If taxation is theft.....

[winston_blade]

How or why are some taxes justified? A gov't can't exist without taxes (at least, most likely couldn't exist), so why are medicare taxes or social security taxes worse than sales tax or tarrifs? Or perhaps taxation isn't theft.....just trying to get some insight on this.

[Kade]

How or why are some taxes justified? A gov't can't exist without taxes (at least, most likely couldn't exist), so why are medicare taxes or social security taxes worse than sales tax or tarrifs? Or perhaps taxation isn't theft.....just trying to get some insight on this.

A tax is a burden placed on the constituents of a government body for it's support.

If it were not this government, one that we have some control, and some representation, we could be paying a burden that is tremendously

If anything we are just paying back their trash currency.

My labor pays for materials; games, cars, houses, beautiful women etc... if they want a bit of the paper trash, and that prevents me from having to work forced labor, so be it.

It is preferable to the type of governments that have existed in the past, and in some countries.

The people of the democracy demand that their tax goes to some social programs, to help people in the entire country. Some of these battles, like education, are all but over, some like health care, are still being waged.

There is a balance made by two groups of extremists on both sides... I prefer the solid middle ground. A wealthy country should use some of it's taxes to promote the health, defense, transportation, and well being of it's population.

I'm not particularly keen on the distribution of wealth, and I think people should be taxed on a fair sliding scale. I also believe that corporations should not be treated as individuals, and should not receive subsidies to survive, they should be allowed to die... and hopefully the market will employ it's people.

Nothing is going to be completely fair, but we should consider what our country is able to do, versus what it ought to do. I think the market system is the best way to promote progress and innovation, and to build a healthy economy. I also believe, based on my rather extensive understanding of human psychology and behavior, that it needs a fair and unbiased referee, in the form of a Republican Government.

[micahnelson]

The government is in a contract relationship with the citizenry, the contract is the constitution. We have created the government to maximized life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the particulars of which make up the US Code, Tax Code, Regulations etc etc...

Stop right there, obviously a large chunk of the law, code, and regulations are counterproductive to our stated goals of government. Some of the things are in line with our current goals, but the contract has never been updated. This creates loopholes through which the tyranny express forges. Take for example drug laws...

Its arguable that many people would support the control of certain dangerous drugs. Instead of adding that to the list of powers given to government in the constitution (which wouldn't fly with a decent SCOTUS) or allowing the states to manage drug laws, the government took it upon itself to claim the right to ban certain substances. Then, it gave itself the right to enforce the bans. Then it gave itself the right to override state laws that legalize the substances in certain circumstances. These collection of these taxes to carry out duties outside of our agreement with the government can safely be called theft, or more precisely fraud.

We order a Pepperoni Pizza, get billed for 3 pizzas hotwings tofu bars and a happy meal, but only recieve crusts. Its fraud.

Taxes collected for a specific and legitimate purpose (Defense, Regulating interstate commerce (and i mean that in a very specific limited way) or coining currency) is not theft. We have agreed to fund these programs. Unapportioned taxes, massive general budgets and the like are not constitutional and have led to the pile of loot divvied up in DC each year.

[AisA1787]

Some taxes are justified because they are essentially user fees. For example, the tax on gasoline is (in theory) a user fee that pays for road and highway construction and maintenance. People who buy gas generally, but not always, drive on roads and highways in direct proportion to the amount of gas they purchase. So it is a targeted user fee, even though it's a "tax". I think it's justified. An acceptable but less efficient alternative would be to make every road a toll road. A non-user fee alternative to get money from the general fund (city, county, state, federal), which would not be a user fee and would therefore be unjustified in my opinion because it makes people who may not even use the roads and highways pay for them.

On the other hand, I don't think property tax is justified, because it means you can never truly own your home, farm, or land. The government can always take it away from you for failure to pay property tax. Property tax is essentially rent that you pay to the government. If you don't pay it, they evict you. The tax operates on the assumption that the government owns the land, not you. It's unfair for every property owner, but especially for older ones who have a fixed income and can lose their homes due to even a modest property tax increase, even if their mortgage is entirely paid for.

