Is taxation theft?

[adzino]

I always consider taxation as a "legalized" form of theft 

[tracktorr]

Taxes are necessary always and everywhere. With regard to Africa if she's so rich as you write then why are there so bad people live? Why Russia produces a lot of oil, and the people living in poverty while in Saudi Arabia the rich in the same oil.

The people in Russia are rich, when compared to those living in the neighboring nations (such as Ukraine and Moldova). Russia and Saudi Arabia produces almost the same amount of oil. But the difference is that, the profits in Russia must be divided among 145 million people, while there are only around 20 million citizens in Saudi Arabia.

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.


[/qIn the far East, Russia has already hosted Chinese. They are just waiting for their chance and immediately bite site itself. In the Urals Tatars are waiting in the wings, the Caucasus, too, will not remain on the sidelines. So in Russia all is not well.uote]

[Sithara007]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

[BADecker]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

Because the underlying law in Russia is civil law, and civil law that has a violent history, the Russian Government can change ownership any time it wants. Taking over companies by eliminating private ownership might not be wise, because it was part of what the whole U.S.S.R. was based on, and it didn't work out so well. The point is that they can do it if they want.

[varyspro]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

Because the underlying law in Russia is civil law, and civil law that has a violent history, the Russian Government can change ownership any time it wants. Taking over companies by eliminating private ownership might not be wise, because it was part of what the whole U.S.S.R. was based on, and it didn't work out so well. The point is that they can do it if they want.

In fact, in Russia there is a law on the protection of foreign investments. All businessmen who have big business trying to protect it through foreign investment. In fact it is their own capital only opened to Russia from abroad.

[BADecker]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

Because the underlying law in Russia is civil law, and civil law that has a violent history, the Russian Government can change ownership any time it wants. Taking over companies by eliminating private ownership might not be wise, because it was part of what the whole U.S.S.R. was based on, and it didn't work out so well. The point is that they can do it if they want.

In fact, in Russia there is a law on the protection of foreign investments. All businessmen who have big business trying to protect it through foreign investment. In fact it is their own capital only opened to Russia from abroad.

Nice law. Laws can be repealed, or overridden by other laws, whenever the government thinks there is a need to do so.

[varyspro]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

Because the underlying law in Russia is civil law, and civil law that has a violent history, the Russian Government can change ownership any time it wants. Taking over companies by eliminating private ownership might not be wise, because it was part of what the whole U.S.S.R. was based on, and it didn't work out so well. The point is that they can do it if they want.

In fact, in Russia there is a law on the protection of foreign investments. All businessmen who have big business trying to protect it through foreign investment. In fact it is their own capital only opened to Russia from abroad.

Nice law. Laws can be repealed, or overridden by other laws, whenever the government thinks there is a need to do so.

The law is good, but they are not good people. That is why Russia is a country with very large reserves and very poor people. Everything in other countries working for the good of Russia brings harm.

[BADecker]

And there are only about 40 million inhabitants of Siberia, which is a gigantic Russian land, full of natural resources, covering about 9% of the earth, over 5 million square miles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia.

The U.S., with nearly 330 million people, has less than 3.8 million square miles.

Siberia is only one part of Russia. Then there is Russia, herself.

The difference between the oil revenues in Russia and Saudi Arabia is that unlike the latter, the Russian government receives only a part of the revenues from crude oil sales. Many of the oil companies are privately owned (such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegas and Novatek). Even in the state-owned Rosneft, close to 50% of the shares are held by foreigners. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco is 100% owned by the government. Therefore, all the revenues go directly to the treasury.

Because the underlying law in Russia is civil law, and civil law that has a violent history, the Russian Government can change ownership any time it wants. Taking over companies by eliminating private ownership might not be wise, because it was part of what the whole U.S.S.R. was based on, and it didn't work out so well. The point is that they can do it if they want.

In fact, in Russia there is a law on the protection of foreign investments. All businessmen who have big business trying to protect it through foreign investment. In fact it is their own capital only opened to Russia from abroad.

Nice law. Laws can be repealed, or overridden by other laws, whenever the government thinks there is a need to do so.

The law is good, but they are not good people. That is why Russia is a country with very large reserves and very poor people. Everything in other countries working for the good of Russia brings harm.

Let's translate what you are saying.

Government is made out of people. They are real flesh and blood people, just like the citizens.
This means that it is people hurting other people.

Government is supposed to be there to protect people. If it hurts people, it isn't doing the thing it is there for. Why would anyone need Government?
This means that it is people hurting other people.

Some citizens who work for Government - soldiers, police, office workers - think Government is good. How can we show them that Government is bad? How many of them know government is bad, yet keep on working for Government, and even doing dirty work for Government people?

How many average, non-Government-worker citizens think Government is good? How can we show them that Government is bad?

Same in all the governments except for a few small ones.

[igorokavg13]

Taxes are necessary always and everywhere. With regard to Africa if she's so rich as you write then why are there so bad people live? Why Russia produces a lot of oil, and the people living in poverty while in Saudi Arabia the rich in the same oil.

