I agree with it insofar as income tax is concerned. I think income tax is insane. The only tax that should exist, in my opinion, is the sales tax. This would make government much smaller and therefore much less coercive.

But I'm kind of a libertarian at heart.

Guess this works.

Insults: not well-read (assuming he never learned about the Cuban Missile Crisis - not to mention undue arrogance on your part for seeming to think having knowledge of this extraordinarily famous event sets you apart), naive, stupid, and disappointing.

Naive is the most ironic. OK lock it up or lock me out but I'm just saying.

Unless you only tax very luxury items sales tax is very regressive.

How does the income tax keep people out of poverty? Not being combative. I actually don't know.

Another TV station blocked. Isn't worth my time or energy anymore.

Helps fund social programs and financial aid but is FAR from perfect.

What social programs and what financial aid, specifically?

Any logic behind that first comment? Or examples of it? Other forms of government that use basically the opposite approach only seem to create mass poverty, and a tax-less society hasn't exactly been tried in the West.

(I'm not arguing that it would work because it's the opposite of, say, Communism btw)

And agree with the second part. I don't see why it's any different.

I'd be in favor of voluntary donations if there were to be some form of Government in a tax free system. Maybe set up via email.

I'm not accusing you of not knowing this but two examples are Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. One safe thing about a progressive income tax is that if it's implemented correctly the money will be there so people can't get caught in situations where tax evasion is inevitable. Another point is income tax on a proper sliding scale should not burden the poor. What hurts the poor is admittedly more complicated than that but taxing their toothpaste or whatever obviously doesn't help them.

Very informative. Thank you, everyone.

At it's core I think it's a great concept. What I don't think is great is when people extend it to taxing because that essentially requires equating taxing with violence, which is just absurd from where I'm sitting. The fact that many people who argue for lower taxes/tax reform cite the NAP actually hurts their stance because once they make that leap it's hard to take them seriously.

The real issue is how the taxes are handled and what accountability there is for mismanagement of tax funds, if there even is any (what a groundbreaking stance amiright). I think it's pretty obvious that politicians are attempting to steer the conversation away from that by making the debate about whether taxes are acceptable or how much taxing is acceptable.

Stealing is a form of aggression, I would argue. And if you consider being taxed equivalent then stealing falls totally in line with the NAP.

Generally yes, but this is far from absolute.

I don't. Equating taxation with theft ignores most of what taxation accomplishes, sort of similar to saying that a cashier robbed you of your money would be leaving out the fact that it was a purchase and you received something in return and it's also another great example of how heightened language doesn't help a stance.

Taxing can be theft when the funds are mismanaged and taxpayers do not receive anything in return, which brings us back to accountability of tax distributors.

I agree that stealing is a form of aggression. It's an active harm, done by one person or entity to another, to the detriment of the party that's stolen from.

Where I lose the thread is how taxation, under our current government, could be considered theft, and therefore an act of aggression. I'm not aware of any definition of theft that comports with a civil society that chooses their representatives, on a regular, repeating basis who then set taxation rates, which pay for a bevy of programs and institutions, some specifically provided for by the Constitution, others implied. Anti-taxers (fittingly, as ill informed as anti-vaxxers) seem to have a problem with civilization as a whole. They'll rail how the implicit threat of force by the state makes 'taxation' not voluntary and therefore an act of violence. There are plenty of uninhabited islands in Micronesia, ripe for anti-state, anti-tax folks to settle down. With all the no roads and lack of hospitals their non-tax dollars (well, I guess shells) to not pay for.

"Taxation without Representation" was the rallying cry of the Founding Fathers. 'Taxation is Theft' is the childish whine of the Sovereign Citizen and the anarchist.

Those videos of sovereign citizens recording themselves being pulled over and acting childishly noncompliant is some of my favourite cringecore material. "The constitution doesn't say that I have to turn down my music."

Would you agree with me that some form of voluntary taxation would work better then? I am not against taxation or government in practice as I understand that voluntary association is highly unlikely to produce the kind of societies we see in the West. But giving people the direct choice of where their tax dollars go to would feel a lot less like theft to me.

Would you agree that moral and ethical discussions should not be based on the system you happen to be born into? The fact that roads, schools and other services were provided by the tax dollars of those who came before me doesn't change the question of whether taxation is actually theft or not.

Had those people not been taxed, maybe we wouldn't have the same level of infrastructure. But what you could not say is that they were potentially stolen from.

It'd be better insofar that it would curb complaints from people who feel overtaxed. As far as working as a tax system, I don't have faith in that bringing in any money, even if the government was run impeccably and responsibly. So I'd call that a bad system because I place facts over feelings :D.

I think the issue could be solved by creating a form of accountability for use of the funds that goes beyond voting for representatives, but I'm not sure what that would look like.

To clarify it would still be a system where you had to pay a certain amount in tax. The word "voluntary" related more to where you choose to send your tax dollars.

