Proof that Taxation is Slavery

"The Doctrine of Constructive Receipt is a taxation principle that taxes income before that income is actually received. It says that that gross income under a taxpayer's control before it is actually received must be included by the taxpayer in gross income, unless the actual receipt is subject to significant constraints. Therefore according to this doctrine, even if the income is not actually received, the fact that the person could have had it if s/he had simply requested it, means that for all intents and tax purposes, that the person did have it." -- http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-receipt-doctrine/

In otherwords, you are liable to pay income tax on your labour (work performed) regardless of whether or not you actually receive money as a result.

This is directly analogous to master-slave relationship from the days of slavery; The labour of the slave is considered the property of the master. As such, any product or value arising from labour is also the property of the master regardless of the slave's compensation. It is at the master's discretion that the slave gets anything to live on for himself.

Why is this important? It differentiates taxation from serial robbery. Serial robbery is where you are repeatedly robbed of your property. But having no property, there is nothing to take. However under Constructive Receipt, you can incur a debt for labour expended whether or not you receive income by it. Or put in more simple terms: someone else directly owns your labour, and therefore you.

 

[Itz Destiny]

gotta show my parents this lol

 

[Aussie_Lad]

Interesting, and if Slavery is a crime here in Australia.
Sythe, I'd pass this on to the Government..

 

[FireZ]

Interesting, and if Slavery is a crime here in Australia.
Sythe, I'd pass this on to the Government..

Passing it on to the very same people that are stealing it from you is going to go around in an endless circle.

 

[blazinfasstt]

just because someone may profit from my work does not make me a slave. i am presumably not doing the work against my will.

I am not subservient to the government.

I am not held in servitude by the government.

this is not slavery, it is exploitation.


Definition of SLAVE
1
: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2
: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3
: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another


Definition of EXPLOIT
transitive verb
1
: to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2
: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Passing it on to the very same people that are stealing it from you is going to go around in an endless circle.

They aren't thieves; they aren't mal-intended people, they are civil servants who too pay taxes and (generally) try to improve the country as well as they can. Also, the best way to "pass this on" is to sue the IRS commissioner. If you can prove that the US courts have consistently ruled in favor of the government over the constitution just to get more money (that the government uses to improve the country, not to buy things for themselves), I'd be impressed and shocked.

@Sythe. Whether you pay them before or after your receive your money, taxes are indeed a form of slavery, not in the legal sense but in the send that you are forced to do it because of the human-created idea of sovereignty.

However, I still subscribe to the Lockean philosophy of natural rights and Hobbes' philosophy of necessary evils due to human's "natural evil" (which actually just boils down to the instinct of self-preservation leading to excessive greed).

I have no issues considering the idea of having no government/privatized government, but nothing I have seen so far has displayed a better system than (what I believe to be) the remarkably amazing one we have now, at least in the US.



Regarding your legal argument about constructive receipts: In the US, you have to receive the item "without limitations" before you pay taxes on it. As demonstrated by cases like Hornung vs Commissioner, the US courts have been favorable to tax payers on this issue.

 

[BARDIA SAEEDI]

i dont think i have a valid say in this as i dont pay tax yet.
but i really do think tax is not slavery.

 

[DragonTails]

"A slave is a person owned by someone and slavery is the state of being under the control of someone where a person is forced to work for another. A slave is considered as a property of another as the one controlling them purchases them or owns them from their birth. In slavery the slave dos not have a right to leave the owner or not work for them. Slavery is a form of forced labor. They do not receive any remuneration for the work they do"
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slavery/
We are not forced to work for anyone. Yes, we need to in order to survive, but according to the law, we are not, by any rights, "ordered" to. The people in most countries are not considered property, but rather, a small part of a greater democracy. In order for this democracy to survive, the citizen must contribute to it in several ways. One, is to pay an income tax to help it function properly. If everyone refused to pay taxes, then the Democracy would fail. There are many others, such as jury duty, and voting, that are required to ensure a fair and equal system.

 

just because someone may profit from my work does not make me a slave. i am presumably not doing the work against my will.

