Is taxation theft?

[BADecker]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

See? That's what's wrong with America. We need slavery, not taxes.

The kids could be sold as slaves to some man, woman or family. In return for their support, they could go to school and work light jobs. Then, as they grew and became strong, they could work themselves out of their slavery, paying back their owners for raising them.

That's better than forcing society to raise them.

Of course, we would need laws to keep the owners from abusing their slaves. But child labor like this would produce some very smart, ingenious, hard working, future entrepreneurs... just because the kids would be in the form of, fight life or die.

[Okurkabinladin]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

Precisely, thank you, Dwayne.

Guys, your ideals of communism will never work out - not because some evil conspiracy, but because they simply ignore human nature. Give poor person *free* (aka paid for by somebody else) money and what he will do? Make more poor people in his wake. You cant solve all world issues through money printing, however tempting that might be.

Educating said poor on how to properly accumulate wealth and stay prudent would certainly help immensely, but thats not what your proposing here, is it? Education needs cooperation of the one being educated. Yet, we see less and less of that even among formerly affluent westerners. Who these days blame conspiracies, "niggers", christians, illuminati, ie. anybody but themselves for that fact, that they lost sight of faith, work ethics and prudence, that made their forefathers rich in the first place.

Socialists need a mirror, that they cant ignore, not more tools for wealth redistribution.

[mainpmf]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

Precisely, thank you, Dwayne.

Guys, your ideals of communism will never work out - not because some evil conspiracy, but because they simply ignore human nature. Give poor person *free* (aka paid for by somebody else) money and what he will do? Make more poor people in his wake. You cant solve all world issues through money printing, however tempting that might be.

Educating said poor on how to properly accumulate wealth and stay prudent would certainly help immensely, but thats not what your proposing here, is it? Education needs cooperation of the one being educated. Yet, we see less and less of that even among formerly affluent westerners. Who these days blame conspiracies, "niggers", christians, illuminati, ie. anybody but themselves for that fact, that they lost sight of faith, work ethics and prudence, that made their forefathers rich in the first place.

Socialists need a mirror, that they cant ignore, not more tools for wealth redistribution.

Tss...
How to explain you in a simple way that you're wrong?

Ok let's see this: France is historically the most socialist country in Europe and probably the most socialist country in the civilized world.
Still we have a birthrate of only 1.99 which is under the renewable birthrate.

Moreove to put it simply:
Not socialism = inequalities will only rise
Socialism = inequalities are a bit soften by the state redistributing wealth.

I don't understand what you're against in socialism. You don't want people to pay taxes? Then it means you'd rather let people die than pay for their health? Because you do understand that people can't pay for important cure like cancer right? Even if they work hard...

[LilibethSantos]

If tax money is taken by force and given to the rich, then it should be considered theft. This is the case in the majority of countries.

If we voluntarily contribute to a socialized system (like socialized medical insurance), then it is not theft.

[nfcmgjh]

...

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

People who seek military and political power always do it for their own peculiar psychological reasons, but they couch their ambition in glowing terms, i.e., they want to 'protect liberty'. 'defend' something etc.

They will always find a justification for their mischief and loads of buddies with the same problem to back up their opinions with guns.

The problem is that fake wars create fake heroes and fake problems lead to fake solutions which do not work long term.

It would be a good thing for any number of people to try for some important goal, like extending humanity to outer space, even if 90% of them died. The deaths would be for something useful. But feeding millions of people into a corporate theater company to die miserable deaths so some sociopaths with power can gloat about their 'vision' and 'the tough decisions they make', is getting boring.

 

[otrkid70]

Yes it is! I never gave permission for the government to steal my money!

[bartolo]

...

Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.

The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.

[CriptoSven]

...

Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.

The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.

I'm already looking at my life and can not see anything normal due to the fact that I have practically nothing personal. The authorities in my country have taxed everything from land to even real estate. And the fact is that it turns out that before all my personal things, someone has something to do. And I do not even understand how I can feel at home.

[Okurkabinladin]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

Precisely, thank you, Dwayne.

Guys, your ideals of communism will never work out - not because some evil conspiracy, but because they simply ignore human nature. Give poor person *free* (aka paid for by somebody else) money and what he will do? Make more poor people in his wake. You cant solve all world issues through money printing, however tempting that might be.

Educating said poor on how to properly accumulate wealth and stay prudent would certainly help immensely, but thats not what your proposing here, is it? Education needs cooperation of the one being educated. Yet, we see less and less of that even among formerly affluent westerners. Who these days blame conspiracies, "niggers", christians, illuminati, ie. anybody but themselves for that fact, that they lost sight of faith, work ethics and prudence, that made their forefathers rich in the first place.

Socialists need a mirror, that they cant ignore, not more tools for wealth redistribution.

Tss...
How to explain you in a simple way that you're wrong?

Ok let's see this: France is historically the most socialist country in Europe and probably the most socialist country in the civilized world.
Still we have a birthrate of only 1.99 which is under the renewable birthrate.

Moreove to put it simply:
Not socialism = inequalities will only rise
Socialism = inequalities are a bit soften by the state redistributing wealth.

I don't understand what you're against in socialism. You don't want people to pay taxes? Then it means you'd rather let people die than pay for their health? Because you do understand that people can't pay for important cure like cancer right? Even if they work hard...

France? The country with massive debts and security of third world nations?

Let me ask you one simple question. What are you doing on Bitcointalk forum, making profit taking all the risk on yourself while aswell keeping the said profit for yourself? How does that conform to your socialistic views and wealth redistribution, when you are not giving all your bitcoins to the French republic?

I am a christian. I will help others to my best knowledge. Because I believe it is right thing to do, something that make us different from mere animals, not because of fear of state authorities or worse, because I reduced all the problems of human existence to green papers.

Free health care for everybody? Sure, lets have a talk about it, we might find a common ground. But dont you dare to force me pay for it at knife point, you are not a God and neither is your corrupt, broken state.

[freeyourmind]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

What if you were one of those babies?

Possibly the same resources that are being invested into building a bomb?  I'm not going to defend that man in anyway though...and maybe the point is many would take advantage of the handouts given...which I agree with.

But with technological advancement, at the end of the day...machines or robots will be doing more and more work which will replace human labour and income.  The world will have to go in a socialist direction because of this anyways, or you will have to deal with a massive population that cannot support themselves, which will make the aggregate standard of living lower.  How happy will you be as a wealthy person getting into your ferrari when there are 10 people starving outside your front door?

[freeyourmind]

...

Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.

The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.

I completely agree with you.  When the military industrial complex was starting out, Eisenhower warned about the situation we're in today, in 1961.  Can't spend $700 billion to prepare for war and not have wars.

But going back to taxation, this type of industry is only possible with a massive budget that is funded by tax payers.  Although some tax payers are in favour and would support it, there is a significant part of the population that doesn't, but is still forced to fund it. 

[BADecker]

...

Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.

The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.

I completely agree with you.  When the military industrial complex was starting out, Eisenhower warned about the situation we're in today, in 1961.  Can't spend $700 billion to prepare for war and not have wars.

But going back to taxation, this type of industry is only possible with a massive budget that is funded by tax payers.  Although some tax payers are in favour and would support it, there is a significant part of the population that doesn't, but is still forced to fund it. 

FREEYOURWALLET from taxation.   

[gollygosh]

short answer YES long answer YESSSSSS

[Okurkabinladin]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

What if you were one of those babies?

Possibly the same resources that are being invested into building a bomb?  I'm not going to defend that man in anyway though...and maybe the point is many would take advantage of the handouts given...which I agree with.

But with technological advancement, at the end of the day...machines or robots will be doing more and more work which will replace human labour and income.  The world will have to go in a socialist direction because of this anyways, or you will have to deal with a massive population that cannot support themselves, which will make the aggregate standard of living lower.  How happy will you be as a wealthy person getting into your ferrari when there are 10 people starving outside your front door?

You make a valid point with ever increasing population being essentially fed by ever decreasing group of people.

However, keep in mind, that the actual work is not done by robots. But by those behind them. Capital holders (owners), technicians, engineers etc... robots are merely muscles.

If you insists on the notion - very noble notion, that this small group is obliged to feed the inactive rest, how are you going to compensate those pillars of humanity? Lets cut the BS and talk actual bussiness. What will the rest of humanity gives in return for being caretaken by minority of dedicated specialists and share holders slaving away for its welfare?

You cant offer them immortal salvation, only faith in God can do that. So what then?

[freeyourmind]

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_Laden
This man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies?

What if you were one of those babies?

Possibly the same resources that are being invested into building a bomb?  I'm not going to defend that man in anyway though...and maybe the point is many would take advantage of the handouts given...which I agree with.

But with technological advancement, at the end of the day...machines or robots will be doing more and more work which will replace human labour and income.  The world will have to go in a socialist direction because of this anyways, or you will have to deal with a massive population that cannot support themselves, which will make the aggregate standard of living lower.  How happy will you be as a wealthy person getting into your ferrari when there are 10 people starving outside your front door?

