Tax = theft?

[yjacket]

Taxes can be theft just as someone in an emergency charges exorbitant amounts for good and services to far exceed the value can be seen as theft. 

 

I like a lot of what you say, but I will quibble with the above.  In an emergency situation the actual value of a normal good skyrockets in price, I have no problem with generators in an emergency situation costing 10k a pop.  The free market (if allowed to work) does an amazing job of allocating scare resource.

 

If a price ceiling is put on goods during an emergency, there will be no goods available for use (except on the black market).  And I guarantee if generators are costing 10-20k a pop during an emergency some company is going to move heaven and earth to get those generators in which will eventually drop the price.

 

Price gouging (and really there is no such thing, only the market at work) is a really good thing.

[Vort]

Price gouging (and really there is no such thing, only the market at work) is a really good thing.

 

No. Price gouging is a universally evil thing. Whether it should be legal or not is another issue, but it's certain that there is nothing Godly about price gouging.

[Crypto]

So you're telling me that in a community of 100 people if 51 got together and passed a law that the other 49 should have to pay half of their wages to the other 51 that because it is the "collective will" it is not theft?

 

Lol . . . one can cloak it in all the pretense one wants but at the end of the day it breaks down into collective theft.  I've got a great idea, why don't we invite my next door neighbors over and we'll have a vote on who gets my property.  2 votes outweighs one so by the "collective will" my property now becomes theirs.  

 

It's theft, taking what is rightfully mine and claiming it as theirs! 

You completely ignored the complete argument, your response doesn't address what I said at all.

 

 

 

When a tax levies a greater burden than benefit on a population, If a tax improves the condition of one population at the detriment of another it is tantamount to extortion

[Guest]

Taxes is legalized theft, in fact it is worse than theft.

 

Wow... this is just something else.

 

News Flash.  America is governed by the Rule of Law.  If a cop comes to your house to take your meth lab, it is not theft.

[yjacket]

No. Price gouging is a universally evil thing. Whether it should be legal or not is another issue, but it's certain that there is nothing Godly about price gouging.

No it is not. . . please explain to me how it is evil.

 

The price of a good is determine by 4 factors, the supply of the good, the demand of the good, the supply of money and the demand for money.  That is it.  In an emergency situation, the supply is down, demand is up ergo price must necessarily go up to avoid shortages.  This is basic economics.

 

In an emergency situation the best thing to happen is for prices to skyrocket to tell individuals to bring goods and services into the area.

 

Like I said with generators, if they cost 20k a pop, I guarantee that you will see more generators flood into the area quicker than if they were 500.  Why, basic economics, at 20k a pop the economy is telling people . . .hey we need more generators here, get them over here ASAP.  It is the exact same principle at work that lead to empty shelves in Russian supermarkets and full shelves in the US.

 

It is not evil, it is only evil simply b/c we are taught incorrectly.

[yjacket]

Wow... this is just something else.

 

News Flash.  America is governed by the Rule of Law.  If a cop comes to your house to take your meth lab, it is not theft.

??? Okay, So in american if a law is passed that make dishwashers illegal and then a cop comes into your house and takes your dishwasher its not theft?  No it is still theft, it is legalized theft.

 

I'll say it again, theft is taking what is not yours.  Is the dishwasher the cops? no, is the meth the cops? no. Regardless of whether it is legal who owns it? Certainly not the government, ergo it is theft.

 

Just because we have "Rule of Law" doesn't mean the "Law" cannot be bad.  I assure you the vast majority of the acts committed by Stalin and by Hitler were legal according to the "Rule of Law", it made it no more right.  Rule of Law is simply a cloak to give legitimacy to things that would not otherwise be legitimate.

[yjacket]

You completely ignored the complete argument, your response doesn't address what I said at all.

 

?? Please rephrase.  In one sentence you claim if it is not the will of the majority it is theft and in the other if it helps one group over another it is extortion.  Extortion is simply a subset of theft, extortion is a methodology to commit theft.

 

Wiki

"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Wiki

"the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."

 

There is the classification of theft by extortion, so I'm not quite sure what your complete argument was, b/c they seem to contradict each other.

[yjacket]

Wow... this is just something else.

 

News Flash.  America is governed by the Rule of Law.  If a cop comes to your house to take your meth lab, it is not theft.

 

But if I came into your house and took your meth lab, you'd claim I stole your stuff and if I damaged your house in the process I would be prosecuted for it.  But if the cops do it is is okay?  No, it's still stealing it's just legalized.

[jerome1232]

Sounds like a bunch of anarchist malarky to me.

Perhaps that's dismissive of me.

[The Folk Prophet]

In an emergency situation, the supply is down, demand is up ergo price must necessarily go up to avoid shortages.  This is basic economics.

 

Forgive my lack of understanding of basic economics. But it seems to me that "the supply is down" = "shortages" regardless of the price.

