CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It depends on the agreed upon definition of "slavery", so it's not worth worrying over... That being said, you and I both know that's not what this debate is really about.
Yeah, it really does depend on how you look at it. Like I said, I support the ten percent income tax. Anything more is too much. The people are taxed enough already.
Income earned by working. Someone with one hundred dollars would pay ten dollars, while someone with one thousand dollars would pay one hundred dollars.
Fantastic. So if you earn money because your family is superrich and you live of the interest then you pay no tax and the directors of multibillion dollar businesses would pay nothing on dividends from their companies. I suppose the income that businesses wouldnt pay tax either. Wooow! Sitara for President!!!!!
We aren't taxed enough, particularly our aristocracy, especially when you consider the 17 trillion dollar debt (which was created by tax cuts, not programs which existed since the FDR administration, and we did not have this deficit until Reagan started his class war). Taxes have gone down since the 1950s (when the aristocrats paid to the tune of 90% in taxes, and we had the best public education system in the world, later put a man on the moon, and showed the world that our system worked better than the Soviet System by having a better quality of life.
The uncomfortable truth is, our aristocracy does not pay enough, and the corporations dodge taxes like hippies used to dodge the draft. Entitlement much?
As JFK once said, "we should not be asking what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country." There's a man who had an idea. Our country is facing a debt crisis. The answer is not to stick it to the working class that has literally built this country and keeps the economy going by cutting taxes on the aristocracy while simultaneously harming the working class. That is EXACTLY what the French Nobility did before the French Revolution. If you like social stability, the aristocracy need to pull their weight and stop dodging their responsibilities to the country that made them rich, and sending jobs to Communist China.
Taxation isn't slavery, although in some instances it could be comparable to armed robbery.
I don't think 10% of income as the sole and only tax would be sufficient, though. I could see replacing the current income tax structure with a flat 10% rate, leaving all other taxes in place, but some adjustments would certainly need to be made to bridge that gap. The Upper class has a significant tax burden, and even with all of the tax havens and loopholes to be abused, I doubt seriously that most of them are contributing less than 10% of their income.
What if we instead made a flat tax that applied to any instance where money changes hands, to be born equally by both parties in the transaction- regardless of whether it was payroll, a purchase, a stock dividend, an inheritance, a gift, or a loan? Im sure the actual percentage could be fine-tuned to whatever was needed.
If we went with 10%, say, and you made a $1 purchase, you'd pay $1.05, $1 for the purchase, $0.05 for your share of the transaction tax, with the seller paying another $0.05. Seller would net $0.95 for every $1 purchase, but would also need to pay transaction taxes when restocking, etc. If you earn $10/hr, you'd get $9.50/hr after taxes, while your employer would in practice be paying out $10.50/hr for you.
This would create a large incentive to cut out middlemen as much as possible, which could be either a good thing or a bad thing.
How is it like armed robbery? Armed robery is when an innocent person is forced via threat of violence to give the robber anything the robber asks. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in civilization. No one forces you to live in an advanced civilization. You can always move to Somalia or a remote part of Afghanistan, if you choose to. Taxation has been part of civilization since Ancient Mesopotamia, and it will be as long as people organize themselves in civilization. Moreover, in an armed robbery scenario, the victim gets nothin in return, whereas with taxation, you benefit from it in a variety of ways.
Again, you have a choice in the matter: you can move to some place without a functioning government. Otherwise, trying to rationalize reaping the benefits of civilization without paying for it, is wanting something for nothing, and nothing is free in this world. However, paying for things with your dues makes the benefits cheaper for you than if you'd purchased them yourself. A private police force, a private fire department, and a private military that you pay for individually is more expensive than paying for them with you societal dues.
How is it like armed robbery? Pretty simple. There is no way to legally opt-out of taxes, even if one were to attempt to live 'off the grid' in a self sufficient manner, other than simply leaving the jurisdiction where the tax is enforced- an impossibility for most for financial reasons. For the overwhelming majority, you have two choices: Pay taxes, or go to jail. Attempting to circumvent the 'go to jail' part gets you shot. Ergo, it could be reasonably compared to armed robbery under certain circumstances.
How is it like armed robbery? Pretty simple. There is no way to legally opt-out of taxes, even if one were to attempt to live 'off the grid' in a self sufficient manner, other than simply leaving the jurisdiction where the tax is enforced- an impossibility for most for financial reasons
Except:
1) No one is putting a gun to your head.
2) You benefit from taxation; in armed robbery you do not.
3) No one is forcing you to live in the US, and be a citizen. You can totally move to Somalia and not pay taxes. Even the destitute can save up for a one-way ticket to Subsaharan Africa. You can also literally walk to Central America or South America and find a nice place in the malaria/cholera-infested jungle to be "tax free" in."
Sure they are, the gun to the head comes when you attempt to evade the prison sentence you receive for refusing to pay taxes.
2) You benefit from taxation; in armed robbery you do not.
In theory. In practice, an individual can reduce his reliance upon government benefits to zero through sustainable off the grid living. In practice, an individual may be unilaterally opposed to most government spending for moral reasons, and consider the evil of contributing to their particular government to outweight any possible benefits, should they be given a choice in the matter. They aren't.
3) No one is forcing you to live in the US, and be a citizen.
I'm not specifically talking about the US here, and wouldn't generally consider the US tax scheme as one that is potentially comparable to armed robbery. That said, I can still work with these premises. The ability of the destitute to 'save up' for anything is questionable even under the best of circumstances faced by the destitute. For most of them, saving up for that one-way ticket is practically impossible. Similarly, the very idea of anybody actually packing up sufficient supplies (or materials to exchange for supplies) to make that entire journey on foot is absolutely ridiculous. Any way you slice it, it still takes a considerable amount of time and money to opt out, and your argument amounts to bribing the robber instead of being victimized. Either way, you're paying under what is ultimately threat of death.
