Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

Sure, theft has a negative moral consequence, but so does abandoning another in need and taking more than you need.

Then why do you not support charity over government? If helping your fellowman is your goal, why do you feel the need to harm others to do so?

[1714558581]

1714558581

[1714558581]

1714558581

[1714558581]

1714558581

[Kontakt]

Sure, theft has a negative moral consequence, but so does abandoning another in need and taking more than you need.

Then why do you not support charity over government? If helping your fellowman is your goal, why do you feel the need to harm others to do so?

Because that as my only choice, according to you. Appealing to their sense of graciousness and asking nicely was not an option given to me. Why did Robin Hood feel the need to steal?

[myrkul]

Sure, theft has a negative moral consequence, but so does abandoning another in need and taking more than you need.

Then why do you not support charity over government? If helping your fellowman is your goal, why do you feel the need to harm others to do so?

Because that was my only choice, according to you. Appealing to their sense of graciousness and asking nicely was not an option given to me. Why did Robin Hood feel the need to steal?

I am not the one telling you you have only one choice. In fact, I am the one opening your eyes to the other choices. Robin Hood was returning the tax to those it was taken from. Be more careful who you use as an example in the future. Pol Pot might be more to your liking.

[Kontakt]

Sure, theft has a negative moral consequence, but so does abandoning another in need and taking more than you need.

Then why do you not support charity over government? If helping your fellowman is your goal, why do you feel the need to harm others to do so?

Because that was my only choice, according to you. Appealing to their sense of graciousness and asking nicely was not an option given to me. Why did Robin Hood feel the need to steal?

I am not the one telling you you have only one choice. In fact, I am the one opening your eyes to the other choices. Robin Hood was returning the tax to those it was taken from. Be more careful who you use as an example in the future. Pol Pot might be more to your liking.

I don't need examples. I hold my truths to be self evident. If that line of logic can work for churches, it can work for me. People are idiots. All of them. No matter how clever they think themselves. Taxes aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

[myrkul]

Why did Robin Hood feel the need to steal?

^EXAMPLE^

Robin Hood was returning the tax to those it was taken from. Be more careful who you use as an example in the future. Pol Pot might be more to your liking.

I don't need examples.

LOL

People are idiots. All of them. No matter how clever they think themselves.

Yourself included?

[Kontakt]

Of course I'm an idiot. Those who think themselves smarter than everyone else are often the dumbest of them all!

[myrkul]

Of course I'm an idiot.

Then we can safely disregard your political opinions as the ravings of an idiot.

[Richy_T]

I am not the one telling you you have only one choice. In fact, I am the one opening your eyes to the other choices. Robin Hood was returning the tax to those it was taken from. Be more careful who you use as an example in the future. Pol Pot might be more to your liking.

I think latest theory is that the real Robin Hood was a thug who took the money of others and spent it. The popular fairy tale is nice though.

[sturle]

I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.

What country did you steal your land from?

I didn't steal any land. We (my roommates and I) bought it, fair and square.

From which country?  When did you give up your citicenship of your old country?  Do you bring passports and pass border control when you leave your land?

[Kontakt]

Of course I'm an idiot.

Then we can safely disregard your political opinions as the ravings of an idiot.

Ah, but you see, the scary part is that I have just as much say in the political process as you do. Doesn't matter if I'm an idiot or a genius, I have the same amount of rights as you.

[myrkul]

I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.

What country did you steal your land from?

I didn't steal any land. We (my roommates and I) bought it, fair and square.

From which country?  When did you give up your citicenship of your old country?  Do you bring passports and pass border control when you leave your land?

Citizenship? I didn't have to renounce. They don't even pretend that exists anymore.

cit·i·zen
noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[Kontakt]

I don't even live on the President's land. I live on my land. The idea that I should be paying taxes in order to live on land I own is ridiculous.

What country did you steal your land from?

I didn't steal any land. We (my roommates and I) bought it, fair and square.

From which country?  When did you give up your citicenship of your old country?  Do you bring passports and pass border control when you leave your land?

