Ya'll who call payroll tax stealing.

[tod evans]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

[TruckinMike]

I can add to that --- as a former employer, being forced to pay 1/2 of the employees social securtity (FICA) -- is THEFT. Its a fee over and above the employees withholdings. Gee I wonder why we never here about this? I guess there are too many employees in the world...LoL

...C'est la vie

[MRK]

I can add to that --- as a former employer, being forced to pay 1/2 of the employees social securtity (FICA) -- is THEFT. Its a fee over and above the employees withholdings. Gee I wonder why we never here about this? I guess there are too many employees in the world...LoL

...C'est la vie

Employers are mostly too shy to complain because they would just be called robber barons who should be paying 100% instead of 50%.

[Christian Liberty]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

I'd blame the government more than the employer, but how is this not legalized theft? How can you agree to work for 60% of the salary you agree to work for?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.


How about your employer kicks me 5% of your salary too? They can do that without you ever seeing it. The overhead to deal with that will mean it costs the company a little more, so there will be less to pay employees.

Tax rates change, as well. Inflation drives people into higher tax brackets. Any company you work for has to collect and remit those taxes, so I'd say you don't negotiate that with an employer at all. The % of your income that goes to taxes is pretty much non-negotiable with any employer. Exceptions would be different payment schemes like stocks or options, but those rates are not negotiable with employers either.

It is not so much the FRNs that are stolen. It's the fruit of your labor being paid to someone else.

[erowe1]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

Let's say it wasn't the government. Let's say it was the Mafia. Would you still say it wasn't stealing?

[tod evans]

Government, mafia or man on the moon, you accepted employment under those conditions and you have the "freedom" to walk off the job.

No it's not "right" or "just" or even fair but you have the option of working for yourself.

If you choose to work for XYZ under the conditions spelled out before you made the choice then crying about "theft" is theatrical whining.

If you want to receive X number of FRN's for X amount of labor then strike an agreement with the person/company that you work for. This "withholding" BS doesn't have to be your problem.

If you accept these terms of employment don't whine about it later.

[erowe1]

Government, mafia or man on the moon, you accepted employment under those conditions and you have the "freedom" to walk off the job.

No it's not "right" or "just" or even fair but you have the option of working for yourself.

If you choose to work for XYZ under the conditions spelled out before you made the choice then crying about "theft" is theatrical whining.

If you want to receive X number of FRN's for X amount of labor then strike an agreement with the person/company that you work for. This "withholding" BS doesn't have to be your problem.

If you accept these terms of employment don't whine about it later.

I don't see how any of this means it's not stealing.

You live in conditions where the only way you can work or hire someone without risking subjecting yourself to violence is by giving someone else a cut of the money.

You may accept the terms of a job within those conditions. But the conditions themselves are imposed on you without your consent. That's why it's stealing.

And if you want to use some other criminal label for it, one that's no better than stealing, you can do that. Let's go back to imagining it's the Mafia. If the Mafia did that, what would you call it?

[tod evans]

I don't see how any of this means it's not stealing.

You live in conditions where the only way you can work or hire someone without risking subjecting yourself to violence is by giving someone else a cut of the money.

You may accept the terms of a job within those conditions. But the conditions themselves are imposed on you without your consent. That's why it's stealing.

And if you want to use some other criminal label for it, one that's no better than stealing, you can do that. Let's go back to imagining it's the Mafia. If the Mafia did that, what would you call it?

You have the option of working for yourself.

If you do then there is no "payroll" tax, no withholding, you have a plethora of deductions not available to the person who voluntarily signs a W-2 form.

You also have the option of working strictly for cash and declaring none of it.

Participation in the payroll deduction scheme is strictly voluntary and crying about terms you agree to before hand doesn't make sense.

Heck in this fine country of ours you don't even have to work......Just breed and look pathetic and government will support you off the backs of those who happily sign up to their scheme.

As far as "the conditions themselves are imposed on you without your consent"....Again you have a choice to not work on their turf or to claim some turf of your own and then try to defend it, or even to move to somebody elses turf and work there.

Participation in their scheme is voluntary and if you agree to give up FRN's voluntarily it's not theft.

[kathy88]

Outta rep Tod :)

[presence]

You have the option of working for yourself.

If you do then there is no "payroll" tax, no withholding, you have a plethora of deductions not available to the person who voluntarily signs a W-2 form.


= me

f corporate jobs

[erowe1]

You have the option of working for yourself.

That doesn't change the conditions. I'd still have to either pay taxes or risk being subjected to violence.

If I have to move away, or fight them for my freedom, then participation is not voluntary.

What would you call it if the Mafia did it? If not stealing, then what?

[puppetmaster]

I call income tax stealing. The employer payroll tax is just a facilitator or accomplice under duress.

If working falls under my right to pursue happiness no government has the right to interfere as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's personal rights.

[tod evans]

That doesn't change the conditions. I'd still have to either pay taxes or risk being subjected to violence.

If I have to move away, or fight them for my freedom, then participation is not voluntary.

What would you call it if the Mafia did it? If not stealing, then what?

We're discussing payroll taxes.

If you work for the mafia you don't pay any.

Unlike corporate America the mafia honors its contracts.

If you agree to donate FRN's to the government, the mafia, or ol' Billy Bob in order to work in their factory or on their turf before you go to work how can you twist that into theft? You agreed to it.

[erowe1]

We're discussing payroll taxes.

If you work for the mafia you don't pay any.

Unlike corporate America the mafia honors its contracts.

If you agree to donate FRN's to the government, the mafia, or ol' Billy Bob in order to work in their factory or on their turf before you go to work how can you twist that into theft? You agreed to it.

No, I'm not asking about if you work for the Mafia.

Let's say you work in a store in a neighborhood where the Mafia takes a cut of your salary that you and the store owner agreed on. Failure to cooperate will result in violence against you and the store owner.

What would you call what the Mafia is doing to you and the store owner in that scenario?

[tod evans]

No, I'm not asking about if you work for the Mafia.

Let's say you work in a store in a neighborhood where the Mafia takes a cut of your salary that you and the store owner agreed on. Failure to cooperate will result in violence against you and the store owner.

