Do you support taxation?

[Iminess]

So Sythe, you didn't get a free public education? You've never driven on a road?
You get what you pay for.

 

[TobyL65]

I think nobody likes paying tax but its a necessary attribute of a fair left wing capitalist society.

 

[Niini]

I think nobody likes paying tax but its a necessary attribute of a fair left wing capitalist society.

Do you know what capitalism is? It does not necessarily have to be linked to a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

So Sythe, you didn't get a free public education? You've never driven on a road?
You get what you pay for.

and what does this mean? Without a government the consumer of these would pay directly to the provider instead of through a convoluted system of government committees and such, hence tehre would be more accountability to the consumer and if anything, the quality of these would rise.

 

So Sythe, you didn't get a free public education? You've never driven on a road?
You get what you pay for.

If you mean they locked me in a room for the first 12 years of my conscious life and treated me like a prisoner and a slave, then yes. I got a "free" "public" "education".

As to the other two inane remarks you made, see my previous posts in this thread, where I repeatedly address such.

I think nobody likes paying tax but its a necessary attribute of a fair left wing capitalist society.

This appears to be a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a "left wing capitalist society", that is like saying a square circle. There is socialism, in which you have a central government bank which prints money, and everything (including human beings) are owned by the state. And there is capitalism, in which you have private property and individual rights. (And there isn't a middle ground, you strictly have one or the other.)

 

[Danzzz]

Infracted, thanks.

That's not what I asked. I asked what my part is, quantitatively and qualitatively, explicitly. You haven't answered. And I put it to you that you cannot answer.

You claim that I owe you something. Fine, what is it exactly that I owe to you, personally?



Not an argument. Why can't these things be paid for voluntarily like food, electricity and internet?

Well if its moral to take money from people who smoke, because they smoke, then why do you need the government to do it? Cut out the middleman.

Do you know someone who smokes? Go and rob them yourself.

Hello again.

You pay tax because it's your social responsibility. Unfortunately from the day you were born you didn't have a choice.

Without tax who would look after the homeless and jobless?
You'd rather them die than you pay tax? (your social responsibility)

Without tax society would be unbalanced, unfair and unhappy.

Paying for health care, private security and every other little thing that tax pays for would be far more expensive than paying tax. If you can't see that your a fool.

The health care system in America is incredibly expensive whereas in the UK where we pay for Nation Insurance it is completely free.

Sorry I didn't include a lot of detail but I'm busy at the moment. I will discuss further later.

 

[Guillaumevdv]

First of all, don’t mind my English, it’s my third language. I’d like to see you speak Dutch.
Every Government/State is different so everything is based on my own situation.

1)

Tax is theft. I don't support theft, therefore I don't support tax.

I can put myself in my sleeping bag. I can put my sleeping bag in my backpack, therefore I can put myself in my backpack.

Maybe you could define “tax” in your first post ?
Why would you state that tax is theft ? The state offers me citizenship along with the Belgian rights and duties (don’t know if this is the right translation) and in return I pay taxes. So I pay my taxes, follow my duties and enjoy my rights.

Don’t you think that a lack of armies/government would result in anarchy/crime. Some rebel armies in Africa pay a rebel a 100$ fee on entrance. So in theory my family could sell everything we own in Belgium go to Africa and build a rebel army existing out of 50 000 mean rebels armed with old Russian Kalashnikovs. How will you prevent me from taking over your village ?

There will always be a hierarchy, don’t you think ?

I agree on the fact you only want the pay the things you need or use, but I suggest you also add the things you might need or use in the future.

Note1: If you don’t like your constitution, why don’t you get another nationality that suits you more. I’m pretty sure people from the Mursi tribe in Ethiopia are not paying any taxes.
Note2: If you can come up with a better structure you’d probably get the Prize in Economic Sciences. Or the Nobel Prize for peace since you are freeing us, slaves.

2)

For example, the big countries as USA, UK has normal taxes, they are not big, but in my country - Lithuania, they are very huge and the salaries are very small.
I support it, but the countries which needs the money should not try to get more money in this way - taxes.

What are you talking about. Lithuania has a tax burden of only 29,9%, placing it at the very bottom of the EU countries. (Average is 39.8%)(Belgium 44%)(UK 36.3%)(lowest: Slovakia 29.4%)
Note: figures are from 2007, source : eurostat
And it’s a good thing your country is lifting huge taxes when it’s poor. Don’t you see it will change your country’s welfare on the long run?
Army -> political stability ->more foreign investors ->more jobs ->etc…
Unless they are corrupt and they are not using that money to develop your country.