Citizenship? I didn't have to renounce. They don't even pretend that exists anymore.

cit·i·zen
noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Depends what you consider protection. Should we be protecting you from yourself? Others?

[myrkul]

Of course I'm an idiot.

Then we can safely disregard your political opinions as the ravings of an idiot.

Ah, but you see, the scary part is that I have just as much say in the political process as you do.

Which is why I'm an anarchist.

[asdf]

Services funded by involuntary appropriation of funds are never going to be efficient,

True, but I was defending taxes, not theft.

Is there a difference?

Yes.  Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc.  And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.

Comparing taxes to theft is just stupid.  You know the difference.

So if I pull a gun on you and demand $100 and then buy you a $50 stereo, that's okay, because it's a "tax". Also, you, and a large group of others can "vote" for me or my buddy to point the gun next time, so it's fair.

Use whatever word you want, the point is that it's involuntary. Re-read my post and replace tax with involuntary appropriation of funds

The problem is that you will always be losing money. If there are no taxes, and everything is privatized, you will lose exactly the same amount or more. Bills must be paid. Services you use constantly will not pay for themselves. If you can come up with a plan that would work for privatizing your lifestyle, the military, infrastructure and industry regulation, I might begin to consider taxes as replaceable. Until you have that, you're basically suggesting that we throw our money away.

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

[sturle]

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country?  That is only counting public spending, not private insurances.  The USA are far from the top quality wise.  Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit.  This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

Sometimes taking your money elsewhere is not a possibility.  If you fall ill in Nowhere, and need immediate treatment there, you don't have the option to take your money to another hospital.  Not if you want to live.  The closest hospital has a de facto monopoly, and in a truly free market it can take whatever it wants for your treatment.  If you are travelling between two small cities, and a highway runs between them, you can't take your money to drive on another highway.  It wouldn't make economic sense to build another one.  The highway has a monopoly.  If you built another highway anyway, the first would quickly put you out of business by offering free rides for the next five years while you struggle to pay back your loans.  If your country is attacked, it wouldn't make sense if everyone should pay their own army to defend it in their own way.  Using their own nukes.  With no coordination.  Not every market can be an effective free market.

[myrkul]

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country? 

It's complex, but Christopher Anvil's short story "Positive Feedback" gives a pretty good analogy.

[myrkul]

A bunch of your neighbours got together to discuss some important issue affecting the community,

Which important issue would that be? As stated, the question simply asked if voting made robbery acceptable. Later, it was clarified that they simply thought he had too much money. So, motivated by simple envy, they voted to deprive a man of 50% of his money. Are you claiming that that would be moral?

And to counter your wikipedia link, here's one of my own.

[TheButterZone]

Assuming the vote is not tampered with, then the mob will have to use aggressive violence to achieve its violations of liberty, assuming either the arbiter sides with them, or the arbiter sides with the individual whose liberty is violated, and the mob uses aggressive violence anyway.

[myrkul]

A bunch of your neighbours got together to discuss some important issue affecting the community,

Which important issue would that be? As stated, the question simply asked if voting made robbery acceptable. Later, it was clarified that they simply thought he had too much money. So, motivated by simple envy, they voted to deprive a man of 50% of his money. Are you claiming that that would be moral?

And to counter your wikipedia link, here's one of my own.

Fine then. No, of course simple robbery would not be moral. I'm guessing you were trying to draw some kind of analogy. What planet's political system were you comparing the neighbours to? Because it doesn't sound accurate anywhere on Earth, even in a banana dictatorship like the US.

In order to draw parallels, it is sometimes necessary to use extreme examples. This is one such.

As is this:
If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

[DoomDumas]

Someone should be scared of taxes if not paying them.. In Canada, elsewhere too im pretty sure, not paying due taxes lead to enormous fees and possible prison time.. The wrost of it, if the tax-man decide you owe them X, then you have almost no say, pay or get to jail, even if they are wrong, they must not care, those tax-man are god in face of your money and liberties.. I can assure you, you dont want problems with those taxman, so pay your taxes, dummy slaves that we are !