What would you call what the Mafia is doing to you and the store owner in that scenario?

You agreed to it.

How can it be considered theft if you agreed to it?

[erowe1]

You agreed to it.

How can it be considered theft if you agreed to it?

You seem not to want to answer the question.

[tod evans]

You seem not to want to answer the question.



What would you call what the Mafia is doing to you and the store owner in that scenario?

What the mafia always does, they would be honoring the agreement you reached beforehand.

[erowe1]

What the mafia always does, they would be honoring the agreement you reached beforehand.

Is it a crime?

[tod evans]

Is it a crime?

What?

Agreeing to contractual terms?

[Tod]

agreeing is not the same as agreeing under duress.

[erowe1]

What?

Agreeing to contractual terms?

Yes, under threat of violence, as mentioned in the question, and as happens with payroll taxes.

Is what the Mafia does in the scenario I described in post 15 a crime?

[tod evans]

agreeing is not the same as agreeing under duress.

Why is there "duress", who caused the "duress" and could the duresse avoid duress?

This is circular!

Accept responsibility for your self and your actions.

If you sign a W-2 then buck up and meet the terms of the contract you agreed to, nobody "forced" you to sign the damn thing just as nobody forced you to work for XYZ..

[Sonny Tufts]

You have the option of working for yourself.

If you do then there is no "payroll" tax, no withholding, you have a plethora of deductions not available to the person who voluntarily signs a W-2 form.

You will owe self-employment tax on your net income.


You also have the option of working strictly for cash and declaring none of it.

Yes, you do have the option of being a tax cheat.

[muzzled dogg]

Y'all who were born in the US,
You didn't actually expect to be free, did you?

[tod evans]

Yes, under threat of violence, as mentioned in the question, and as happens with payroll taxes.

Is what the Mafia does in the scenario I described in post 15 a crime?

Answered in post #16.

As to the criminality of the contract you agreed to, that would have to be decided in a courtroom.

Fact of the matter is folks who sign a W-2 don't like it, and who could blame them?

However calling it theft when you voluntarily signed the contract is dishonest.

[Tod]

Tod, do you pay income taxes on your income? Do you pay sales tax on new items you purchase?

[erowe1]

Answered in post #16.

As to the criminality of the contract you agreed to, that would have to be decided in a courtroom.

Fact of the matter is folks who sign a W-2 don't like it, and who could blame them?

However calling it theft when you voluntarily signed the contract is dishonest.

You still haven't answered the question, not in post 16, nor anywhere else.

Is what the Mafia does in the scenario I described in post 15 a crime?

[tod evans]

You still haven't answered the question, not in post 16, nor anywhere else.

Is it a crime?

Is what a crime?

Agreeing to a contract?

[tod evans]

Tod, do you pay income taxes on your income? Do you pay sales tax on new items you purchase?

As little as possible.

[belian78]

I see what he's getting at, wanting everyone to work for themselves or work for cash and 'opt out' of the corporate scheme. The only problem with this, Tod, is that those that are successful working for themselves must also pay 'their fair share' or risk the jackboot of the IRS to kick down their door too. There is no 'opting out' of the tax scheme at this point, the American people can either a.) live with it b.) revolt and overthrow the government or c.) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse.

[erowe1]

I see what he's getting at, wanting everyone to work for themselves or work for cash and 'opt out' of the corporate scheme.

I'm all for that. But it's illegal. It comes with punishments at the hands of the state. He's saying that the state is doing nothing wrong by using violence to impose those conditions on us.

[erowe1]

Is what a crime?

What the Mafia does in post 15.

Is it a crime?

[Tod]

I see what he's getting at, wanting everyone to work for themselves or work for cash and 'opt out' of the corporate scheme. The only problem with this, Tod, is that those that are successful working for themselves must also pay 'their fair share' or risk the jackboot of the IRS to kick down their door too. There is no 'opting out' of the tax scheme at this point, the American people can either a.) live with it b.) revolt and overthrow the government or c.) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse.

Or they can just go to jail. It sounds like Tod is advocating either go to jail or fight to the death.

[Madison320]

Government, mafia or man on the moon, you accepted employment under those conditions and you have the "freedom" to walk off the job.

No it's not "right" or "just" or even fair but you have the option of working for yourself.

If you choose to work for XYZ under the conditions spelled out before you made the choice then crying about "theft" is theatrical whining.

If you want to receive X number of FRN's for X amount of labor then strike an agreement with the person/company that you work for. This "withholding" BS doesn't have to be your problem.

If you accept these terms of employment don't whine about it later.

I can't tell if you're being serious or playing devil's advocate. Obviously people don't freely "choose" to pay the payroll tax when they take a job. There's no "decline" option on the payroll tax.

[oyarde]

I see what he's getting at, wanting everyone to work for themselves or work for cash and 'opt out' of the corporate scheme. The only problem with this, Tod, is that those that are successful working for themselves must also pay 'their fair share' or risk the jackboot of the IRS to kick down their door too. There is no 'opting out' of the tax scheme at this point, the American people can either a.) live with it b.) revolt and overthrow the government or c.) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse.

I used to think it would come to B.) now I am thinking C.) will arrive....

[tod evans]

I see what he's getting at, wanting everyone to work for themselves or work for cash and 'opt out' of the corporate scheme. The only problem with this, Tod, is that those that are successful working for themselves must also pay 'their fair share' or risk the jackboot of the IRS to kick down their door too. There is no 'opting out' of the tax scheme at this point, the American people can either a.) live with it b.) revolt and overthrow the government or c.) wait for the whole house of cards to collapse.

Absolutely!

With self employment a person has the option using their money all year, profiting from or losing some, even investing in inventory to legally not have the money taxed.

Sure you'll still pay taxes but your exposure is less and you have "options".....If you sign a W-2 that's it.

[erowe1]

Absolutely!

With self employment a person has the option using their money all year, profiting from or losing some, even investing in inventory to legally not have the money taxed.

Sure you'll still pay taxes but your exposure is less and you have "options".....If you sign a W-2 that's it.

In my experience, self employment results in paying more taxes.

