Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: Should you be jailed for non-payment of taxes?

  1. #1

    Should you be jailed for non-payment of taxes?

    To me one of the most outrageous losses of liberty is the progressive tax system. I hate the idea of a mob voting to steal from a minority and threatening them with jail time if they don't comply. I was arguing with Zippy about this and I kept asking him if he believes in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes. He just ignored my question, despite asking it about 5 times. I think the reason is that he does believe in jail time for tax offenders but like most liberals he doesn't want to admit how violent socialism is.


    Debate starts here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Taxxers/page7


    Also notice how at one point he tries to play the "envy" card. "You don't mind paying more if it means Bill Gates gets to pay less since it would be more fair."

    Hey Zippy. Answer the question. Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Well, it looks like you've established Zippyjuan isn't a paid shill.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  4. #3
    I think this violates forum guidelines... 'calling out' forum members is pretty lame. Take it to PM or chat... don't clog up a new thread for what essentially is a personal problem.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I think this violates forum guidelines... 'calling out' forum members is pretty lame. Take it to PM or chat... don't clog up a new thread for what essentially is a personal problem.
    Ooooh. Maybe I'll get banned.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Ooooh. Maybe I'll get banned.
    No one is trying to get anyone banned. Just pointing it out.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Well, it looks like you've established Zippyjuan isn't a paid shill.
    Agree.
    There is no spoon.

  8. #7
    Taxes are enforced by definition (if they're optional, they're not taxes). The penalty for non-compliance need not be prison though. That seems counterproductive, like jailing people for non-payment of child support (how is an inmate supposed to earn money to pay a debt?). Rather, seize assets, put a lien in income, etc. Now, if the OP means that there should be no taxes at all (which is what it would mean to make taxes optional), well that's another question entirely. Naturally, as libertarians, we dislike taxes, but some of us recognize that the state cannot be abolished, and so neither can taxes: that they're necessarily evils.

  9. #8
    Taxes are not nor have ever been necessary. If you produce a product worth buying, that people value, they will purchase it if they need it. The very fact that you have to force the issue proves your product is inferior and not worth the effort.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Taxes are not nor have ever been necessary. If you produce a product worth buying, that people value, they will purchase it if they need it. The very fact that you have to force the issue proves your product is inferior and not worth the effort.
    Taxes are necessary in that there will always be someone in a position to force us to pay them and who finds it profitable to do so.

    The inevitability of taxes is a subset of the inevitability of crime.

  12. #10

  13. #11
    You're welcome to try. It might not be as easy as you envisioned.

  14. #12
    They don't jail you for non-payment of taxes. They jail you for a host of affiliated "crimes". Like non-filing.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #13
    Anyhow, who said anything about jailed? A tax is a law. Any government law is backed by guns. They can shoot you dead for virtually nothing and they'll polish off Fido while they're at it.

    And anybody who believes the Income Tax was ever voluntary in the eyes of the government's guns is delusional. My utmost respect for phill4paul.
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Taxes are necessary in that there will always be someone in a position to force us to pay them and who finds it profitable to do so.

    The inevitability of taxes is a subset of the inevitability of crime.
    Neither of those things are true. Nothing is inevitable. Unless the people comply it doesn't matter what the people in position demand.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Taxes are necessary in that there will always be someone in a position to force us to pay them and who finds it profitable to do so.

    The inevitability of taxes is a subset of the inevitability of crime.
    It just depends on the ideology (and even more fundamentally I've lately come to realize: the temperament!) of the people, of what they want to put up with, how they want to arrange themselves.

    Your parallel with crime is a good one. The type of crime environment varies greatly -- tremendously! -- between different times and different places and different tribes of men. A behavior so commonplace and overwhelming to seem utterly eradicable in one time and place may be completely unheard of in another.

    Amazing, but true!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    It just depends on the ideology (and even more fundamentally I've lately come to realize: the temperament!) of the people, of what they want to put up with, how they want to arrange themselves.

    Your parallel with crime is a good one. The type of crime environment varies greatly -- tremendously! -- between different times and different places and different tribes of men. A behavior so commonplace and overwhelming to seem utterly eradicable in one time and place may be completely unheard of in another.

    Amazing, but true!
    Ideology, culture, and the like have an effect on the margin, but politics is fundamentally driven by material self-interest and violence.

    There's never been any 'tribe' some of whose members weren't able and willing to rule the others.