Sure they are, the gun to the head comes when you attempt to evade the prison sentence you receive for refusing to pay taxes.
Well, no one said you HAD to be American. You can always move to a place where there is no taxation. You are a free man. Nobody, right now, has a gun to your head, and forcing you to pay taxes; that is hyperbolic and melodramatic. The "getting shot at" part happens when you try to get something for free by not paying taxes--breaking the law. Then when you evade the courts and evade the police, you might get shot. It is not simply because you did not pay your taxes. There are many steps that take place before that to avoid that situation. YOU decide to get shot by the police when you fight them for trying to arrest you for your decision to benefit from civilization without paying for it.
In theory. In practice, an individual can reduce his reliance upon government benefits to zero through sustainable off the grid living. In practice, an individual may be unilaterally opposed to most government spending for moral reasons, and consider the evil of contributing to their particular government to outweight any possible benefits, should they be given a choice in the matter. They aren't.
This has nothing to do with what I said. You absolutely benefit from taxation UNLESS: you have never driven on a road, never flown on an airplane, never drank water, never used a telephone, never relied on the fire department to save your home, or someone you love, never relied on the police to protect your property and enforce laws in your area, never been under the protection of the US Military (every US citizen is right now, as I am typing this), AND never set foot in a public school or state college. You ABSOLUTELY benefit from taxation, probably more than you pay in. I know I do. I'm a veteran. Taxation pays for all my veterans benefits.
The ability of the destitute to 'save up' for anything is questionable even under the best of circumstances faced by the destitute.
Even destitute people have feet that can carry them. If they are disabled, they shouldn't share your views anyway. So, I'm assuming that the only people who are against living in civilization are people who are able-bodied, like I presume you are. You have two feet; they are free; you can walk to the malaria/cholera-ridden jungles of central or South America to live "tax free."
For most of them, saving up for that one-way ticket is practically impossible.
If someone wants to do something, they can do it. I have friends that traveled the world as guests on oil tankers. You can hitch a ride on a ship going to Subsaharan Africa, if you do not like civilization. If you want to leave, you won't keep making excuses. Taxes have been a part of civilization since Ancient Mesopotamia, so this is nothing new.
Similarly, the very idea of anybody actually packing up sufficient supplies (or materials to exchange for supplies) to make that entire journey on foot is absolutely ridiculous.
No it isn't. People do it all the time to come the the US because they know living in places that do not have functioning governments or advanced societies sucks.
Any way you slice it, it still takes a considerable amount of time and money to opt out, and your argument amounts to bribing the robber instead of being victimized.
My argument amounts to: "if you don't like living in civilization, leave it." There is no "robber" in this scenario. You are not a "victim." You are a free man. Act like it. Stop making excuses. No one is forcing you to live in my beloved country that I've fought for in two wars. Don't ruin my nation just because you want something for free.
Either way, you're paying under what is ultimately threat of death.
This claim is incredibly melodramatic. I have a friend that didn't pay her taxes for four years. She's still alive, and she's settled with the IRS. She COULD have left for Afghanistan, but she didn't because she likes living in civilization better. You're welcome to leave. You are free, you have two feet, you can stowaway on a ship, or save up $1000 dollars for a cheap flight to Liberia. No one is forcing you to live in the US. Taxation is nothing new, and it's how you get all the benefits of living in an advanced society. Don't like having the comforts of modern life? Want zero access to roads, fire departments, emergency services, law and order, or protection of a military? Go live like a hippy in Africa somewhere and see how long you last. Your choice. Stop making excuses.
You are attributing a stance to me that I do not hold, and attacking that stance, rather vehemently.
I am not personally arguing that the taxes imposed on me by the US government amount to either slavery or armed robbery. I am not protesting anything. I am arguing that, under certain circumstances, taxation can be rather akin to armed robbery. If it helps, please revisit my post under the assumption that the government and taxation scheme in question is coming from a despotic tyrant in some third world country, and separate your emotional patriotism from the mix. If you still believe that taxation is never, in any way comparable to armed robbery- even under those conditions- please respond to this post and I will continue discussion with you accordingly.
I am open to discussion, but I will not respond to your argument in its current antagonistic and unwarrantedly condescending form. If you'll drop the attitude a moment, clear your head, and revisit this under the premise that we are not speaking of the US, I will discuss further.
I am arguing that, under certain circumstances, taxation can be rather akin to armed robbery.
It seems like you tried to make an argument earlier that stated something like, "if I do not pay my taxes, the government (the US government) will come by and kill me immediately."
Okay, so what circumstances? What country are we talking about? In the entire modern developed world there is no place that I know of that forces people at gunpoint to pay their dues.
If it helps, please revisit my post under the assumption that the government and taxation scheme in question is coming from a despotic tyrant in some third world country, and separate your emotional patriotism from the mix.
If we're talking about a made-up place, why are you basing your seeming political philosophy on some place that probably doesn't exist?
If you still believe that taxation is never, in any way comparable to armed robbery- even under those conditions- please respond to this post and I will continue discussion with you accordingly.
It isn't functionally anything like armed robbery in any developed country. There might be a third world country where it is, but that is moot point. We do not live there. It seems as though you are trying to make an argument AGAINST taxation of any kind because there could be a country out there, somewhere, where taxation is forced at gunpoint (that is incredibly inefficient at the national level). If there IS a country out there where it is run like that, I choose not to live there, and you should too. So, yes, it is POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be a country out there like that, but it won't last long, because you would need to have a platoon-sized element of professional soldiers that goes around shaking people down all day; that is not cost effective; that government will not last long simply in terms of math.