[Just_A_Guy]

Forgive my lack of understanding of basic economics. But it seems to me that "the supply is down" = "shortages" regardless of the price.

The argument, I think, is that gouging ensures efficient distribution of limited resources by ensuring that they wind up in the hands of the parties who need them most (as opposed to, say, hoarders or speculators). There's a certain logic to it; though it strikes me that in a crisis situation, decisions re the allocation of limited resources that have life-or-death ramifications perhaps shouldn't be based on who happened to possess the most money/tradable goods at the beginning of the crisis.

Taxes != American governing body and yes pretty much every single tax is theft. If I don't agree with it or refuse it, I go to jail, my life, my liberty and my property are taken from me without my consent. What else is theft?

By this reasoning, all law is also slavery (since it compels/prohibits action regardless of the consent of the individual so governed, and is enforced by force of arms and ultimately threat of death). I am inclined to disagree, suggesting that as a general principle limitations on conduct and excises on property in the form of taxes, are natural parts of the social contract.

That said, at some point you certainly run the risk of creating a "tyranny of the majority"; and I do think there is a troubling number of voters who perfectly willing to put the golden-egg-laying goose on the chopping block if it means they can dine on foie gras for an evening.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Crypto]

?? Please rephrase.  In one sentence you claim if it is not the will of the majority it is theft and in the other if it helps one group over another it is extortion.  Extortion is simply a subset of theft, extortion is a methodology to commit theft.

 

Wiki

"In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

Wiki

"the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."

 

There is the classification of theft by extortion, so I'm not quite sure what your complete argument was, b/c they seem to contradict each other.

To start, my intended usage of extortion was as a synonym to theft. It wasn't too important to the idea what type of theft I portrayed.  

 

The argument is that taxes can be theft when certain criteria are met, but that not all taxes are theft, since I believe there is nuance. 

 

Government is simply a macro form of a community, and communities exist and thrive to some extent by sharing resources, whether that is land and the food thereon, time, talent, effort, belongings, or money to maintain generally agreed upon societal standards. Such as a tribe where hunters share the hunted food they capture, and get vegetables from what others have gathered, or baskets to hold stuff etc.

 

Modern society is a little more complex and has several generally agreed upon institutions that the society pools resources to maintain, military, police, schools, infrastructure, etc. Whether it is maintained by donation of time, effort, or money. 

 

Taxes is simply the mandated pooling of resources to maintain that society if you wish to benefit from such pooling, It is an exchange or trade. You are not forced to pay taxes, but when residing in a jurisdiction that pooled resources cover there are penalties associated with not paying taxes to offset the benefits, since it would be difficult to prohibit you from benefiting, and act as a deterrent from free loading.  The alternative is to move to a territory without pooled resources (something increasingly difficult in the modern era)

 

Considering no two individuals will exactly align in how they view society should be set up, it is untenable to create a system that fits all.

 

Now if you stated something more similar to the more central the government authority, the less there authority on what should rightfully be regulated at a community or local level I would agree with you.

 

That being said, there are times when taxes are/can be tantamount to theft.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Crypto

[rfburn]

It seems very apparent that income tax is, in fact, theft.
It is theft of your time, your labor, your money.

Sales tax, that is something different.
You have a choice to purchase, or to not purchase an item.
Which then means, you have a choice to pay the tax or not pay the tax.

In income tax, you have no such choice.
It is certainly theft for exactly that reason, the removal of choice.
It is theft in that some of your tax money goes to fund things that you certainly would not fund if you had a choice.

The removal of choice means there is force, or the threat of force.
When force or the threat of force is used to separate yourself, from something that is yours... you have been stolen from.
Even if you would have given that thing voluntarily.

Edited December 11, 2014 by rfburn

[pam]

Income tax pays for our military forces for one thing.  If that's considered theft then steal away.  I'm a huge supporter of our military forces.

[rfburn]

Income tax pays for our military forces for one thing.  If that's considered theft then steal away.  I'm a huge supporter of our military forces.

How did we pay for the military before income tax?

We paid via excise tax, and import duties (though in general, import duties are not wise for the economy).

Why would such a thing not work now?

Of course it would work.

The income tax allowed the Gov to do some very bad things.

It involved the government in your budget.

When the government is involved in your budget, they have a level of control over you that they did not have before.

When the government increases its control over you, you obviously become a little less free.

When you become a little less free, you become a little more dependent.

The income tax made the Gov more powerful in that it had more money to work with.

Have you considered the things the government does with your money?

You support the military, as do I.

But can you think of things the government does with your money that you would rather it did not do?

I can think of countless things the government does with my money that I would rather it did not do.

There are things it does with my money that I in fact consider sinful.

Not to mention, the Gov really does not handle our money in a very wise way.

I could go on, but I won't as I know all to well that on this topic, I can be more than a tad annoying.