Some other taxes are justified. For example, the sales tax and business income taxes are justified because (at least part of) the money goes to pay for the court system and law enforcement system that makes business transactions and contracts relatively safe here in America, which in turn makes the economy stronger. So they are user fees, sort of.

Some taxes you just need to pay for the basics, like national defense. No way around that one. And it's not exactly a "user fee" either. So you just try to take it from one of the fairer taxes, like sales tax or tariffs, instead of the unfair ones like personal income tax.


Taxes that I don't think are justified are....
- higher sales tax rates on liquor and tobacco products than other goods and services ("morality" taxes)
- the personal income tax (it assumes the government owns you, and you can't trade your own labor without the government taking/stealing a portion for itself...)
- protective tariffs (higher tariffs for imported steel, for example, that drag the entire economy down and kill thousands of jobs while "protecting" a few American steel jobs). equal tariffs across the board are okay.
- sales or income taxes to pay for the new Colts stadium (bastards)

[Danke]

How or why are some taxes justified? A gov't can't exist without taxes (at least, most likely couldn't exist), so why are medicare taxes or social security taxes worse than sales tax or tarrifs? Or perhaps taxation isn't theft.....just trying to get some insight on this.

There are basically two different types of taxes allowed on the federal level. Direct and indirect.

They currently use indirect taxation, which is avoidable.

So it would be hard to argue that it is theft.

The states, on the other hand, do use direct taxation, like property tax.

This surely is a type of theft. Especially when the money extracted goes to services you do not use or choose to use.

Is it theft if I go over to my neighbor's house and demand he pay for my children's education by the barrel of a gun? If no, then why is it OK to do it by proxy?

[bander87]

Yeah, it's mostly direct taxes, and the income tax.

“People who relieve others of their money with guns are called robbers. It does not alter the immorality of the act when the income transfer is carried out by government.”
Cal Thomas

Should anybody have the right to take money from you that you worked for?

If you answered yes, at what point does it become wrong? 25%? 50% 75%? And why would it be wrong at 75% of your earnings being taken away as opposed to 25%?

We didn't have an income tax till 1913.

[Danke]

On the other hand, I don't think property tax is justified, because it means you can never truly own your home, farm, or land. The government can always take it away from you for failure to pay property tax. Property tax is essentially rent that you pay to the government. If you don't pay it, they evict you. The tax operates on the assumption that the government owns the land, not you. It's unfair for every property owner, but especially for older ones who have a fixed income and can lose their homes due to even a modest property tax increase, even if their mortgage is entirely paid for.

To me, I would think some exemption versus total elimination of property tax would be justifiable.

As an example, city dwellers would get 1/3 acre tax free. Suburban dwellers - 1 acre, rural - 5 acres, and farmers - 40 acres. (just as a rough example)

Reason being, then the government can't take away your property needed for "reasonable" shelter/livelihood. But anything over those amounts of land could be taxed. As the larger your estate, the more interested you have in the police powers of the State, including military defense.


But I am open to why this might be a bad idea. Just seems "unfair" for someone to own huge track of land and never be taxed on it as they have a greater interested in the protections government provides.

[AisA1787]

To me, I would think some exemption versus total elimination of property tax would be justifiable.

As an example, city dwellers would get 1/3 acre tax free. Suburban dwellers - 1 acre, rural - 5 acres, and farmers - 40 acres. (just as a rough example)

Reason being, then the government can't take away your property needed for "reasonable" shelter/livelihood. But anything over those amounts of land could be taxed. As the larger your estate, the more interested you have in the police powers of the State, including military defense.


But I am open to why this might be a bad idea. Just seems "unfair" for someone to own huge track of land and never be taxed on it as they have a greater interested in the protections government provides.

That's an interesting idea. As a counterargument, you might consider that cities are almost always the first areas targeted by foreign attacks. So people in large cities, even those with a tiny amount of property like a studio apartment, should pay huge property taxes because they are the ones most likely to need a good national defense. People out in the boonies are rarely targets of foreign invasions. There is also more crime per capita in densely populated urban areas, so people there probably need more police protection than the average farmer.

So, it seems like the less land you own (people in cities), the more you need government services like police and national defense, not the other way around.

But I'm not necessarily against a sales tax for property, for example. It may even be fair to scale a property sales tax to be in proportion to the average number of years that type of property is owned. For example, the percentage sales tax on an apartment may be half the percentage sales tax on a house in the same area, if people usually own their houses twice as long as their apartments. Or.... the sales tax on houses and land might be higher than for apartments, because the city/county needs to keep records of land boundaries, right of way, and other details... and there is a cost involved in making sure that everything is legal, probably more of a cost for land than for apartment units. The point being that there should be a limit on how much and how long you should pay taxes on property. Otherwise, property rights fly out the window because you can never really own your property.

[Kludge]

How or why are some taxes justified? A gov't can't exist without taxes (at least, most likely couldn't exist), so why are medicare taxes or social security taxes worse than sales tax or tarrifs? Or perhaps taxation isn't theft.....just trying to get some insight on this.

Taxation is theft only because coercion is necessary to collect it. This is why voluntary charity is the only "right" way it can collect monies for programs, which could be organized by private citizens and corporations anyways. But then, I always become pissed off when a company tells me it donated $xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx to some charity. FFS, if I wanted that done I'da done it myself.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
-DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism
-DVD Version: P1. The Nature and Origin of Human Rights.
-DVD Version: P2. Group Supremacy
-DVD Version: P3. Coercion vs Freedom
-DVD Version: P4. Equality and Inequality under Law
-DVD Version: P5. Proper Role of Government.

[mediahasyou]

Taxes are not justified. The feds have bigger guns. Those with the biggest guns, wins.

[AutoDas]

bump

[scooter]

The taxes we have were all enacted by our leaders that we voted into office. Well, our ancestors did anyway.

It is perfectly legal and acceptable for the government to take taxes to pay for the services they provide us. In some sense we have control over this, because if taxes got really out of hand, we can vote in a block of Congressmen who promise to lower them. The only taxes that I have a problem with are the ones at the investment level. If I buy stock in a company, that money gets taxed several times. The money when I earned it was taxed, then the corporation's profits are taxed, and then my capital gains are taxed after I sell the stock.

The real injustice is done by the excessive spending and socialist programs that our government does. If they merely stuck to spending the money they got from taxes, we'd all be a lot better off.

In the end, however, we live in a democracy and it is up to us to change things when they get bad. Sadly, we have a country of retards who run towards cowboy neocons or socialist Democrats who they believe have the answers.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Some taxes are justified because they are essentially user fees. For example, the tax on gasoline is (in theory) a user fee that pays for road and highway construction and maintenance. People who buy gas generally, but not always, drive on roads and highways in direct proportion to the amount of gas they purchase. So it is a targeted user fee, even though it's a "tax". I think it's justified. An acceptable but less efficient alternative would be to make every road a toll road. A non-user fee alternative to get money from the general fund (city, county, state, federal), which would not be a user fee and would therefore be unjustified in my opinion because it makes people who may not even use the roads and highways pay for them.

This is not the case with the EXCISE tax on FUELS to pay for the TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. In 1998 the fuel excise tax on motor vehicles produced $22.3 BILLION. Yet the house has to renew budgets for highways and infrastructures routinely, fighting for funding. The there's the collusion crap added to the excise tax now... and this is at all level: Federal, State, County, and City... the consumer gets SLAMMED by all levels of government NOW!

Gasoline Excise Tax for Deficit Reduction

"Under provisions of the Omnibus Budget Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA90) (24) the tax rate on highway and motorboat fuels was increased by five cents per gallon. Thus, the tax increased from 9 to 14 cents per gallon of gasoline. Half of the increase in revenues from the gasoline tax imposed on highway use vehicles was dedicated as additional funding for the Highway Trust Fund. The remaining half in revenues was deposited in the General Fund and dedicated for federal deficit reduction. Of the 2.5-cents increase dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, one-half cent was dedicated to the Mass Transit Account in that trust fund. Thus, the Congress raised the Mass Transit Account funding from 1 cent to 1.5 cents. OBRA90 also reinstated the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (LUST). The LUST tax recommenced at the same 0.1 cent per gallon tax rate. (25) The 14-cents tax rate was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1995, while the LUST tax was scheduled to terminate three months later on December 31, 1995. As you know, when the tax expires, the government comes up with new reasons to increase the amount of tax. The following year the Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. (26) The revenue title is the Surface Transportation Revenue Act of 1991. This Act extended the highway-related excise taxes (including the tax on gasoline in section 8002(a)(3)) for four years. Hence, this law extended the tax on gasoline (without an increase in tax rate) through September 30, 1999.