I am not subservient to the government.

I am not held in servitude by the government.

this is not slavery, it is exploitation.

So when you are forced to ask it for permission to say start a business, grow a crop of wheat, or drive an automobile through the thoroughfare, you are not subservient?

And if you cannot leave the "country" so called, without a license from that said same government, you are not held?

And your labour, which you must exercise in order to live, now incurs to you a debt to the government... this is not servitude?

You also have to register your children with the state. You are unquestionably chattel of the state. They literally write the rules which you must follow in your life, and you have no out.

Further they issue reams of credit, the security to which is your labour. This is what treasury bills are.

Definition of SLAVE
1
: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2
: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3
: a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another


Definition of EXPLOIT
transitive verb
1
: to make productive use of : utilize <exploiting your talents> <exploit your opponent's weakness>
2
: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>

I think that it is not worth debating you. The distinction you are attempting to make is nonsensical. Slavery is a form of exploitation.

 

[blazinfasstt]

So when you are forced to ask it for permission to say start a business, grow a crop of wheat, or drive an automobile through the thoroughfare, you are not subservient?

And if you cannot leave the "country" so called, without a license from that said same government, you are not held?

And your labour, which you must exercise in order to live, now incurs to you a debt to the government... this is not servitude?

You also have to register your children with the state. You are unquestionably chattel of the state. They literally write the rules which you must follow in your life, and you have no out.

I think that it not even worth debating you. The distinction you are attempting to make is nonsensical. Slavery is a form of exploitation.

sure slavery is exploitation, that does not make all exploitation slavery

because there are borders to a country we are held within it?
sure, in a way i guess.

you can work under the table. i now many who do.

you do not need to register ur children with the state

you can do so to receive benefits such as schooling

the government being able to deny you these things does not make you subservient to them. this is like saying i am subservient to my friend because, if i wanted to drive his car, i would have to ask.

 

[Root beerpk3]

Ok so I read the thing, and that's not really the reason why Taxation is Slavery, because the money they take from your check you get it back in FOOD STAMPS/HEALTH CARE/EDUCATION/INCOME. But It has been proven though, that Taxation is a way of slavery.
There's a formula that includes all the money invested in HEALTH CARE/FOOD STAMPS/EDUCATION ETC ETC and then adds the yearly amount of cash issued yearly in incomes, subtract that from the amount of money gained in Taxes over a period of 5 years. And they make about 75% profit.

 

[Mr Black]

So when you are forced to ask it for permission to say start a business, grow a crop of wheat, or drive an automobile through the thoroughfare, you are not subservient?

And if you cannot leave the "country" so called, without a license from that said same government, you are not held?

And your labour, which you must exercise in order to live, now incurs to you a debt to the government... this is not servitude?

You also have to register your children with the state. You are unquestionably chattel of the state. They literally write the rules which you must follow in your life, and you have no out.

Further they issue reams of credit, the security to which is your labour. This is what treasury bills are.

I think that it is not worth debating you. The distinction you are attempting to make is nonsensical. Slavery is a form of exploitation.

Addressing the first paragraph ; The government only requires the knowledge that you start a business or grow a crop of wheat so they can properly tax you. As for driving an 'automobile' they require a license for safe driving and to find you if you break any laws. Since they build and own the roads, do they not have the right to do this ? And the tax provided by your 'business' builds your roads and provides many other services such as public schools that our society has come to expect. Not to mention, how would your 'business' make deliveries without roads ?

From crudely judging your paragraph, you seem to favor a libertarian society. I'm sure with the money you make from Sythe.org you could buy a tract of 10 acres or so and start a self-sustainable society, that you would still have to pay land taxes for.

I've always wanted to start a self-sustainable community.

But more to your point, through an extended point taxation may be called slavery; however, with that conclusion you have to ask yourself: Is it really slavery? Does your country not provide you with freedoms ? Programs to better yourself with which these taxes are used. Are you able to appreciate those freedoms ? Is it slavery or is it a trade-off ?


