why is it that...

[heavenlyboy34]

RP himself and CFL consider taxation an act of force ("And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you." *from a recent CFL mass email)

but so many RP followers don't? :confused: (I refer to the various debate threads here and elsewhere where RP fans justify taxation)

Thnx,
HB34.

[Joe3113]

http://z.hubpages.com/u/182411_f520.jpg

[Danke]

RP himself and CFL consider taxation an act of force ("And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you." *from a recent CFL mass email)

but so many RP followers don't? :confused: (I refer to the various debate threads here and elsewhere where RP fans justify taxation)

Thnx,
HB34.

When you say "where RP fans justify taxation" are you including both voluntary and involuntary taxes?

[Deborah K]

You're back! *hugs*

[Joe3113]

voluntary taxes?

Examples?

Consumption taxes are not voluntary if that is what you are getting at.

[CCTelander]

There are no voluntary taxes. If it's a tax, it's taken by force.

[Danke]

Examples?

Consumption taxes are not voluntary if that is what you are getting at.

Income tax for one.

[torchbearer]

the state lottery in louisiana is a voluntary tax.

[Joe3113]

Income tax for one.

Income tax is voluntary?

Ok, thats enough jokes for today.


the state lottery in louisiana is a voluntary tax.

No it's not actually.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=249

Please refute Mark Thorton, a professional economist in the Austrian tradition, who was also one of the first to point to the housing bubble years before it collapsed.

[muzzled dogg]

it's a privilege really

[Danke]

Income tax is voluntary?

Ok, thats enough jokes for today.



Why do you suppose it isn't voluntary? In America, not Australia.

[torchbearer]

Income tax is voluntary?

Ok, thats enough jokes for today.



No it's not actually.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=249

Please refute Mark Thorton, a professional economist in the Austrian tradition, who was also one of the first to point to the housing bubble years before it collapsed.

ok, now you are retarded. official. certified, on this day. witnessed by RPFs.
The louisiana lottery is 100% voluntary, and the proceeds go to pay for teachers salaries.
If no one wanted to pay the tax, they don't have to. (hint- that is the voluntary part)
If they want to pay the tax, they get the perk of a chance to win financial independence.

So- there is your voluntary tax. The added perk of a lottery really isn't necesary. But it makes it fun.

I'd rather have a proposal form I could pick up once a year for projects at the different government levels, and I could choose to send money at different amounts to different projects.
I'd voluntarily send money for hubble like projects. that chipin would fill up quickly. we'd have a voluntary nasa program.
Just because you have never thought of it- doesn't mean it can't exist.

[Joe3113]

ok, now you are retarded. official. certified, on this day. witnessed by RPFs

This is amusing. Unfortunately, it's obvious you didn't read the article.


The louisiana lottery is 100% voluntary, and the proceeds go to pay for teachers salaries.

If no one wanted to pay the tax, they don't have to. (hint- that is the voluntary part)
If they want to pay the tax, they get the perk of a chance to win financial independence.

So- there is your voluntary tax. The added perk of a lottery really isn't necesary. But it makes it fun.

Hey, if you don't want to pay the income tax, you don't have to. Don't work! SEE it is voluntary! :rolleyes:

So - there is your voluntary tax. The added perk is that you have lots of leisure time, which makes it fun.


From the article you didn't read or refute:
"After an in-depth study of all the evidence on the lottery, I cannot find one positive thing to say about the lottery. The state lottery is a Sheriff of Nottingham policy because, like the character in Robin Hood, it steals from the poor in order to give to the bureaucrats, politicians and the rich.

The state lottery is a tax, which is to say it is forced wealth redistribution. The state takes 35 cents out of every dollar bet on the lottery. It is not a voluntary tax; in fact, there is no such thing. You don’t volunteer to pay this tax anymore than you volunteer to pay the tax on bread, beer, or your wages. The government doesn't give you a choice and the only way you can avoid the tax on bread is to not buy bread or the flour used to make bread.