The conventional wisdom that had held since the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund, which was that the gasoline tax was a user tax, was challenged. With the passage of OBRA90, the gasoline tax returned to the role it served prior to 1957: a general fund revenue source, at least in part." Once again, the gasoline excise tax was changed under provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA93);(Section 13241(a)). (27) Under provisions of OBRA93, the additional 2.5 cents gasoline tax dedicated for deficit reduction was transferred to the Highway Trust Fund beginning October 1, 1995. This additional 2.5-cents tax rate was extended from October 1, 1995, to September 30, 1999. The highway portion of the fund receives 2 cents, while the Mass Transit Account is credited with 0.5 cent of the increased funding (for a total of 2 cents). In addition, OBRA93 provided for a permanent additional 4.3-cents per gallon tax on gasoline starting on October 1, 1993. Thus, the combination of the 2.5-cents OBRA90 gasoline tax rate and the permanent 4.3 cents OBRA93 gasoline tax rate resulted in a total of 6.8 cents per gallon dedicated to deficit reduction purposes between October 1, 1993, and October 1, 1995. Revenues collected from this 6.8-cent portion of the tax were placed in the General Fund of the United States Treasury.

As previously related, provisions of OBRA90 terminated the LUST tax rate of 0.1 cent on December 31, 1995. Thus, the 18.3 cents federal gasoline excise tax rate was in effect from January 1, 1996, to October 1, 1997, before increasing to 18.4 cents with the reintroduction of the LUST tax. This 18.3 cents rate includes the permanent 4.3 cents initially dedicated to federal deficit reduction but which now goes to the Highway Trust Fund.

History of the Gasoline Excise Tax:
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transportation/trans-24.cfm?&CFID=8539261&CFTOKEN=71797464

The House of Representatives Committee of Transportation & Infrastructure just had a very informative hearing with state leaders of their respective transportation systems on C-SPAN:
http://transportation.house.gov/about.aspx


Here's the link to the happenings of the House transportation committee:

http://transportation.house.gov/

[AceNZ]

How or why are some taxes justified?

No taxes are justified. To say that they are is to agree that government owns you and your property. Taxes are an immoral lien against your life.

A gov't can't exist without taxes (at least, most likely couldn't exist), so why are medicare taxes or social security taxes worse than sales tax or tarrifs? Or perhaps taxation isn't theft.....just trying to get some insight on this.

If governments can't exist without taxes, then they shouldn't exist. Governments should be funded with a combination of voluntary fees and user fees.

Medicare or Social Security taxes aren't worse that sales taxes or tariffs. All money collected is done so under the threat of force, and it all goes into the same General Fund to be spent (even Social Security).

BTW, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that voting doesn't work as a means to control spending. In fact, you could argue the reverse: voting is a big part of why spending is out of control (people vote for candidates who offer to buy them the most goodies). The only effective way to control government spending is on a direct, individual basis.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666806/posts

[AisA1787]

This is not the case with the EXCISE tax on FUELS to pay for the TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. In 1998 the fuel excise tax on motor vehicles produced $22.3 BILLION. Yet the house has to renew budgets for highways and infrastructures routinely, fighting for funding. The there's the collusion crap added to the excise tax now... and this is at all level: Federal, State, County, and City... the consumer gets SLAMMED by all levels of government NOW!

Agreed. Theory doesn't work out that well in practice. Same idea as with social security going into the general fund (although I disagree with SS, both in theory and practice).

[AisA1787]

BTW, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that voting doesn't work as a means to control spending. In fact, you could argue the reverse: voting is a big part of why spending is out of control (people vote for candidates who offer to buy them the most goodies).

...this is part of the reason that some states used to only let property owners vote (so non-owners couldn't vote for politicians who would seize and redistribute property and capital).