Getting money from the government is NOT "getting your money back".

[Vessol]

A common thing I hear when people justify the use of FAFSA, or Food Stamps, or any sort of government payback(even Tax 'Refunds') is the simple axiom of "Well, I'm just getting the money that I paid into the system, back."

The simple fact though is that you are not getting your money back, not a penny of it is your money. Of course you cannot expect to get the exact literal money you paid into it back.

Every dollar that is taken from you in taxes is already spent. Not just at the time of collection, but YEARS ago, if not decades ago. The money that is collected now is not near enough to pay for expenditure, thus money is borrowed. That money that was forcefully taken from you, and everyone else, simply goes to pay the interest on that debt; whether it be in the present or future.

So next time you receive any kind of money from the government, don't be thinking that you're simply getting back what was taken from you. Infact, you are stealing from the production of what most likely is the unborn, because they too will be paying the interest on the debt that was creating in order to give you that money.

[noxagol]

No. If you pay in 5000 dollars, and the government gives you 5000, then you got your money back. It's the people that pay in 0 dollars and gets 10,000 back that aren't getting their money back. Those are the people benefiting from the debt and deficits.

[brushfire]

I guess... Like having the cops return your sports car after it's been stolen and taken on a joy ride - you're just getting your car back... Still, its better if they had never taken it to begin with.

[matt0611]

It depends how much money you have given and how much you are taking back.

If you paid 0 and get 10000 in services then you are clearly NOT just getting your money back.
If you pay 10000 and get only 1000 worth of services then yes, that 1000 is you just you getting your money back.

[muzzled dogg]

No. If you pay in 5000 dollars, and the government gives you 5000, then you got your money back. It's the people that pay in 0 dollars and gets 10,000 back that aren't getting their money back. Those are the people benefiting from the debt and deficits.

if you pay in 5000 and the government pays you 5000 and pays some bureaucrat 100 to do the accounting are you one of the people benefiting from the debt and deficit?

[Vessol]

No. If you pay in 5000 dollars, and the government gives you 5000, then you got your money back. It's the people that pay in 0 dollars and gets 10,000 back that aren't getting their money back. Those are the people benefiting from the debt and deficits.

It depends how much money you have given and how much you are taking back.

If you paid 0 and get 10000 in services then you are clearly NOT just getting your money back.
If you pay 10000 and get only 1000 worth of services then yes, that 1000 is you just you getting your money back.

That's 5,000$/1,000$ was already spent years ago though.

The 5,000$/1,000$ you received back is borrowed money.

I'm beginning to wonder if either of you even read my OP and not just the title of the thread.

[kylejack]

A common thing I hear when people justify the use of FAFSA, or Food Stamps, or any sort of government payback(even Tax 'Refunds') is the simple axiom of "Well, I'm just getting the money that I paid into the system, back."

The simple fact though is that you are not getting your money back, not a penny of it is your money. Of course you cannot expect to get the exact literal money you paid into it back.

Every dollar that is taken from you in taxes is already spent. Not just at the time of collection, but YEARS ago, if not decades ago. The money that is collected now is not near enough to pay for expenditure, thus money is borrowed. That money that was forcefully taken from you, and everyone else, simply goes to pay the interest on that debt; whether it be in the present or future.

So next time you receive any kind of money from the government, don't be thinking that you're simply getting back what was taken from you. Infact, you are stealing from the production of what most likely is the unborn, because they too will be paying the interest on the debt that was creating in order to give you that money.
Money is fungible, sir. It doesn't matter if it isn't literally the same dollars. In fact, most money doesn't even exist in physical form and is in fact just an electronic entry in a ledger.

[newbitech]

That's 5,000$/1,000$ was already spent years ago though.

The 5,000$/1,000$ you received back is borrowed money.

I'm beginning to wonder if either of you even read my OP and not just the title of the thread.

Curious, how does that work out if you just don't let them take your money? Is that like ripping off people 20 years ago, or are you simply "passing the buck" ?

[Vessol]

Money is fungible, sir. It doesn't matter if it isn't literally the same dollars. In fact, most money doesn't even exist in physical form and is in fact just an electronic entry in a ledger.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying this: Every dollar collected by the Government was already spent years, if not decades ago. That's why there is a Debt. Any money collected now is simply paying the interest on that debt.


Curious, how does that work out if you just don't let them take your money? Is that like ripping off people 20 years ago, or are you simply "passing the buck" ?

Your money/property is yours to begin with, the government has no claim over it.

What I'm saying is that when you receive any money from the government, EVEN IF you pay more into the system than you take out, you are still not "getting your money back". You're just getting money that was borrowed in order to pay you.

[kylejack]

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying this: Every dollar collected by the Government was already spent years, if not decades ago. That's why there is a Debt. Any money collected now is simply paying the interest on that debt.
Taxation is theft under threat of force. Tax dollars stolen from me are a debt that is owed back to me. I don't care if they pay me with the same dollars or other dollars, but they should return my money to me. The government is a criminal who should give me back my money, and if they have to run up the credit card to do it, that's their problem. Maybe they should stop engaging in expensive wars.

[muzzled dogg]

what about when they cut those stimulus checks?

[matt0611]

That's 5,000$/1,000$ was already spent years ago though.