 

[apiel06]

Well i think we can all agree that taxes will remain for the rest of, at least, our lifetimes.

Both capitalism and communism could be considered Utopia's. Both are, in these times, impossible. Simply because some humans are dishonest.
So that only leaves something inbetween.


1)We could do it like is done in modesty in some countries that a very very rich person (or small elite) pays for everything, giving them power, turning this one person (or small elite) into a kind of authority.
Positive: no taxes
Negative: one person has the power (but no hassle bout the whole voting stuff)


2)We can all chip in a little bit and have rotating leaders, like is common in most countries.
Positive: no one person has absolute authority and the authority he has in gained by achieving populatiry amoung the people and only for a number of years.
Negative: taxes

3)Alternativly we can have a monarchy that AND we pay taxes AND one person (or a small elite) rules everything.
Positive: No hassle bout chancing leaders every few years and the leader could be a cool guy
Negative: taxes, one person has the power


Personally I'll go with the second option, which does include taxes.
I'm not saying i like taxes, but i deem them necessary and i agree with them.

So yes i do support taxation.
Enjoy,
Apiel06

Jost to make things clear, when i say pay for everything I mean stuff like street lights, roads (and yes council roadmen) and other things that would make it a real PAIN for a private company to do so. (do you want toll gates at every cornor? And having guards by every lamppost sayin: oi pay up to be under this light).

 

You pay tax because it's your social responsibility. Unfortunately from the day you were born you didn't have a choice.

So I was born into slavery?

You're saying there is such a thing as an unchosen positive legal obligation? In otherwords I am owned by someone, or some group of people?

Without tax who would look after the homeless and jobless?

No one looks after those people right now anyway. It surprises me that so many of you think the government gives two shits about the poor and homeless. As evidence of how little they care, have a look at how many poor and homeless there are today.

You'd rather them die than you pay tax? (your social responsibility)

It's got nothing to do with me. The fact of my existing does not obligate me to work as a slave for anyone (or in fact do anything for anyone else).

The only commonality I share with these people is the fact that we both exist in the same time on the same piece of rock flying through space. What factual connection are you drawing upon that would obligate me to support them?

I don't believe in slavery, therefore I don't believe in unchosen positive obligations. You, on the other hand, clearly do.

Also, I'm poor. If by poor you mean can't afford to live in rented accommodation. So why is the government demanding that I pay all this tax to them? If they are so interested in helping the poor, why are they always the first ones along to rob them?

 

I can put myself in my sleeping bag. I can put my sleeping bag in my backpack, therefore I can put myself in my backpack.

Hang on hang on. You're attacking the root of syllogistic reasoning with a fallacy (Equivocation). Aristotle must be turning in his grave.

The contradiction is Equivocation, and that you are trying to invalidate syllogistic reasoning using syllogistic reasoning is a second layer of contradiction.

To remove the equivocation and demonstrate your statement is a fallacy, the term 'sleeping bag' is clarified by adding the implied detail in square brackets:
"I can put myself in a sleeping bag [while it is fully uncompressed]. I can put my [fully compressed] sleeping back in my backpack, therefore I can put myself in my backpack."

Maybe you could define “tax” in your first post ?

I have defined it several times before.

Theft: theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
Taxation: taxation is the legal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.

Why would you state that tax is theft ? The state offers me citizenship along with the Belgian rights and duties (don’t know if this is the right translation) and in return I pay taxes. So I pay my taxes, follow my duties and enjoy my rights.

There's no duty to protect, therefore there are no citizens and there is no state. If you can prove to me that the police have a duty to protect, and that they are responsible if you get hurt due to their lack of presence, then perhaps I might take your "citizenship" argument seriously.

But regardless, if belonging to a body politic is forcibly required by the very same people, at gun point, how can you claim that there is any protection (rights)? If anything I need protection from those people.

Don’t you think that a lack of armies/government would result in anarchy/crime. Some rebel armies in Africa pay a rebel a 100$ fee on entrance. So in theory my family could sell everything we own in Belgium go to Africa and build a rebel army existing out of 50 000 mean rebels armed with old Russian Kalashnikovs. How will you prevent me from taking over your village ?

What prevents it now? All those "nations" in Africa are "countries" by your standard.

If you had 50,000 people you could take over nearly any military base in the world. You could probably take over Alaska.

I don't see your point. To my knowledge the government does not offer protection against the invasion of private armies. What it will do is conscript you and send you to war to kill other conscripts. And to my knowledge no private army greater than about 200 people exists anywhere in the world.

