, beaten, or hamstrung if I resist their unjustified use of force.

He was being sarcastic.

I guess you missed...

If you dont like paying income taxes, stop making an income. - Lord Tammerlain

 

[Black Dog]

Bull****, they're called property taxes.

rof Property taxes are state and local.

 

[Agent Ferris]

I didnt say anything about bartering

You will have to grow all your own food, make your own clothes and provide your own health care. As you would not be providing any food to anyone but your family the USDA wont come down on you either

A) You would still be required to pay property taxes.

B) Why should you not be able to use the crops grown through your own labour to barter for services and goods which you require and what right does the state have to interfere in those private transaction?

 

[Agent Ferris]

No. The government needs an income to support military, public works and roads etc.

All of these can be supplied through voluntary contracts between private citizens and private entities.

 

[Black Dog]

A) You would still be required to pay property taxes.

B) Why should you not be able to use the crops grown through your own labour to barter for services and goods which you require and what right does the state have to interfere in those private transaction?

I guess having roads, police and fire departments etc would be funded by.....?

 

[Agent Ferris]

rof Property taxes are state and local.

And your point? It's still theft even if done at the state and local levels.

 

[Black Dog]

And your point? It's still theft even if done at the state and local levels.

So I guess you expect to have the resources to build your own roads and put out any possible fires etc without the help of the municipality? :lol:

 

[Agent Ferris]

I guess having roads, police and fire departments etc would be funded by.....?

Private police and fire departments and road builders. Rather than being compelled by the state to finance these operations the individual would engage in voluntary contractual agreements for these services.

 

[Jucon]

At the rate of inflation and the drop in wages due to said inflation I would say yes. If the chief accountant of the United States federal government is saying that this is how it will be if the government doesn't change its spending habits then I have nothing to dispute it. He, afterall, handles the books of the country and knows what it takes to keep the government running at its current level.

Apparently you missed this part of your post...

Maybe this year we'll get more ACTUAL conservatives in government who will cut government spending... and maybe in 2012 we'll get a president who will continue this act of cutting government and making it more efficient?

If you want to know if taxes CAN become a form of slavery... then yes, of course they can. But you didn't ask if it CAN... you asked if it IS. 90% taxes is unfair and is enslavement of the tax payers... but you didn't ask that in your poll. You asked if taxation IS...

Start another poll if you want to know the obvious answer to this CAN question.

And quit making rediculous accusations and putting words in people's mouths. It's getting annoying.

 

[Agent Ferris]

So I guess you expect to have the resources to build your own roads and put out any possible fires etc without the help of the municipality? :lol:

No I would if the need arose to use a road expect to pay a fee for the use of the road likewise I would expect to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for the services of private police and fire firms rather than the current system where I am compelled by force to finance the state monopoly on these services which I seldom if ever even use.

 

[Black Dog]

Private police and fire departments and road builders. Rather than being compelled by the state to finance these operations the individual would engage in voluntary contractual agreements for these services.

Yea that would work. LMAO!

Lets see how well that worked anyplace on the earth EVER. Oh it didn't. Hehehehehehe!

In fact the early US Government tried the "no tax" option. It dident work out to well for them either.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Yea that would work. LMAO!

Lets see how well that worked anyplace on the earth EVER. Oh it didn't. Hehehehehehe!

Tell me why wouldn't it work exactly? Are you saying that there would not be a profit to be made from offering these services? Are you suggesting that people would not voluntarily pay for these services?

 

[The_Patriot]

Well if they said it, it must be true. :roll:

Must be since he's the guy that looks at all four books the US government keeps. Do you have access to those books for review? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Excellent, part of the reason I live in Florida. No state tax etc. :mrgreen:

I was referring to the federal level. :roll:

I guess you missed this...

"and we get exactly the government we deserve." - Blackdog

So how is that government working out for you as is your philosophy?

Please point out where I said this or even implied it? That is a lie. Do not put words in my mouth.

Your premise is unrealistic and you conclusion is therefore flawed. So no, it is not slavery.

I am not stupid enough to consider 90% taxes as anything more than fantasy in the next 10 years. Hell even the next 20.

Now lets look at it realistically. If the government took 90% from the top wage earners, the country would collapse very quickly. The rate of job loss and out right civil unrest would not make it any kind of viable option.

By stating that the premise and the conclusion as flawed then you're saying that taxation is not slavery. That is a crock because the ability to control how much money a person has access to means that you have put them into bondage and by failing to pay those taxes results in the loss of your property as well as your freedom. How is that not slavery? Funny, but the top wage earners paid 90% of their taxes between 1932-1954. Where was the vast job loss and civil unrest? It didn't happen much like the civil unrest isn't happening now. The job loss is due to government regulations and interference in the work place. So for 22 years, it was a viable option of taxing people at 90%.

The definition of slavery says, "(Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune". With the government stating that you have to pay x% of your income and the government having absolute power over you to the point that it does control your life, liberty, and fortune this does indeed fall under slavery. To clarify your position, are you saying that when you pay 90% of your income to the government with the failure to pay meaning the loss of your life, liberty, and fortune to said government isn't slavery?

