I don't feel like working anymore.

[ALPHA.]

Also, yes, let's say I don't make any money. Why should I have a say in what other people make? Why should I get a vote on how much should be taken out of somebody's paycheck and put into my welfare check?  

Useless people do get a say in this it seems. They can enslave an entire populace of working people if they please. Oh wait, they already do.

[1714949054]

1714949054

[1714949054]

1714949054

[1714949054]

1714949054

[barbarousrelic]

Useless people do get a say in this it seems. They can enslave an entire populace of working people if they please. Oh wait, they already do.

Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same.

[NghtRppr]

... and you only have to give away a small portion of your money, and you get benefits in return. But other than that ...

sales tax = ~8%
state income tax = ~8%
federal income tax = ~25%
social security & medicaid tax = ~8%
property tax, gas tax, estate tax, fees, licenses, inflation, inheritance tax, gift tax, etc = ~8%

I guess in your world, 57% is a "small portion". In my world, that's more than half.

you aren't forced to work

That's brilliant. Punish the people that do.

[barbarousrelic]

you aren't forced to work

That's brilliant. Punish the people that do.

If you consider taxation to be punishment for working, I would consider this to be the opposite of slavery.

[NghtRppr]

you aren't forced to work

That's brilliant. Punish the people that do.

If you consider taxation to be punishment for working, I would consider this to be the opposite of slavery.

Slavery is reward for working?

[ALPHA.]

http://operatorchan.org/s/src/s21860_brain%20full%20of%20fuck%20sagan.jpg

If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery.

[barbarousrelic]

you aren't forced to work

That's brilliant. Punish the people that do.

If you consider taxation to be punishment for working, I would consider this to be the opposite of slavery.

Slavery is reward for working?

Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic. But you know that and you're just being obtuse.

[barbarousrelic]

If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery.

If you think that slavery is defined as merely having someone limit your choices, then you have a very different definition of the word than the rest of the world.

[ALPHA.]

http://operatorchan.org/s/src/s21860_brain%20full%20of%20fuck%20sagan.jpg

If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery.

If you think that slavery is defined as merely having someone limit your choices, then you have a very different definition of the word than the rest of the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q2R3V2nQGHY#t=116s

A man chooses; a slave obeys.

[NghtRppr]

Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic.

It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference!

"Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum."

[Matthew N. Wright]

Can we just rewind this thread to the very first post:

I don't feel like working anymore.

And just reply "Ok." and let him starve to death?

[barbarousrelic]

Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic.

It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference!

"Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum."

So Fredrick Douglass was forced under threat of violence to work a certain job for a certain length of time for no pay. How is this exactly the same as our current system of labor and income taxes?

*No threat of violence
*Not forced to work a job
*Not forced to work any longer than you want
*You get paid.

You're right. That's exactly the same as slavery.

[ALPHA.]

Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic.

It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference!

"Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum."

So Fredrick Douglass was forced under threat of violence to work a certain job for a certain length of time for no pay. How is this exactly the same as our current system of labor and income taxes?

*No threat of violence
*Not forced to work a job
*Not forced to work any longer than you want
*You get paid.

You're right. That's exactly the same as slavery.

Let's cover each of these individually:

*No threat of violence

If you do not pay taxes nor comply with working under taxation and slavery, your person will be raped. Yes, raped. It will be possessed by an external force to be put in jail or otherwise. If you do not comply with their whim, you will be threatened with force. Your life will be used to negotiate your compliance. Taxation does require a threat of violence.

*Not forced to work a job

A good portion of the populace is forced to work a job. If one does not work, one does not sustain. Of course, one can choose to "work" off the enslaved work of others. This is immoral. The fact is somebody has to work in order for people to sustain. The work is almost always under the condition of slavery.

One could derive that if an organism has the right to sustain itself, she must have the right to work and associate with other individuals in the upmost degree.

*Not forced to work any longer than you want

Not so. Somebody is forced to work as long as it takes to sustain the populace.

*You get paid.

By money earned through slavery.

So, yes, it is very much the same.

[Vanderbleek]

Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).

The government gives me protection of my things, as long as I obey their ToS. I get to use public roads. I got an education (well, part of it was Private, but still received some government money). If I didn't pay the government for those things, I'd have to get them elsewhere, and I don't think it would be any cheaper. Personally I'd like the choice -- It'd be nice to "shop around" the different mercenary companies to purchase my "Home Protection Policy" or to choose which Transportation company had the best way to get from Point A to Point B, but that's not in my budget right now. The government does provide an affordable all-in-one bundle though, so I'm happy to pay for it (even if I would like some more choice. Like the "Build Your Own" car insurance they have now).