Yes, it might be avoidable by doing things for cash. But that's still illegal and punishable.

The state does not give us an option of working legally without them punishing us somehow and paying no taxes. For them to do that is a crime.

[tod evans]

What the Mafia does in post 15.

Is it a crime?

You, the store, and the mafia came to an agreement, a contract.

If that contract is "criminal" which member of the three in agreement should be liable for the "crime"?

I do not know if in your mind somebody committed a crime relevant to the contract.....Best I can tell all three of you had the option of not agreeing to it.

[erowe1]

You, the store, and the mafia came to an agreement, a contract.

If that contract is "criminal" which member of the three in agreement should be liable for the "crime"?

I do not know if in your mind somebody committed a crime relevant to the contract.....Best I can tell all three of you had the option of not agreeing to it.

Of course it's a crime. The Mafia is committing a crime there. The Mafia is liable for it.

This is not just in my mind. It's unarguably, objectively, clearly, the case.

The existence of a contract doesn't change that.

[tod evans]

I can't tell if you're being serious or playing devil's advocate. Obviously people don't freely "choose" to pay the payroll tax when they take a job. There's no "decline" option on the payroll tax.

You don't have to work "there" if you don't agree with the terms of employment...

By agreeing to the terms beforehand use of the term "theft" kind of goes out the window.

[tod evans]

Of course it's a crime. The Mafia is committing a crime there. The Mafia is liable for it.

This is not just in my mind. It's unarguably, objectively, clearly, the case.

The existence of a contract doesn't change that.

What "crime" did the mafia commit?

[erowe1]

By agreeing to the terms beforehand use of the term "theft" kind of goes out the window.

You keep repeating this rule. Where does it come from?

Obviously nobody else in the world agrees with it.

[erowe1]

What "crime" did the mafia commit?

Extortion, which is a form of theft.

[tod evans]

You keep repeating this rule. Where does it come from?

Obviously nobody else in the world agrees with it.

If you didn't agree to the terms of the contract then why did you sign it?

I don't like taxes any more than anybody else but I don't claim that the money was "stolen" from me either.

Everybody who signs a W-2 agrees to have that money taken, it's a contract.

[presence]

No, I'm not asking about if you work for the Mafia.

Let's say you work in a store in a neighborhood where the Mafia takes a cut of your salary that you and the store owner agreed on. Failure to cooperate will result in violence against you and the store owner.

What would you call what the Mafia is doing to you and the store owner in that scenario?



Could you not agree with that store owner to perform said contractual duties as an independent contractor to be paid in cash? He probably gets the lawn mowed in such a fashion. Why not his shelves stocked and cash register operated?

[erowe1]

If you didn't agree to the terms of the contract then why did you sign it?


You keep saying things like this. But it's irrelevant. Signing a contract doesn't make it less of a crime.

[erowe1]

Could you not agree with that store owner to perform said contractual duties as an independent contractor to be paid in cash? He probably gets the lawn mowed in such a fashion. Why not his shelves stocked and cash register operated?

Sure. And maybe you'd get away with it. Or maybe the Mafia would find out and send their goons to break you and the store owners fingers.

That would still be a crime on the Mafia's part. Would it not?

[tod evans]

Extortion, which is a form of theft.

If you agree to the terms beforehand it is definitely not extortion.

You have the option of taking your position before a magistrate before signing any contract if you believe there's extortion involved and no doubt you would if the "mafia" were party.

You may not like the answer you get if you try to litigate the IRS as extortionists...

In the end though you agree to pay taxes in order to work and if you agree to pay them they can't be stolen too.

[tod evans]

You keep saying things like this. But it's irrelevant. Signing a contract doesn't make it less of a crime.

If you're party to a "criminal" contract you have liability.

[erowe1]

If you agree to the terms beforehand it is definitely not extortion.


What do you mean beforehand? The extortion is there from the beginning when you agree to the terms. It definitely IS extortion.

[erowe1]

If you're party to a "criminal" contract you have liability.

Not if you're the victim.

And why do you put "criminal" in quotation marks?

[presence]

That would still be a crime on the Mafia's part. Would it not?


I think they legalized it.

[familydog]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

We don't live in a free market. All jobs on the books are agreed upon under duress. With the guns of government in the room, there is nothing truly voluntary.

[muh_roads]

Your argument, OP, is the same reason why I get upset to hear the banker bailout referred to as "our tax payer money". It was never "our" money to begin with and the aristocrats will do whatever they want for themselves.

It's time to take control of "money" we can call our own. Bitcoin, Silver, Gold. :)

[Carlybee]

You have the option of working for yourself.

If you do then there is no "payroll" tax, no withholding, you have a plethora of deductions not available to the person who voluntarily signs a W-2 form.

You also have the option of working strictly for cash and declaring none of it.

Participation in the payroll deduction scheme is strictly voluntary and crying about terms you agree to before hand doesn't make sense.

Heck in this fine country of ours you don't even have to work......Just breed and look pathetic and government will support you off the backs of those who happily sign up to their scheme.

As far as "the conditions themselves are imposed on you without your consent"....Again you have a choice to not work on their turf or to claim some turf of your own and then try to defend it, or even to move to somebody elses turf and work there.

Participation in their scheme is voluntary and if you agree to give up FRN's voluntarily it's not theft.

Actually when you are self employed you still have to pay self employed Fica at the matching rate. If you incorporate you are subject to state franchise tax. (If you make enough to qualify)

You can deduct the employer equivalent portion of Fica on your taxes though.

Employers also pay .008 of the first $7000 of wages for federal unemployment tax in addition to matching Fica (plus whatever their state rate is).

[tod evans]

Not if you're the victim.

And why do you put "criminal" in quotation marks?

You assume (wrongly) that there's a victim in this scenario.

I put quotations around criminal because in reality there is no crime. You don't like signing the contract yet you do so voluntarily.

Arguing that tax is extortion is a fools game, take it to court because I'll not entertain you.

I don't like being taxed either but I try to mitigate the damages with self employment.

You too have options, where I have a beef is those who volunteer to pay pre-tax via their W-2 and then whine about it by trying to label their voluntary actions as theft.