So in this case you are willing to trust the government on nothing more than a hypothetical? I see.

I trust the person that sees the books. Are you willing to trust someone else that doesn't see the books?

 

[Jucon]

Tell me why wouldn't it work exactly? Are you saying that there would not be a profit to be made from offering these services? Are you suggesting that people would not voluntarily pay for these services?

After someone's house burns down... how are they going to pay to fix their house AND pay the firemen? Or if someone can't afford to pay the fireman, should the house just be allowed to burn, potentially starting their neighbor's house on fire?

 

[Black Dog]

Tell me why wouldn't it work exactly? Are you saying that there would not be a profit to be made from offering these services? Are you suggesting that people would not voluntarily pay for these services?

People bitch about having to pay car insurance and you are telling me you honestly believe people would pay for fire departments and road service??? Please, that is just to unrealistic.

Lets not even get into the liability of your neighbors house burning because he did not pay and it ignites something else. That is just one example, their are far to many to list.

 

[Jucon]

Lets not even get into the liability of your neighbors house burning because he did not pay and it ignites something else. That is just one example, their are far to many to list.

Just giving one example, but :agree

 

[The_Patriot]

Apparently you missed this part of your post...

Maybe this year we'll get more ACTUAL conservatives in government who will cut government spending... and maybe in 2012 we'll get a president who will continue this act of cutting government and making it more efficient?

If you want to know if taxes CAN become a form of slavery... then yes, of course they can. But you didn't ask if it CAN... you asked if it IS. 90% taxes is unfair and is enslavement of the tax payers... but you didn't ask that in your poll. You asked if taxation IS...

Start another poll if you want to know the obvious answer to this CAN question.

And quit making rediculous accusations and putting words in people's mouths. It's getting annoying.

A semantics argument and splitting hairs. I'm asking for clarifications on people's position, which isn't putting words in people's mouths.

Yea that would work. LMAO!

Lets see how well that worked anyplace on the earth EVER. Oh it didn't. Hehehehehehe!

In fact the early US Government tried the "no tax" option. It dident work out to well for them either.

It works quite well actually and has for police and fire departments. They also are more efficient. However, the federal government doesn't handle these services, so it's a non-sequitor.

The US government never had a no tax option. It does have a tax option that requires the federal government to tell the people exactly what they are spending the money on and go to the states with hat in hand to collect the tax based on enumeration. To say the least, this put a damper on any growth of the government into areas it didn't belong.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

A semantics argument and splitting hairs. I'm asking for clarifications on people's position, which isn't putting words in people's mouths.



It works quite well actually and has for police and fire departments. They also are more efficient. However, the federal government doesn't handle these services, so it's a non-sequitor.

The US government never had a no tax option. It does have a tax option that requires the federal government to tell the people exactly what they are spending the money on and go to the states with hat in hand to collect the tax based on enumeration. To say the least, this put a damper on any growth of the government into areas it didn't belong.

Only if you decide to pay for police and fire service

I would take the chance of not paying for police service, or fire service

 

[Black Dog]

Must be since he's the guy that looks at all four books the US government keeps. Do you have access to those books for review? Yeah, I didn't think so.

And you do? :lol:

I was referring to the federal level. :roll:

You said nothing about Federal, so yes I am good. :mrgreen:

So how is that government working out for you as is your philosophy?

Yes it is. We get exactly the government we deserve, period.

By stating that the premise and the conclusion as flawed then you're saying that taxation is not slavery.

Yes.

That is a crock because the ability to control how much money a person has access to means that you have put them into bondage and by failing to pay those taxes results in the loss of your property as well as your freedom. How is that not slavery?

What is a crock is you are trying to say that all taxes are slavery, and they are not. The tax levels in the US are far from slavery of any kind. No one is "controlled" by it. We are represented in government, so we are not taxed without representation. So again this is not slavery.

Funny, but the top wage earners paid 90% of their taxes between 1932-1954.

What fantasy book did that come out of?

Where was the vast job loss and civil unrest? It didn't happen much like the civil unrest isn't happening now. The job loss is due to government regulations and interference in the work place. So for 22 years, it was a viable option of taxing people at 90%.

Again what fantasy book is that coming out of?

The definition of slavery says, "(Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune". With the government stating that you have to pay x% of your income and the government having absolute power over you to the point that it does control your life, liberty, and fortune this does indeed fall under slavery. To clarify your position, are you saying that when you pay 90% of your income to the government with the failure to pay meaning the loss of your life, liberty, and fortune to said government isn't slavery?

The government does not control our life, liberty or finance. We pay a portion to help support the services to keep our society running.

Maybe you should have said indentured servitude, lol. Makes about as much sense.

I trust the person that sees the books. Are you willing to trust someone else that doesn't see the books?

Yes I am willing to trust myself and common sense.

 

[Jucon]

It works quite well actually and has for police and fire departments. They also are more efficient. However, the federal government doesn't handle these services, so it's a non-sequitor.