Addressing "And your labour, which you must exercise in order to live". I disagree. What labor does the state make you do ? Working for a living is done by many. Although there are ways around it. I don't claim to know your income or costs to run this site, but I would imagine that it is enough to live off of, and if not enough to supplement other business ventures? Is it not ? What physical labor do you put into it ? besides computing and managing the site of course. Can you call that slavery ? I for one cannot. I guess that comes down to matter of opinion though.

"You also have to register your children with the state. You are unquestionably chattel of the state. They literally write the rules which you must follow in your life, and you have no out."

Assuming you live in the U.S., which I hope you do otherwise my argument is invalid and you are being robbed of your human rights. The U.S. Government does not come give me orders everyday and does not give me an out to laws which I do not approve. I can always become a politician and work to change or start a lobby group, protest what have you.

I look forward to your response. I will be back to check later in the evening.

 

[Honeo]

"The Doctrine of Constructive Receipt is a taxation principle that taxes income before that income is actually received. It says that that gross income under a taxpayer's control before it is actually received must be included by the taxpayer in gross income, unless the actual receipt is subject to significant constraints. Therefore according to this doctrine, even if the income is not actually received, the fact that the person could have had it if s/he had simply requested it, means that for all intents and tax purposes, that the person did have it." -- http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-receipt-doctrine/

In otherwords, you are liable to pay income tax on your labour (work performed) regardless of whether or not you actually receive money as a result.

This is directly analogous to master-slave relationship from the days of slavery; The labour of the slave is considered the property of the master. As such, any product or value arising from labour is also the property of the master regardless of the slave's compensation. It is at the master's discretion that the slave gets anything to live on for himself.

Why is this important? It differentiates taxation from serial robbery. Serial robbery is where you are repeatedly robbed of your property. But having no property, there is nothing to take. However under Constructive Receipt, you can incur a debt for labour expended whether or not you receive income by it. Or put in more simple terms: someone else directly owns your labour, and therefore you.

I apologize for my lack of understanding, but am I correct in saying you believe that taxation is slavery because the government taxes you before you receive your compensation for your work (a.k.a. your salary/pay)?

 

[Trinity19]

"The Doctrine of Constructive Receipt is a taxation principle that taxes income before that income is actually received. It says that that gross income under a taxpayer's control before it is actually received must be included by the taxpayer in gross income, unless the actual receipt is subject to significant constraints. Therefore according to this doctrine, even if the income is not actually received, the fact that the person could have had it if s/he had simply requested it, means that for all intents and tax purposes, that the person did have it." -- http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-receipt-doctrine/

In otherwords, you are liable to pay income tax on your labour (work performed) regardless of whether or not you actually receive money as a result.

This is directly analogous to master-slave relationship from the days of slavery; The labour of the slave is considered the property of the master. As such, any product or value arising from labour is also the property of the master regardless of the slave's compensation. It is at the master's discretion that the slave gets anything to live on for himself.

Why is this important? It differentiates taxation from serial robbery. Serial robbery is where you are repeatedly robbed of your property. But having no property, there is nothing to take. However under Constructive Receipt, you can incur a debt for labour expended whether or not you receive income by it. Or put in more simple terms: someone else directly owns your labour, and therefore you.

There is one flaw with your entire argument and it's this section right here:

“Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given. However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer's control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions.”

The property is available in some fashion, if it is absolutely never received then is will most likely be disputed, however if they have the ability to receive the property/goods/money then why should they not be taxed simply because they never took the time go get it?

 

There is one flaw with your entire argument and it's this section right here:

The property is available in some fashion, if it is absolutely never received then is will most likely be disputed, however if they have the ability to receive the property/goods/money then why should they not be taxed simply because they never took the time go get it?

Your logic is as follows: You have the ability to go out and get a job; that is, a job is available to you. Therefore you should be taxed on your income as if you had a job, because it is available to you, if you were to just go out and take it. Likewise, you have the ability to go out and get a better job, or a better education followed by a better job. You have the capacity to earn $200,000 a year. Therefore you should be taxed as though you earned that much.