The lottery tax is regressive. It takes a higher percentage of a poor man’s wages than a rich man's. Every study has shown this to be the case and there has not been one published study that contradicts this finding. But that is not all: the lottery is also played more often by poor people and is therefore a highly regressive tax. Rich people can gamble at much better odds in Las Vegas or over the Internet where the payback is 90% rather than the state lottery’s 50%.

Poor people pay the bulk of the lottery tax.

If there are any beneficiaries of the state lottery besides bureaucrats, it is the middle and upper-income classes. The "education" lottery provides scholarships for mediocre high school graduates; however, almost all of this money goes to upper-income families. The program requires all students to apply for federal aid and scholarship programs, so the poor and minorities are funded not by the lottery but by our federal taxes."

[torchbearer]

the lottery tax is voluntary. stupid people pay it. rich and poor.
If you have an argument that states the government should prevent people from being stupid, please post that argument in this thread also.

[CCTelander]

the lottery tax is voluntary. stupid people pay it. rich and poor.
If you have an argument that states the government should prevent people from being stupid, please post that argument in this thread also.

Assuming that the lottery actually covers its own expenses (a BIG assumption based upon the fact that NO OTHER government enterprise has ever managed to do so for any length of time. Amtrack and the Postal Service come to mind), There's still a problem.

Where did the initial start-up funds come from? You know, the funding necessary to establish the bureauocracy to administer it and to purchase or print the initial lots of tickets. In every state I'm aware of that has a lottery, those funds came from general reveue. In other words, they were stolen from taxpayers at gunpoint.

Was that money refunded once the lottery was up and running? Nope. Looks a lot like theft to me. Certainly not voluntary.

I'll grant you that, again assuming that it actually pays its own way, once up and running nobody is forced to buy tickets, and those tickets aren't a necessity of life, but you've still got the above issue to deal with before you can call it a "voluntary" anything.

Then there's the issue of competition. Does the state allow free and open competition in the lottery market? Again, I'm not aware of any state that allows competing lotteries. So its also a monopoly, maintained as such by violently preventing competition.

You're going to have to do a LOT better than this if you intend to convince anyone of the existence of "voluntary taxation."

[newbitech]

This is amusing. Unfortunately, it's obvious you didn't read the article.



Hey, if you don't want to pay the income tax, you don't have to. Don't work! SEE it is voluntary! :rolleyes:

So - there is your voluntary tax. The added perk is that you have lots of leisure time, which makes it fun.
From the article you didn't read or refute:
"After an in-depth study of all the evidence on the lottery, I cannot find one positive thing to say about the lottery. The state lottery is a Sheriff of Nottingham policy because, like the character in Robin Hood, it steals from the poor in order to give to the bureaucrats, politicians and the rich.

The state lottery is a tax, which is to say it is forced wealth redistribution. The state takes 35 cents out of every dollar bet on the lottery. It is not a voluntary tax; in fact, there is no such thing. You don’t volunteer to pay this tax anymore than you volunteer to pay the tax on bread, beer, or your wages. The government doesn't give you a choice and the only way you can avoid the tax on bread is to not buy bread or the flour used to make bread.

The lottery tax is regressive. It takes a higher percentage of a poor man’s wages than a rich man's. Every study has shown this to be the case and there has not been one published study that contradicts this finding. But that is not all: the lottery is also played more often by poor people and is therefore a highly regressive tax. Rich people can gamble at much better odds in Las Vegas or over the Internet where the payback is 90% rather than the state lottery’s 50%.

Poor people pay the bulk of the lottery tax.

If there are any beneficiaries of the state lottery besides bureaucrats, it is the middle and upper-income classes. The "education" lottery provides scholarships for mediocre high school graduates; however, almost all of this money goes to upper-income families. The program requires all students to apply for federal aid and scholarship programs, so the poor and minorities are funded not by the lottery but by our federal taxes."



False, even tho the rolleyes almost had me convinced.

To answer the OP question, you are talking about 2 different understandings or usages of the word force.

When I am being addressed by Ron Paul, I understand that force means implied force. When I am talking to people who I am trying to wake up, force means literal force.

So in a discussion about activism, and when I discuss taxes in terms of political activism rather than in terms of mutual understanding between allies, I don't use the implied force understanding. I use the literal force understanding.