Edited December 11, 2014 by rfburn

[FunkyTown]

*munches on popcorn and watches*.

Must be a full moon tonight.

[pam]

Share that popcorn.

[pam]

So rfburn what would you propose we add an excise tax on to fund our military?  We already have it on gas, tobacco, alcohol, tires, phone usage.  

[FunkyTown]

Share that popcorn.

This one time, the gummint man came by my house and he was all breathing my air. Air what was on MY property. I hit that gummint man wif my car.

And they call ME the criminal.

[yjacket]

Sounds like a bunch of anarchist malarky to me.

Perhaps that's dismissive of me.

Hyberbole . . . where did I claim anything about no laws.

[yjacket]

Forgive my lack of understanding of basic economics. But it seems to me that "the supply is down" = "shortages" regardless of the price.

 

Not necessarily.  If the good is truly not available then yes, but price helps allocate scare resources.  If by shortages you mean that not everyone can have what they want then yes there are always shortages and there always will be.  The question is what is the most just way to allocate these resources and to ensure there are more of the scare resource.

 

Let's continue with the generator example.  If price gouging is allowed prior to a big storm the price of generators will start rising in anticipation of the event, this signals to producers of generators to get more of them there for if I'm a business owner and I normally sell them @ 500 a pop and now I can sell them for 1000 a pop, you bet I'm going to start bringing in more.  Now let's say after the storm they are 10k, so the first time around it's going to be crazy.  However after the event and if I'm a smart business man, I'll think hey why don't I keep a couple in reserve to sell at crazy high prices.  People will say, hey I'll buy one ahead of time so I don't have to beg for one.  Now I'm not the only cookie in the cookie jar and other businessmen will thing the same and most likely keep some sort of reserve on hand.  Now the next time the storm hits, the demand will be down (more people will have bought on during normal times) and the supply will be up as more businesses have reserves to sell at insane prices, however now that there are more reserves the prices won't be so high. This cycle will repeat until an equilibrium occurs.  In addition, if I'm a Home Depot and all the sudden I can sell everything for triple the amount, I'll move everything I can just to get supplies to the affected area.

 

And here is another thing, the supplier couldn't sell it @ 10k if no one wanted it at that price.  Someone is willing to pay for it at that price otherwise he'll drop the price. Charging a abnormally high price for something is no more evil than charging a high price for any other good.

 

The exact same forces are at work in everyday life, yet no on complains.  The same forces of life or death are at work (if food were free no one would starve right?). 

[jerome1232]

Hyberbole . . . where did I claim anything about no laws.

You didn't, the stuff you say just goes along with that general line of thinking is all. I've heard the same stuff from extreme libertarians.

[yjacket]

There's a certain logic to it; though it strikes me that in a crisis situation, decisions re the allocation of limited resources that have life-or-death ramifications perhaps shouldn't be based on who happened to possess the most money/tradable goods at the beginning of the crisis.

 

 

It's life or death regardless, that's not the question, the question is how to best ensure that the maximum amount of resources get to people.  Some people are prepared some aren't that is the harsh reality of life.

 

"By this reasoning, all law is also slavery (since it compels/prohibits action regardless of the consent of the individual so governed, and is enforced by force of arms and ultimately threat of death). "

 

No, I don't agree that all law is slavery, I think a significant portion of current law is immoral, unjust and wrong, but certainly not all law.  Laws that protect life, liberty and property are essential.  Natural law is law that is derived from the fact that we exist and that I own myself and that I own what I create.  Laws that ensure that I have the natural right to protect my own life, my own property and my own liberty are essential.

 

"That said, at some point you certainly run the risk of creating a "tyranny of the majority"; and I do think there is a troubling number of voters who perfectly willing to put the golden-egg-laying goose on the chopping block if it means they can dine on foie gras for an evening."

 

Yeap, I certainly agree.  

[yjacket]

You didn't, the stuff you say just goes along with that general line of thinking is all. I've heard the same stuff from extreme libertarians.

 

Okay . . .and you're point is? Have you taken the time to study it, read books, think about it besides just dismissing it out of hand saying "oh that's anarchy" you want no laws total chaos.

[yjacket]

Income tax pays for our military forces for one thing.  If that's considered theft then steal away.  I'm a huge supporter of our military forces.

 

Income tax does not pay for all the military.  The US budget is one big blob, the revenue obtained is not earmarked for specific uses of resources.  Income tax pays about 1/3rd of the military budget, the rest comes from your future you in the form of higher inflation and additional taxes (i.e. US debt that will have to be paid at some point in the future).

 

Up until 1913 the US had no income tax, the government was extremely small, and very limited in power, it could fund itself on things like import taxes vs. income and massive debt.  Individuals had much more freedom in a world we can not possibly comprehend as the federal government was so distant it hardly ever touched your life.

 

We didn't get involved in massive long-standing wars and we didn't have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Edited December 11, 2014 by yjacket