The people in Russia are rich, when compared to those living in the neighboring nations (such as Ukraine and Moldova). Russia and Saudi Arabia produces almost the same amount of oil. But the difference is that, the profits in Russia must be divided among 145 million people, while there are only around 20 million citizens in Saudi Arabia.

The standard of living in Russia is not higher than in neighbouring countries. This myth of Putin's propaganda. Takes statistics the median income but is not taken into account that 72% of Russians live on an income less than 250 dollars a month.

[olushakes]

Personally, I do feel it is theft, I never consented to any taxation. I feel that this video helps explain the video quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

Whatever the author of the video might thinks or even you, the fact still remains that if you or the author should receive any income that is under the law of government to be taxed, you will be taxed and there is nothing you will be able to do.

It is true from your own point of view that Tax is stealing but anything can be illegal if its on the other side of law even if it is as simple as drinking water. But at the same time, we all want good roads, functional hospital, adequate security, functioning school among other social amenities and yet you say taxation is theft where do you want them to get the money to make all those things happen?

[Karloff]

Personally, I do feel it is theft, I never consented to any taxation. I feel that this video helps explain the video quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

Whatever the author of the video might thinks or even you, the fact still remains that if you or the author should receive any income that is under the law of government to be taxed, you will be taxed and there is nothing you will be able to do.

It is true from your own point of view that Tax is stealing but anything can be illegal if its on the other side of law even if it is as simple as drinking water. But at the same time, we all want good roads, functional hospital, adequate security, functioning school among other social amenities and yet you say taxation is theft where do you want them to get the money to make all those things happen?

I agree with you. Only problem is in the fact that the taxes being stolen by not so honest officials. Maybe the author wanted to say. There are countries where people pay taxes and get nothing in return.

[coolcoinz]

Personally, I do feel it is theft, I never consented to any taxation. I feel that this video helps explain the video quite well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

Whatever the author of the video might thinks or even you, the fact still remains that if you or the author should receive any income that is under the law of government to be taxed, you will be taxed and there is nothing you will be able to do.

It is true from your own point of view that Tax is stealing but anything can be illegal if its on the other side of law even if it is as simple as drinking water. But at the same time, we all want good roads, functional hospital, adequate security, functioning school among other social amenities and yet you say taxation is theft where do you want them to get the money to make all those things happen?

It's not only black or white here. Taxes or no taxes, both options are wrong. Taxes should exist, but should be the smallest possible. Taxes should not be piled up and turn people into slaves. In today's world we pay over 50% of our income in taxes. Just add income tax to vat, excise, health insurance and many other.
Yes' I want good roads, but that's covered by my local government from my property tax. Also all my service providers (power, water, waste, sewage, internet) are private companies and I pay them every month. For each little thing I want (courts, documents, registration) I have to pay. I also pay my health insurance, road tax and many more. Every time I buy something I pay tax (usually vat, but there are other).
The question is: why should I pay income tax on top of that? Isn't this a simple theft? They are trying to take some of my hard-earned money, even if I'm not turning it to anything that would make my life better and easier.
If they want me to spend my money in their stores and improve economy why are they robbing me before I even start and what is the money spent on? Surely not on anything that I'm using.

[Sithara007]

Takes statistics the median income but is not taken into account that 72% of Russians live on an income less than 250 dollars a month.

Your figures are wrong. According to statista, 31.3% of the Russians have a monthly income of less than $250. And what about similar figures from Ukraine and Moldova? More than 90% of the people in these countries live on income less than $250 per month.

[pearlmen]

taxation is not theft so far it has passed through the normal process of law making and if it does not, it can be declared null and void by the law court of the land but the issue is government will need money to carry out its responsibilities and pay for services the money has to come from some where.

[bitcoinboy12]

taxation is not theft so far it has passed through the normal process of law making and if it does not, it can be declared null and void by the law court of the land but the issue is government will need money to carry out its responsibilities and pay for services the money has to come from some where.

Yep, and if anything. Those people who are "working with our taxes". Are the ones who take advantage of it. These taxes are meant to benefit the people, but government people use it for themselves - and that is what stealing actually is - using something that is not yours.

[yoseph]

it is a theft in my opinion what has the Government done for me to take my money, its not like its subsidizing anything that i use.

[SphynX18]

It would be consider as theft if it will not be used correctly. Some countries that implement taxation and use it for it's purpose do help their people and the improvement of their country. If politicians who have direct access on the decision on how it will be use is considerate and honest it will not be considered as theft. Taxation is for the benefit of it's country and people also their environment. It has pros and cons but the main responsible if the purpose of tax will be used wisely is the people elected or appointed to be the leader of the country. Taxation is not theft. The theft is the inconsiderate and corrupt people who selfishly use the money of the taxpayers for their own benefits.

[NyeFee]

It would be consider as theft if it will not be used correctly. Some countries that implement taxation and use it for it's purpose do help their people and the improvement of their country. If politicians who have direct access on the decision on how it will be use is considerate and honest it will not be considered as theft. Taxation is for the benefit of it's country and people also their environment. It has pros and cons but the main responsible if the purpose of tax will be used wisely is the people elected or appointed to be the leader of the country. Taxation is not theft. The theft is the inconsiderate and corrupt people who selfishly use the money of the taxpayers for their own benefits.

Interestingly in all countries, officials steal. On the forum no one said that in his country, officials honest. It turns out that theft is a common issue in all countries. Why then do we need these officials?

[countryfree]

Yes, mostly.

We shall all understand that some tax is necessary to keep streets and roads safe and clean, but it takes very little tax money to pay for this useful service. Most of the tax money goes to useless or real bad things like welfare. Welfare is the biggest crime manhood has ever commited on nature. There are probably some 40 millions people living off welfare on Europe, they should all die. The sooner, the better. Only the strong shall survive. Ethiopia is a much nicer place with gentler people. Most Europeans now believe it is a God given right to spend their whole life without working, with an allowance from the state to have a decent life. Tax money has corrupted their minds. Sometimes I wish the whole economic system would just crash. People would be forced to work, just as it was a century ago, or as it is today in Ethiopia.

Thank you for bringing social Darwinism here.
This is something that is commonly said in ALL medias and that people believe nowadays.
But this thesis has nothing to be based on. There is NOTHING that proves that only the strong should survive. People say that like it's some kind of magical sentence that allows them to go for a completely free market where the strong eats the weak, but that is a complete nonsense and a failure from an evolution perspective.

It has been scientifically proven that Humanity is based on COOPERATION far more than on personal strength. Our entire evolution and development is NOT based on conflict but on helping each other.

By the way, the correct sentence isn't "only the strong should survive" but "survival of the fittest" which is entirely different. This kind of behaviours and thinking is currently leading us to the end of our evolution.

Yes, there are several formulas. I've also seen survival of the smartest, or survival of those who can best adapt to change. That last one is probably the one I like most. I don't believe the strong shall eat the weak, why? Actually, the weak is just getting more and more... Useless. 100 years ago, the rich needed the poor to work in huge factories, not anymore.

Have you seen the thousands of migrants living in the streets in France, Germany, Italy? Have you traveled in Africa, or India? I've traveled a lot, and I've seen too millions in need of help. Can you help them all? Myself, I'll stick to help my family and my few friends. There are more and more people on this planet, needing more and more resources, this can't keep on going. We see thousands of animal species disappearing, I wish it would be millions of humans.

[BADecker]

Yes, mostly.

We shall all understand that some tax is necessary to keep streets and roads safe and clean, but it takes very little tax money to pay for this useful service. Most of the tax money goes to useless or real bad things like welfare. Welfare is the biggest crime manhood has ever commited on nature. There are probably some 40 millions people living off welfare on Europe, they should all die. The sooner, the better. Only the strong shall survive. Ethiopia is a much nicer place with gentler people. Most Europeans now believe it is a God given right to spend their whole life without working, with an allowance from the state to have a decent life. Tax money has corrupted their minds. Sometimes I wish the whole economic system would just crash. People would be forced to work, just as it was a century ago, or as it is today in Ethiopia.

Thank you for bringing social Darwinism here.
This is something that is commonly said in ALL medias and that people believe nowadays.
But this thesis has nothing to be based on. There is NOTHING that proves that only the strong should survive. People say that like it's some kind of magical sentence that allows them to go for a completely free market where the strong eats the weak, but that is a complete nonsense and a failure from an evolution perspective.

It has been scientifically proven that Humanity is based on COOPERATION far more than on personal strength. Our entire evolution and development is NOT based on conflict but on helping each other.

By the way, the correct sentence isn't "only the strong should survive" but "survival of the fittest" which is entirely different. This kind of behaviours and thinking is currently leading us to the end of our evolution.

Yes, there are several formulas. I've also seen survival of the smartest, or survival of those who can best adapt to change. That last one is probably the one I like most. I don't believe the strong shall eat the weak, why? Actually, the weak is just getting more and more... Useless. 100 years ago, the rich needed the poor to work in huge factories, not anymore.

Have you seen the thousands of migrants living in the streets in France, Germany, Italy? Have you traveled in Africa, or India? I've traveled a lot, and I've seen too millions in need of help. Can you help them all? Myself, I'll stick to help my family and my few friends. There are more and more people on this planet, needing more and more resources, this can't keep on going. We see thousands of animal species disappearing, I wish it would be millions of humans.

Right on!

Even Jesus said similar. It happened when the woman anointed his feet with some expensive oil (maybe it was spikenard), after she had washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair.

Some of the people around Jesus (particularly Judas Iscariot) condemned the woman, saying that the oil could have been sold for as much as a year's wages, and the money given to the poor. What did Jesus answer? From Mark 14:7:

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.