For instance, I had a guy in a black suit come out and hold a gun to my head and say pay up or die. That is literal force and in that understanding, I am not forced to pay taxes.

On the other hand, I have the tax code that is the "legal requirement as a United States Citizen" that compels me to pay taxes with the understanding that by doing so I will be allowed to leverage the vast resources of "the state" in order to run a more profitable enterprise.

So the disconnect I think you are seeing is between people who are actively (as in boots on the ground) trying to change the law in regards to taxes with their understanding (and in some cases first hand) of force as being literal; and between the people who are passively (as in educational/philosophical) trying to change peoples minds and ideas about tax laws with their understanding of force as being implied.

The active people may be fighting in court, or developing systems of income preservation within the current code, serving jail time, holing up in a bunker etc etc. They not only appreciate the implied force understanding but have called the bluff of authority and understand that force to be literal.

This is one reason why I keep saying that the vast majority of people are NOT going to wake up until the crisis we are all in impacts them directly. We can talk to them all they want, but until they actually see the tidal wave towering over them or the fissures in the earth below them, they will choose to remain oblivious.

I agree, there is implied force in taxation. At the same time there is also implied voluntary funding as well, as torch has pointed out. People ARE WILLING to give up a portion of their incomes to taxes VOLUNTARILY and totally ignore, disregard, and scoff at the notion that what they do with there income is forced upon them. That is just a fact of life. I hate it, but until I can have those people understand that, just because they make that choice doesn't mean that I should be punished for choosing something different.

They will never see that as long as I complain about taxes but willingly pay them. They WILL NEVER see that as me being forced until someone actually comes and hauls my ass off to jail.

I hope that gives you an idea of why painting so many activist as hypocrites for not considering taxation and ACT of force may be a little short sighted and narrow minded. Again, that gun being held to your head is imaginary until you actually DO something to make it appear. Yep, its a threat but what do you do when you are threatened? And by a bully no less? What do you do?

[mrsat_98]

the state lottery in louisiana is a voluntary tax.

Get it right ..... its a tax on stupidity.

[torchbearer]

Get it right ..... its a tax on stupidity.

Or a tax only the stupid would pay?
I figure its the same thing.
But not all stupid people play the state lottery, so its more just a voluntary tax stupid people pay, than a tax on stupidity.

[Joe3113]

False, even tho the rolleyes almost had me convinced.

To answer the OP question, you are talking about 2 different understandings or usages of the word force.

When I am being addressed by Ron Paul, I understand that force means implied force. When I am talking to people who I am trying to wake up, force means literal force.

So in a discussion about activism, and when I discuss taxes in terms of political activism rather than in terms of mutual understanding between allies, I don't use the implied force understanding. I use the literal force understanding.

For instance, I had a guy in a black suit come out and hold a gun to my head and say pay up or die. That is literal force and in that understanding, I am not forced to pay taxes.

On the other hand, I have the tax code that is the "legal requirement as a United States Citizen" that compels me to pay taxes with the understanding that by doing so I will be allowed to leverage the vast resources of "the state" in order to run a more profitable enterprise.

So the disconnect I think you are seeing is between people who are actively (as in boots on the ground) trying to change the law in regards to taxes with their understanding (and in some cases first hand) of force as being literal; and between the people who are passively (as in educational/philosophical) trying to change peoples minds and ideas about tax laws with their understanding of force as being implied.

The active people may be fighting in court, or developing systems of income preservation within the current code, serving jail time, holing up in a bunker etc etc. They not only appreciate the implied force understanding but have called the bluff of authority and understand that force to be literal.

This is one reason why I keep saying that the vast majority of people are NOT going to wake up until the crisis we are all in impacts them directly. We can talk to them all they want, but until they actually see the tidal wave towering over them or the fissures in the earth below them, they will choose to remain oblivious.

I agree, there is implied force in taxation. At the same time there is also implied voluntary funding as well, as torch has pointed out. People ARE WILLING to give up a portion of their incomes to taxes VOLUNTARILY and totally ignore, disregard, and scoff at the notion that what they do with there income is forced upon them. That is just a fact of life. I hate it, but until I can have those people understand that, just because they make that choice doesn't mean that I should be punished for choosing something different.

