Defend Taxation

[myrkul]

This is for all the statists out there...

The defining characteristic of a State is that it is funded by taxation. All governments, throughout time, have had this feature, regardless of other trappings, ideologies,or policies.

My challenge to you is simple: Defend that practice.

My contention is that taxation is theft. Taxation is the extortion, by violence or threat of violence, of the funding necessary to run the government. Refute that, if you can.

[asdf]

I'd dispute that taxation is ' extortion, by violence or threat of violence'. The origins of government are clear in the name, it's modern day meaning has become twisted in the same way as 'corporation'. Government does not necessarily mean 'the state', governor was once a common term for any kind of overseer and societies infrastructure is more effectively and efficiently maintained when overseen centrally, when done correctly taxation is justified.

So taxation ISN'T extortion through threat of violence!? Wow, I didn't know that! I've been paying taxes all this time... I'll never fill out another tax return.

[myrkul]

I'd dispute that taxation is ' extortion, by violence or threat of violence'.

Thank you for offering debate.

I'd like to present a little evidence, in the form of definitions, as to the fact that taxes are indeed a form of extortion.

First: Tax

tax   [taks]
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support

Now, Extort

ex·tort   [ik-stawrt]
verb (used with object)
1. Law. a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

Now, note: the word used in the "tax" definition is not "requested," not "desired," but "demanded." That reveals an interesting fact: Taxes are not voluntary.

Well, what happens when you say "no" to the tax man?

According to Wikipedia:
"Tax evasion is a crime in almost all developed countries and subjects the guilty party to fines and/or imprisonment. "

Key words there: fines, and imprisonment.

A fine is:

fine²    [fahyn]
noun
1. a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction

And of course imprisonment is:

im·pris·on   [im-priz-uhn]
verb (used with object)
to confine in or as if in a prison.

So, if decide not to pay taxes, they will take more money, or throw you in a cage. But what if you say no to that?

Well, then they will make you. They will use force to make you comply. Hmm... where did I see that, before? Oh yes:

ex·tort   [ik-stawrt]
verb (used with object)
1. Law. a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

[myrkul]

Touche, your definition is correct. In my defense I'm describing an ideal situation in which tax is paid willingly and the legal threat isn't needed, I can't justify my own corruption and incompetent governments taxation even at the best of times.

Well, even if the legal threat isn't needed, it's still there.

Allow me, if you will, to advance an alternative.

You agree that some services that government provides are necessary, and proper, yes?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think all government functions could be distributed to a local level and there is no need for a bloated central government.

Especially these days where we have the internet to communicate instantly and tools to allow collaboration of people.

[myrkul]

I think all government functions could be distributed to a local level and there is no need for a bloated central government.

...the services requiring taxation.

Those are the services I'm referring to, or at least some of them.

[nimda]

I'll bite.
Sure, the government does provide some services which are useful; I might even go so far as to say that a subset of those are "necessary."

[myrkul]

I'll bite.
Sure, the government does provide some services which are useful; I might even go so far as to say that a subset of those are "necessary."

Thanks.

I'd say yes but on reflection its hard to say what services would require government

You're making my case for me!

I meant, specifically, that some services currently provided by government are necessary and useful. Some examples: Transportation infrastructure, mail, protection, and justice.

My case is that these services can be provided privately, without resorting to force to get people to pay for them. Because they are both useful and necessary, people will pay for them. Some of the other ones which while not necessary, are useful, such as welfare, and other social support services can be paid for voluntarily as well, because those who would not object to contributing would contribute voluntarily, to a charity which provides them.

[nimda]

Aha!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98916.0#new

If forcibly taxing a few rich people to make many poor people happy works, and it results in more total happiness than a charity would, then that taxation should be done. That's a big if-and, but I stand by the if-and-then. (Logically, taking the ((a AND b) --> c) as a whole, the whole is only false if (a is true, and b is true, and c is false)).

[myrkul]

Aha!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98916.0#new

If forcibly taxing a few rich people to make many poor people happy works, and it results in more total happiness than a charity would, then that taxation should be done. That's a big if-and, but I stand by the if-and-then. (Logically, taking the ((a AND b) --> c) as a whole, the whole is only false if (a is true, and b is true, and c is false)).

Except that forcible taxation has demonstrably been proven to create a great deal of unhappiness.

[nimda]

What if we silently stole all of Bill Gates' money and used it for welfare? Would that make many people happy?

[myrkul]

What if we silently stole all of Bill Gates' money and used it for welfare? Would that make many people happy?

I'm fairly certain it would... except for the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Bill & Melinda themselves, their kids (do they have kids? I'm not sure.), All the people they employ, Microsoft, etc. So while it might make some people happy for a while, it would cause deep and lasting harm to many others.

[FirstAscent]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

[finkleshnorts]

here we go...

[Tim Johnson]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

What happens when the tax is global and collected by the UN?

[FirstAscent]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

What happens when the tax is global and collected by the UN?

Complacency or rebellion, depending on the happiness of the people. Simple question. Simple answer.

[Bitcoin Oz]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

You cant leave and go somewhere else without permission - passports etc

There really isnt anywhere to escape too from government on earth.

[FirstAscent]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Now, take the HOA as an example. You're free to stay, pay dues, be regulated, or leave, but you'll ultimately have to square up with the HOA. If you stay, but don't pay dues and refuse to be regulated while in the HOA, legal issues will befall you.

You cant leave and go somewhere else without permission - passports etc

There really isnt anywhere to escape too from government on earth.

Then it appears that it's inevitable - government, that is. Ever considered then that AnCap won't last long, and evolve into government?

[myrkul]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Where's the rental agreement? And if I don't own land, why am I being taxed for other things? And more importantly, why do they call it ownership, if it's really not?

[FirstAscent]

You're a tenant within the nation you live in. You are granted rights to "own" property, which does not have the same meaning as the way the nation owns property. You are free to agree to these terms, or leave.

Where's the rental agreement?

Your W-4.

And if I don't own land, why am I being taxed for other things?

Because you're like a tenant of a landlord.

And more importantly, why do they call it ownership, if it's really not?

Semantics will never win an argument.