The 5,000$/1,000$ you received back is borrowed money.

I'm beginning to wonder if either of you even read my OP and not just the title of the thread.

I did read your entire OP. I guess I'm just not following you, sorry.

[brandon]

No. If you pay in 5000 dollars, and the government gives you 5000. But aren't you then using all of the services the government provides for free? I know none of us ever agreed to pay for those services, but if we use them don't we have some responsibility to pay our fair share?

[heavenlyboy34]

A common thing I hear when people justify the use of FAFSA, or Food Stamps, or any sort of government payback(even Tax 'Refunds') is the simple axiom of "Well, I'm just getting the money that I paid into the system, back."

The simple fact though is that you are not getting your money back, not a penny of it is your money. Of course you cannot expect to get the exact literal money you paid into it back.

Every dollar that is taken from you in taxes is already spent. Not just at the time of collection, but YEARS ago, if not decades ago. The money that is collected now is not near enough to pay for expenditure, thus money is borrowed. That money that was forcefully taken from you, and everyone else, simply goes to pay the interest on that debt; whether it be in the present or future.

So next time you receive any kind of money from the government, don't be thinking that you're simply getting back what was taken from you. Infact, you are stealing from the production of what most likely is the unborn, because they too will be paying the interest on the debt that was creating in order to give you that money.
Interesting. So, RP's argument that voting to get $ and goodies for his district to "get the money back" doesn't impress you?

[Vessol]

Taxation is theft under threat of force. Tax dollars stolen from me are a debt that is owed back to me. I don't care if they pay me with the same dollars or other dollars, but they should return my money to me. The government is a criminal who should give me back my money, and if they have to run up the credit card to do it, that's their problem. Maybe they should stop engaging in expensive wars.

I'm not arguing that taxation is not coercive theft.

The fact of the matter though is that they are paying back that 'debt' to you by robbing someone else, usually someone who is not even born yet.


Interesting. So, RP's argument that voting to get $ and goodies for his district to "get the money back" doesn't impress you?

Lol, knew that would be brought up. I even considered adding it to the OP, but I figured that might start a flame war. No, I don't agree with his logic.

[kylejack]

I'm not arguing that taxation is not coercive theft.

The fact of the matter though is that they are paying back that 'debt' to you by robbing someone else, usually someone who is not even born yet.
I am interested in being made whole again. I have not violated the people who were not born yet and have no obligation to them. It isn't my fault that the government robs Peter to pay Paul.

I'm robbed by a criminal. He is caught and the judge orders him to pay me back the money. Will he rob someone else to get the money to pay me? Maybe. Who knows. It's not in my control and I just want to be made whole again.

[Vessol]

But aren't you then using all of the services the government provides for free? I know none of us ever agreed to pay for those services, but if we use them don't we have some responsibility to pay our fair share?

If I buy you a car, deliver it to your driveway, and then tell you that you now have to pay for it..are you obliged to do so?

Then you also have to take into account that all those 'services' that the government provides, they provide through a monopoly. They don't allow competition, therefor you have little choice but to use the services that they offer.


I am interested in being made whole again. I have not violated the people who were not born yet and have no obligation to them. It isn't my fault that the government robs Peter to pay Paul.

I'm robbed by a criminal. He is caught and the judge orders him to pay me back the money. Will he rob someone else to get the money to pay me? Maybe. Who knows. It's not in my control and I just want to be made whole again.

No, but your argument right there gives the moral authority for the government/criminal to steal in order to pay you back.

"I don't care if you steal from others, just give me what is mine back"- Shouts everyone. And thus the looting will always continue.

[matt0611]

I'm not arguing that taxation is not coercive theft.

The fact of the matter though is that they are paying back that 'debt' to you by robbing someone else, usually someone who is not even born yet.



Lol, knew that would be brought up. I even considered adding it to the OP, but I figured that might start a flame war. No, I don't agree with his logic.


But I am not causing any debt if I'm just getting my money back. I am giving them a surplus of funds when you net it out.

I give the government 10000 in taxes, they provide me with 5000 in services, then I take an extra 2000 from them some other way. I'm just getting some of my money back.

I'm not causing any debt on my part. I'm giving the government more money than I'm using in services. Its other people who are taking more money than they are paying.

It nets out for them to making $3000 off of me that year.

[muzzled dogg]

they are paying back that 'debt' to you by robbing someone else, usually someone who is not even born yet

they are paying that debt back to you by borrowing the money.
they hope to one day be able to pay that borrowed money back by stealing it from different people.

[newbitech]

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying this: Every dollar collected by the Government was already spent years, if not decades ago. That's why there is a Debt. Any money collected now is simply paying the interest on that debt.



Your money/property is yours to begin with, the government has no claim over it.

What I'm saying is that when you receive any money from the government, EVEN IF you pay more into the system than you take out, you are still not "getting your money back". You're just getting money that was borrowed in order to pay you.

I see.

Well, I think it would be more clear to just explain that anytime you are paid with fiat, you aren't really getting money, what you are getting is debt. To me this makes a little more sense. So lets say for instance food stamps. I could either buy that with one form of debt, the "cash" in my bank account that represents nothing more than an unfulfilled promise, or I could use food stamps which is basically a new promise that will also go unfulfilled since both of these are backed by the exact same thing.

