Is taxation theft?

[nfcmgjh]

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.

You are not following the argument.

1) A person is not free to "live in nature". Unless you go to the middle of the desert, or buy a boat and sail to antarctica, you will face some interference from governments.

2) Very few people want to completely abolish all services. The issue is not "all services vs no services", the issue is why should we spend $5 trillion http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/war-costs-report-brown-university or $14,000 for every man, woman and child, to invade a country whose dictator we installed, only to make the region less stable anyway. The average household in America is about 3 people, roughly $35,000 to $40,000 per household that was worse than wasted, it actually did harm.

3) One of the foundations of America specifically, if you research its origins, is the importance of the consent of the governed. Today America is not a political entity that governs a population, it is an assemblage of law enforcement entities that incentivize their employees to create criminals, to turn citizens into law breakers by adjusting laws to increase the number of criminals. Taxes are an excellent example.

[BADecker]

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.

Living in nature IS living in society a lot of the time. People have little choice offered to them to live without Government. This means that it is Government that is harming the people through taxes. But they call it benefiting the people.

"We will screw the heck out of you, and steal your property and labor in the form of taxes, for you, for your own good." All Government wants is a bunch of slaves.

The Jones Plantation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

[IGNation]

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

Taxation is being done to improve the communities in different aspects, so taxation is not theft its just the people who is handling everything in taxation is the one to blame, if taxation was used in right way then you will be much pleased that there is a taxation thing.

[BADecker]

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

Taxation is being done to improve the communities in different aspects, so taxation is not theft its just the people who is handling everything in taxation is the one to blame, if taxation was used in right way then you will be much pleased that there is a taxation thing.

But the community government is not using the money in the best way. How smart are they? Do they make $millions in investing? Why should they take MY money for things I don't want? I would rather buy what I want, and donate to charities of my choice for community improvement that I want.

[mainpmf]

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

Lol, massive debt I agree on that one even though it's easily explanable by both the euro and the young population, but third word security? Seriously? xD

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. Not all of course but a good part of my profit goes in taxes, that's normal and fair, even though I'd love to be able to control more where the money goes that's for sure.

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.

And what do we do when people who earn lots of money refuse to help?

The problem here you see is the fact that state invest in people.
I'll take my own example:
I'm from a rather poor family (not desperate but not middle class either) and I've made top notch scientific studies and am now an engineer who earns more in a month than both his parents combined. The fact is that yeah sure I became like this thanks to hard working, years of studies and my own skills. But not only.
I should not forget that I was able to do all this also because education is not only free but you're also helped by the state which pays you an appartment and food when you study and you're from a poor family. I should not forget that when my mother in law had a cancer, state paid for her cure during the whole year and paid here a part of her salary.

Sure hardworking is important and goodwill is better. But now suppose we "let the choice" to people as you say, and I chose to refuse to pay because I don't see the support the State gave me but I only see my own work and my years of struggle and I decide that people should just "work more". Then the virtuous circle is broken :/

[mainpmf]

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

Taxation is being done to improve the communities in different aspects, so taxation is not theft its just the people who is handling everything in taxation is the one to blame, if taxation was used in right way then you will be much pleased that there is a taxation thing.

But the community government is not using the money in the best way. How smart are they? Do they make $millions in investing? Why should they take MY money for things I don't want? I would rather buy what I want, and donate to charities of my choice for community improvement that I want.

Ah ok that's a good point.
We agree that we should have more power on how they handle our money.
Best would probably be to simply have a direct democracy. Then taxes would really earn their legitimity.

[Elwar]

No, taxation is not theft.

Technically it is extortion.

Theft is the forced taking. They do not take it forcefully. They threaten you with the use of force unless you hand them your money. Which is extortion.

[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?

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.

You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.

You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god). It is called democratic centralism and is still practiced by Peoples republic of China.

These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.

Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.

I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.

[craked5]

You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.

You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god).

These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.

Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.

I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.

THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWER LIES!

The problem is in fact what you've lived through and what USSR knew has never been communism. Yeah we called that communism but it was not. It was a simple and plain oligarchy with a group of people having all the powers.

But you'll tell me, it can only become this. Socialism and communism can only lead to that as the state will take more and more and "redistribute"... But only a few people will decide how it is redistributed!

WELL NO!
There is a solution now! Direct democracy.
Imagine this: a country with high taxation where the people rather than elected a king for a few years who will decide everything, people actually vote directly the laws and the budget.
Then there is no politbyro as you say. Because we all give and all decide equally.

That can sounds as an utopia but... Technologically it's fairly easy to do. What is really opposing that?

[Okurkabinladin]

Lol, massive debt I agree on that one even though it's easily explanable by both the euro and the young population, but third word security? Seriously? xD

Well, yes. Just couple of days ago, there was yet another demonstration in the center of Paris. Working class women are hunted like prey in the streets, while still giving away half of their income to the state in exchange for empty promises. There is something... evil about system like that.

https://heatst.com/world/women-in-paris-protest-against-immigrant-men-sexually-harassing-them/

I... am. Not all of course but a good part of my profit goes in taxes, that's normal and fair, even though I'd love to be able to control more where the money goes that's for sure.

Precisely! You took all the risks, you and only you will be held accountable for failure of the enterprise. So it is not just just but also completely natural, that you and nobody else should decide where profit goes. You can make compromises, but you stopped being slave at plantation of someone else the moment you took full responsiblity for the future of bussiness.

And what do we do when people who earn lots of money refuse to help?

The problem here you see is the fact that state invest in people.
I'll take my own example:
I'm from a rather poor family (not desperate but not middle class either) and I've made top notch scientific studies and am now an engineer who earns more in a month than both his parents combined. The fact is that yeah sure I became like this thanks to hard working, years of studies and my own skills. But not only.
I should not forget that I was able to do all this also because education is not only free but you're also helped by the state which pays you an appartment and food when you study and you're from a poor family. I should not forget that when my mother in law had a cancer, state paid for her cure during the whole year and paid here a part of her salary.

Sure hardworking is important and goodwill is better. But now suppose we "let the choice" to people as you say, and I chose to refuse to pay because I don't see the support the State gave me but I only see my own work and my years of struggle and I decide that people should just "work more". Then the virtuous circle is broken :/

Thats the point of contention and we can discuss it. But lets not pretend its completely normal for the system to take everything and (as shown on the example of Paris above) give back nothing. Taxation and redistribution of any wealth should be constantly re-negationed. State is our tool, not vice versa.

[Okurkabinladin]

You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.

You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god).

These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.

Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.

I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.

THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWER LIES!

The problem is in fact what you've lived through and what USSR knew has never been communism. Yeah we called that communism but it was not. It was a simple and plain oligarchy with a group of people having all the powers.

But you'll tell me, it can only become this. Socialism and communism can only lead to that as the state will take more and more and "redistribute"... But only a few people will decide how it is redistributed!

WELL NO!
There is a solution now! Direct democracy.
Imagine this: a country with high taxation where the people rather than elected a king for a few years who will decide everything, people actually vote directly the laws and the budget.
Then there is no politbyro as you say. Because we all give and all decide equally.

That can sounds as an utopia but... Technologically it's fairly easy to do. What is really opposing that?

Cracked5, I have personal experience in communal politics - which is direct democracy, was so even in USSR era. And every time, even on the communal level the decision process was hijacked by one, two or atmost five people through charismatic individual or backing of some shady baron. Essentially turning rest of the people into good looking bystanders. That goes for "new parties" like Pirates aswell.

But dont believe me, rather let me show you something.

This is number of bill and laws introduced by US congress. Every single of those has A LOT of text and interdependancy on already existing rules. You want to force population to vote informatively on every single one of them yes?



This is only the fraction of bills that are actually passed on into legislature. It would be far more in case of failed projects. Your solution to natural centralization of power is therefore to let every single citizen vote on three laws per day? Ive seen that in Pirate party. Less than third was active, usually divided into two camps - increasingly radical, marginalized opposition and ever vigilant group concentrated around charismatic leader - hilariously the two camps did not define themselves by any ideology anymore, but by personal feelings towards elected leader. Average Joes barely able to atleast read through all the instristically written text focused on giving one particular agency leverage over the others.

I hope, I wont offend you, thats why I am not here. But you are not offering something new, it was all tried before. Even by bolsheviks in Russia before all the terror started. Dont take my word for it. Look it up.

Unlike what you believe - it was communism. Private ownership was all but abolished and all means of production were controlled by elected individuals (and eventually tightly knit clans, Game of Thrones style). The rest was direct result of it, not vice versa.

If you were religious (I know you are not), youd by now undestand, that there is no such thing as perfect system, as it would deny the very nature of human existence. System that would duke out moral battles for individuals, would also deprive them of their humanity, which I saw with my own eyes in my youth.

If you want to know what direct democracy with everybody equal means, forget bitcoin for just one minute and google "Lord of flies".

[ClaraLuV]

No, taxation is not theft.
Technically it is extortion.
Theft is the forced taking. They do not take it forcefully. They threaten you with the use of force unless you hand them your money. Which is extortion.

That is the exact opinion about taxation,the governments are running their noses into each and every individuals accounts and threaten to give a share of what we make which is really crazy and if we losses our job the government wont stick their end to recover from the loss we are to encounter.

[freeyourmind]

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.

You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.

You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god). It is called democratic centralism and is still practiced by Peoples republic of China.

These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.

Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.

I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.

Good points and discussion.  I have not personally lived in a communism system, and from what I have heard about it, it was not well executed.  I think any economic platform, whether it be communism, socialism or capitalism, needs to be executed properly.  I don't see any examples of any of them with good execution.  They all involve either government corruption (acting with self interest over the public's interests) or a complete disregard for the environment.  Historical examples of communism don't include high civil liberty...but it can in theory.

In terms of the politburo...the key would be to not have politicians...but the actual technological innovators and scientists.  Politicians are a complete waste and unnecessary.  Once you have internet and people have connectivity, I don't see the point in having "representatives".

Western democracy is weird as well.  There is a lot of corruption in the process of selecting candidates, and having corporate interests fund them.  That election had Trump vs. Clinton.  These are not ideal leaders by any means, but they are able to do whatever it takes politically to navigate through the system and satisfy their own self interests.  Actual leaders don't seem to get involved with politics.

This is simply a thought that has nothing to do with our reality.  For it to ever get to that point, we would need a conscious population...with a hive mentality.  Similar to how a bee does what is needed for the hive, and not himself or herself.  There is no personal interest outside of the success of the hive as a whole.  It will take some time before we get there, if we can ever get there before destroying ourselves.

[BADecker]

You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.

You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god).

These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.

Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.

I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.

THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWER LIES!

The problem is in fact what you've lived through and what USSR knew has never been communism. Yeah we called that communism but it was not. It was a simple and plain oligarchy with a group of people having all the powers.

But you'll tell me, it can only become this. Socialism and communism can only lead to that as the state will take more and more and "redistribute"... But only a few people will decide how it is redistributed!

WELL NO!
There is a solution now! Direct democracy.
Imagine this: a country with high taxation where the people rather than elected a king for a few years who will decide everything, people actually vote directly the laws and the budget.
Then there is no politbyro as you say. Because we all give and all decide equally.

That can sounds as an utopia but... Technologically it's fairly easy to do. What is really opposing that?

Forget direct democracy. I don't want the other half of the people telling me what I can do or not do.

There is a solution. Freedom. Everyone does what he wants as long as he doesn'g harm anyone else.

Buy the services you wnat.

If Government is launched, it is launched only for a short time voted on by the people, but never more than a month.

[molsewid]

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

Taxes will become more worthy when they do this on another thing like upgrading system or road is not a theft at all it can help our economics into more upgradable into next generation nowadays taxes are becoming high i don't even know whats the reason behind.

[BADecker]

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

Taxes will become more worthy when they do this on another thing like upgrading system or road is not a theft at all it can help our economics into more upgradable into next generation nowadays taxes are becoming high i don't even know whats the reason behind.

Many people want a government. They can get together and make whatever government they want FOR THEMSELVES, like a club. If someone on the outside wants to join, he can do so if he pays his dues (taxes). We do this with all kinds of clubs around the world right now.

If you are an American, do you pay taxes to Japan? NO, of course not. Why not? you are not a member of that "club." So, why force non-members of the government club of any nation to pay taxes to their own nation?

Rather, offer them a schedule of things that the government will provide. If they accept, treat it as a purchase, with itemization, like when you go to a store, and get a cash register receipt.


For example. All over Europe there are countries/nations that are not what their people want. Where is the nation of Thrace, that made up what is now part of Greece, Turkey, and Bulgaria? It doesn't exist. But the people do. These people don't want to identify with any of these countries. They want their Thrace.

Thracians are forced into one of the three countries that took over Thrace, so that Thrace doesn't formally exist any longer. They pay taxes, and maybe a certain homage, to that country that is foreign to them. They are forced into it.

This is what taxation is in any country. Even though the people of a particular country are not people of a different, former nation, they still may not want taxes. But they are forced into it by those who DO want taxes. It's like having two nations within a nation. One of the nations forces everybody to pay taxes, and usually supplies false data as to how many of the people want to pay taxes, just to make it look like most of the people do. They use every tactic to keep tax money coming in, and to hide what it is really being used for.


TheTinyDot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

[craked5]

BADecker are you even aware of the benefits of a country and governments?

You DO understand that it brings efficiency and stability through mutualization of costs risks responsabilities and profits?
That's the main point of a community. That's what the market, private industries and single individuals will never be able to bring simply because they're not meant to:

Optimization and mutualization around a shared moral value.
There is no moral in the market.
If it the way to maximize profits is to simply deny the rights of those who paid for your services long enough until they die they will do it. That's exactly what's happening in USA right now.

[kpcian]

I don't think such type of issue.
no one can live without money, so how can a government run..?  how they can offer to us many social, educational and medical service if they don't have any money. if they can't collect tax or fees then how can they prepare their fiscal policy? so the government has to collect the tax which should not be described as a theft.

[Elwar]

BADecker are you even aware of the benefits of a country and governments?

Benefits that someone would voluntarily pay for?

[KroFly]

I don't think such type of issue.
no one can live without money, so how can a government run..?  how they can offer to us many social, educational and medical service if they don't have any money. if they can't collect tax or fees then how can they prepare their fiscal policy? so the government has to collect the tax which should not be described as a theft.

The state can print paper money in any quantity to ensure the financial needs of the country, but they specifically do not allow people to develop and steal money from them under the guise of paying taxes.