I am open to discussion, but I will not respond to your argument in its current antagonistic and unwarrantedly condescending form. If you'll drop the attitude a moment, clear your head, and revisit this under the premise that we are not speaking of the US, I will discuss further.
I'm not meaning to be condescending. I apologize if I come across that way. You must realize that there are actually uneducated people out there who think "tax" is a four-letter word (often wrapped in the American Flag), and that our government can function without it in its current form. Essentially, those people (apparently not you), think they can benefit from society and not have to pay for it. I'm assuming you understand how incredibly irresponsible and reactionary that is. Those people exist, and they are all over the place. Thank you for clarifying that you are not one of those people.
I understand that you are likely unfamiliar with people who debate a position that they do not necessarily hold themselves, and I hope you can think this through and accomodate me.
It seems like you tried to make an argument earlier that stated something like, "if I do not pay my taxes, the government (the US government) will come by and kill me immediately."
My argument earlier was not specific to any government, and I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist on the US government, especially given my last argument. My argument was rather that refusing to pay taxes will, in most jurisdications, result in criminal charges and jail time- and further, that even in nations without the death penalty, attempting to evade a prison sentence and/or break out of jail will liekly get you shot. I should also note that getting shot is not a definite outcome of armed robbery if one refuses to comply; some robbers don't actually have the will to pull the trigger, some are carrying unloaded guns, and some are misrepresenting something else as a gun.
I am not talking about the US specifically, and death needn't be either guaranteed or immediate for it to be comparable to armed robbery.
Okay, so what circumstances? What country are we talking about? In the entire modern developed world there is no place that I know of that forces people at gunpoint to pay their dues.
First off, I have to reject your your basic premises here. This need not be limited to the modern/developed world at all- I'm not arguing that taxation IS armed robbery, I'm arguing that under certain circumstances it can be comparable to it. Those circumstances need not be limited to the modern/developed world. Furthermore, forcing people at gunpoint to pay taxes would not be comparable to armed robbery. It would in fact be armed robbery.
Historically speaking, taxes have been resisted and people killed for it numerous times throughout Europe. In modern day China, people have been executed for refusing to pay the ~200k yen tax required of those who have a second child. And lets not forget that the refusal of colonists to pay taxes sparked military action on the part of the crown, leading to the American Revolutionary War.
Here, have a wikipedia article. This details numerous accounts of tax resistance, a number of which were met with lethal force, sometimes escalating severely and affecting far more than just the tax resistors.
If we're talking about a made-up place, why are you basing your seeming political philosophy on some place that probably doesn't exist?
First and foremost: You don't seem to understand the value of a hypothetical scenario. The main reason I'm using it, in this instance, is an attempt to examine an issue from an objective standpoint. Using real-life examples comes hand-in-hand with emotional baggage that clouds the issues; for reference, look at your initial response when you assumed I was criticizing the US.
Secondly, you seem to misunderstand my stance even after I have explained it. My political philosophy is not "Taxation is armed robbery" citing a hypothetical scenario as evidence. My stance was rather that "Taxation can be considered armed robbery under certain circumstances." Even if those circumstances do not exist now (even though they do, as can be noted with China), that stance is valid simply because those circumstances have existed, and it's certainly possible that similar circumstances could arise again.
It isn't functionally anything like armed robbery in any developed country. There might be a third world country where it is, but that is moot point. We do not live there.
I've alread addressed the 'developed country' bit. Also: China is not a third world country; it is still considered a 'developing' country, but not third world. It is only a moot point within the framework you're attempting to shoehorn my stance into, which I refuse to accept. Again, my argument is not limited to developed countries, and is not rendered moot by your place of residence or mine.
It seems as though you are trying to make an argument AGAINST taxation of any kind because there could be a country out there, somewhere, where taxation is forced at gunpoint (that is incredibly inefficient at the national level).
I apologize if I miscommunicated my intent somehow, though I'm pretty sure I had that wrapped up in my last argument. The picture you paint is entirely fallacious, and has nothing to do with my actual stance. You're wrong in what may argument is intended for, and you're again wrong in what it would take for taxation to be comparable to armed robbery.
If there IS a country out there where it is run like that, I choose not to live there, and you should too. So, yes, it is POSSIBLE that there MIGHT be a country out there like that, but it won't last long, because you would need to have a platoon-sized element of professional soldiers that goes around shaking people down all day; that is not cost effective; that government will not last long simply in terms of math.
There is- China. Getting out of China is no easy task for the average peasant; if you or I were born to an average central chinese family, the very idea of moving elsewhere to escape the taxes is laughable. And a platoon of soldiers is not needed to patrol every town eevery single day by a long shot- only those who refuse to pay what they owe need to be sshaken down. Do you really think a government that will roll armor against peaceful protestors would balk at aiming guns at those who don't pay taxes? Despite your math issues, China's economy is still on the up.
I'm not meaning to be condescending. I apologize if I come across that way. You must realize that there are actually uneducated people out there who think "tax" is a four-letter word (often wrapped in the American Flag), and that our government can function without it in its current form.
Oh, I know those people exist; I would have thought that my wording and points would somehow set me apart from those. I'm well aware that the US government cannot function without significant tax revenue, and I'm not aiming criticisms at the US government in this instance. I do have tax-related criticisms against the US government, but not on that level- more akin to statutes several states have adopted that essentially outlaw attempts to live sustainably off the grid. Florida, for example, recently made arrests and levied fines that effectively broke up a sustainable community because of a statute requiring all residences being connected to running water and the power grid; they were using hand pumped wells and generated the small amount of power they needed themselves.
Essentially, those people (apparently not you), think they can benefit from society and not have to pay for it. I'm assuming you understand how incredibly irresponsible and reactionary that is. Those people exist, and they are all over the place. Thank you for clarifying that you are not one of those people.
I don't contest this line of thinking- but I don't think its fundamentally wrong for those who make a point not to partake in any of society's benefits (beyond what they are legally forced to) to object to paying all of the associated taxes- I don't think being excused from taxation entirely is reasonable, but certainly some middleground could be found for those who truly wish to be as isolated and self-sufficient as possible.
My argument was rather that refusing to pay taxes will, in most jurisdications, result in criminal charges and jail time- and further, that even in nations without the death penalty, attempting to evade a prison sentence and/or break out of jail will liekly get you shot.
That is because enjoying the fruits of civilization and not paying for it, is basically stealing from your fellow American (or, since we're not talking about the US, your fellow Englishman, or whatever). Theft is a crime.
Since I suspect you're a classical liberal, let me put it this way:
You walk into a liquor store. You pick up a bottle of beer, and drink it. The owner asks you if you plan on paying for it, and you say: "no, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You should just provide it to me." Then you pick up another bottle of beer, and drink it. Now lets say he asks you to pay for it again (this is your tax collection agency letter asking you to pay your back taxes). This time you say, "I shouldn't have to pay for it because you also sell Jack Daniels and I don't like that booze." This time he walks over to you and says, "if you do not pay, I will report you to the police" (this is where the tax collection agency is pressing charges). You raise your gun to the store owner and say, "I won't let you rob me," and he shoots you. How is that "armed robbery" on HIS part?
Until the world becomes communist, we will need to pay for things, since things still cost money. Taxes are dues paid to civilization, just like that $12 you're supposed to give the store owner for the 6 pack of (hopefully) good craft beer you were drinking. Does that make sense? It is not wrong for the store owner to ask you to pay for the beer you drank. Taxation is not armed robbery. I think you're saying that a platoon of armed soldiers shaking people down for all their money is armed robbery, and I would agree with that, but that's armed robbery, not taxation.
Historically speaking, taxes have been resisted and people killed for it numerous times throughout Europe. In modern day China, people have been executed for refusing to pay the ~200k yen tax required of those who have a second child.
So, are you against despotism? Or are you against taxation? I would agree that despotism is bad.
And lets not forget that the refusal of colonists to pay taxes sparked military action on the part of the crown, leading to the American Revolutionary War.
Thank you for bringing this up, history is what I do for a living!
The Colonists in North American did not have a revolution, they had a War for Independence, first of all.
Second of all, the slogan of the independence movement (which was mostly wealthy land-owning slavers, and less than 1/3 of the population at the time) was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." It was NOT "no taxation." They wanted representation in Parliament, if they were going to pay taxes (which the taxes they were paying at the time were almost nothing, the lowest in the Empire. Yet these colonies were some of the richest parts of the British Empire. The British Empire sent troops across the pond TWICE to defend those colonies, and were now in debt because of it, and needed to recoup the money. It was a no-brainer to ask the people they went in debt over to pay into the system they benefitted from).
If the American Independence Movement were really against taxation, then President Washington, early in his Presidency, would not have nationalized the militia to literally gun-down tax rebels in theWhiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion).
I am not talking about the US specifically, and death needn't be either guaranteed or immediate for it to be comparable to armed robbery.
I can't imagine a robber saying, "you have one year to produce money in your wallet for me to take for the services I provide you, or I'll put you in jail, and if you threaten my life, I'll shoot you."
Furthermore, forcing people at gunpoint to pay taxes would not be comparable to armed robbery. It would in fact be armed robbery.
Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pay taxes, doesn't happen in the developed world. This is hyperbolic. Again, you benefit from taxation, probably more than you pay in. I know I do.
First and foremost: You don't seem to understand the value of a hypothetical scenario. The main reason I'm using it, in this instance, is an attempt to examine an issue from an objective standpoint.
An objective standpoint on something that isn't happening in the developed world. You're painting all civilization dues with ONLY the brush you would paint a despotic system with. That is an over-generalization fallacy.
My stance was rather that "Taxation can be considered armed robbery under certain circumstances." Even if those circumstances do not exist now (even though they do, as can be noted with China), that stance is valid simply because those circumstances have existed, and it's certainly possible that similar circumstances could arise again.
It COULD happen, and it might happen in some parts of the world, but that does not mean all taxation is 100% armed robbery. I think you just said that though. My question is, why are you so adamant about defending a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation that doesn't affect us? The argument you're using is normally used to justify absurd, irresponsible tax cuts, not to discuss something that "happened somewhere else, and might happen some other place." So, you can see, I'm sure, why I was so confused.
I've alread addressed the 'developed country' bit. Also: China is not a third world country; it is still considered a 'developing' country, but not third world.
I would argue that Communist China is just a third world toilet with more money than DR Congo. It has a crumbling infrastructure, a despotic government, and political prisons.
I don't contest this line of thinking- but I don't think its fundamentally wrong for those who make a point not to partake in any of society's benefits (beyond what they are legally forced to) to object to paying all of the associated taxes- I don't think being excused from taxation entirely is reasonable, but certainly some middleground could be found for those who truly wish to be as isolated and self-sufficient as possible.
Under the nation-state geopolitical system, unfortunately, if you live within the borders of a nation, you are subject to its rules, and you should be. There is always moving away to some place with not functioning government.
I'm picking up what you're putting down. I think you're saying that tax collection is bad ONLY IF you employ armed thugs and zero time to ask the tax payer to produce the dues owed to the civilization. I would agree with that. It's a good thing we live in the developed world, or the USA even!
That is because enjoying the fruits of civilization and not paying for it, is basically stealing from your fellow American (or, since we're not talking about the US, your fellow Englishman, or whatever). Theft is a crime.
Theft requires intent. Being born into a country does not carry any intent on the part of the person born, and these 'fruits of civilization' are forced upon people regardless of whether or not they want them. Forcing an unwanted product or service on someone and demanding payment is fraud; this is well established in case law, as this tactic was previously employed by numerous companies, most notably magazines.
Since I suspect you're a classical liberal, let me put it this way:
I actually lend more conservative on the whole than liberal, but I'm pretty used to people assuming they know everything about my political stance from a single comment AND getting it wrong, so I'll let it slide.
You walk into a liquor store. You pick up a bottle of beer, and drink it. The owner asks you if you plan on paying for it, and you say: "no, I shouldn't have to pay for it. You should just provide it to me." Then you pick up another bottle of beer, and drink it. Now lets say he asks you to pay for it again (this is your tax collection agency letter asking you to pay your back taxes). This time you say, "I shouldn't have to pay for it because you also sell Jack Daniels and I don't like that booze." This time he walks over to you and says, "if you do not pay, I will report you to the police" (this is where the tax collection agency is pressing charges). You raise your gun to the store owner and say, "I won't let you rob me," and he shoots you. How is that "armed robbery" on HIS part?
That case isn't. Again- my position is not 'all taxation is armed robbery' but rather 'taxation can be comparable to armed robbery under certain circumstances.'
Since we're using hypotheticals, how about I return one for your Theft argument?
You receive an unsolicited magazine in the mail. along with a bill for your subscription. You call and tell them that you do not want the subscription, and do not wish to pay for it. They refuse to cancel your subscription or accept the return of the received issue, and again demand payment. When you again refuse, they threaten to report you to the policy. How is this theft on YOUR part?
Until the world becomes communist, we will need to pay for things, since things still cost money. Taxes are dues paid to civilization, just like that $12 you're supposed to give the store owner for the 6 pack of (hopefully) good craft beer you were drinking. Does that make sense? It is not wrong for the store owner to ask you to pay for the beer you drank. Taxation is not armed robbery. I think you're saying that a platoon of armed soldiers shaking people down for all their money is armed robbery, and I would agree with that, but that's armed robbery, not taxation.
Nit-pick: Taxes are not dues paid to civilizations- they're funding provided to the government, which may have had little to do with establishing the civilization in question. Maybe not the US in this case, but certainly much of Europe's governments are relatively new compared to the civilizations they govern.
A platoon of armed soldiers shaking people down for their money is not comparable to armed robbery- it IS armed robbery. To be comparable to armed robbery, it need only be similar; taking money against the individuals will under threat of force is sufficiently close for a comparison. This does happen, and I've already pointed out examples. I'm not sure why you're still arguing points that I've already addressed, reiterating them does not unrefute them, and the nature of my position prevents me from accepting many of the basic premises you're working with. I'm not arguing in your box- you can step out of your box and debate this in the open, or you can stay in your box and I'll move on with the knowledge that you've failed to address my position in the slightest.
So, are you against despotism? Or are you against taxation? I would agree that despotism is bad.
I am against despotism, but I am not against taxation. How many times do I need to explain my position before you get it?
Thank you for bringing this up, history is what I do for a living!
The Colonists in North American did not have a revolution, they had a War for Independence, first of all.
Pointless nitpick. It is generally referred to as the American Revolution or the Revolutionary War.
Second of all, the slogan of the independence movement (which was mostly wealthy land-owning slavers, and less than 1/3 of the population at the time) was "no taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION." It was NOT "no taxation." They wanted representation in Parliament, if they were going to pay taxes (which the taxes they were paying at the time were almost nothing, the lowest in the Empire. Yet these colonies were some of the richest parts of the British Empire. The British Empire sent troops across the pond TWICE to defend those colonies, and were now in debt because of it, and needed to recoup the money. It was a no-brainer to ask the people they went in debt over to pay into the system they benefitted from).
The intent of the revolution was largely immaterial here. The fact was that they refused to pay certain taxes, and that was met with lethal force. The reason why doesn't really matter.
If the American Independence Movement were really against taxation, then President Washington, early in his Presidency, would not have nationalized the militia to literally gun-down tax rebels in theWhiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion).
I didn't say the war was about taxation- I said that taxation sparked the war.
I can't imagine a robber saying, "you have one year to produce money in your wallet for me to take for the services I provide you, or I'll put you in jail, and if you threaten my life, I'll shoot you."
Most robbers don't have a specific list of people they need to rob. What about organized crime? They've been known to extend deadlines for payment, and then execute if the deadline is missed. I'm not talking about racketeering here, more the loan shark type of things- but this is typically classified as robbery.
Holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pay taxes, doesn't happen in the developed world. This is hyperbolic. Again, you benefit from taxation, probably more than you pay in. I know I do.
It doesn't need to actually involve a gun being held to someone's head to be comparable to armed robbery. It doesn't need to happen in the developed world to support my stance. And I'm not objecting to the taxes that I pay, either.
An objective standpoint on something that isn't happening in the developed world. You're painting all civilization dues with ONLY the brush you would paint a despotic system with. That is an over-generalization fallacy.
Oh, I'd wager it probably happens in some parts of the developed world, but thats neither here nor there. In order to be over-generalizing, I would have to be generalizing. I'm not. Let me spell it out for you again: my position is that 'taxation can be comparable to armed robbery under certain circumstances.' This is not a criticism of taxation in general, no matter how much you seem to want it to be.
It COULD happen, and it might happen in some parts of the world, but that does not mean all taxation is 100% armed robbery. I think you just said that though. My question is, why are you so adamant about defending a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation that doesn't affect us? The argument you're using is normally used to justify absurd, irresponsible tax cuts, not to discuss something that "happened somewhere else, and might happen some other place." So, you can see, I'm sure, why I was so confused.
My position is not, and has never been 'all taxation is 100% armed robbery.' Nothing suggested that, even my original post. I'm going to assume that you're actually new here and not a sockpuppet of someone else; if you spend a bit of time here, you'll discover that I simply like to debate positions that interest me. The exchange of ideas and discussion is the reward for me- nobody expects to affect any kind of meaningful change within a post here ;) I can understand you being confused, so just consider this: This is a website for people who enjoy participating in debate; this is not a place where a large number of people can be influenced to affect political change.
I would argue that Communist China is just a third world toilet with more money than DR Congo. It has a crumbling infrastructure, a despotic government, and political prisons.
Of course- except for the crumbling infrastructure portion, which is only somewhat accurate. The only problem is, that argument doesn't hurt my stance any. Remember, the qualifier of 'developed countries' is something that you tried to work in there, and I have not accepted it as a premise for discussion- nor will I within the scope of this exchange. I'm not going to continue shooting at moving goalposts; as far as I'm concerned, they're right where they were planted at the start.
Under the nation-state geopolitical system, unfortunately, if you live within the borders of a nation, you are subject to its rules, and you should be. There is always moving away to some place with not functioning government.
Why do you feel someone SHOULD be subjected to such? Why should anyone necessarily be bound by laws that were created before they were born, that they never got a vote on? I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but I'm curious as to why you feel that way.
I'm picking up what you're putting down. I think you're saying that tax collection is bad ONLY IF you employ armed thugs and zero time to ask the tax payer to produce the dues owed to the civilization. I would agree with that. It's a good thing we live in the developed world, or the USA even!
Not exactly. I'm not actually making a value assessment regarding tax collection at this time. If I were, I'd say that taxation can be bad under far more broad circumstances than that, but thats another discussion entirely. I do not feel that the tax scheme in the US is innately bad, though it could stand some serious reform for optimization.
Remember; my position is that 'taxation can be comparable to armed robbery under certain circumstances.' The opposite position from this is 'taxation is in no way comparable to armed robbery under any circumstances.' The burden of proof is on me for this claim, but that burden is satisfied, my position proven true, and the opposite proven false, by presenting a single case where taxation could be comparable to robbery. I have already done this.
Theft requires intent. Being born into a country does not carry any intent on the part of the person born, and these 'fruits of civilization' are forced upon people regardless of whether or not they want them. Forcing an unwanted product or service on someone and demanding payment is fraud; this is well established in case law, as this tactic was previously employed by numerous companies, most notably magazines.
Then I refer you back to my "then move some place that doesn't offer the product" rebuttal. No one is forcing anyone to live in civilization. Don't say, "it's impossible to move anywhere else." My friend Pawel, came to the free world by jumping over the Berlin Wall. He didn't know anyone on the other side. People are free, and as such, can do what they want. No one is forcing anyone to stay anywhere.
I actually lend more conservative on the whole than liberal, but I'm pretty used to people assuming they know everything about my political stance from a single comment AND getting it wrong, so I'll let it slide.
I don't think you know what classical liberal means. If you did, you'd realize that you are one. Ronald Reagan was a classical liberal. Adam Smith was a classical liberal. Liberal is misused in the United States, and we use "libertarian" in its place. Liberals (in light of the actual meaning) believe in "free" unregulated markets, they believe in global trade, and they believe in the smallest government possible. Liberals believe that the market can solve everything despite that it has not in history. Since you're probably American and do not know what liberal actually means, I'll let that slide.
You receive an unsolicited magazine in the mail. along with a bill for your subscription. You call and tell them that you do not want the subscription, and do not wish to pay for it. They refuse to cancel your subscription or accept the return of the received issue, and again demand payment. When you again refuse, they threaten to report you to the policy. How is this theft on YOUR part?
That isn't what taxation is though. Taxation is the dues you pay to live in civilization and enjoy the fruits of it. There are definitely perks to living in civilization, but no one is forcing you to live in it and enjoy the fruits of it. You can always leave, if you do not like it. Since you're using the internet, I'll assume you probably like civilization. You were born into civilization, so in that respect, you had no choice, but upon reaching legal adulthood (the part where you had to started paying taxes), you could move to subsaharan Africa. Stop acting like a victim. No one who lives in horrible 3rd world places like Somalia feel bad for you. I'm guessing you've never traveled outside the US, so I'll let that slide.
Nit-pick: Taxes are not dues paid to civilizations- they're funding provided to the government, which may have had little to do with establishing the civilization in question.
You're trying to play semantics. Taxes are dues you pay to live in civilization. The government provides civilization to the people in return for dues paid to it. Without government: there are no fire departments, no highways, no bridges, no FAA, no FDA, no police, no military, no public education, and you would have a very primitive world. Since the dawn of civilization (ancient Mesopotamia), people have paid taxes.
Let me put it like this: if you think taxation does not fund civilization, what does? Civilization is not free.
To be comparable to armed robbery, it need only be similar; taking money against the individuals will under threat of force is sufficiently close for a comparison.
Well, soldiers shaking people down under the threat of immediate death is not armed robbery because it is done within the confines of the law, and if not it's something different entirely. So it IS similar, and not exactly the same. You don't get charged with armed robbery unless you've committed the crime.
Pointless nitpick. It is generally referred to as the American Revolution or the Revolutionary War.
Not a nitpick, it was me passing along knowledge to you from studying history professionally.
I am against despotism, but I am not against taxation. How many times do I need to explain my position before you get it?
I get it. Don't be a dick.
The intent of the revolution was largely immaterial here. The fact was that they refused to pay certain taxes, and that was met with lethal force. The reason why doesn't really matter.
It absolutely matters, but maybe that's because I study history for a living.
It doesn't need to actually involve a gun being held to someone's head to be comparable to armed robbery.
It absolutely does. When was the last time a mugger gave you years to give them all the money in your wallet because they are providing services to you for the sake of providing them and only threatened you if you tried to fight them and refused to pay? The government is not a thief. It derives its just powers from the consent of the governed (that's you). Thieves do not derive power from you, and they do not provide anything to you. You do not vote for thieves. You do not have a say in what the thief does. Governments and dues are governments and dues; criminals and theft are criminals and theft. That's why taxation is nothing like armed robbery.
Of course- except for the crumbling infrastructure portion, which is only somewhat accurate.O
When was the last time you traveled to China?
In order to be over-generalizing, I would have to be generalizing. I'm not. Let me spell it out for you again: my position is that 'taxation can be comparable to armed robbery under certain circumstances.'
What is the point of making that case, unless you're going to use the classical liberal argument of "taxation is theft," which you keep doing with your magazine subscription thing.
Why do you feel someone SHOULD be subjected to such? Why should anyone necessarily be bound by laws that were created before they were born, that they never got a vote on?
There is something called a "Social Contract" that the citizen has with their government. It is one of the enlightenment principles that western-style governments are founded on. You pay taxes, the government provides services. That social contract is mentioned all over our founding documents, and most every single other western country's founding documents. If you want to learn more about it, read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and the Two Treatises on Government by John Locke. There are also a bunch of other enlightenment thinkers that understood it. If you read what they said, it makes a lot of sense. These were not stupid, irresponsible people. It's unfortunate that most people have never read these works by the time they become voters, because they explain a lot about western-style government, and political philosophy. It comes down to, as Jefferson wrote in the DOI, "Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is social contract. You can move, and you can rebel, but as long as you: vote, go to jury duty, pay your dues, protest, are politically involved, or interface with the government in any way (like driving on a road, or being protected by the military), you are entering into the social contract. Please read those works. It will make much more sense.
The burden of proof is on me for this claim, but that burden is satisfied, my position proven true, and the opposite proven false, by presenting a single case where taxation could be comparable to robbery. I have already done this.
I never argued that it might be something like armed robbery in an extreme case that never happens in the developed world. The platoon of soldiers shaking people down under threat of immediate death would be the example where I agreed with you.
I am not trying to put together some kind of pity party.
You do not know me, and your entire stance is based on a picture you're painting of me that is not remotely accurate.
Last time- if you would care to reply to my actual points, and stop injecting your completely unfounded and inaccurate opinion of me into the mix, then do so. I don't mind discussion.
If you can't do that, I won't reply further. My point has already been proven, as I've explained, so I have no qualms with walking away considering this as my 'win' for what its worth. But as I've said, I'm more interested in discussion, and will happily continue discussing with you if you can stay on topic and cease the insults and abuse.
Slavery is forced labor in which one human being is literally owned by another human being or corporate entity. The slave has no choice in the matter, and in the case of American Slavery, they are seen as a subhuman race that "deserves" to be slaves. Slavery is the purest form of exploitation where the stronger party has the liberty to do whatever it wants to the other.
Taxation, however, is dues you pay to the society you choose to live in. A famous economist, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr once said:Taxation is the price of civilization. No one is forcing anyone to pay taxes to the society they live in, or force them to be functioning members of society, or beating them if they do not toil. Taxes are what you pay as a member of society; they are dues that you pay just like dues you pay for belonging to a fitness club. No one is forcing you via coercion to belong to the fitness club, but if you want to belong to the fitness club, you pay your dues. Nothing in this world is for free, and to complain about the concept of paying dues to civilization, is to want something for free.
Admittedly, sometimes your dues do not always go to things you want them to, but at the gym I belong to, there is hydro massage and tanning; I never use either, and would prefer that they put some free weights or workout machines in the rooms occupied by them. However, my dues also go to the things I use and their maintenance; some people actually use the hydromassage or tanning beds. We pool our money together so that we do not have to buy all the gym equipment at the gym for ourselves, so it is cheaper for me.
Again though, I am not being forced to pay my dues to my gym. I can always go to another gym. As with my gym analogy, if you do not like taxation, there are plenty of places that have zero infrastructure, zero functioning government, and zero social programs, like Somalia or DR Congo. The people of those places would LOVE for you to move there, if you do not like paying taxes, and take all your wealth there.
Taxation is something we do for our country to make it better. I served in the US Military for six years and fought in two wars-- risking my very life. No one is asking anyone to risk their lives for the country, but some dues that you can afford (that will not kill you to pay) is not too much to ask. Most taxpayers get more in return for their taxes than they pay in. It is CHEAPER FOR YOU to pay taxes, than it would be for you to hire a PRIVATE police force, a PRIVATE fire department, a PRIVATE military (those exist), a PRIVATE road building company, and a PRIVATE school to educate your kids.
To say taxation is slavery is hyperbolic, absurd, and intellectually irresponsible.
It isn't absurd. I am not forced to pay taxes. I've never had anyone come to my house with a gun, point it at my head, and shake me down. Normally, what happens is, in January, I get my W-2 statement, and I fill out a 1040 EZ, and send it to the IRS. I do that because I realize that as a member of this society, and an American patriot, I need to pay into the society I live in. We all have to do our part for our country. I've fought in two wars for it, and now I have no problem paying for my society. It's called "responsibility." It would be absurd to feel entitled to the perks of living in civilization without having to pay for them.
It is not slavery, but the Government owns us since we must pay to live. Taxation = pay period...I live and I pay and that is just how it is because the Government me and everything I produce. If you spend some time in an anarchaic society in Africa where you are absolutely free, you will understand exactly what I am saying.
It is not slavery, but the Government owns us since we must pay to live. Taxation = pay period...I live and I pay and that is just how it is because the Government me and everything I produce. If you spend some time in an anarchaic society in Africa where you are absolutely free, you will understand exactly what I am saying.
This is an incredibly hyperbolic claim. The government does not "own" you. You are free to leave any time you want. You can always move to Africa, if you like it there better. You have a responsibility to pay for the civilization you live in, but no one is forcing you to do it. Just leave if you don't love America so the rest of us can enjoy living here.
Statism... A made-up four-letter word that libertarians use for people who think the government should promote the liberty and prosperity of the average individual citizen.
Anyway. If you think that believing that the government has a role is unpatriotic, you should go ask the framers of the Constitution about that, because they created our government. While you're at it, you should tell them they aren't patriotic.
How dare you ever call me unpatriotic anyway? I've fought in two wars for this nation, and I love my country. I have dedicated my life to making my country and the world better. You're the one trying to "burn it all down," by giving the rich a helping hand at the expense of the working class, and defunding programs like the VA that help heroes who actually stood up to do things for their country rather than just sit around and think of ways to dismantle it.
Statism is another way to say, "responsible." If you think that America is a state (nation), then you are a statist. So, if you're in favor of globalization and destroying borders, then you're NOT a statist. I'll bet you still think America should be a country, so you're a statist too: you believe that states are real.
Statism... A made-up four-letter word that libertarians use for people who think the government should promote the liberty and prosperity of the average individual citizen. Statism is when the government has too much control. Anyway. If you think that believing that the government has a role is unpatriotic, you should go ask the framers of the Constitution about that, because they created our government. While you're at it, you should tell them they aren't patriotic. I never said that government does not have a role. I just disagree with how much of a role it has. How dare you ever call me unpatriotic anyway? I've fought in two wars for this nation, and I love my country. I have dedicated my life to making my country and the world better. You're the one trying to "burn it all down," by giving the rich a helping hand at the expense of the working class, and defunding programs like the VA that help heroes who actually stood up to do things for their country rather than just sit around and think of ways to dismantle it. Do not play the victim. I have the right to disagree with you. Statism is another way to say, "responsible." If you think that America is a state (nation), then you are a statist. So, if you're in favor of globalization and destroying borders, then you're NOT a statist. I'll bet you still think America should be a country, so you're a statist too: you believe that states are real. Statism is not responsible. Statism violates human rights.
Not per se, but there are several factors that when combined can create a type of “slavery” in essence. The type of taxation imposed on a population can be one of these contributing factors.
Yes I agree with Sitara. I believe 10% is the limit and it is defo over 10% at mo so it is over-taxation quite literally. I'm libertarian so this is a problem that is serious to me.
You think we are over-taxed in a period of record-low taxation in the last century, a period of 17 trillion dollar deficit, and perpetual foreign wars on a credit card? What are you trying to do? Destroy the US?
Under the Eisenhower Administration, the one-percent were taxed to the tune of 90%. Today they are taxed (my uncle is a tax attorney to the wealthy), at anywhere between 15-25 percent (we're talking about people who have more money than God, and have benefitted from society more than anyone else). Under Clinton, it was 30 percent. So, taxes on the people most able to pay them, have been steadily going down, and those low tax rates we have today have loop holes; many of those billionaires are still dodging taxes by hiding money in offshore accounts.
The tax rate on the working poor can be high, and you could pay half of your income in taxes if: a) you owe back taxes, b) you owe back child support, or c) you have had your wages attached for some reason be it creditor or fines; most of those can be attributed to poor money management on the part of the individual, and we are all responsible for our own actions (see? I told you I used to be a Republican).
Spending has dropped on programs that allow for social mobility, like pell grants and higher education, along with programs for the disabled, mentally ill, and destitute. So, our $17 trillion deficit is not because spending has gone up (look at spending in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and 60s compared to now), it is because those who benefit the most from our society are trying to get something for free. These are all facts you can find from non-partisan, credible, unbiased sources.
A 10 percent flat tax helps the rich dodge taxes for good. The concept of a progressive tax rate has been around since Ancient Athens. In Ancient Athens, there was this idea that "there can be no success without Athens." In other words, the Ancient Athenians knew that if they did not have Athens in the first place (the agora, the government protecting property, the infrastructure to do business and regulate markets), everyone would be too concerned with keeping a fire going to stay warm, and hunting for food to become wealthy (and that's true). Therefore, the ones that benefit the most from that society, should pay more into it than the people who benefit very little from that society. It is in the interest of the rich to perpetuate civilization. Without it, they aren't going to be rich for long because there are more working poor people than there are of them, and the French Revolution happens again.
A 10 percent flat tax taxes the destitute more, and dramatically lowers taxes on the incredibly rich. History has shown that lowering taxes on the rich DOES NOT improve the economy or create jobs, so we already know it will not benefit us or society. So, why should we be on board with that? Often times these obscenely rich people were born into their class and have never had to work a day in their lives.
As I've said, at 10% flat tax rate does not benefit you or I. It raises taxes dramatically on the poor, and dramatically lowers taxes on the rich. Only the rich benefit from that.
It is also not more fair, nor is it more logical. It is fair to ask the people who benefit the most from society (the rich) to pay more taxes (they can afford it) than people who benefit the least from society (the poor). That is why progressive taxation makes sense: it's more fair. Raising taxes on the poor, and lowering taxes on the rich is NOT fair, and it does not promote social justice.
No it does not. The poor would pay less taxes under my proposed plan. I will give you an example: Someone with ten dollars would pay one dollar, and someone with one hundred dollars would pay ten dollars.
I'm not sure what your point is with this. You're right that some 1% ers did not always pay that, but it was a tax rate that used to exist, and it still stands that taxes have been lowered.