Let's take it to the one person army assault: the home invasion. What does the police offer you as protection to this? Well they prevent you from owning a firearm, so you are a sitting duck. Then they neglect to post policemen near your house, so the burgler has free range. Then they show up after the fact and take a transcript. So the 'service' they offer is reporting. And if they can't protect you on the individual level, how can they protect you collectively?

And I don't see that you've addressed the fact that if the government can (apparently) provide this protection, then a) it could do so on a voluntary basis, and b) a private company could also.

There will always be a hierarchy, don’t you think ?

No, and not an argument.

I agree on the fact you only want the pay the things you need or use, but I suggest you also add the things you might need or use in the future.

I'll pay for them when I need them, and voluntarily.

Note1: If you don’t like your constitution, why don’t you get another nationality that suits you more. I’m pretty sure people from the Mursi tribe in Ethiopia are not paying any taxes.

I didn't sign it, it doesn't apply to me.

 

[Smellex]

So Sythe, you didn't get a free public education? You've never driven on a road?
You get what you pay for.

Maybe Sythe skipped this but let me try explain;


Oh wait, theres not much to explain.

How is paying tax paying for free education and roads?

They use our tax money for other things?

Government advertisements etc.

 

Maybe Sythe skipped this but let me try explain;


Oh wait, theres not much to explain.

How is paying tax paying for free education and roads?

They use our tax money for other things?

Government advertisements etc.

I didn't skip it, it's right here:

If you mean they locked me in a room for the first 12 years of my conscious life and treated me like a prisoner and a slave, then yes. I got a "free" "public" "education".

As to the other two inane remarks you made, see my previous posts in this thread, where I repeatedly address such.

 

[sneaky82]

Well if its moral to take money from people who smoke, because they smoke, then why do you need the government to do it? Cut out the middleman.

Do you know someone who smokes? Go and rob them yourself.

Ok lets daresay we do cut out the government tomorrow the first thing people will do is group together because more people= more power and more safety.Each group will have some kind of leader/leaders and you know have starting of a new government so what did taking that middleman out do, well it just opened a spot for someone new to take its place

 

Ok lets daresay we do cut out the government tomorrow the first thing people will do is group together because more people= more power and more safety.Each group will have some kind of leader/leaders and you know have starting of a new government so what did taking that middleman out do, well it just opened a spot for someone new to take its place

How is this an argument?

I am calling for the abolition of slavery because slavery is immoral. You are saying "if slavery were abolished tomorrow, then slave owners would get together and just own slaves again." This is not an argument; It does not logically follow that slavery is acceptable.

In otherwords the how and the why are different things. Just because you can't conceive of the how, doesn't invalidate the why.

 

[Guillaumevdv]

Hang on hang on. You're attacking the root of syllogistic reasoning with a fallacy (Equivocation). Aristotle must be turning in his grave. .

I started with that fallacy of equivocation (maybe I should have picked another fallacy but that’s not the point) to point out your syllogism is incorrect. In order for the conclusion to be true the premises must be true. Stating tax is theft is not correct.

As is stating we are slaves. A slave is held against its will. Feel free to go away. At the very most you could say we are being exploited. But then again we aren’t really exploited.
Exploitation: exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others.
I could feel mistreated but then again it benefits others as well as myself.
As an economist I strongly believe that paying taxes will resolve in a better welfare for yourself. Unless you have a significantly bigger wage than average.

The contradiction is Equivocation, and that you are trying to invalidate syllogistic reasoning using syllogistic reasoning is a second layer of contradiction.

How can I prove your syllogistic reasoning is invalidate using syllogistic reasoning as you clearly stated I was using a fallacy of equivocation? Are you saying my fallacy is syllogistic reasoning after all ?

What prevents it now? If you had 50,000 people you could take over nearly any military base in the world. You could probably take over Alaska.

Nonsense. Do you really think you can move 50000 people around without being noticed by the agencies/UN/etc ? Let’s say I’d like to take over Belgium. I’m pretty sure I will be in prison/shot down before I reach the strait of Gibraltar. The same with planes I can’t just fly to a country without being noticed.

All those "nations" in Africa are "countries" by your standard.

A country or territory is a geographical area, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity).

Let's take it to the one person army assault: the home invasion. What does the police offer you as protection to this? Well they prevent you from owning a firearm, so you are a sitting duck. Then they neglect to post policemen near your house, so the burgler has free range. Then they show up after the fact and take a transcript. So the 'service' they offer is reporting. And if they can't protect you on the individual level, how can they protect you collectively?

