Taxation is nothing more than theft

[phattonez]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Perhaps you should view it as


You live in an apartment, you are expected to pay rent, you dont pay rent you get evicted.

Or if it is a condo, the condo board which is elected decides on how much the condo fees are, which if you dont pay said condo fees, you can have your wages garnished or the condo foreclosed on. Meaning you get kicked out of the apartment

 

[Wiseone]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

Ya why do we have taxation? I mean without taxation we'd have no government and without government we'd have an anarchy. Congratulations you're an anarchist.

 

[samsmart]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

No, it isn't theft.

You're forgetting what that 50% of everyone's income goes towards for the residents of the apartment. It goes to pay for the power, water, plumbing, maintenance, lawn care, upkeep for the parking garage, parks, and security guards keeping watch.

It's only theft if you get no access or benefit from what the taxes pay for. Because you do get access to services or some benefit to the services the taxes pay for, it isn't theft.

 

[TurtleDude]

Perhaps you should view it as


You live in an apartment, you are expected to pay rent, you dont pay rent you get evicted.

Or if it is a condo, the condo board which is elected decides on how much the condo fees are, which if you dont pay said condo fees, you can have your wages garnished or the condo foreclosed on. Meaning you get kicked out of the apartment

the difference is he pays the same rent as someone else who has the same level apartment

he doesn't pay 6 times more for the same amount of space based on his income.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ya why do we have taxation? I mean without taxation we'd have no government and without government we'd have an anarchy. Congratulations you're an anarchist.

taxation based loosely on what you use is quite proper.

taxation based on what you make is theft to a large extent

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Property is theft

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

the difference is he pays the same rent as someone else who has the same level apartment

he doesn't pay 6 times more for the same amount of space based on his income.

that would be something to bring up to his landlord or condo board then is it not. Or if the condo board is not going to change the dues, he would have the ability to move out of the condo and find somewhere else to live

 

[TurtleDude]

Property is theft

That is hilarious

so if you steal some guy's car and he shoots you you can claim you were merely righting a wrong?

 

[TurtleDude]

that would be something to bring up to his landlord or condo board then is it not. Or if the condo board is not going to change the dues, he would have the ability to move out of the condo and find somewhere else to live

well that is true but it really misses the point I was making and which I know you are smart enough to get

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

well that is true but it really misses the point I was making and which I know you are smart enough to get

I understand your point

You dont like progressive taxation, we all know that.

I doubt that the US will ever get rid of it though

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand your point

You dont like progressive taxation, we all know that.

I doubt that the US will ever get rid of it though

you are probably right

congress in general and the dems in particular gain too much power by buying the votes of the many by promising the many all sorts of goodies paid for by jacking up the taxes on the few percent who already pay most of the taxes

of course if it keeps going many of us will move and the dependent teat sucklers are gonna run out of milk and then the excrement will really hit the fan.

its a house of cards that's gonna fall sooner or later

 

[Deuce]

you are probably right

congress in general and the dems in particular gain too much power by buying the votes of the many by promising the many all sorts of goodies paid for by jacking up the taxes on the few percent who already pay most of the taxes

of course if it keeps going many of us will move and the dependent teat sucklers are gonna run out of milk and then the excrement will really hit the fan.

its a house of cards that's gonna fall sooner or later

Meanwhile, Republicans promise to enact a policy that puts as much money as humanly possible in the hands of the already wealthy. Eventually, that house of cards will fall.

IF ONLY THERE WERE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN TAKING ALL OF SOMEONES MONEY AND TAKING NONE OF IT

 

[TurtleDude]

Meanwhile, Republicans promise to enact a policy that puts as much money as humanly possible in the hands of the already wealthy. Eventually, that house of cards will fall.

IF ONLY THERE WERE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN TAKING ALL OF SOMEONES MONEY AND TAKING NONE OF IT

that is like saying the rules of golf puts way too much money in the hands of the top golf players or the rules of tennis puts most of the grand slalm trophies in the hands of Roger, and Rafa.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

you are probably right

congress in general and the dems in particular gain too much power by buying the votes of the many by promising the many all sorts of goodies paid for by jacking up the taxes on the few percent who already pay most of the taxes

of course if it keeps going many of us will move and the dependent teat sucklers are gonna run out of milk and then the excrement will really hit the fan.

its a house of cards that's gonna fall sooner or later

Republicans wont change it either

Remember all the anti health care bill protests with signs saying keep government away from my medicare, or that pleny of republican voters are on SS now as well

The privatization of SS proposed by GWB would never have gotten passed by either democrats or republicans as the senior vote would have been enraged. Not to mention it would have driven up government debt ( current and near SS collectors would still require SS money).