Were it truly theft one could prevail in court.

[Carlybee]

If you didn't agree to the terms of the contract then why did you sign it?

I don't like taxes any more than anybody else but I don't claim that the money was "stolen" from me either.

Everybody who signs a W-2 agrees to have that money taken, it's a contract.

You mean a W-4 which directs the employer how much to deduct with regard to federal income tax. Fica is no choice. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I have to explain SS & Med (Fica) deductions to employees. One could argue that if you plan on drawing SS this is your contribution therefore while philosophically one might consider it theft, legally it's not.

[erowe1]

You assume (wrongly) that there's a victim in this scenario.

I put quotations around criminal because in reality there is no crime. You don't like signing the contract yet you do so voluntarily.

Arguing that tax is extortion is a fools game, take it to court because I'll not entertain you.

I don't like being taxed either but I try to mitigate the damages with self employment.

You too have options, where I have a beef is those who volunteer to pay pre-tax via their W-2 and then whine about it by trying to label their voluntary actions as theft.

Were it truly theft one could prevail in court.

But it is theft.

The reason you won't prevail in court is because courts generally follow the law as written by legislators, and they've decided to legalize it. But it's still theft.

For it not to be theft, they would have to allow us to get jobs, and sign contracts of employment, without involving them in it. They don't allow us to. That's theft. Employees and employers are both victims. Existence of contracts in the situation don't change any of that.

[erowe1]

It was never "our" money to begin with

Yes it was.

[tod evans]

Actually when you are self employed you still have to pay self employed Fica at the matching rate. If you incorporate you are subject to state franchise tax. (If you make enough to qualify)

You can deduct the employer equivalent portion of Fica on your taxes though.

Employers also pay .008 of the first $7000 of wages for federal unemployment tax in addition to matching Fica (plus whatever their state rate is).

This is true, I don't like it any more than the next guy either.

Given the option of working for another or a corp. and having taxes withheld weekly or settling up at the end of the year I've opted for the end of the year.

And I don't call it theft..;)

I knew going in that good ol' gov would get their cut of my profits, that's the nature of taxes.

[surf]

where'd the real tod evans go?

this guy that is arguing that mafia extortion, similar to the IRS extortion, is not a crime of theft seams to be someone different.

[Czolgosz]

So long as you and I have no common defense against this bully we will individually be picked off for resisting, thusly 99% of people simply give in.

[Czolgosz]

where'd the real tod evans go?

this guy that is arguing that mafia extortion, similar to the IRS extortion, is not a crime of theft seams to be someone different.

He's taken a different tact to illicit new thinking patterns, I suppose.

[Eagles' Wings]

Consider what Christ said about paying Caesar what is owed. How much is too much?

Great discussion, btw.

[tod evans]

where'd the real tod evans go?

this guy that is arguing that mafia extortion, similar to the IRS extortion, is not a crime of theft seams to be someone different.


He's taken a different tact to illicit new thinking patterns, I suppose.

I'm trying my damndest to get folks to not feel like victims and to start looking at this behemoth we call government as something that can be battled.

Signing up to permit taxes to be withheld only feeds the beast, and it really sucks for the people who believe they must submit to the scheme in order to work.

My mental picture of this behavior is the naked woman in a bar who lies down on a table and says "Please don't rape me." Who then cries rape after the fact.

Everyone justifies complacency with their own words, "theft" is the one I chose to address...

Every one of us who pays taxes has a duty to ourselves and our families to make certain government gets as little as possible and to avoid paying them until the last moment. Payroll deductions do neither.

[erowe1]

I'm trying my damndest to get folks to not feel like victims and to start looking at this behemoth we call government as something that can be battled.

Thieves can be battled.

[tod evans]

Thieves can be battled.

Not by being disingenuous or by whining!

[Carlybee]

If you vote in the thieves who write the laws then you have given your permission. Obviously these laws were written long ago but no one in Congress except maybe Ron Paul has tried to reverse them.

[tod evans]

If you vote in the thieves who write the laws then you have given your permission. Obviously these laws were written long ago but no one in Congress except maybe Ron Paul has tried to reverse them.

I'm afraid it's way past voting time, government is too big.

The choices I see are either an outright fight or try to de-fund it.

I can't see any other realistic approach.

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm afraid it's way past voting time, government is too big.

The choices I see are either an outright fight or try to de-fund it.

I can't see any other realistic approach.

#DefundDC

[phill4paul]

I work for myself and have paid no federal income tax for the last two years. Nor will I. I am a conscientious objector.

[Christian Liberty]

Consider what Christ said about paying Caesar what is owed. How much is too much?

Great discussion, btw.

He says "render to Caesar what is Caesar's." No specification of how much, if anything, Caesar is owed.

Deuteronomy 17 clearly forbids the government from imposing any compulsory taxation. Whether you should pay or not is a trickier question. I think proponents of taxation overstate their case in that regard.


But it is theft.

The reason you won't prevail in court is because courts generally follow the law as written by legislators, and they've decided to legalize it. But it's still theft.

For it not to be theft, they would have to allow us to get jobs, and sign contracts of employment, without involving them in it. They don't allow us to. That's theft. Employees and employers are both victims. Existence of contracts in the situation don't change any of that.

Yep.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Absolutely!

With self employment a person has the option using their money all year, profiting from or losing some, even investing in inventory to legally not have the money taxed.

Sure you'll still pay taxes but your exposure is less and you have "options".....If you sign a W-2 that's it.


Many states will tax you on inventory. Yiou still owe the feds self employment tax off the top to offset the taxes they collect from employers for employing you.

Being self employed gives you more options, but you are still taxed.




You mean a W-4 which directs the employer how much to deduct with regard to federal income tax. Fica is no choice. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I have to explain SS & Med (Fica) deductions to employees. One could argue that if you plan on drawing SS this is your contribution therefore while philosophically one might consider it theft, legally it's not.


Tod, have you ever been self employed, or are you just talking theory here? As CB is pointing out, employers also pay taxes the employees never see in withholding. How do employees sign that contract when they're never presented with it?



This is true, I don't like it any more than the next guy either.

Given the option of working for another or a corp. and having taxes withheld weekly or settling up at the end of the year I've opted for the end of the year.

And I don't call it theft..;)

I knew going in that good ol' gov would get their cut of my profits, that's the nature of taxes.


Ok, so you answered one of my questions. So what about this... I want 5% of your income either now, or at the end of the year. You pick.

[heavenlyboy34]

Tod-you are describing a Tacit Contract. The validity of such a contract is very weak at best. In any other circumstances, you'd lose this argument in a court.

[satchelmcqueen]

i disagree op. i was never offered a cash payout vs check that allows them to do this. thats the difference.

[jonhowe]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

What about when taxes go up? Or down? I may have taken taxes into account when agreeing to a job, but now taxes are higher than when I took it.

I'd say it's stealing because it's an uninvolved 3rd party to an agreement. I'm sure my boss, if he had a choice, would want me to have my entire agreed upon salary. The political landscape that put it there is not assumed in the contract, necessarily.

[bunklocoempire]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.
Wifey and I have opted for one of us in their system and one of us out with the goal of fleeing their system completely.
It is working pretty good for sorting out the "wants" and the "needs".:)

Caeser's coin eh? Well, we'll just let Caeser play with himself then unless we absolutely have to pay with one of his FRNs.

These days we find ourselves whining only half as much.:p;)

[Madison320]

You don't have to work "there" if you don't agree with the terms of employment...

By agreeing to the terms beforehand use of the term "theft" kind of goes out the window.

Faulty logic. Suppose there's an island nation that consists of 3 people. A farmer, a fisherman and a MMA fighter. The MMA fighter is the goverment. The farmer wants to trade his excess coconuts for the fisherman's excess fish. The MMA fighter (government) proclaims that all trades have to include a 50% tax that go to him otherwise he will beat the crap out of the trader. So the farmer agrees to pay the MMA fighter since the alternatives are either to die of malnutrition or get pummeled. Just because the farmer "agreed" to the contract doesn't mean he wasn't coerced.

[Root]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/113/201/ShutUpAndTakeMyMoney.jpg

[osan]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

Taken from a certain academic viewpoint this is valid, but when one strips away the pedantic noises, one is left with theft. The "government" is either stealing from YOU or from your employer. Theye have no justifiable right to the property they take, which is acquired through force. It is therefore plunder, pure and simple. There is no argument that can be constructed that will get around this. All such attempts are readily demolished because the flaws reside in the very fabric of the underlying concepts of the arguments themselves.

I would add that the simple fact that Theye extract their booty by force is itself proof that they are thieves.

[Carlybee]

i disagree op. i was never offered a cash payout vs check that allows them to do this. thats the difference.


You actually can work with no withholding or Fica taxes withheld. It's called contract labor. But any earnings over $600 will still be reported to the IRS on a 1099 form and you are responsible for paying any taxes they deem due (unless you have enough write-offs on your return to counteract tax liability). Of course not all employers give you that option as the IRS has strict rules about who can be classified as contract labor.

[heavenlyboy34]

You assume (wrongly) that there's a victim in this scenario.

I put quotations around criminal because in reality there is no crime. You don't like signing the contract yet you do so voluntarily.

Arguing that tax is extortion is a fools game, take it to court because I'll not entertain you.

I don't like being taxed either but I try to mitigate the damages with self employment.

You too have options, where I have a beef is those who volunteer to pay pre-tax via their W-2 and then whine about it by trying to label their voluntary actions as theft.

Were it truly theft one could prevail in court.
Only because government courts don't exist to be impartial. Were the case presented to a jury, the outcome would likely be very different.

[Czolgosz]

Only because government courts don't exist to be impartial. Were the case presented to a jury, the outcome would likely be very different.

Jurors do their "duty" under duress w/ a black robed tyrant watching over them. Never trust a jury of tribal chimps (aka, "Americans") to do the right thing.

I know I'm stating the obvious. :D

[Tod]

Only because government courts don't exist to be impartial. Were the case presented to a jury, the outcome would likely be very different.

Never underestimate the power of years of indoctrination through the school system and mass media.

[tod evans]

Taxes by their very nature are not gratuitous gifts but neither are they stolen.

An honest person who works and reports his income agrees to the taxes, in order for money to be stolen the possessor must have possession of the money and must have it involuntarily and illegally confiscated from his person.

In the case of payroll taxes the worker never had the money and it was legally kept from him. There's two of the three criteria that constitute theft that are unfulfilled.

Be honest and say "I don't want to pay taxes" not "The government steals from me".

Hell I feel like I've been bent over and raped once every quarter but I don't cry rape. My accountant gets all my paperwork and mitigates the damage..

[erowe1]

Taxes by their very nature are not gratuitous gifts but neither are they stolen.

An honest person who works and reports his income agrees to the taxes, in order for money to be stolen the possessor must have possession of the money and must have it involuntarily and illegally confiscated from his person.

In the case of payroll taxes the worker never had the money and it was legally kept from him. There's two of the three criteria that constitute theft that are unfulfilled.

Be honest and say "I don't want to pay taxes" not "The government steals from me".

Hell I feel like I've been bent over and raped once every quarter but I don't cry rape. My accountant gets all my paperwork and mitigates the damage..

It doesn't matter if you never have had the money, and it doesn't matter if the government calls it legal. It's still theft.

[PaulConventionWV]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this.

We only agree to it because we know there's nothing we can do about it. The company wants to give me a certain amount of money, and I want to receive a certain amount of money, but a third party, the government, siphons off of that agreed upon rate. Just because you never actually see the money, that doesn't mean it's not stealing. It's the definition of theft. There's no difference between them taking it before you see it and taking it after it's already in your possession. The fact is that we only live with this because we can't escape it. It's still theft.

[DamianTV]

Tod, do you pay income taxes on your income? Do you pay sales tax on new items you purchase?


As little as possible.

Ah but the 1% just has many many more opportunities to NOT PAY compared to the people at the bottom, like us.

[PaulConventionWV]

Government, mafia or man on the moon, you accepted employment under those conditions and you have the "freedom" to walk off the job.