I think I get what you are saying in the sense that once your "cash" hits the treasury dept, it disappears into past failed promises. Any thing you get from the government in terms of "cash" or something that represents "cash" like food stamps, or credits for medical services, etc, has to be recreated again in the form of future failed promises.

So in essence, my understanding is that there is no current or present tense as far as government and money, its all encapsulated by abject failure with regards to the government defining a monetary system, past, present, or future.

[kylejack]

No, but your argument right there gives the moral authority for the government/criminal to steal in order to pay you back.

"I don't care if you steal from others, just give me what is mine back"- Shouts everyone. And thus the looting will always continue.
Actually, I do care, but have no control over it. I don't understand what you are driving at. What is your call to action, to make no effort to get our money back because the money might come from debt?

[Vessol]

I see.

Well, I think it would be more clear to just explain that anytime you are paid with fiat, you aren't really getting money, what you are getting is debt. To me this makes a little more sense. So lets say for instance food stamps. I could either buy that with one form of debt, the "cash" in my bank account that represents nothing more than an unfulfilled promise, or I could use food stamps which is basically a new promise that will also go unfulfilled since both of these are backed by the exact same thing.

I think I get what you are saying in the sense that once your "cash" hits the treasury dept, it disappears into past failed promises. Any thing you get from the government in terms of "cash" or something that represents "cash" like food stamps, or credits for medical services, etc, has to be recreated again in the form of future failed promises.

So in essence, my understanding is that there is no current or present tense as far as government and money, its all encapsulated by abject failure with regards to the government defining a monetary system, past, present, or future.

Yes, that explains it a little more clearly I'd say.


Actually, I do care, but have no control over it. I don't understand what you are driving at. What is your call to action, to make no effort to get our money back because the money might come from debt?

Essentially, yes. If I find an action morally questionable, I don't partake in it and then make some excuse for doing so.

Edit: Oh and it's not a "might" come from debt. It does come from debt, 100% of it.

[newbitech]

Yes, that explains it a little more clearly I'd say.



Essentially, yes. If I find an action morally questionable, I don't partake in it and then make some excuse for doing so.

Ok, I agree. Cause whatever it is that we get from government, it sure as hell isn't the same thing that we put in to it ;)

[Jake Ralston]

Vessol. Your logic is flawed.

If I steal $1000 from 15 different people I posses a total of $15000.

Say I spend $9000 and that money is gone.

Then I give $1000 back to one of the original 15 people I stole it from.

That persons property has been rightfully given back to him, he is under no obligation to refuse acceptance of his property based on the fact that he is the only one I return it to.

Should that person be concerned that I spent money I stole, and didn't rightfully return it to the other 14 people?

Yes.

But that doesn't mean he should not accept his property.

[kylejack]

Essentially, yes. If I find an action morally questionable, I don't partake in it and then make some excuse for doing so.
Well, I only vote for candidates who vote to balance the budget. Not my fault the other voters are overwhelming me. Why don't you just forward your whole paycheck to the government to help rescue those poor unborn children who don't even exist yet.

[Vessol]

Well, I only vote for candidates who vote to balance the budget. Not my fault the other voters are overwhelming me. Why don't you just forward your whole paycheck to the government to help rescue those poor unborn children who don't even exist yet.

Actions in one's personal life speak louder than marking a ballot.


Vessol. Your logic is flawed.

If I steal $1000 from 15 different people I posses a total of $15000.

Say I spend $9000 and that money is gone.

Then I give $1000 back to one of the original 15 people I stole it from.

That persons property has been rightfully given back to him, he is under no obligation to refuse acceptance of his property based on the fact that he is the only one I return it to.

Should that person be concerned that I spent money I stole, and didn't rightfully return it to the other 14 people?

Yes.

But that doesn't mean he should not accept his property.

Actually the more apt comparison would be.

A man 14 million dollars in debt steals 1,000$ from you in order to pay the interest on his debt. He then feels bad and decides to borrow 1,000$ to give to you and then decides to steal from someone else in order to pay the extra interest over time on that debt that he incurred borrowing to pay you back.

[Voluntary Man]

not gonna argue as to whether you're entitled to $50k worth of goods, services, benefits, and refunds, after having had an equivalent amount stolen through tribute payments...err...taxes. however, I've always been of the mindset that accepting stolen goods from the thief who stole from you just encourages and validates the system, since i don't endorse the system, i can't justify "getting my money back," in the form of benefits and other payoffs from the system.

to put it more simply, though, the system can be starved, by refusing to allow it to feed you; after all, if no one applied for benefits, the system would find it impossible to continue to justify robbing you to pay for programs no one wanted.

i have always subscribed to the idea that the best course of action for the individual is the one that would benefit him most if followed by everyone else. that not enough people follow your course to cause a dent in the system is their fault, not yours. on the other hand, if you wait to act, until everyone else will, the problem with the system is you. do what's right, even when no one else will.

[Vessol]

I've always been of the mindset that accepting stolen goods from the thief who stole from you just encourages and validates the system

Yup.

[MRoCkEd]

Is this semantics or are you saying it's morally wrong to file for a tax refund?