As for where those opposed to taxation, just where will they go?

The US still has the lowest personal taxes of any major western economy, and I doubt most would feel comfortable moving to an asian country (and most likely not attempt to integrate into that culture.

Even Europe which is making significant cuts to social benifits in most area's will still have a higher level of social welfare programs and taxation in general. Other then some central american countries (Panama, Costa Rica) I dont see where those americans truely upset with the level of taxation in the US will want to go

 

[Bardo]

the difference is he pays the same rent as someone else who has the same level apartment

he doesn't pay 6 times more for the same amount of space based on his income.

That would be true if all of the apartments were equal in size and quality. However, the tenant living in the 1br apartment shouldnt be expected to pay the same rent as someone who lives in the penthouse suite upstairs.

 

[TurtleDude]

That would be true if all of the apartments were equal in size and quality. However, the tenant living in the 1br apartment shouldnt be expected to pay the same rent as someone who lives in the penthouse suite upstairs.

of course that is true

but in our country the rich pay for far more than they get and the bottom 47% pay nothing for what they get in terms of services paid for by income taxes

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

Well... your analogy overlooks one thing. You make the claim that you are taxed %50 yet get nothing back. In all reality if everyone in a building was taxed 50% theyd have all that income redistributed or used for things that benefit the whole building. Unless you're hyper rich you tend to get back what you pay in. Bad analogy. Scratch that the hyper rich probably dont pay as much in taxes proportionally as individual middle income families.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Property is theft

How so, Khayembii?

 

[Wiseone]

Don't argue an analogy, argue the actual issue. Its hard enough making sense out of this complex mess without having to figure out what an apartment is an analogy for.

 

[Deuce]

that is like saying the rules of golf puts way too much money in the hands of the top golf players or the rules of tennis puts most of the grand slalm trophies in the hands of Roger, and Rafa.

No, it's not at all like saying that.

 

[liblady]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

silly, silly , phat.....would your neighbors do that? if so, i think it would be PUNISHMENT.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

How so, Khayembii?

I was just quoting a famous anarchist slogan. But anyways, to the original point, it is obviously not theft based on a legal interpretation, as taxation is legal. As for theft in terms of its strict definition - the taking of your property without your permission - it could or couldn't be. Obviously the argument for taxes is that those funds are used to provide a service that comes back to benefit you, such as the creation of roads and whatnot. Anyways, I'm not really taking a position on this discussion, because frankly I could give two ****s about it, just throwing it out there.

 

[washunut]

of course that is true

but in our country the rich pay for far more than they get and the bottom 47% pay nothing for what they get in terms of services paid for by income taxes

I think it is in the enlightened self-interest of those who do well to have a progressive income tax in the U.S. I say that being one of those who pays a ton more than what I use/get so to speak.

My sense is that capitalism which has served this country very well affords all to achieve quite a bit. However most do not have the skills required to achieve a high income job. So the folks with higher incomes pay more which allows for a safety net for those who do less well. The poor in the U.S. do not live in the squalor of other coutries. I think that is a reason why we have had such stable government which allows for this system to stay in place.

So there may be times when the pendulum swings too far one way or the other, but a progressive system may be best in a capitalist system. Even if we do not like it much being on the side that gets to pay up.

 

[Leo]

"Taxation is the price of civilisation." So said a much wiser man than me. There is not a civilised society on earth which does not employ taxation, and most often progressive taxation.

Taxation provides the infrastructure necessary to the operation of a developed society, and progressive taxation provides the quantum of funds needed, while imposing the least effective cost upon individual members of society.

A man who earns $20,000 a year pays little or no tax under most progressive systems, and a man who earns $10 million may pay anything up to 60% of his income. This sounds ostensibly unfair, but if one examines the effect upon the two individuals, one finds that the first man takes home $20,000, while the second man takes home $4 million. The respective standards of living enabled by these two disparate situations negates any concerns over the 'unfair' treatment of the multi-millionaire. He has contributed much more to the national coffers, but he has not suffered in any way as a result. He may still have his yacht, or his Ferrari, or his Learjet, while the man who takes home $20,000 would be hard pressed to provide food, clothing, and shelter for himself, let alone his family.