Should you be jailed for non-payment of taxes?

[Madison320]

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?

[undergroundrr]

Well, it looks like you've established Zippyjuan isn't a paid shill.

[jllundqu]

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.

[Madison320]

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.

[jllundqu]

Ooooh. Maybe I'll get banned.

No one is trying to get anyone banned. Just pointing it out.

[Ender]

Well, it looks like you've established Zippyjuan isn't a paid shill.

Agree.

[MallsRGood]

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.

[PierzStyx]

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.

[MallsRGood]

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.

[Superfluous Man]

Man, @Zippyjuan.

You let me down.

[phill4paul]

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

[otherone]

They don't jail you for non-payment of taxes. They jail you for a host of affiliated "crimes". Like non-filing.

[undergroundrr]

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.

[PierzStyx]

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.

[helmuth_hubener]

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!

[MallsRGood]

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.

[MallsRGood]

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.

[TheTexan]

It's not stealing if the government does it.

Gotta have roads somehow.

[oyarde]

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 .

[Suzanimal]

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.

[Madison320]

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.

[PierzStyx]

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.

[PierzStyx]

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.

[PierzStyx]

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.

[undergroundrr]

Out of rep

[Madison320]

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.

[MallsRGood]

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).

[Madison320]

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.

[Madison320]

...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.

[helmuth_hubener]

...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?