You make a valid point with ever increasing population being essentially fed by ever decreasing group of people.

However, keep in mind, that the actual work is not done by robots. But by those behind them. Capital holders (owners), technicians, engineers etc... robots are merely muscles.

If you insists on the notion - very noble notion, that this small group is obliged to feed the inactive rest, how are you going to compensate those pillars of humanity? Lets cut the BS and talk actual bussiness. What will the rest of humanity gives in return for being caretaken by minority of dedicated specialists and share holders slaving away for its welfare?

You cant offer them immortal salvation, only faith in God can do that. So what then?

Interesting.

There is a human component to build the robot and program it to function in a certain way.  But the human component is decreasing.  You already have robots that make robots, programmed by human.  But AI will likely be here this century, which would mean there doesn't need to be any human input at all.  You don't need to pay robots, they don't need breaks or holidays...so they generate value that can either go to the owners (like in our current economic system), or to be for the benefit of civilization, or a combination of both.

I don't insist on that notion of obligation, but I feel like humanity will likely move in that direction.  The old and present model of being paid money for hours of human labour...I feel will need to change with automation.  Think of taxi drivers and alternative paid transportation like uber...imagine how it will be affected by driverless cars with autopilot and gps.  There are many other industries that will get affected similarly and those jobs will go away over time.  It's even in the best interest of rich people, to have a middle class.  If it's only super rich and poor, then it can become unsafe for a rich person.

Look at Elon Musk for example...he is voluntarily trying to make a positive impact on the environment through sustainable energy (solar), battery storage and electric cars.  I think there will be more people that take that model of work, where they are super smart, understand how to acquire huge resources, and the use those resources to innovate technology that will help humanity as a whole, even though it is for profit...the impact is positive.

But in terms of what will humanity do in return for having their basic needs provided...I'm not sure.  Society would be very different if the extreme struggle associated with fulfilling basic needs was completely removed.  I think people would be two ways to go.  The lazy people can just chill, and be content.  And others would follow their passions, which may result in some type of mastery and contribution back to society.  Personally, if that was the way society was at the moment, and my basic needs were taken care of, I would follow my passions and dedicate myself to get as good as I could possibly get.  And maybe if I get good enough, I can produce a good or service that people would enjoy.  Actually sounds like a communist approach...but a very technologically advanced execution lol.

[freeyourmind]

...

Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.

The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close.

A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year.  US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe.  And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.

Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure).  But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?

War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality it´s just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business.

I completely agree with you.  When the military industrial complex was starting out, Eisenhower warned about the situation we're in today, in 1961.  Can't spend $700 billion to prepare for war and not have wars.

But going back to taxation, this type of industry is only possible with a massive budget that is funded by tax payers.  Although some tax payers are in favour and would support it, there is a significant part of the population that doesn't, but is still forced to fund it. 

FREEYOURWALLET from taxation.   

I'm with you dude.  Especially with the type of government our current taxes fund.  If the "state" was run by benevolent scientists and innovators...maybe I'd voluntarily contribute...but current politicians...no bueno

I think my buddy Jacques Ellul...a french sociologist, had it right..."There are no political solutions, only technological ones; the rest is propaganda."

[qurshmdkgd]

Taxation is not theft for the same reason sex is not always rape, there is consent.

[nfcmgjh]

Taxation is not theft for the same reason sex is not always rape, there is consent.

Coerced consent is not really consent. Governments use force and threats now instead of the will or consent of the governed. Like Bill Cosby with his romances, there are very few complaints but calling it consent is a stretch.

[Sithara007]

Taxation is not theft for the same reason sex is not always rape, there is consent.

Where is the consent in taxation? It is similar to rape. The government decides the tax rates, and the citizens have to pay. It doesn't matter whether they want to pay or not.

[qurshmdkgd]

Taxation is not theft for the same reason sex is not always rape, there is consent.

Where is the consent in taxation? It is similar to rape. The government decides the tax rates, and the citizens have to pay. It doesn't matter whether they want to pay or not.

Taxation is not theft for the same reason sex is not always rape, there is consent.

Coerced consent is not really consent. Governments use force and threats now instead of the will or consent of the governed. Like Bill Cosby with his romances, there are very few complaints but calling it consent is a stretch.

you are free to leave your country or to go live in nature, but if you want the shared benefits of a modern society, then you have to contribute in the form of taxes to upkeep this society.