[puppetmaster]

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying this: Every dollar collected by the Government was already spent years, if not decades ago. That's why there is a Debt. Any money collected now is simply paying the interest on that debt.



Your money/property is yours to begin with, the government has no claim over it.

What I'm saying is that when you receive any money from the government, EVEN IF you pay more into the system than you take out, you are still not "getting your money back". You're just getting money that was borrowed in order to pay you.


ok then I am getting my money back that I paid them many years ago.....this thread is strange from you

[RideTheDirt]

If someone in debt stole your wallet, and tried to give it back later, would you refuse it?

By the same logic, anytime someone in debt steals something it is immoral to take back what is yours if it hurts the criminal enitity. If there are not consequences for actions then you are allowing them to rob you while you try to justify the crime.

[gerryb]

Is this semantics or are you saying it's morally wrong to file for a tax refund?

Yes, this is what he is saying.

Not to put words in his mouth, but the response on RP trying to get money back for his district is along those same lines.

Don't write anything off or take any deductions, either.

[Vessol]

If someone in debt stole your wallet, and tried to give it back later, would you refuse it?

By the same logic, anytime someone in debt steals something it is immoral to take back what is yours if it hurts the criminal enitity. If there are not consequences for actions then you are allowing them to rob you while you try to justify the crime.

Again, the more apt comparison would be someone stealing your wallet and then giving someone else's wallet back as compensation. Using your own wallet to give back to someone else they stole a wallet from.


Is this semantics or are you saying it's morally wrong to file for a tax refund?

I'm not arguing on morality basis here, but rather on the fact that you are just not getting your own money back whenever the government gives you money. Any money that goes into the system 100% goes to pay the interest on the debt. Any money that goes out is simply more borrowed money.

[gerryb]

I'm not arguing on morality basis here, but rather on the fact that you are just not getting your own money back whenever the government gives you money. Any money that goes into the system 100% goes to pay the interest on the debt. Any money that goes out is simply more borrowed money.

You do a great disservice to yourself and the movement by making things up.

From wiki
In 2008, $242 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the debt, out of a total tax revenue of $2.5 trillion, or 9.6%. Including non-cash interest accrued primarily for Social Security, interest was $454 billion or 18% of tax revenue.

[Brian4Liberty]

Just to go off on a tangent, if you are employed by the government, are you a thief? If you work for a company that solely does work for the government (a contractor), are you a thief?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[gerryb]

Just to go off on a tangent, if you are employed by the government, are you a thief? If you work for a company that solely does work for the government (a contractor), are you a thief?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I like to think I'm kind of like Robin Hood :D

[amy31416]

Well hell, it's a damn good thing they raised the debt limit, according to the OP's logic. It's also legitimate that they raise taxes massively on everyone, because it's for the debt payments....right? Shit...I can't even defend the argument when I'm being sarcastic.........

[Brian4Liberty]

I like to think I'm kind of like Robin Hood :D

Receiving stolen goods. :D

[gerryb]

Receiving stolen goods. :D

Or more accurately, peaceably taking them back.

[LibertyRevolution]

Your logic is flawed.

If I payed in 45,000 to the government...
And I take 30,000 back....
Then yes I am just taking my money back.

To say my money was spent and thus gone, and now im collecting someone elses money is not a valid point.
All money is debt...

[LibertyEagle]

I think it is rather bizarre to be comparing food stamps to getting a tax refund. With food stamps, one is sucking at the government teat. A tax refund means you overpaid taxes over the year and it is being refunded.

[Xenophage]

OP: This is totally wrong.

If a robber steals $50 from you, and you corner the robber some weeks later and take $50 from him, does it matter to you if the $50 you take were physically the same $50 he took from you? No. Money is money. You'll be satisfied that you 'got your money back.'

If the government steals from you, it doesn't matter where your money went or what it was spent on. You are still owed money. Money is money.

Your primary concern seems to be that the money you are getting back has to be printed or borrowed against future theft, and I can see your point. However, one should note that as long as one does not advocate or advance policies of debt and taxation, one cannot be held morally accountable for the debt and taxation that occurs. I'll give you an example: A criminal organization demands your life. They send hired goons to kill you in your sleep. You, however, being a most honorable defender of the 2nd amendment, are prepared and dispatch the assassins. This criminal organization's mystical code of 'honor' demands that they respect you for your accomplishment and can no longer seek to kill you, but simultaneously they must take *A* life to pay down your 'debt.' So they send assassins now to kill your neighbor instead, and succeed.

Having been fully knowledgeable of the organizations codes and intentions, are you now morally responsible for the murder for your neighbor?

No, of course not. The organization, and the assassins who belong to it, still bears the full weight of moral responsibility.

If the government steals from you, and you are able to get some of it back, they have to seek more money to steal. That's not your fault, as long as you live a life of advocacy against taxation and debt.

[Sentient Void]

Taxation is theft under threat of force. Tax dollars stolen from me are a debt that is owed back to me. I don't care if they pay me with the same dollars or other dollars, but they should return my money to me. The government is a criminal who should give me back my money, and if they have to run up the credit card to do it, that's their problem. Maybe they should stop engaging in expensive wars.

I'm much more in agreement with this than with the OP. I am not entirely convinced of the OP (Vessol) logic here - and we often agree on a lot.