And really, I'd probably go with US Military brand Home Protection anyway -- they have some VERY nice toys.

[ALPHA.]

Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).

Prove it.

[Vanderbleek]

Well, let's see:

Numerous sources (likely the least biased is from PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/). It states that PMC's, like Blackwater (who seem to be the ones everyone thinks of -- there are other Companies, of course). That states average pay per day of $400 - $600. Granted, that's for dangerous conditions (Iraq) and they have little competition. So lets reduce that by 75%, to account for being in a more "lax" environment, and likely competition as more PMCs spring up.

Protection -- $100 per guard, per day (so their yearly salaries would be a hair over 36k). Note that includes me paying for their food and housing on my complex. 10 guards is a good number (depending on the size of the estate) but lets knock that down for a single family home, and say 2 guards (Day shift and night shift). 72k/year

I really can't find all that much information on road systems (cost of building them, anyway). However, I think the price for a yearly subscription would likely be around $1500 (only slightly higher than the average cell phone bill). This would probably be higher, since roads degrade far faster than cell towers, and require much more initial investment.

The average cost of private schooling was, in 2000 (according to the US dept. of Education) $3217/child. Counting out schooling that charged over $5000 for tuition (the "rich kid" schools) that figure drops to around $2500 -- which is, from my experience, the low end. Assuming 2 kids, you're at 5k a year. *Might* be lower with more competition.

So we're looking at right around 80k a year in expenses, NOT COUNTING paying for a conflict-settlement company (court replacement), research of your choice, charities of your choice, etc.

Even if you're in the upper middle class level (2 high paying degrees in the household, let's say Computer Science and Chemical engineering) you're looking at a combined income of probably 180 -- 200k/year. 80k is around 40% of that. Federal income tax bracket on that is 33%. I live in Tennessee, and don't pay a state income tax -- I do pay 10% sales though, so if I spend half of my money (70k, after tax) on stuff, there's another  7k to taxes. So that means I'm paying, in taxes, 66k from the income, 7k from sales, and we'll go ahead and tag another 7k for the extra gas taxes etc.

So we're about even, right? As long as I don't want a court system, and am fine with only 2 people protecting my stuff (There is the possibility, of course, of "going in on" it with your neighbors, or purchasing a house in a gated community).  For that same money, the US gives me the protection of the most powerful military in the world, a fantastic, interconnected road system, pretty good schools, clean water, and some other "bonuses" (research grants and the like).

And something else to remember: guards aren't going to want less just because you make less money. Same with the road subscription, schools...so if you only make 100k, that 80k a year becomes a lot more.

Dunno -- I lowballed where I could, if you have more prescient stats please post them -- I identify as Libertarian, usually, and would love to be proven wrong on this, but the US government does a very good job of providing "bang for you buck."

[NghtRppr]

Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).

Then why not let me just spend my own money? I could at least make sure I only did business with companies I trust AND it would be voluntary. You're saying we should force people by gunpoint to pay for stuff that they would have paid for anyways? Brilliant! It seems like the cost of all those armed thugs is just a waste then.

[Vanderbleek]

Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).

Then why not let me just spend my own money? I could at least make sure I only did business with companies I trust AND it would be voluntary. You're saying we should force people by gunpoint to pay for stuff that they would have paid for anyways? Brilliant! It seems like the cost of all those armed thugs is just a waste then.

I was just trying to point out that without taxes, you would still have to spend the equivalent amount of money to enjoy the same amount of convenience and security -- the money would not simply be extra disposable income. I, personally would rather pick and choose who I paid (much like I do when shipping goods) but outside of satisfying personal preference, I don't think there would be a large difference in most people's wealth.

[max in montreal]

A whore is immoral

Not to start an argument, and I would never knowingly have sex with one, but why is a whore immoral? We all use our bodies to work for us, be it our brains, our muscles or our beauty. In my case I am lucky to have all 3  .

If someone chooses to have sex for money(this is how i understand the word whore) and not being forced into it because of drugs/pimps/whatever why not?

If you want to do it, thats cool, if you are forced into it thats another story, but in either case, I do not think its immoral.

[ALPHA.]

A whore is immoral

Not to start an argument, and I would never knowingly have sex with one, but why is a whore immoral? We all use our bodies to work for us, be it our brains, our muscles or our beauty. In my case I am lucky to have all 3  .

If someone chooses to have sex for money(this is how i understand the word whore) and not being forced into it because of drugs/pimps/whatever why not?

If you want to do it, thats cool, if you are forced into it thats another story, but in either case, I do not think its immoral.

It's religious morality: in other words, serious mental illness.