I don't understand the clusterfuck of ideas that lead people to bicker that income tax is not slavery. If someone else literally owns your labour, and can dispose of whatever portion of it that he/she pleases regardless of if it realizes actual income, and where refusal on your part means death or incarceration, then that by all accounts is slavery.

 

[stuffs]

This actually makes a lot of sense. I never thought about it this way. Good post.

 

[Trinity19]

Your logic is as follows: You have the ability to go out and get a job; that is, a job is available to you. Therefore you should be taxed on your income as if you had a job, because it is available to you, if you were to just go out and take it. Likewise, you have the ability to go out and get a better job, or a better education followed by a better job. You have the capacity to earn $200,000 a year. Therefore you should be taxed as though you earned that much.

I don't understand the clusterfuck of ideas that lead people to bicker that income tax is not slavery. If someone else literally owns your labour, and can dispose of whatever portion of it that he/she pleases regardless of if it realizes actual income, and where refusal on your part means death or incarceration, then that by all accounts is slavery.

Your analogy would make sense if there weren't other variables preventing you from getting that job.
Yes you have the ability to go out and get that job, however the employers willingness/ability to hire conflicts with that.
If you're an owner of lets say, a painting business, and with the right number of jobs/contracts you could receive well over $500,000 a year. The only problem would be the other side of the spectrum and how willing/able people are to hire you.
When it comes to this particular situation about when your income/property is "available" they are already removing outside influences, if you can absolutely not take possession of it (due to others not yourself) then it is not available to you.

I see what you meant, just I didn't think it was taking outside influences into account.

As to taxation being slavery, eh...thats up to opinion. Although it seems to me that its the same as calling rent for your apartment slavery. You're forced to obviously, but its a beneficial ideal that we all use. If we all decided what we wanted to pay for then nothing would be accomplished and in the end it would just hurt the system.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

Your analogy would make sense if there weren't other variables preventing you from getting that job.
Yes you have the ability to go out and get that job, however the employers willingness/ability to hire conflicts with that.
If you're an owner of lets say, a painting business, and with the right number of jobs/contracts you could receive well over $500,000 a year. The only problem would be the other side of the spectrum and how willing/able people are to hire you.
When it comes to this particular situation about when your income/property is "available" they are already removing outside influences, if you can absolutely not take possession of it (due to others not yourself) then it is not available to you.

I see what you meant, just I didn't think it was taking outside influences into account.

As to taxation being slavery, eh...thats up to opinion. Although it seems to me that its the same as calling rent for your apartment slavery. You're forced to obviously, but its a beneficial ideal that we all use. If we all decided what we wanted to pay for then nothing would be accomplished and in the end it would just hurt the system.

That's a horrible comparison.

Rent is justified, you're paying to live in a property that doesn't belong to you, taxes is not even close to that.

 

[Trinity19]

That's a horrible comparison.

Rent is justified, you're paying to live in a property that doesn't belong to you, taxes is not even close to that.

I think it's a perfect comparison but on a larger scale.

What do you think you're doing with taxes? Just throwing money at them for no purpose what so ever except because they demand it? It has a purpose, you're paying for services/public and private projects/ etc etc. Just like with rent you're paying for a "service". (little bit generalized but let's go with it).

 

I think it's a perfect comparison but on a larger scale.

What do you think you're doing with taxes? Just throwing money at them for no purpose what so ever except because they demand it? It has a purpose, you're paying for services/public and private projects/ etc etc. Just like with rent you're paying for a "service". (little bit generalized but let's go with it).

Even if they did spend it on these things (which there is no evidence to support), does that justify enslaving people? -- Pointing GUNS at them if they don't agree?

By all accounts all that is ever done with tax money is this: they use it and you (your labour) as collateral to borrow 3 - 10 times that amount again, give you back half of what they took originally in the form of police which beat you, harass you while driving, and take your stuff, courts that don't work, and schools which actively braindeaden their students. Don't forget the nonfunctional hospitals with waiting lists longer than the breadlines in Soviet Russia, and several ongoing, grinding, world wars responsible for the majority of unnatural death in the last century.

By all accounts they do a fine fucking job with their blood money.