How will it be better when you have a private security force ? It will be the same ….Only difference is that the ceo/cfo/coo/etc will take millions where a minister of justice will take what? 90k a year ?
And are we questioning taxes or your police force ?
In Belgium the police has 3 main tasks:
1. maintenance of public order and security.
2. locating and investigation of offences
3. immediate assistance
And for my means they are succeeding at their tasks.

I'll pay for them when I need them, and voluntarily.

Well let’s say Australia has no army. Because every Australian agrees with you and you don’t need that service at the moment. But what happens if you see me closing in on your borders? (no agencies/un/etc either) You will then be in need of an army, so you will start creating an army, building tanks and security measures 2hours before my attack ?
That’s what I don’t get. You expect things to suddenly be there when you need them and you are only willing to pay for the service they provided when you needed them?

You could say that a private company could take over those services but the cost of an intervention would be enough to get a small family into financial problems. Those families with financial problems will eventually have no other option then starting participating at criminal action in order to survive. This would greaten the security cost. So at the end you are still paying for it.

I didn't sign it, it doesn't apply to me.

Well your parents made that decision for you by giving birth you within your country. By staying in your country/and having an Australian passport you agree with the terms and conditions.

No one looks after those people right now anyway. It surprises me that so many of you think the government gives two shits about the poor and homeless. As evidence of how little they care, have a look at how many poor and homeless there are today.

Not true, in Belgium when you are unemployed you get a minimum wage. Even though it’s not enough to live luxurious it is enough to provide all basic needs. By the way it’s not allowed to be homeless here.

I strongly believe we will end op paying the same if we did it your way. Let’s say we take away that service (rva) that gives the jobless a minimum wage. Why should we care ? Survival of the fittest right?

This would reduce the purchasing power of some markets(inferior good) enough to make businesses go bankrupt this again would mean less purchasing power and at the end could mean you would lose your job.

 

I started with that fallacy of equivocation (maybe I should have picked another fallacy but that’s not the point) to point out your syllogism is incorrect. In order for the conclusion to be true the premises must be true. Stating tax is theft is not correct.

Rubbish. You made that statement as a pathetic attempt to undermine the confidence of the reader in logic.

If you wanted to challenge my premises you would have simply done so.

As is stating we are slaves. A slave is held against its will. Feel free to go away.

Not free to leave. Try leave without permission from the state (a passport).

Nonsense. Do you really think you can move 50000 people around without being noticed by the agencies/UN/etc ? Let’s say I’d like to take over Belgium.

Oh easily. More than 50,000 people pass down most major highways in a single rushhour period.

A country or territory is a geographical area, both in the sense of nation (a cultural entity) and state (a political entity).

So it's a 'geographical area' by your definition. We'll keep that on file for later.

How will it be better when you have a private security force ? It will be the same ….Only difference is that the ceo/cfo/coo/etc will take millions where a minister of justice will take what? 90k a year ?

Well to begin with they won't get my money if I keep getting robbed. They have some incentive to protect me. I'd have a contract with them, and obviously they wouldn't prevent me from owning a firearm. If they did, then I would choose another insurance agency.

You've deliberately neglected to recognise the difference between something forced on people and something voluntarily chosen.

Well let’s say Australia has no army. Because every Australian agrees with you and you don’t need that service at the moment. But what happens if you see me closing in on your borders? (no agencies/un/etc either) You will then be in need of an army, so you will start creating an army, building tanks and security measures 2hours before my attack ?
That’s what I don’t get. You expect things to suddenly be there when you need them and you are only willing to pay for the service they provided when you needed them?

You mean what happens if I see you closing in on this land mass, also called a continent, 99.9999999% of which I do not own? Nothing. Come and stay as long as you like.

I don't need an army, because I don't need to defend it, because it's not my property. All I need to defend is what I own, which, currently, is my own body and a tiny piece of land which I rent rather than own outright.

Further, the criminals doing business as the Australian Defence Force are currently busy killing civilians in Afghanistan. I think I would much prefer not to have anything to do with such people. So even if they offered me their "defense services" free of charge, I would turn them down, because I don't contract with psychopaths.

You could say that a private company could take over those services but the cost of an intervention would be enough to get a small family into financial problems. Those families with financial problems will eventually have no other option then starting participating at criminal action in order to survive. This would greaten the security cost. So at the end you are still paying for it.