I suppose the ultimate question is this - is it acceptable to accept stolen funds as restitution in payment owed to you?

Either which way, this has interesting logical, moral, philosophical implications. I would say that the relationship between the victim and the perp is between them. The perp owes the victim period, it is not the business of the victim where the money for restitution is retained from. If it is stolen, that is now between the perp and the additonal new victim.

I think the problem here is how we hold the thief (the State) accountable in paying restitution. Currently, we can't - and that's a problem of the monopoly system of the State - but this doesn't change the fact that restitution is owed to us from them, just because it's 'not there'. If the govt/thief goes into debt to pay restitution, that's their problem. Ultimately, they are financially bankrupt and must be liquidated - and we will have to accept the lost money that we will never get back.

If a thief steals money, and when you or your hired defense agency or whatever go to his house to take your money back - is it unjust to take money from him that is stolen from others in order to have your restitution paid? I would say it is not. You are not stealing money from the victim that the thief stole it from - you are taking it back from the thief. The additional victim must also gain restitution somehow from the thief. That's between them and the thief.

And getting back to liquidating the government, those who are the actual thieves - those in congress, the presidency, etc who actually passed legislation and supported these acts, are also the ones to be liquidated and have their property distributed (how and to who I have no clue), and to pay back the rest as owed (and they may never be able to pay back full restitution) - they should all be forced to work for the rest of their lives. They merely used the capital (in the economic definition of 'capital') of the State in order to do the thieving themselves, regardless of the intentions. Much like how a thief uses a gun or a knife as 'capital' in the act of thieving. Individuals act, not anthropomorphisms like 'the state' or 'society', and these individuals must be held accountable.

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying this: Every dollar collected by the Government was already spent years, if not decades ago. That's why there is a Debt. Any money collected now is simply paying the interest on that debt.



Your money/property is yours to begin with, the government has no claim over it.

What I'm saying is that when you receive any money from the government, EVEN IF you pay more into the system than you take out, you are still not "getting your money back". You're just getting money that was borrowed in order to pay you.

I'm pretty sure, since the debt is so out of control, that that money would have been taken anyway. The government doesn't actually need our taxes to pay the debt. It's just a way of keeping us in check. Granted, if they simply did it by printing money, there would be hyper-inflation pretty quickly, but the lifeline of the debt does not depend on us paying into the system. The system will never be satiated, so it's fallacious to act like the government is actually allocating money from one citizen or group of citizens to another. The giant money hole will keep sucking whether or not people pay into it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well, I only vote for candidates who vote to balance the budget. Not my fault the other voters are overwhelming me. Why don't you just forward your whole paycheck to the government to help rescue those poor unborn children who don't even exist yet.

Exactly. I suppose vessol thinks him giving money to the government or not taking from the government is actually going to help people in the future get their money back. IS that right, vessol? Because I hope you know you're wrong. The money hole has no end anymore. Your money will not help people in the future by giving it to the government. However, if the government is giving money back to you, it does help your situation. It is completely morally valid. The only way to prevent the robbing of future people is to abolish the system. There is no other way to prevent them getting robbed. It is not your moral responsibility to return money to the government for this reason. If you're that concerned, you should give the money given back to you to a kid. Maybe then you will feel justified, but leaving it in the government does not help one bit.

[Rael]

I disagree. The game is rigged, but I'm going to play to win. So until the system changes, I'm going to take every government benefit I can to get back as much of what was stolen from me as I can. Only a sucker would actually work and pay taxes to support others if they can get a free ride in this environment.

[amy31416]

I disagree. The game is rigged, but I'm going to play to win. So until the system changes, I'm going to take every government benefit I can to get back as much of what was stolen from me as I can. Only a sucker would actually work and pay taxes to support others if they can get a free ride in this environment.

Yet you criticize endless breadsticks? You got problems, boy.

[PaulConventionWV]

Vessol, here's a better analogy. If a thief in debt steals $50 from you, you then receive $50 of i back for whatever reason. You know that the thief is not trying to pay off his debt to others. Instead, he goes and buys stuff with it for himself. Are you morally obligated to return money to the thief when he's not going to give any of it back? Heck, no. The system demands more money, and NONE of it is going back to the people.

Now, let me ask you another question. After you have received that money, are you morally obligated to return it to the other people the thief stole from? Of course not! It's your fair share. It's not your obligation to worry about what happens to others. It's still the thief that is responsible for his actions. If you give him back the $50 he stole from you, you are encouraging theft more than if you took the money.

Regardless, you are making a lot of assumptions about this thief, such as how he is using the money, and how much of it goes where. The government does not need our money to return the stolen property. However, if it printed more, the value of the returned property would effectively be nullified. The point is that the money is debt, it's not property. You can't blame yourself for what the government does.

[Peace&Freedom]

The key issue is sovereignty, not the result of monetary transfers. There is no positive law making most Americans subject to the income tax. But, those who mistakenly view themselves under the authority of the IRS, are thereafter defined as "conducting a trade or business in the US," legal words of art meaning you are a federal worker or contractee in DC. This creates a conversion of your status from free sovereign to ward of the state. So when the state steals your property, and you consent to its presumed jurisdiction, any money 'refunded' to you is not 'your' money, under the private law of the tax code---you have simply been gifted with the government's money. All your earnings are treated as their money, because you surrendered sovereign ownership of the compensation for your labor or your private profit to the government when you consented to be treated as a federal worker/contractee.