    ...excepting of course subsistence-level societies, in which the state is physically impossible for lack of taxable surpluses.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Neither of those things are true. Nothing is inevitable. Unless the people comply it doesn't matter what the people in position demand.
    The social sciences can't offer the same degree of certainty as the physical sciences. Social scientists are always dealing in probabilities. So, in that sense, the state is not inevitable. Likewise, it is not inevitable that raising the minimum wage to $100,000 per hour would increase unemployment. However, based on what we know of human nature, and objective reality in general, it's extremely likely that the vacuum of anarchy would be filled by a state, as it is extremely likely that a gigantic hike in the minimum wage would increase unemployment.

  21. #18
    It's not stealing if the government does it.

    Gotta have roads somehow.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    It's not stealing if the government does it.

    Gotta have roads somehow.
    If Zippy would jail me for non payment of taxes it does not matter anyway . He is a Californian and we are getting rid of California in CalExit .
    Do something Danke

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Do you believe in criminal penalties for people that don't pay their taxes?
    I'm not Zipper but no, there should be no criminal penalties. The government should be funded through voluntary means - maybe a telethon, trot out politicians like Jerry's Kids and let people who feel sorry for them phone in money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Taxes are enforced by definition (if they're optional, they're not taxes). The penalty for non-compliance need not be prison though. That seems counterproductive, like jailing people for non-payment of child support (how is an inmate supposed to earn money to pay a debt?). Rather, seize assets, put a lien in income, etc. Now, if the OP means that there should be no taxes at all (which is what it would mean to make taxes optional), well that's another question entirely. Naturally, as libertarians, we dislike taxes, but some of us recognize that the state cannot be abolished, and so neither can taxes: that they're necessarily evils.
    I agree. I'm not an anarchist. If the government could not raise enough thru voluntary methods then I'd support taxes if they could be held in check. Obviously what we have now doesn't work. Just ask Irwin Schiff who died shackled to his prison bed at 87. At the very least tax debt should be treated the same as private debt. If tax debt was treated the same as private debt I think it would act as an upper limit to the tax rate. You might pay a 1-3% income tax but you might decide not to pay if the rate was too high. You could just declare backruptcy. Some other things can be done to try and rein in the tendency for taxes to become more progressive. A flat tax with no deductions is a much more moral system than a progressive tax. Restricting voting privileges to net "payers" is another.
    Last edited by Madison320; 03-09-2017 at 01:34 PM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    The social sciences can't offer the same degree of certainty as the physical sciences. Social scientists are always dealing in probabilities. So, in that sense, the state is not inevitable. Likewise, it is not inevitable that raising the minimum wage to $100,000 per hour would increase unemployment. However, based on what we know of human nature, and objective reality in general, it's extremely likely that the vacuum of anarchy would be filled by a state, as it is extremely likely that a gigantic hike in the minimum wage would increase unemployment.
    Who is talking about anarchy? I'm talking about voluntary government, people agreeing to live by the same rules without the violent compulsion of those in positions of "command." There is no need for taxes or force and neither are they inevitable. Nor are they anymore or less likely. If your government was worth having then people would voluntarily purchase it and its services in the same way they do medical care, insurance, food, and everything else. That you have to force it upon people is the obvious indicator that the service is terrible and needs to be replaced with something better.



    But since you want to discuss this entirely separate issue of anarchy....

    There is no vacuum in anarchy. There is no lack of security or liberty. There is no lack in people's ability to organize themselves and live their lives. Indeed they manage to do that despite the interference of the state not because of it. It doe snot create a vacuum of anything to remove a huge crushing stone from your chest before you are suffocated by it. It frees you to live more completely. It does not create a lack fo fire that needs to be replaced by more fire when you put out a destructive raging inferno. It is the same with the state.
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 03-09-2017 at 01:38 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I agree. I'm not an anarchist. If the government could not raise enough thru voluntary methods then I'd support taxes if they could be held in check. Obviously what we have now doesn't work. Just ask Irwin Schiff who died shackled to his prison bed at 87. At the very least tax debt should be treated the same as private debt. If tax debt was treated the same as private debt I think it would act as an upper limit to the tax rate. You might pay a 1-3% income tax but you might decide not to pay if the rate was too high. You could just declare backruptcy.
    There are miles and miles between anarchism and institutionalized violent theft. Investigate that distance. you'll find you can be against assaulting people and locking them into perpetual tax slavery without being an anarchist.

    As an example: Ron Paul. Not an anarchist, absolutely acknowledges that taxation is theft.

    Last edited by PierzStyx; 03-09-2017 at 01:37 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I'm not Zipper but no, there should be no criminal penalties. The government should be funded through voluntary means - maybe a telethon, trot out politicians like Jerry's Kids and let people who feel sorry for them phone in money.