How could a privatized police or fire station station work? And please give an example of where this is true. Thanks! Going to bed. Good night

 

[teamosil]

No. Taxation is just expecting people to do their part to contribute to society. Without it nobody would have any money in the first place. We'd be in a condition like Somalia... Nobody wants that, so we pay our taxes... Although some on the right like to whine about it an awful lot.

 

[Black Dog]

It works quite well actually and has for police and fire departments. They also are more efficient. However, the federal government doesn't handle these services, so it's a non-sequitor.

Oh it has? Please point out a municipality that has or has ever had a "private" police or fire department? And then please post evidence to back this up. :mrgreen:

The US government never had a no tax option. It does have a tax option that requires the federal government to tell the people exactly what they are spending the money on and go to the states with hat in hand to collect the tax based on enumeration. To say the least, this put a damper on any growth of the government into areas it didn't belong.

Wrong...

The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

How could a privatized police or fire station station work? And please give an example of where this is true. Thanks! Going to bed. Good night

It does work in San Fransisco sort of

Patrol Special police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Patrol Special police is a private police force that is active in the United States city of San Francisco. They are not San Francisco Police officers and have no arrest powers.

Patrol Special Police Officers and their Assistants are private police patrol persons. Patrol Special Police Officers receive their appointment from the Police Commission which has oversight responsibility for the entire Patrol Special Police Program.

Patrol Special Police Officers were created under the City Charter and are defined as private police patrol persons who contract to perform police services of a private nature for private persons and businesses within a geographical boundary set forth by the Police Commission

Basically glorified security guards by the looks of it

 

[The_Patriot]

And you do? :lol:

I go by the man that sees them every day.

You said nothing about Federal, so yes I am good. :mrgreen:

I, actually, said in the first post "I would have to say yes since the Congressional Budget Office" which is federal. :mrgreen:

Yes it is. We get exactly the government we deserve, period.

How cynical you are.

Yes.

I'm glad to know that you believe that the government can tax you for up to 100% and it still not be slavery.

What is a crock is you are trying to say that all taxes are slavery, and they are not. The tax levels in the US are far from slavery of any kind. No one is "controlled" by it. We are represented in government, so we are not taxed without representation. So again this is not slavery.

Failure to pay taxes does result in the seizure of property and mandatory prison time. How is that not controlling?

What fantasy book did that come out of?

I give you this table compliments of Historic Tax Rates in the US.

# 1954-1963: 91%
# 1952-1953: 92%
# 1951: 91%
# 1950: 84.36%
# 1948-1949: 82.13%
# 1946-1947: 86.45%
# 1944-1945: 94%
# 1942-1943: 88%
# 1941: 81%
# 1940: 81.1%
# 1936-1939: 79%
# 1932-1935: 63%

Again what fantasy book is that coming out of?

I ask again where was the civil unrest and job loss for when the tax level was at 91% for top earners? You made the statement that there would be job loss and civil unrest when the level reached that high. I asked for you to back up your statement.

The government does not control our life, liberty or finance. We pay a portion to help support the services to keep our society running.

Maybe you should have said indentured servitude, lol. Makes about as much sense.

Are you denying that the government cannot take away your life, liberty, or finance when you fail to pay income taxes? The current tax laws state that the government can seize your property and make you serve mandatory prison terms for failing to pay. This goes for all types of taxes.

Yes I am willing to trust myself and common sense.

I'm glad to know that you do trust yourself.

 

[The_Patriot]

Oh it has? Please point out a municipality that has or has ever had a "private" police or fire department? And then please post evidence to back this up. :mrgreen:

Sure, I can back it up. Here's a source for you.

The kind of police Americans knew in the early nineteenth century was descended from the medieval police of England--a constable and watch system composed of a volunteer night watch, who patrolled the city, and a daytime constable, who supervised the watch and charged fees for his services. Most night watchmen, however, were actually paid substitutes for volunteers and traditionally were drawn from society's unemployables. When Dogberry in Shakespeare's Much Ado about Nothing selects a night constable from among the watchmen, he picks "the most senseless and fit man," whom he orders, "You shall comprehend all vagrom men." As for sleeping on the job, Dogberry offers that he "cannot see how sleeping should offend; only, have a care that your bills [weapons] be not stolen." In this scene, Shakespeare ridiculed the notorious failings of the watch, which persisted through the nineteenth century: they drank, slept, and ran from any sign of danger. And constables were venal, illiterate Dogberries, intervening in crimes only when there was the promise of a good fee. In the United States, similar complaints were voiced about the watch and constables, but cities managed to survive under this loose system until they were quite large. New York had over a half million people before it got a permanent police in 1853, Boston about 175,000 (1859), and Philadelphia about 250,000 (1856).

Wrong...

The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.

Citing the Continental Congress is about as valid as citing the English court when talking about the Congress of the United States. Two different governments there bud since the Continental Congress was a UN style of organization that had little authority. It met only for two years before being dissolved upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the appointment of the Congress of the Confederation. The Congress of the Confederation was dissolved after the Constitution of the United States was ratified and the Congress of the United States was elected. Try using the current government and not one that was dissolved by an act of the states.