They will never see that as long as I complain about taxes but willingly pay them. They WILL NEVER see that as me being forced until someone actually comes and hauls my ass off to jail.

I hope that gives you an idea of why painting so many activist as hypocrites for not considering taxation and ACT of force may be a little short sighted and narrow minded. Again, that gun being held to your head is imaginary until you actually DO something to make it appear. Yep, its a threat but what do you do when you are threatened? And by a bully no less? What do you do?

Didn't prove it's voluntary. Thanks.

[Icymudpuppy]

Dad always said, "the Lottery is a tax on people who don't understand Mathematics. The mafia used to call it 'the numbers racket'."

I consider it voluntary as I have never been forced to pay for a lottery ticket, and not buying one has no negative effects on my life, liberty, or property, unlike not buying bread which would affect my nutrition, and therefore my life.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Wow! Just think of the possibilities of a "lottery tax" system.

- All government programs would be funded by different lotteries.
- Any money unused by the program would be put into its particular prize fund.
- A list of lotteries would be available with their vital statistics like prizes available, tickets sold/odds of winning, money needed to complete the project, etc.

This way the people who want taxes can pay as much as they want to their pet programs. If an agency wanted more funding for a program, they would have to cut their budget to make sure there was enough prize money available to entice more people to play their lottery.

People would be able to actually "play" the lottery and have some control over their odds.
The added benefit would be that no one would ever be taxed out of his home or business because this system would rely on discretionary spending. Only when the private sector is prosperous, will the government be able to increase its revenue.

Example: In my county, (Goodhue) We do not have the money to complete overpasses for our county roads over a busy national highway, yet a very expensive remodeling of city hall actually passed the county board. In a "lottery tax" system, since the road project is of significant importance for our lives and safety, there would be a significant number of people who would naturally want to put money into that program. If the county commissioners wanted a new city hall, they would need to put more of the lottery revenue toward prizes as the project itself would have little merit. If the project was so terrible that it could not raise the revenue, it would have to be scrapped. (As it is, public outrage did halt the remodeling program.)

I am not thrilled about property taxes, but I do appreciate that I don't have to organize my neighborhood to take care of our local roads. I don't really like the idea of my tax dollars going to indoctrinate other people's troglidites and clog my roads with their big damn school buses, though. I would love to be able to fund one without the other.

Thanks, Torchbearer, the folks on the other end of the big river might be on to something.

[newbitech]

Didn't prove it's voluntary. Thanks.

Conza, er Curly...

my response to you was as follows,


False, even tho the rolleyes almost had me convinced.I highlighted the part of your post that I was addressing. If you are making a claim that in order to avoid the income tax is to not work, prove it.

If you are not making that claim, then you'll need to rephrase your statement regarding the voluntary or involuntary nature of the income tax. Until you prove it, or restate your claim, then I will choose to dismiss your initial unsubstantiated claim and the rest of your claims as propaganda.

As far as me proving whether or not the income tax is voluntary, technically I would need to do is produce one witness who will attest to the fact that they pay their income tax voluntarily. Shouldn't be too hard when 90%+ of the voters in America picked Obama or McCain.

I have no idea who this guy is, but sounds to me like he voluntarily pays his income tax.

YouTube - The AnglÉ™ "On Paying Taxes... And a Pitch!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4tF-OfA8M)

[torchbearer]

Wow! Just think of the possibilities of a "lottery tax" system.

- All government programs would be funded by different lotteries.
- Any money unused by the program would be put into its particular prize fund.
- A list of lotteries would be available with their vital statistics like prizes available, tickets sold/odds of winning, money needed to complete the project, etc.

This way the people who want taxes can pay as much as they want to their pet programs. If an agency wanted more funding for a program, they would have to cut their budget to make sure there was enough prize money available to entice more people to play their lottery.

People would be able to actually "play" the lottery and have some control over their odds.
The added benefit would be that no one would ever be taxed out of his home or business because this system would rely on discretionary spending. Only when the private sector is prosperous, will the government be able to increase its revenue.