No it's not "right" or "just" or even fair but you have the option of working for yourself.

If you choose to work for XYZ under the conditions spelled out before you made the choice then crying about "theft" is theatrical whining.

If you want to receive X number of FRN's for X amount of labor then strike an agreement with the person/company that you work for. This "withholding" BS doesn't have to be your problem.

If you accept these terms of employment don't whine about it later.

The government takes your money if you work for yourself, too. We only accept these conditions because they come at the threat of force. If the employer could pay us the full amount we agree upon, they would and it would be better for both of us, employee and employer alike, but neither of us has a say in the matter. Still, we have to make do. That doesn't mean we "accept" the conditions. We just can't not accept them.

[PaulConventionWV]

Government, mafia or man on the moon, you accepted employment under those conditions and you have the "freedom" to walk off the job.

No it's not "right" or "just" or even fair but you have the option of working for yourself.

If you choose to work for XYZ under the conditions spelled out before you made the choice then crying about "theft" is theatrical whining.

If you want to receive X number of FRN's for X amount of labor then strike an agreement with the person/company that you work for. This "withholding" BS doesn't have to be your problem.

If you accept these terms of employment don't whine about it later.

Also, even if you get your agreed-upon rate that you would work for regardless of taxes, the government is still taking the money from the employer against their will, money which they would rather use to pay other employees and buy assets. Either way, somebody gets ripped off. It's not voluntary, so that means it's stealing.

[muh_roads]

Yes it was.

It stopped being our money when they removed "pay bearer on demand".

[PaulConventionWV]

You have the option of working for yourself.

If you do then there is no "payroll" tax, no withholding, you have a plethora of deductions not available to the person who voluntarily signs a W-2 form.

You also have the option of working strictly for cash and declaring none of it.

Participation in the payroll deduction scheme is strictly voluntary and crying about terms you agree to before hand doesn't make sense.

Heck in this fine country of ours you don't even have to work......Just breed and look pathetic and government will support you off the backs of those who happily sign up to their scheme.

As far as "the conditions themselves are imposed on you without your consent"....Again you have a choice to not work on their turf or to claim some turf of your own and then try to defend it, or even to move to somebody elses turf and work there.

Participation in their scheme is voluntary and if you agree to give up FRN's voluntarily it's not theft.

You are not allowed to work for cash anymore. People go to jail for doing that and not declaring it. The point is that people should be able to have the option of working for someone else under the conditions they and the employer agree upon without a third party (the government) telling us what kind of arrangements we have to make to give them some of the money. If we don't have that option, then we have been robbed of the opportunity to do something we would have willingly done if we hadn't been under threat of force. Working for yourself is great, but if you want to be on the payroll, then you and your employer should be able to arrange that without being forced to give a certain amount of money to the government. Somebody loses either way. Just because we have other options, that doesn't mean it's not theft. Not everyone can work for themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

Jurors do their "duty" under duress w/ a black robed tyrant watching over them. Never trust a jury of tribal chimps (aka, "Americans") to do the right thing.

I know I'm stating the obvious. :D

Never underestimate the power of years of indoctrination through the school system and mass media.
LOL :D I should clarify-a jury of well-educated/informed jurors who don't just do what prosecutors/judges want "just 'cuz".

[PaulConventionWV]

We're discussing payroll taxes.

If you work for the mafia you don't pay any.

Unlike corporate America the mafia honors its contracts.

If you agree to donate FRN's to the government, the mafia, or ol' Billy Bob in order to work in their factory or on their turf before you go to work how can you twist that into theft? You agreed to it.

Nobody's donating anything. We still want to work at the factory, but both we and our employer would be happier if we could receive the full amount. We are threatened with violence if we do that, though, so that's why we accept the other terms, because our hand is being forced. It's not our fault that we want to work in the factory bad enough to do so for a reduced rate. The fact that we have an agreement between two people that is hijacked by the government means it's theft. It's not the employer's fault. Both we and the employer want us to receive the full amount that our work is worth, but we can't do that because we have been forced not to. There's a big difference between agreeing to something and accepting it. I can accept that a certain portion of money is going to be stolen from me because I am powerless to prevent it, but that doesn't mean I agree to it.

[PaulConventionWV]

You agreed to it.

How can it be considered theft if you agreed to it?

Accepting it and agreeing to it are two totally different things. Some money is going to be taken from you no matter what your profession is. You have to accept that. You have no choice, but that doesn't mean you agree to it.

[PaulConventionWV]

Why is there "duress", who caused the "duress" and could the duresse avoid duress?

This is circular!

Accept responsibility for your self and your actions.

If you sign a W-2 then buck up and meet the terms of the contract you agreed to, nobody "forced" you to sign the damn thing just as nobody forced you to work for XYZ..

The fact of life is that we will have money taken from us no matter who we work for. Duress is unavoidable.

[PaulConventionWV]

Answered in post #16.

As to the criminality of the contract you agreed to, that would have to be decided in a courtroom.

Fact of the matter is folks who sign a W-2 don't like it, and who could blame them?

However calling it theft when you voluntarily signed the contract is dishonest.

People sign W2 forms because they are desperate. For some people, there really is no other option because the government has taken that option away. That's theft.

[erowe1]

It stopped being our money when they removed "pay bearer on demand".

No it didn't. In the end, it's not just my money they're stealing, it's my labor.

[helmuth_hubener]

When you agreed to work for XYZ in exchange for a salary were you honestly under the impression that your check would equal the amount agreed on?

Sure it sounds dramatic to say somebody is stealing a portion of your wages but in my opinion you never actually received said wages, the FRN's taken were never in your control so how could they have been stolen?

In reality when you took the position with XYZ you tacitly agreed to work for 60% of their advertised salary and now you're whining about it.

There are only two options at this point;

1) keep on working for 60% of the agreed on rate.

2) don't

Save all the "I need" arguments, you agreed to this. Sometimes your opinions are so weird.

And contradictory.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow you will think the opposite (again).

[PaulConventionWV]

Absolutely!

With self employment a person has the option using their money all year, profiting from or losing some, even investing in inventory to legally not have the money taxed.

Sure you'll still pay taxes but your exposure is less and you have "options".....If you sign a W-2 that's it.

You just can't seem to recognize the fact that not everybody has the option of working for themselves. The economy would never work if everyone worked for themselves. There must be employees in order for anything to get done. The fact that people are desperate enough that they don't have an option besides becoming homeless or signing the W2. Anyone would sign the W2, but only because they're forced to. The government has taken away the option of working for someone as a profession and not getting robbed. The fact that withholding makes it easier to pay taxes doesn't mean the taxes are any less of a crime than normal income tax that is imposed on someone who works for themselves. It's just in a different form.

[Sonny Tufts]

All law is based upon the threat of force, not just tax laws. What some of you are arguing for is anarchy, and if that's the kind of condition you want to live in you might give Somalia or one of the Mexican border towns a try. But be sure and pack a lot of heat because you'll need it.

Calling taxation theft is nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

[PaulConventionWV]

You assume (wrongly) that there's a victim in this scenario.

I put quotations around criminal because in reality there is no crime. You don't like signing the contract yet you do so voluntarily.

Arguing that tax is extortion is a fools game, take it to court because I'll not entertain you.

I don't like being taxed either but I try to mitigate the damages with self employment.

You too have options, where I have a beef is those who volunteer to pay pre-tax via their W-2 and then whine about it by trying to label their voluntary actions as theft.

Were it truly theft one could prevail in court.

It's simple. Would you rather sign the contract while still objecting to the terms on the contract, or go hungry? Everyone would sign the contract, but that doesn't make it any less theft. It just puts you in a situation where you can't choose.

[PaulConventionWV]

Not by being disingenuous or by whining!

But you still agree that they're thieves?

[phill4paul]

You are not allowed to work for cash anymore.

I do it all the time.

[PaulConventionWV]

All law is based upon the threat of force, not just tax laws. What some of you are arguing for is anarchy, and if that's the kind of condition you want to live in you might give Somalia or one of the Mexican border towns a try. But be sure and pack a lot of heat because you'll need it.

Calling taxation theft is nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

So money is taken from you involuntarily at the threat of force. How is this different from somebody mugging you?

[PaulConventionWV]

I do it all the time.

But if you're found out, you'll go to jail.

[phill4paul]

But if you're found out, you'll go to jail.

That is not an option.

[erowe1]

Avoiding, and even evading, taxes are great things. I encourage both, and I encourage others to encourage them. (Although, to any federal agents reading this, I assure you that I am fully compliant with all laws, and I lost my guns in a boating accident.)

But when somebody threatens us with violence for doing those things, that makes them thieves. If we still get away with doing them, then great. But it doesn't make the criminals any less criminal.

[LibForestPaul]

Because the congress does not have the authority to tax my earnings. Therfore. it is theft. They confiscate my earnings thru the barrel of a gun. In the same manner of negroe only water fountains. No authority, just power and coercion.

[Carlybee]

Technically it's lawful thievery. Philosophically it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. If a company refuses to make federal payroll tax payments, the IRS will come in and lock their doors...literally.

[Root]

I do it all the time.
Reported. The King needs his tax.

[tod evans]

But you still agree that they're thieves?

I'm not going to bother with all the posts saying that you don't like being taxed so you're going to call it stealing.

Who exactly is "they" put a name on your accusation..

If you're speaking of government in general, the idiots who write the laws that fund and arm themselves, I'll go so far as to agree that government is taking money from you that you would rather not let them have.

In fact I don't know one person who would voluntarily donate to the seated government.

That doesn't change the fact that when you signed on with XYZ you knew that your employment was conditional on permitting government to "withhold" the agreed upon share. So you took the job understanding that a condition of your employment was forking over taxes in advance of their due date.

All the emotional appeals for pity with the use of "theft" and "thieves" are an attempt to remove culpability from you, the one person who can refuse to participate. You make the choice to cry victim, you do so every day when you clock in, every week when you acknowledge the authority government has over what you claim is your money, when you sign that check.

"I can't" work for myself, "I can't do anything different, I can't........Screams victim! And victims need rescuing.

Don't worry though, the same government that you contribute to willingly and in advance will gladly rescue you too, just sign here.........Or vote yes on that........Or don't vote against this..

All acceptable means of crying victim....

[Occam's Banana]

All law is based upon the threat of force, not just tax laws. What some of you are arguing for is anarchy, and if that's the kind of condition you want to live in you might give Somalia or one of the Mexican border towns a try. But be sure and pack a lot of heat because you'll need it.

blarg blarg blarg Somalia blarg blarg blarg :rolleyes:


Calling taxation theft is nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

Taxation is theft. No emotion there. Just fact.


So money is taken from you involuntarily at the threat of force. How is this different from somebody mugging you?

'Coz taxation is "legal" and mugging ain't. Using force to impose rules made up by politicians is automatically exempt from common-sense applications of the meanings of words ...

[Carlybee]

Two things you have to do....pay taxes and die. Or figure out a way not to. If they raised the wage base on Fica they could reduce the amount you are taxed but the over $100k a year people are having none of that. Of course they could also bail out SS but that's not going to happen either. You can quit your job and go on welfare. I mean there are options...your mileage will vary.

[RCA]

Jesus H. Christ, you've been here since January 2008 and you still don't understand that taxation is theft? You are now flirting with troll status.

[Sonny Tufts]

'Coz taxation is "legal" and mugging ain't. Using force to impose rules made up by politicians is automatically exempt from common-sense applications of the meanings of words ...

A mugger gives you no choice. On the other hand, if you don't want to pay taxes you can always choose to live somewhere else.

If you think taxation is theft, what about this scenario: you and your next door neighbor get into a dispute about whether he damaged your property. All attempts at resolving the matter have failed, so you sue him. He fails to answer the suit because he refuses to recognize the authority of the court, and you obtain a default judgment for $x. You then get a writ of execution that directs the sheriff to seize enough of your neighbor's nonexempt property to satisfy the judgment. The sheriff goes out and does so, sells the property at public auction, and gives $x to you in satisfaction of the judgment. Your neighbor claims that you, aided and abetted by the sheriff, have committed theft because he never consented to the process by which you got compensated for your alleged damages. What is your response?