The income tax is enforced (i.e., misapplied to most Americans) as an excise tax on benefits you received from the federal government, which is legally defined as everything you received from any direction (as a presumed federal government worker). So the tax refund system puts you under the teat of the welfare state every bit as much as any other subsidy program, because the system converts your property rights into a government privilege.

[affa]

If I loan you $100, and when I go for my money back you try to claim that money 'no longer exists' because it went to pay a credit card bill you had, we're going to have some serious words.

Just because it's going to pay debt doesn't mean it wasn't taken in the first place.

[Rael]

The key issue is sovereignty, not the result of monetary transfers. There is no positive law making most Americans subject to the income tax.

:rolleyes:

[Peace&Freedom]

Ah, Rael swoops in on cue, offering a derisive smiley as rebuttal. But the OP's and my point stands. :)

[RileyE104]

You're damn right that "getting money from the government is NOT getting your money back" - precisely because I doubt a single taxpaying family in this entire country is "getting back" anything near what the government steals from them each year.

[newbitech]

You're damn right that "getting money from the government is NOT getting your money back" - precisely because I doubt a single taxpaying family in this entire country is "getting back" anything near what the government steals from them each year.

yep even if i got 100% of that money back, look what I had to do to make a buck vs what the government had to do to give me that buck back.

Totally not the same thing. It's an illusion and I think that is what the OP is pointing out to a certain extent, right? So people who know the truth still have a choice, go of food stamps, milk unemployment, take that HAMP mod, etc or not.

I really can't think of any reason not too, unless someone can show how this hurts them. I don't want to hear that the gov't taxes you to pay for that stuff, cause it should be obvious now that the tax that is killing us is not the payroll tax by itself. The harmful "tax" if you want to call it that, is the currency debasement. In other words, the issuance and acceptance of counterfeit money.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ah, Rael swoops in on cue, offering a derisive smiley as rebuttal. But the OP's and my point stands. :)

No, it doesn't. Look at my posts. Does giving money back to the thief help those who were robbed? NO!

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I think it is rather bizarre to be comparing food stamps to getting a tax refund. With food stamps, one is sucking at the government teat. A tax refund means you overpaid taxes over the year and it is being refunded.

Yes, but remember this little maxim:


Welfare is the crutch the government hands you after breaking both your legs

There are plenty of people now on Food Stamps that had their money taken from them. Couldn't they be said to be simply getting it back in whatever form they could?

[PaulConventionWV]

I think it's become apparent that Vessol is wrong on this one.

[Danke]

The key issue is sovereignty, not the result of monetary transfers. There is no positive law making most Americans subject to the income tax. But, those who mistakenly view themselves under the authority of the IRS, are thereafter defined as "conducting a trade or business in the US," legal words of art meaning you are a federal worker or contractee in DC. This creates a conversion of your status from free sovereign to ward of the state. So when the state steals your property, and you consent to its presumed jurisdiction, any money 'refunded' to you is not 'your' money, under the private law of the tax code---you have simply been gifted with the government's money. All your earnings are treated as their money, because you surrendered sovereign ownership of the compensation for your labor or your private profit to the government when you consented to be treated as a federal worker/contractee.

The income tax is enforced (i.e., misapplied to most Americans) as an excise tax on benefits you received from the federal government, which is legally defined as everything you received from any direction (as a presumed federal government worker). So the tax refund system puts you under the teat of the welfare state every bit as much as any other subsidy program, because the system converts your property rights into a government privilege.

Well put Peace&Freedom.

But sadly, I have found most aren't ready for your varsity lever post, hence the :rolleyes: response.

People have been dumbed down on how to read laws. Not understanding common use language is often not used. Terms defined in the laws often have particular meanings different than how we commonly use those words. In the law, precision matters. Constitutional tax clauses, the definition of "capitation" or what the Supreme Court has said about both is essential to know what is taxed. Also, Supreme Court cases are helpful in understanding the statues, especially wrt understanding the Constitutional extent of the Federal Government’s reach and where its jurisdiction begins and ends.

[Pauls' Revere]

No. If you pay in 5000 dollars, and the government gives you 5000, then you got your money back. It's the people that pay in 0 dollars and gets 10,000 back that aren't getting their money back. Those are the people benefiting from the debt and deficits.

Not entirely, if the 5k is taken from me (now) for payments either in the past or future I lose two benefits:

Time value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money

future value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value

[Vessol]

I'll admit that my OP was logically flawed(especially on the interest aspect), however I do still hold that through the acceptance of them 'returning' such funds only continues to validate the system. When you accept food stamps, unemployment, etc; you are making a statement to the Government that there is a demand for such and they will respond in kind to sucking more away from the productive and through inflation.

I think the great mistake many here are making is this general statement "Well, most welfare recipients are just sucking the teat of the government, abusing it, I'm not doing that!". I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of those on welfare say as much, ironically. It's always the other person, you yourself are free of any moral guilt.