Example: In my county, (Goodhue) We do not have the money to complete overpasses for our county roads over a busy national highway, yet a very expensive remodeling of city hall actually passed the county board. In a "lottery tax" system, since the road project is of significant importance for our lives and safety, there would be a significant number of people who would naturally want to put money into that program. If the county commissioners wanted a new city hall, they would need to put more of the lottery revenue toward prizes as the project itself would have little merit. If the project was so terrible that it could not raise the revenue, it would have to be scrapped. (As it is, public outrage did halt the remodeling program.)

I am not thrilled about property taxes, but I do appreciate that I don't have to organize my neighborhood to take care of our local roads. I don't really like the idea of my tax dollars going to indoctrinate other people's troglidites and clog my roads with their big damn school buses, though. I would love to be able to fund one without the other.

Thanks, Torchbearer, the folks on the other end of the big river might be on to something.

I've had other ideas of how to create local governments that are self-sustainable without the need for forced taxes. I have a few ideas for the alexandria area.
One has to do with the waste disposal function the city provides. But i'm not prepared to go into the details of the program just yet.

There are many ways to achieve a voluntary society.

[angelatc]

I

There are many ways to achieve a voluntary society.

In theory, but why has it never happened?

[torchbearer]

In theory, but why has it never happened?

Either there hasn't been someone putting forth the plans, people don't want it, or the people currently in control don't want it, so they use their media outlets to keep the messages of those offering those solutions from getting elected.
Those are my guesses.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanx to everyone who took the time to post a thoughtful answer. ~big hugz!~

[Freedom 4 all]

RP himself and CFL consider taxation an act of force ("And unlike the government, we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you." *from a recent CFL mass email)

but so many RP followers don't? :confused: (I refer to the various debate threads here and elsewhere where RP fans justify taxation)

Thnx,
HB34.

Taxation is defined as the forceful seizure of funds, also known as theft. That statement is nothing short of a matter of fact that not even a Liberal could seriously deny. The question is solely as to whether or nor the ends justify the means.

[BillyDkid]

Assuming we're all adults and do not need to be protected from our own stupidity (or fantasy), no one is compelled to buy lottery tickets. We are compelled/forced to pay a portion of our income to the government. This is not rocket science.

[KCIndy]

No it's not actually.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=249

Please refute Mark Thorton, a professional economist in the Austrian tradition, who was also one of the first to point to the housing bubble years before it collapsed.



From Thornton's article:


After an in-depth study of all the evidence on the lottery, I cannot find one positive thing to say about the lottery. The state lottery is a Sheriff of Nottingham policy because, like the character in Robin Hood, it steals from the poor in order to give to the bureaucrats, politicians and the rich.

The state lottery is a tax, which is to say it is forced wealth redistribution. The state takes 35 cents out of every dollar bet on the lottery. It is not a voluntary tax; in fact, there is no such thing. You don’t volunteer to pay this tax anymore than you volunteer to pay the tax on bread, beer, or your wages. The government doesn't give you a choice and the only way you can avoid the tax on bread is to not buy bread or the flour used to make bread.

Uh... but doesn't Thornton's position here assume that one is forced to buy a lottery ticket, or needs a lottery ticket to live?

People must buy food to live. Personally, I can live a loooong time without a lottery ticket. :D



EDIT: Okay, somehow I missed a whole page of responses where this was already said.... so...
......... nevermind .....

[Joe3113]

Uh... but doesn't Thornton's position here assume that one is forced to buy a lottery ticket, or needs a lottery ticket to live?

No it doesn't assume that at all.


People must buy food to live. Personally, I can live a loooong time without a lottery ticket. :D

No, they must consume resources to live. There are various methods of obtaining it. One method uses voluntary transactions, the other is coercion.

There are non state run raffles and lotteries. The entering is voluntary, but the theft is not.

Would a winner of a state owned lottery prize, would they rather the TOTAL stated prize... or would they rather the 30% less prize which is what they get, because the state stole and taxed most of it?

Huh? Yeah, what winner VOLUNTARILY give up a massive chunk of their winnings?

It's unfortunate folks here cannot think past one logical syllogism.