[erowe1]

A mugger gives you no choice.

Yes he does. We just had another thread about that.

[Occam's Banana]

A mugger gives you no choice.

Of course he does. "Give me your money - or else!"
The State does the same thing when it comes to taxes.
There is no difference between the two. Both are theft.


On the other hand, if you don't want to pay taxes you can always choose to live somewhere else.

On the other hand, if you DO want to pay taxes, then YOU can always choose to live somewhere else.
Mugger sez: "Mugging isn't theft, because if you don't want me to mug you, you can always choose move out of the city."

IOW: blarg blarg blarg like it or leave it blarg blarg blarg :rolleyes:

[Madison320]

All law is based upon the threat of force, not just tax laws. What some of you are arguing for is anarchy, and if that's the kind of condition you want to live in you might give Somalia or one of the Mexican border towns a try. But be sure and pack a lot of heat because you'll need it.

Calling taxation theft is nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

You're missing an important point. I agree that all law is based upon the threat of force, however there are good laws and bad laws. Good laws are used to retaliate against force. Bad laws initiate force. Punishing someone for murder is a good law because it's retaliatory. Punishing someone for not paying tax is a bad law because it's initiating force. For the record I'm not an anarchist.

[Danke]

Income taxes (which payroll taxes are a part of) are still an obligation for many who live outside the USA. So it doesn't depend on where you live, necessarily. It is the activity you are involved with that creates the liability, so in that sense, it is voluntary.

[LibForestPaul]

I'm not going to bother with all the posts saying that you don't like being taxed so you're going to call it stealing.

Who exactly is "they" put a name on your accusation..

If you're speaking of government in general, the idiots who write the laws that fund and arm themselves, I'll go so far as to agree that government is taking money from you that you would rather not let them have.

In fact I don't know one person who would voluntarily donate to the seated government.

That doesn't change the fact that when you signed on with XYZ you knew that your employment was conditional on permitting government to "withhold" the agreed upon share. So you took the job understanding that a condition of your employment was forking over taxes in advance of their due date.

All the emotional appeals for pity with the use of "theft" and "thieves" are an attempt to remove culpability from you, the one person who can refuse to participate. You make the choice to cry victim, you do so every day when you clock in, every week when you acknowledge the authority government has over what you claim is your money, when you sign that check.

"I can't" work for myself, "I can't do anything different, I can't........Screams victim! And victims need rescuing.

Don't worry though, the same government that you contribute to willingly and in advance will gladly rescue you too, just sign here.........Or vote yes on that........Or don't vote against this..

All acceptable means of crying victim....

srsly, what the hell are you talking about
So when CorpXYZ has to pay off the mob to put up a hotel or else it winds up burned down means they new that putting up a hotel in Newyorrrk means paying off the mob and they are not victims. When Zhou Shou who owns a Chinese Restuarant has to "pay" protection to the Chinese Mob, he is not a victim. He should just go all Rambo on em. Right

[Tod]

I just had a thought...when selecting a jury, the jury supposedly consists of your "peers".

If you are a libertarian or anarchist, can you insist that the jury consist of fellow libertarians or anarchists?

I think I know the answer....

[heavenlyboy34]

I just had a thought...when selecting a jury, the jury supposedly consists of your "peers".

If you are a libertarian or anarchist, can you insist that the jury consist of fellow libertarians or anarchists?

I think I know the answer....
Attorneys already interview juries beforehand, dismissing many. You could just have an attorney ask people if they're a libertarian and dismiss them if they're not. :D

[tod evans]

srsly, what the hell are you talking about
So when CorpXYZ has to pay off the mob to put up a hotel or else it winds up burned down means they new that putting up a hotel in Newyorrrk means paying off the mob and they are not victims. When Zhou Shou who owns a Chinese Restuarant has to "pay" protection to the Chinese Mob, he is not a victim. He should just go all Rambo on em. Right

What the hell are you talking about?

I spelled out very clearly what I'm talking about.

You don't have to be a victim to "withholding", you have options.

If you choose to be a victim why whine about it?

Now on to your diatribe.....

Are you asking how a person should contend with entrenched power?

There's really only two ways I'm aware of;

1) Reach an agreement

2) Fight the entrenched and hope you prevail

If you sign up to have taxes "withheld" from your check you've opted for #1..

And you've made the conscious choice to permit government to collect their tax before it's due, often in excess of what's due. This gives government months to use the money free of charge, how nice of you!

Who exactly would you "go Rambo" on?

[tod evans]

I just had a thought...when selecting a jury, the jury supposedly consists of your "peers".

If you are a libertarian or anarchist, can you insist that the jury consist of fellow libertarians or anarchists?

I think I know the answer....

Federal court....

Yup, you know the answer...:o

[Danke]

If you sign up to have taxes "withheld" from your check you've opted for #1..

No, when one signs a W-4, they are agreeing to the amount of exemptions to be applied to their income if and when they ever participate in Federally Connected Activities; that being where the income tax applies. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they had no previous year tax obligations, they can check: Exempt.

[tod evans]

No, when one signs a W-4, they are agreeing to the amount of exemptions to be applied to their income if and when they ever participate in Federally Connected Activities; that being where the income tax applies. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they had no previous year tax obligations, they can check: Exempt.

Okay, that still doesn't limit their options to opt out by either increasing the deductions, claiming exempt, or opting to be self employed.

I'm sure with the new healthcare BS more employers will be looking for contract labor. And once a person is their own boss the deductions multiply..

[Danke]

Okay, that still doesn't limit their options to opt out by either increasing the deductions, claiming exempt, or opting to be self employed.

I'm sure with the new healthcare BS more employers will be looking for contract labor. And once a person is their own boss the deductions multiply..

I agree. If you work in the private sector, you are usually exempt.

[VIDEODROME]

I met someone who thinks like this. He refuses to even use a Social Security number or participate in the system.

He now lives in a camper, but hey he's free.

[Danke]

I met someone who thinks like this. He refuses to even use a Social Security number or participate in the system.

He now lives in a camper, but hey he's free.

Who thinks like what?