Do you support taxation?

Therefore, without the word legal, tax is theft. If you do not give consent, it is theft.
Therefore, I agree with Sythe on this one.

 

No, for the plain reason that it's theft. And just to argue against that it falls under a government's jurisdiction as given in the social contract:

Because the government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to "comply with" the contract, you can't accept it as justification for an action like taxation. So because this agreement is not voluntary, you can't consider the contract or the actions it's trying to justify as legitimate at all.

 

Not true. It's still theft, just theft that the government approves of and enforces.

Taxation is not much different than robbery.

If you don't hand over your money to the government[thieves] then the government[thieves] will punish you[victim] for not complying with their orders.

 

I personally don't support rape, I'm saying if one wishes to rape another, Then really the only thing stopping them from doing so is themselves.

Although I find your point that law is not a function of the government valid they do pay the 'Police' to uphold and enforce the law which we come to abide and follow.
Who shall enforce the laws if not the police?

If everyone took the law into their own hands gangs and large family's would pillage and rape the smaller households for their wealth, Would that be a better world/society.

Cause we know these things happen in such countries, similar to these conditions.

 

If i support the idea of taxtation, why must i pay for your taxes too?

I support the idea of taxtation, which means i support the idea that EVERYONE in the country will pay X amount of dollars based on their income to build public infrastructure for everybody, so why must i pay for your taxes?

 

Again with the insults and such. First off I was answering a question which I tried to pose to you, which you in turn ignored. Secondly I’m not taking a stance, let along disagreeing with you. Cool your jets son, your only serving to promote contempt and emotions in the debate, both of which are unnecessary.

You failed to understand my point however so I’ll outline it carefully. Make sure to read the whole statement and not just the first line however else you may accidently waste some more time typing up an irrelevant paragraph. The whole jist of my posts was to try and look at what would happen under a non government system when the individual is unable to pay for a service. Let’s just examine garbage collection for the sake of this. Under the current local government system I pay a levy to the local council every quarter and one of the services they provide is garbage collection. If for some reason I don’t pay this levy the council will not stop the garbage collection service, else garbage will pile up on the streets, but rather try to acquire this money from me through the courts.

Under a private system I would have any such obligation to pay for a garbage collection service, and the private garbage service would have no obligation to collect the garbage of someone who hasn’t paid for their service. As such if I was unable to afford the service one month they would simply stop collecting my garbage. The solution you proposed for this was to pick up the phone and call for a different private collection service- but what kind of solution is that. If the individual cannot pay for one service a different service won’t come and pick up the rubbish free of charge.

No I’m not a supporter of slavery, neither am I a supporter of jumping to conclusions. I was in fact looking at the opposite of slavery, at the customer provider relationship whereby the customer pays for a service which the provider provides. When the customer is no longer able to afford the service, the provider takes said service away. Doesn’t sound like slavery eh?

Ok so for sex to not be considered rape under the law, consent must be freely given. If consent is not given, it is considered rape. That’s all well and good but that analogy’s links to taxation are tedious at best as the same law that differs between sex and rape through the consideration of consent states that taxation requires no such consent. As such while tax may be compared with theft, and may be considered similar by the cynics out there, they are mutually exclusive concepts; one is the acquisition of assets without consent the other is simply regarded by the law as the acquisition of assets to fund (______).

 

First off when argumentum ad baculum is applied to a legal problem, most of time time it is not considered a fallacy- looking at the wikipedia article it says
"The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum...
If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
You want to avoid going to jail.
Therefore you should not drive while drunk."
Swap driving while drunk with not paying taxes and if anything it further proves my point.

Normally yes but seeing as theft and crime in general are legal concepts we must argue them under the umbrella of the law. I'm in now way claiming that these laws may be just/unjust but when arguing legal concepts the court must be considered an imperfect authority.

No I was arguing that taxation was different because it is simply the taking of property whereby the consent of the individual is completely irrelevent and thus not needed whereby theft is the taking of property without the consent of the individual is not given.

 

did u see this

 

I support taxes, but I think everyone should pay a fair amount, not different for the income.

 

If i support taxation, i support the idea of the government or what you say as the 'thieves' taking money from EVERYONE living in the COUNTRY to build public infrastructure, ensure healthcare, law and order, etc.

Therefore, as i support taxation, i support that everyone pays their own tax based on their income too, including those who do not support taxation but are living in the country.

Imagine without taxation, how would a piece of land with people living on it ( a country ) run well?

Wouldn't only the richer ones survive and prosper, where the poorer ones would suffer? Without taxation, there would be no government, no police force or courts to prosecute criminals. Yes, you could hire protection for private sectors, if only you had the money.

What about those who do not have money to hire protection? And what about those who are powerful, unreasonable and mighty, able to gather a large group of people ( an army ), and will start forcing people into slavery, start raping woman and robbing people out of money.

 

How is that possible?

If i earned $1800, and someone else earned $200 000, and we were to pay the 'fair amount', of let's say $2000, I wouldn't have any money left to survive on.

If the 'fair amount' was $100, would it be enough to actually build anything?

 

Taxation is like the best thing for a country! It is so good until I see the bills and see how much I have to give those -censored- irl newbs.