I wrote this topic I guess on the moral dilemma that I faced at the time of writing it. I've never accepted any kind of government handout, even for my attendance to community college I paid out of pocket or with scholarships. Recently Hurricane Irene came through and knocked out our power for a week. We lost around 300-400$ worth of food in our fridge and freezer. Unbeknownst to me, my mother decided to apply for emergency food aid and received an EBT card for 514$. The first thing she did when she told me about it was immediately try to make an excuse and rationalize applying for it. Her first excuse being of course: "Well, I'm just getting my money back." To me, it's just validating the system, which is immoral at its core.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'll admit that my OP was logically flawed(especially on the interest aspect), however I do still hold that through the acceptance of them 'returning' such funds only continues to validate the system. When you accept food stamps, unemployment, etc; you are making a statement to the Government that there is a demand for such and they will respond in kind to sucking more away from the productive and through inflation.

I think the great mistake many here are making is this general statement "Well, most welfare recipients are just sucking the teat of the government, abusing it, I'm not doing that!". I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of those on welfare say as much, ironically. It's always the other person, you yourself are free of any moral guilt.

I wrote this topic I guess on the moral dilemma that I faced at the time of writing it. I've never accepted any kind of government handout, even for my attendance to community college I paid out of pocket or with scholarships. Recently Hurricane Irene came through and knocked out our power for a week. We lost around 300-400$ worth of food in our fridge and freezer. Unbeknownst to me, my mother decided to apply for emergency food aid and received an EBT card for 514$. The first thing she did when she told me about it was immediately try to make an excuse and rationalize applying for it. Her first excuse being of course: "Well, I'm just getting my money back." To me, it's just validating the system, which is immoral at its core.

I agree, you are not in fact getting your money back because you have lost time and interest value that the government took from those in the form of a tax. Unless the government reimburses for that lost capital you are still losing and they are laughing. Because as you stated it perpetuates the system of dependency in some shape or form. With that logic whats to stop someone from justifying any other need (real or imagined) that they feel government has the right to take from others and distribute as they see fit. In addition, it goes against the concept of free markets where people (not government) have the right to decide how and why they should spend thier money.

Is it the job of government to feed people? If so, then where's my house?,car?,Job?,Food?, government owes me everything....and someone "else" must pay.

[TexanRudeBoy]

How am I supposed to get the thousands back that I've paid to the Federal government?

What's wrong with accepting unemployment while you look for a new job? Your employer paid you less over your years of service because they had to pay unemployment insurance on your behalf. You had no choice in the matter. If one is ardently searching for a new job, was forced to pay into the system, and is in real need, I see no problem accepting it. I agree the system needs to be dismantled, but as long as its in place and people are forced to pay into it there's nothing wrong with honestly receiving help.

Do some of you also propose its immoral for the needy elderly to accept SS checks? I agree its an immoral system of theft, and that its an obvious Ponzi scheme, but these people were paid less over decades of employment because they had to pay into SS.

[AgentOrange]

to put it more simply, though, the system can be starved, by refusing to allow it to feed you; after all, if no one applied for benefits, the system would find it impossible to continue to justify robbing you to pay for programs no one wanted.


Nice thought, but it doesn't work that way. The less people there are applying for programs, just leaves more money for the government workers administering the program. Knowing government logic, I would expect themselves to give raise taxes so they could give themselves even bigger bonuses, based on the good job they were doing reducing the need for such programs.

Like it or not, very few of us can live "off the grid". Almost all of us are part of the system, whether it be driving on government roads, working at a job for an employer that accepts government money, taking a drug which has been FDA approved with government money, or getting our mail each day which has been paid for with government money. And all of us are paying into the system--income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes--even the poor can't escape the sales tax (short of totally living off the grid).

The system is what it is. We work to change it, but we all have to make choices to do the best we can while we are in the system.

[Seraphim]

I think Vessol's point is that by accepting the USD as it currently is - you are perpetuating what you're trying to fight.

A simple rejection of the USD as it currently stands, is actual change to what needs to be changed.


But I am not causing any debt if I'm just getting my money back. I am giving them a surplus of funds when you net it out.

I give the government 10000 in taxes, they provide me with 5000 in services, then I take an extra 2000 from them some other way. I'm just getting some of my money back.

I'm not causing any debt on my part. I'm giving the government more money than I'm using in services. Its other people who are taking more money than they are paying.

It nets out for them to making $3000 off of me that year.

[Dianne]

A common thing I hear when people justify the use of FAFSA, or Food Stamps, or any sort of government payback(even Tax 'Refunds') is the simple axiom of "Well, I'm just getting the money that I paid into the system, back."

The simple fact though is that you are not getting your money back, not a penny of it is your money. Of course you cannot expect to get the exact literal money you paid into it back.

Every dollar that is taken from you in taxes is already spent. Not just at the time of collection, but YEARS ago, if not decades ago. The money that is collected now is not near enough to pay for expenditure, thus money is borrowed. That money that was forcefully taken from you, and everyone else, simply goes to pay the interest on that debt; whether it be in the present or future.

So next time you receive any kind of money from the government, don't be thinking that you're simply getting back what was taken from you. Infact, you are stealing from the production of what most likely is the unborn, because they too will be paying the interest on the debt that was creating in order to give you that money.