Ah, I didn't get that from your post. I think that it's a good idea within limits. I could see something along the lines of 25% of what people pay in taxes being voluntary with the rest being traditionally distributed. I see two issues with it being entirely voluntary. The first is that people are not that smart and will be less likely to put their money towards more complex issues simply because they have a limited (or lack of) understanding of those issues. The second problem is that it would favour those who pay more in taxes and would increase income inequality because of how little the poor would be able to sway distribution in their own favour, which could potentially lead them to be continually ignored and create a cycle.

My wording could use some work but you probably get the idea.

And wage is how much you can steal from your boss per hour.

Stop poking holes in Marxist economics.

Perhaps I didn't hone in on the point of my argument well enough.

The idea of taxation as theft assumes harm is integral to the nature of "taxation", the compulsory secular 'tithe' of currency for common use. As others have stated, there are abuses in this system, which should be rooted out, but I fail to see how taxation is intrinsically harmful. Our system of government allows for us to select our representatives. If one's position is that all taxation should be voluntary, then they are free to elect representatives that agree with that position. But to characterize losing a political argument, i.e. is taxation theft, as having harm done to you is a rhetorical bridge too far.

Americans have repeatedly demonstrated a desire for some form of government. Its reach waxes and wains, but the core institutions (military, postal service, etc,) remain.

And another quick thought, currency is debt. More specifically, currency that is not tied to a finite resource (gold, silver, platinum, etc.) is debt. Following the logic of 'taxation as theft' if the currency you've earned for your labors is issued in dollars, and not in bullion, then you are relieving your employer of a form of debt and taking on "money" with a fluctuating value. Looked at another way, the more money you pay in tax, the more debt you're relieved of! (I realize it's mostly playing a game with numbers, but the internal logic is consistent and I'm using it to highlight what I see as an empty anti-tax argument).

Currency as debt

At the end of the day, I'm comfortable with roughly 20% of my income being deducted for various taxes and compulsory "savings" (e.g. social security). I view it as a 'society tax', and when compared to historical examples (and some currently lawless, tax-less societies) of low to functionally no tax areas, I think we're better off for it. Taxation helps maintain the social contract - it provides for common use utilities. We shouldn't understate how important free-use roads are. They are the figurative lifeblood of our economy. Can you imagine a patchwork of private, for-profit roadways? Free market capitalism is generally a wonderful thing, but the 'tragedy of the commons' is economic problem that Hayek and the rest of the invisible hand Austrians never adequately solved, in my humble opinion.

Unless those laborers produced money then wage is their acceptable level of hourly theft.

Do places of work grow on trees?

They do when your a lumberjack.

No, labor is producing clean floors and ****. I can't buy a dub with a clean floor now can I? First you rob the floor of its dirt and then you rob your boss of their cash.

Explain.

I mean I've heard that a lot, but I've never come across anyone who explained how it would function in reality, and I'm not reading one of your boring poli sci books, but I'll watch a YT video about it if you're too lazy to explain.

Sounds nice on paper, but I think the result would be much like the ending of Animal Farm:

I know how you're all about boring research papers

http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index....le/17351/17948

No I didn't read it.

Hope that helps.

^Much better than a book, lets avoid the fluff. I'll check it out.

*never mind*

Okay.

Yeah, I know. Nobody stumps me on Orwell trivia. :D My thought is that in such a hypothetical situation, strict rules would have to be in place to prevent certain workers from wresting control from others. But then power ends up in the hands of whoever enforces the rules.

Bottom line is that however idyllic such a system sounds, I don't think people can pull it off. Think of a mathematician or physicist who comes up with a "perfect machine" on paper. An engineer who tries to implement the machine will find out pretty quickly that it needs work.

Of course, I may be way out of my depth, but these things are fun to ponder. In keeping with the scientific analogy, here's a quote from Richard Feynman. He explains my objections to communism better than I can.

I agree. We need to set the sails with a sense of purpose.

Of course you know this, but it was "No taxation without representation", as the other would make an odd rallying call. Does remind me of an episode of the superlative political satire The New Statesman, in which Tory wideboy politician Alan B'Stard (yes, that was his name!) intends to disenfranchise the poor by taking away their vote, if their income falls beneath a certain figure. "The rallying cry," he bellows, "of the American Revolution was No Taxation without Representation! I offer a new clarion call: No Representation without Taxation!"
What a guy!
Branch offices do...
:shycouch:

Is stolen valor an appropriate topic for the thread? Military is kind of similar to politics I guess. Living in SD I have a lot of military and veteran acquaintances, so I see a lot of outrage over people who haven't served wearing military uniforms and badges. What are your thoughts on it?

Personally I see it similar to people wearing a safety vest to get into places for free. They found a social loophole, more power to them.

I dont see a reason for the elderly and military vets to get discounts, but since it is part of our society id say its pretty ****ty of people to do so.