  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Out of rep
    Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Agree.
    I usually agree with you but not with your take on Zippy. He's not overtly rude but the fact that he won't answer questions in a "debate" forum is extremely rude in my opinion. He just cuts and pastes DNC talking points but never responds to questions. For some reason it pisses me off more than it should. Maybe because Zippy represents the views of the majority of people that are bent on taking away our liberties.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Who is talking about anarchy? I'm talking about voluntary government, people agreeing to live by the same rules without the violent compulsion of those in positions of "command."
    That would be anarchy (i.e. a society without a state).

    If your government was worth having then peopel would voluntarily purchase it and its services in the same way they do medical care, insurance, food, and everything else. That you have to force it upon people is the obvious indicator that the service is terrible and needs to be replaced with something better.
    You already said that, and I already responded.

    You're misunderstanding what I mean when I say the state is inevitable.

    I'm not saying that the state should exist in order to solve some problem.

    I'm saying the state will exist whether we like it or not, like crime, tornadoes, or disease.

    There is no vacuum in anarchy. There is no lack of security or liberty. There is no lack in people's ability to organize themselves and live their lives. Indeed they manage to do that despite the interference of the state not because of it. It doe snot create a vacuum of anything to remove a huge crushing stone from your chest before you are suffocated by it. It frees you to live more completely. It does not create a lack fo fire that needs to be replaced by more fire when you put out a destructive raging inferno. It is the same with the state.
    The anarchist vision is for the coercive power, which is currently concentrated in the state, to be distributed among many competing PDAs.

    ...the (false) assumption being that this arrangement is stable.

    ...that no one of the PDAs will grow large enough to be able to force its will on the others (i.e. become a state).

    ...or, alternatively, that the PDAs won't simply collude to form a cartel (i.e. become a state).

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    There are miles and miles between anarchism and institutionalized violent theft. Investigate that distance. you'll find you can be against assaulting people and locking them into perpetual tax slavery without being an anarchist.

    As an example: Ron Paul. Not an anarchist, absolutely acknowledges that taxation is theft.
    Of course it's theft. I never forget that. My point is I'm willing to put up with a small amount of theft if I'm convinced it will prevent a large amount of theft. I'm honestly not sure if a nation could survive attacks by foreign nations with an all voluntary "tax", like Ayn Rand envisioned. I'd sure like to give it a try. In the meantime I'm in favor of any steps in the right direction.

    One step that many here consider "the right direction" is a decrease in the lower tax rates, without decreasing the upper tax rate. I strongly disagree. If we're going to steal it should be done to everyone. I hate progressive taxation and the way it plays on envy.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post

    ...The anarchist vision is for the coercive power, which is currently concentrated in the state, to be distributed among many competing PDAs.

    ...the (false) assumption being that this arrangement is stable.

    ...that no one of the PDAs will grow large enough to be able to force its will on the others (i.e. become a state).

    ...or, alternatively, that the PDAs won't simply collude to form a cartel (i.e. become a state).
    100% agree. There's always somebody who is going to be the dominate force in any given area. Back in the caveman days it was the big guy named Thor who settled disputes. Now it's called government but it's all the same thing. They can't compete in a given area, at least for very long. One will always emerge as the strongest. So the best path to liberty is to try to form a government that only retaliates against force. You'll never be totally successful but it's the only way.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    ...excepting of course subsistence-level societies, in which the state is physically impossible for lack of taxable surpluses.
    All societies are subsistence-level, with rare bizarre exceptions. It's the Malthusian Trap, which, as Mises said, is an irrefutable and brilliant statement of reality. They are all subsistence-level, but they all can have surpluses to be taxed as well. Huh? Here, as Hoppe put it:

    .................................................. Under Malthusian condi-
    tions the State doesn’t matter much, at least as far as macro-
    eff ects are concerned. A more exploitative State will simply
    lead to a lower population number (much like a pest would),
    but it does not aff ect per capita income. In fact, in lowering
    the population density, income per capita may even rise, as it
    did after the great pestilence in the mid-fourteenth century.
    And in reverse: a “good,” less-exploitative State will allow for
    a growing number of people, but per capita incomes will not
    rise or may even fall, because land per capita is reduced.

    In other words: there's always a surplus (in the sense that you can have parasitic people taking some of the goods off the top for themselves, and they can take as much or as little as they want), but there's never a surplus (in the sense that in general most everyone is always on the brink of starvation -- there can be no real increase in the level of prosperity).

    There's never been any 'tribe' some of whose members weren't able and willing to rule the others.
    America c. 1717
    America c. 2017

    Were they less willing/driven to rule others back then?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Should you be jailed for non-payment of taxes?
    By Madison320 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2017, 11:22 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 03:51 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-04-2011, 11:00 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 08:43 PM
  5. California Won't Accept Its Own IOUs in payment of taxes
    By FrankRep in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 02:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •