Why do people think income tax is ok?

[Carlton Banks]

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

practicaldreamer should be able to live under his tax-the-1% model, if he chooses

hilariousandco should be able to live under his dependency based model, if he chooses

Everyone else should be free to choose which one to join.


The difference seems to be intolerance of anything else: I (and others) are advocating letting people choose which overall system they want. Others are saying "you can't choose that version, because of this reason". Why can't people choose, and then see which way works?

[1714801118]

1714801118

[1714801118]

1714801118

[1714801118]

1714801118

[1714801118]

1714801118

[Mike Christ]

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

practicaldreamer should be able to live under his tax-the-1% model, if he chooses

hilariousandco should be able to live under his dependency based model, if he chooses

Everyone else should be free to choose which one to join.


The difference seems to be intolerance of anything else: I (and others) are advocating letting people choose which overall system they want. Others are saying "you can't choose that version, because of this reason". Why can't people choose, and then see which way works?

The reason being, those models would fall apart without someone at the end of the gun; advocates of taxation must advocate secular involuntary association, otherwise the 1%ers would leave to another society where they wouldn't be taxed, and the people who were being depended on would leave to another society where they wouldn't be; this leaves both the initial nations in shambles.  The idea of taxation mandates there being no alternative; if you allow people the freedom of choice, how could you legally take from them?  They would simply deny you the right; taxation becomes unenforceable under the principle of voluntary association.

[practicaldreamer]

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

Well, because although they might be involuntary for the 1%, they aren't for those of us who believe that the 1% have acquired that wealth via less than just means or merely via exploiting wage labour. We are the 99%

  Isn't that what BTC is all about ? Isn't that what democracy is all about ?

   Why don't we find a different name for "tax" that might let the libertarians among us believe that its something they'd thought up - and not a Government.  Why don't we call it a voluntary community based tariff - or something similar ? It would still be totally essential and requisite to the just and equitable organic survival of the community - but at least this way some people wouldn't feel as though they were pouring money down the drain. They would be able to (in the words of that great American William James) "make felicitous and easy what in any case is necessary".

    Great philosophy emanating from across the pond - pragmatism. Voluntary community based tariff - I like it  

How do you feel about that ?

[Mike Christ]

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

Well, because although they might be involuntary for the 1%, they aren't for those of us who believe that 1% have acquired that wealth via less than just means or merely via exploiting wage labour. We are the 99%

  Isn't that what BTC is all about ? Isn't that what democracy is all about ?

   Why don't we find a different name for "tax" that might let the libertarians among us believe that its something they'd thought up - and not a Government.  Why don't we call it a voluntary community based tariff - or something similar ? It would still be totally essential and requisite to the just and equitable organic survival of the community - but at least this way some people wouldn't feel as though they were pouring money down the drain. They would be able to (in the words of that great American William James) "make felicitous and easy what in any case is necessary".

    Great philosophy emanating from across the pond - pragmatism. Voluntary community based tariff - I like it  

How do you feel about that ?

I think becoming a thief and liar because you were stolen from and lied to makes you the same as the men you are against.

[practicaldreamer]

I think becoming a thief and liar because you were stolen from and lied to makes you the same as the men you are against.

Hold on - so if I was stolen from and lied to, and then take back that which was initially stolen from me via (the aforementioned) lies and duplicity - then I too am a liar and a thief ??

Doesn't sound quite right to me  

To me the word is - justice

[hilariousandco]

take five minutes to watch this bitcoin presentation, the way this guy explains it is amongst the best I've heard.

I don't know how this video is relevant or why I needed to watch it when it's all stuff I already knew, but lol at that guy claiming to be Satoshi  .

[Mike Christ]

I think becoming a thief and liar because you were stolen from and lied to makes you the same as the men you are against.

Hold on - so if I was stolen from and lied to, and then take back that which was initially stolen from me via lies and duplicity - then I too am a liar and a thief ??

Doesn't sound quite right to me 

To me the word is - justice

Yes, if you lie and steal, you are a thief and liar.  You enable the cycle to continue by admitting that theft and lies are acceptable; eventually you must put your foot down and proclaim that you've had enough, otherwise you're no better than the people who stole and lied to get their way.

Besides, your system is impossible; if you live in a society with a rich 1%, the only way they got there was through government force.  Do you truly believe the rich, who game politics to begin with, are going to agree to simply giving their money away?  You forget the fact that you're advocating an "orts off the table" system, where you're okay with the rich getting rich from the use of coercion, as long as you get a cut from the stolen goods.  This is a very unique definition of justice, I think.

[practicaldreamer]

Do you truly believe the rich, who game politics to begin with, are going to agree to simply giving their money away?

Mike - at this point I'd be happy if you could agree to them simply giving their money away !!

I understand why they don't want the tax - but I can't quite get my head around why you don't.

Hey - they haven't got you on the payroll have they ?  

[practicaldreamer]

 lol at that guy claiming to be Satoshi  .

Yes - its almost getting to be like Spartacus isn't it - "No, I'm Spartacus"

[Mike Christ]

Do you truly believe the rich, who game politics to begin with, are going to agree to simply giving their money away? 

Mike - I'd be happy if you could agree to them simply giving their money away !!

I understand why they don't want the tax - but I can't quite get my head around why you don't.

Hey - they haven't got you on the payroll have they ? 

I believe I've made my case clear: I'm not a thief, and I will not stoop to their levels.  I'm not advocating against the rich being taxed, I'm advocating against involuntary association.  If the rich can't use force to get their way, they can't be rich through illegitimate means.  Thus, the only rich people of this planet are those who are most valuable to us; I don't want these people taxed, as they are not thieves.

Your system just permeates the current system, where thieves are on the top of the world and continue to exploit as they see fit, except you get to live off other people via stolen money.  Aside from being completely dependent on the state (can you say fascism?), do you see the ethical problem?

[Wekkel]

10 whole pages and this book has not been posted?

Sums up the debate pretty much. I accept the reality of the day, but theoretically it cannot be defended when taken to the logical max.

[Carlton Banks]

Why have any involuntary payments to a central authority?

practicaldreamer should be able to live under his tax-the-1% model, if he chooses

hilariousandco should be able to live under his dependency based model, if he chooses

Everyone else should be free to choose which one to join.


The difference seems to be intolerance of anything else: I (and others) are advocating letting people choose which overall system they want. Others are saying "you can't choose that version, because of this reason". Why can't people choose, and then see which way works?

The reason being, those models would fall apart without someone at the end of the gun; advocates of taxation must advocate secular involuntary association, otherwise the 1%ers would leave to another society where they wouldn't be taxed, and the people who were being depended on would leave to another society where they wouldn't be; this leaves both the initial nations in shambles.  The idea of taxation mandates there being no alternative; if you allow people the freedom of choice, how could you legally take from them?  They would simply deny you the right; taxation becomes unenforceable under the principle of voluntary association.

Well, I did say let's try it all, and then see which works and which people choose 

I guess that's what I'm trying to illustrate, that right now there is only one basic model of government in the whole world, and that Venezuela or Singapore are only slightly different from each other if you consider the whole spectrum of possibility. Everyone seems incredibly stuck in believing the 20th century ideas were the best, and there's no room to try anything different.

[practicaldreamer]

They don't pay taxes in Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar )- I suppose the anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org could move there - but then the US already owns Qatar doesn't it ? Or am I thinking of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Oman/Libya/Nigeria/UAE etc etc.

    If you do move there I hope you won't be going there to work [as well as avoid paying taxes through some kind of "libertarian" idealism]

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013

  Its no place for the needy.

     "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  ??  You must be having a laugh - not in Qatar sir - and not in the USA any longer it would seem.

    What have you become America ?

  

[tspacepilot]

...it's not stealing if you willingly give up something.

For the umpteenth time, I do not willingly pay tax. I pay tax because I don't want to:

a) Go to prison;
b) Leave my friends and family;
c) Live off the work of others.

You can call those 'choices' if you want - same way as if you were mugged at knifepoint in the street, you might 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Doesn't make it voluntary, does it?

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

[hilariousandco]

...it's not stealing if you willingly give up something.

For the umpteenth time, I do not willingly pay tax. I pay tax because I don't want to:

a) Go to prison;
b) Leave my friends and family;
c) Live off the work of others.

You can call those 'choices' if you want - same way as if you were mugged at knifepoint in the street, you might 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Doesn't make it voluntary, does it?

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

If you go to park your car and to be able to legally park there you have to pay for a ticket... have you been forced to pay that money? Has the owner of the parking space robbed you? I'd say that's your choice to park there, or you could find a free place to park.

[PrintMule]

They don't pay taxes in Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar )- I suppose the anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org could move there - but then the US already owns Qatar doesn't it ? Or am I thinking of Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Oman/Libya/Nigeria/UAE etc etc.

    If you do move there I hope you won't be going there to work [as well as avoid paying taxes through some kind of "libertarian" idealism]

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/qatar-2022-world-cup-185-nepalese-workers-died-2013

  Its no place for the needy.

     "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"  ??  You must be having a laugh - not in Qatar sir - and not in the USA any longer it would seem.

    What have you become America ?

Hate to break it to the "anti tax US contingent of bitcointalk.org" but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

[e4xit]

I cant believe you guys are seriously still feeding this troll who is obviously trying to bump his post-count. Lol.

[hilariousandco]

I cant believe you guys are seriously still feeding this troll who is obviously trying to bump his post-count. Lol.

I love how people call users with differing opinions trolls, especially ironic when they themselves offer nothing to the discussion.

[shawshankinmate37927]

...it's not stealing if you willingly give up something.

For the umpteenth time, I do not willingly pay tax. I pay tax because I don't want to:

a) Go to prison;
b) Leave my friends and family;
c) Live off the work of others.

You can call those 'choices' if you want - same way as if you were mugged at knifepoint in the street, you might 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Doesn't make it voluntary, does it?

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

If you go to park your car and to be able to legally park there you have to pay for a ticket... have you been forced to pay that money? Has the owner of the parking space robbed you? I'd say that's your choice to park there, or you could find a free place to park.

Of course someone that owns a parking lot should be free to charge whatever he wants for access to his property and anyone who is not willing to pay his asking price should be free to park elsewhere and should not be forced to pay.  If the person looking for a place to park chooses to pay, then he has not been robbed.  They have both entered an agreement voluntarily.

But that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.  A more relevant question would be:  Should a thug with a badge be able to go to the owner of the parking lot and put a gun to his head and demand that he hand over half of the parking fee income that he earns?

[hilariousandco]

...it's not stealing if you willingly give up something.

For the umpteenth time, I do not willingly pay tax. I pay tax because I don't want to:

a) Go to prison;
b) Leave my friends and family;
c) Live off the work of others.

You can call those 'choices' if you want - same way as if you were mugged at knifepoint in the street, you might 'choose' to give up your wallet to avoid being stabbed. Doesn't make it voluntary, does it?

I think this post is pretty right.  There are situations which, strictly speaking, are voluntary. Yet practically, they are not.  A 'choice' between jail/death and a wallet isn't much of a choice IMHO' that's coercion.

If you go to park your car and to be able to legally park there you have to pay for a ticket... have you been forced to pay that money? Has the owner of the parking space robbed you? I'd say that's your choice to park there, or you could find a free place to park.

Of course someone that owns a parking lot should be free to charge whatever he wants for access to his property and anyone who is not willing to pay his asking price should be free to park elsewhere and should not be forced to pay.  If the person looking for a place to park chooses to pay, then he has not been robbed.  They have both entered an agreement voluntarily.

But that isn't what is being discussed in this thread.  A more relevant question would be:  Should a thug with a badge be able to go to the owner of the parking lot and put a gun to his head and demand that he hand over half of the parking fee income that he earns?

Why do you keep bringing up the same irrelevant questions I've answered time and time again. If my analogy isn't relevant to what's being discussed in this thread then neither is the you don't chose to get mugged/raped/murdered ones which is what I was referencing here. And there are many choices to park. You can find somewhere for free, you can pay a council space, or a lot. You can choose. You have not been forced to. Does a man with a gun come round and say you have to pay me no matter what even if you don't have a car or want to park anywhere? No. You can also try park for free illegally if you want and try get away with it, but if you get caught you have to pay a fine, but that's your choice and you were aware of the rules so in fact this is a perfect analogy for this situation and far more apt than the mugged/raped/murdered ones you lot keep brining up.

And if a person owns a lot or a space, he has chosen to own that an operate a business under the rules of the system. So he has not been forced to do anything; he chose to play by the rules and pay into this system, and so do you people. Don't want to pay taxes? Fine, don't own a parking space or a lot or go where there are no taxes for this kind of thing. How is anyone being forced to do anything when they willing give it up and agree to play by the rules set out?

And I wish people would stop bringing up this gun to your head thing. Not everybody lives in America.