That's not an argument. I have not accepted utilitarian ethics, and if you want to debate them then try another thread.

Further, there is a 2% criminal class in this society already made up of the same people you describe, which the "government" seems to do nothing about. What solution have you for that? (The welfare state attempts in the 70's increased it from 2% to 5% of the population, full communism increases it from 2% to 50%.)

I didn't sign it, it doesn't apply to me.

Well your parents made that decision for you by giving birth you within your country.

They never signed a piece of paper called "the constitution" either.

By staying in your country/and having an Australian passport you agree with the terms and conditions.

Oh yes, the famous social contract!
This is the contract whose elements are as follows:
It is a contract with two parties, where only one party gives consent.
It is binding at birth.
And the alleged mechanism by which the second party accepts the agreement is "remaining in their current place of abode."

So let's try it out.
I make one of these contracts with you, you don't need to agree because only I need to agree. And the contract is that you give me 50% of your income for the rest of your life. And this is also binding on all your kids. And if you don't agree then you should move out of your house that you own, where you live, and go live somewhere else.

So when can I expect the first cheque?

Not true, in Belgium when you are unemployed you get a minimum wage. Even though it’s not enough to live luxurious it is enough to provide all basic needs. By the way it’s not allowed to be homeless here.

Takes me about two seconds to find out that the Belgium government neither provides this service nor cares about the homeless:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43868

And isn't it nice of the government to "outlaw being homeless". It's a bit like outlawing finding a job -- fine for everyone who already has a job of course!

I strongly believe we will end op paying the same if we did it your way. Let’s say we take away that service (rva) that gives the jobless a minimum wage. Why should we care ? Survival of the fittest right?

This would reduce the purchasing power of some markets(inferior good) enough to make businesses go bankrupt this again would mean less purchasing power and at the end could mean you would lose your job.

Look you're clearly a communist. You don't see any distinction between earned money and stolen money. You are eager to spend other people's wealth, and frankly all I can say is go fuck yourself. You can't have my money and I'd sooner destroy my own business interests than let the likes of you have it.

The evidence that the government is not your friend is completely obvious. Aside from being the number one cause of unnatural death in the 20th century, it is also the largest criminal money printing, extortion, and theft syndicate in the world.

Give me your metaphysical or legal factual distinction between theft and taxation, please. Because you claimed earlier that these are different things, and I would like to know your "reasoning" behind this statement -- if you have any, that is.

 

[Sara2thespaceman]

no me first.

Put me on the need someone to pay my taxes for me list too. :huh:

 

[Honeo]

I understand your argument and I cannot agree more.

But let me ask you this: How do you expect a country, such as ours, or any country for that matter, to thrive without some sort of taxation program?

 

I understand your argument and I cannot agree more.

But let me ask you this: How do you expect a country, such as ours, or any country for that matter, to thrive without some sort of taxation program?

There's no such thing as a country. The question is also nonsensical.

How do you expect your neighborhood to thrive without the theft of 40% of their property on a year by year basis?

 

[Honeo]

There's no such thing as a country.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Geographically there are countries. The place you reside, your territory, the place where you have citizenship. That's your country.

The question is also nonsensical.

How do you expect your neighborhood to thrive without the theft of 40% of their property on a year by year basis?

Surely it can thrive without taxation! Only if everyone is living under a rock. Do you except people to just "volunteer" to build public roadways, provide national security, etc? The government needs some sort of "income" to run sustainably.

Yes, sorry, our government is corrupt. They do bad things with our tax dollars. But taxation is a necessary evil; unless you can prove that a territory can thrive without taxation.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Geographically there are countries. The place you reside, your territory, the place where you have citizenship. That's your country.

See my other thread:
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=940416

Do you except people to just "volunteer" to build public roadways, provide national security, etc?

What nonsense. I suppose that you think shopping malls, appartment complexes, and salt mines are built by people who just "volunteer". No they are built by people seeking profit, for their own ends, to provide a good or service on a voluntary basis to other human beings. It's what you do virtually every minute of every day of your working life. Do you not recognize it? It's called trading.

But taxation is a necessary evil;

You have yet to prove this statement.

unless you can prove that a territory can thrive without taxation.

I need to prove that a territory (by which I think you mean a group of people) can survive without paying extortion money to criminals?

The demand is ridiculous on its face, but you're also asking me to prove a negative, and shifting the burden of proof in doing so.

What you need to do is prove to me that violence (i.e. "government") can be used to solve complex social problems. Because all I see is death and destruction out of your so called solution.