I don't know, I'm getting pretty fed up !!! I've worked for 42 years.. My employers and myself have paid untold amounts in social security, medicare, unemployment for those years. There is Bankster of America welfare, yet I'm being told all the money paid for, and on my behalf is gone?

This is an issue I will break with you all on. The government has not paid me one dime of the money stolen from me over the past 42 years. They are getting ready too though... If they can bail out Bank of America, they certainly can reimburse me for a very smallllllllllllllllllllllllll portion of what they have stolen from me.

[Danke]

I don't know, I'm getting pretty fed up !!! I've worked for 42 years.. My employers and myself have paid untold amounts in social security, medicare, unemployment for those years. There is Bankster of America welfare, yet I'm being told all the money paid for, and on my behalf is gone?

This is an issue I will break with you all on. The government has not paid me one dime of the money stolen from me over the past 42 years. They are getting ready too though... If they can bail out Bank of America, they certainly can reimburse me for a very smallllllllllllllllllllllllll portion of what they have stolen from me.

And this is precisely the point Peace&Freedom was trying to make that so few really understand. You and your "employer" (unwittingly) voluntarily gave it over. It is no longer yours. Ignorance of the laws is no excuse.

[Lothario]

I'll admit that my OP was logically flawed(especially on the interest aspect), however I do still hold that through the acceptance of them 'returning' such funds only continues to validate the system. When you accept food stamps, unemployment, etc; you are making a statement to the Government that there is a demand for such and they will respond in kind to sucking more away from the productive and through inflation.

I think the great mistake many here are making is this general statement "Well, most welfare recipients are just sucking the teat of the government, abusing it, I'm not doing that!". I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of those on welfare say as much, ironically. It's always the other person, you yourself are free of any moral guilt.

I wrote this topic I guess on the moral dilemma that I faced at the time of writing it. I've never accepted any kind of government handout, even for my attendance to community college I paid out of pocket or with scholarships. Recently Hurricane Irene came through and knocked out our power for a week. We lost around 300-400$ worth of food in our fridge and freezer. Unbeknownst to me, my mother decided to apply for emergency food aid and received an EBT card for 514$. The first thing she did when she told me about it was immediately try to make an excuse and rationalize applying for it. Her first excuse being of course: "Well, I'm just getting my money back." To me, it's just validating the system, which is immoral at its core.

The problem with this however, is if a thief steals $5000 from you, and a day later breaks in and places a $5000 plasma purchased with your money in your living room with a note saying 'this is for you' - you would not be wrong to watch the plasma. You could refuse to turn it on, you could place it on the curb saying you don't condone theft and you refuse to accept it based on principle - but ultimately it was your money that bought that plasma. It would not be immoral to use it, even if in doing so you are indirectly furthering this system of theft. Using it could hurt your cause - but then you must decide between using the plasma and thereby minimizing your immediate net loss, or refuse the plasma on principle, viewing the net loss of $5000 a smaller cost than the potential damage done by hurting your cause through the use of the loot. I can't reason that either choice is immoral.

[AgentOrange]

And this is precisely the point Peace&Freedom was trying to make that so few really understand. You and your "employer" (unwittingly) voluntarily gave it over. It is no longer yours. Ignorance of the laws is no excuse.

But its not voluntarily. Regardless of whether the tax codes are legal under the constitution, they are enforced with guns. Short of living off the grid, which most people can't do, people have no choice but to pay taxes or go to jail or be executed if they resist arrest. This is not "voluntary".

[Rael]

But its not voluntarily. Regardless of whether the tax codes are legal under the constitution, they are enforced with guns. Short of living off the grid, which most people can't do, people have no choice but to pay taxes or go to jail or be executed if they resist arrest. This is not "voluntary".

This

[jonhowe]

If you're taxed $100 and given $100, then we the taxpayers are ALL collectively on the hook for the cost of collecting and paying that money, the interest on our debts incurred by not using that money to pay them, etc

[klamath]

Threads like this always identify the hypocrits that rail against the government all the while scooping in the federal money thereby building the stats for the federal agencies that distribute the money. These stats on how many people the agencies are helping are what drives congress to keep funding and expanding them. Every government agency lives and exists off these stats of how many people they are helping and congress won't cut programs that appear to have huge user numbers because those are votes. This attitude contributes more to holding up and expanding the system than all the socialist, neocon, statist voters out there. Love it.
Getting your money back from a thief is more like having a him steal 5000 from you then he proceeds to spend it on hookers and drugs. You catch him and demand your money back and then you knowingly watch him go steal it from someone else but you take the stolen money because you are only "getting your money back".

[kylejack]

Threads like this always identify the hypocrits that rail against the government all the while scooping in the federal money thereby building the stats for the federal agencies that distribute the money. These stats on how many people the agencies are helping are what drives congress to keep funding and expanding them. Every government agency lives and exists off these stats of how many people they are helping and congress won't cut programs that appear to have huge user numbers because those are votes. This attitude contributes more to holding up and expanding the system than all the socialist, neocon, statist voters out there. Love it.
Getting your money back from a thief is more like having a him steal 5000 from you then he proceeds to spend it on hookers and drugs. You catch him and demand your money back and then you knowingly watch him go steal it from someone else but you take the stolen money because you are only "getting your money back".
Maybe I should just let them keep it, then, I'm sure they'll spend it on something important, like another fucking war.