Taxation is...

[an anarchist]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

 

[Orbit]

Some things need to be done for the common good, and not by a profit-seeking entity.

 

[The Hammer]

Taxation is a societal necessity in order for us to have things like clean air, functioning roads, and social safety services.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

With an absence of government, a pavement can also be vandalized or sabotaged.

 

[Heyo]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

I'm of the opinion that property is theft. Common resources should be commonly administered. Delegating that to an agency is the next best thing in a democracy.
And as long as we are delegating duties (no matter if in a democracy or an anarchy), we need to pay those who do the job and give them the resources needed. The way to allocate those resources could be very much better than by taxation but that would also be more complicated.

 

[an anarchist]

I'm of the opinion that property is theft

I'll create a thread sometime so I can ask further questions about this. We are different kinds of anarchists, but anarchists nonetheless.

 

[Koldo]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

The problem though is that the concept of property requires someone/something powerful enough to make everyone else agree, by sheer power, with your claim over whatever you think is your property. Otherwise, it is just an empty claim with no practical value.

 

[JDMS]

I don't think most humans have a broad enough perspective to succeed as a civilized society without a government. And that's assuming that most humans have the empathy and desire to do the "right thing"... or even enough humans to counteract the ones making the bad decisions.

Take hunting and fishing for example. People hunted and fished certain species to near extinction while introducing others to non-native habitats. The only thing that prevented it from getting worse was government regulations.

John the hunter may think, "but I'm only hunting one bison per season! I can regulate myself"... but John doesn't know that that Bill is hunting twenty bison per season. Or that Gary, Fred and Thomas are all doing the same thing. He has no way of knowing.

That's why extensive networks of government employees at different branches are necessary to gather the data to determine what hunting should be allowed and when, to enforce the rules, and to essentially protect the right to hunt at all.

That's where a lot of taxes are going. It's going to people and branches that exist to protect and enhance the livelihoods of the many and the few.

Because if there were no hunting regulations, eventually John the hunter would have no bison to hunt, even though he was personally upholding sustainable practices.

And hunting is just one tiny example compared to other consequential topics like healthcare, infrastructure, etc. If I can't trust people to do the right thing in something like hunting (which I can't for the record, as someone who's done seasonal work with the US Forest Service).... then I sure as hell am not trusting them with anything more important.


You say that you don't consent to paying taxes, but I don't consent to having unregulated selfish people ruining my life by destroying my roads, killing all the animals, ruining all the forests we need to continue to survive as a species, etc.

 

[dybmh]

Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

Certain services are not well suited for profit only incentives. The best example I have is K-12 educators. A commited teacher is not motivated by their pay check. They are motivated by the societal benefit to having an educated population. If their work conditions change, or there is better pay elsewhere, the commited teacher would not nessessarily abandon their current school and their current class. It depends on their commitment.

For this reason a school teacher is better paid uniformly through taxes, and protected by a union.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

It's definitely theft as It actually take a person with a gun to extract your personal money by force.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some things need to be done for the common good, and not by a profit-seeking entity.

There is no common good. There is however common nobility that sees others as mere cattle to be milked.

 

[Orbit]

There is no common good. There is however common nobility.

Clean air is a common good. Clean water is a common good. What are you talking about "nobility"?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Clean air is a common good. Clean water is a common good. What are you talking about "nobility"?

I don't have to pay for that. Yet..

 

[Alien826]

You didn't consent to a shopkeeper putting a price on his goods, but you still have to pay it. If you assume that there is a cost to produce goods, then it's not too difficult to see taxation as the price we pay for goods produced under Government. Yes it's more complicated than that.

One question, maybe the most important, is whether Society could function with no Government "goods" at all. I had a discussion years ago with an extreme Libertarian who seriously claimed that the country should function with no government at all. I mentioned the police and he was happy with the idea that local communities could have their own laws and police. I suggested that it would soon result in a collection of local "war lords" attacking each other, but he was unconvinced.

Too extreme, you say? But any Government function would involve taxation. Do you want private armies, each defending it's own section of the population? I can't see that working well. You said "essential services" . Is the army not essential?

My first point is then that some Government services are truly essential, and thus taxation, or some other way to get the recipients to pay for them, is also essential.

If you meant to narrow the services Government provides but not to zero, I suggest that some services are best provided centrally. The example you gave of roads is a good one. We do have toll roads, but there is still a question of how many roads do we need to connect point A to point B. One is the answer in most cases. So how do we decide which private entity will build any given road. You can't have them all build roads and let the market decide. So we need an independent body to decide between competing bids and designs. Could that be Government? Then it needs to be paid for....

Broadening it a bit more, there are things like healthcare that work in the private sphere, but tend to favor those most able to pay for them. Here we enter a more contentious area, because you need some altruism to have a system where amounts paid do not directly relate to the services received. Most people are OK with helping those in need to some extent. Government and taxation again.

(By the way, I can argue that universal health care is not unselfish at all, but that's another topic.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

You didn't consent to a shopkeeper putting a price on his goods, but you still have to pay it. If you assume that there is a cost to produce goods, then it's not too difficult to see taxation as the price we pay for goods produced under Government. Yes it's more complicated than that.

One question, maybe the most important, is whether Society could function with no Government "goods" at all. I had a discussion years ago with an extreme Libertarian who seriously claimed that the country should function with no government at all. I mentioned the police and he was happy with the idea that local communities could have their own laws and police. I suggested that it would soon result in a collection of local "war lords" attacking each other, but he was unconvinced.

Too extreme, you say? But any Government function would involve taxation. Do you want private armies, each defending it's own section of the population? I can't see that working well. You said "essential services" . Is the army not essential?

My first point is then that some Government services are truly essential, and thus taxation, or some other way to get the recipients to pay for them, is also essential.

If you meant to narrow the services Government provides but not to zero, I suggest that some services are best provided centrally. The example you gave of roads is a good one. We do have toll roads, but there is still a question of how many roads do we need to connect point A to point B. One is the answer in most cases. So how do we decide which private entity will build any given road. You can't have them all build roads and let the market decide. So we need an independent body to decide between competing bids and designs. Could that be Government? Then it needs to be paid for....

Broadening it a bit more, there are things like healthcare that work in the private sphere, but tend to favor those most able to pay for them. Here we enter a more contentious area, because you need some altruism to have a system where amounts paid do not directly relate to the services received. Most people are OK with helping those in need to some extent. Government and taxation again.

(By the way, I can argue that universal health care is not unselfish at all, but that's another topic.)

The shopkeeper dosent point a gun at you and demand you to buy his stuff or suffer the consequences.

 

[Twilight Hue]

America used to be a tax free country.

A Brief History of Taxes in the U.S.

Thank Abe Lincoln for starting the tax trade for the nobility.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think most humans have a broad enough perspective to succeed as a civilized society without a government. And that's assuming that most humans have the empathy and desire to do the "right thing"... or even enough humans to counteract the ones making the bad decisions.

Take hunting and fishing for example. People hunted and fished certain species to near extinction while introducing others to non-native habitats. The only thing that prevented it from getting worse was government regulations.

John the hunter may think, "but I'm only hunting one bison per season! I can regulate myself"... but John doesn't know that that Bill is hunting twenty bison per season. Or that Gary, Fred and Thomas are all doing the same thing. He has no way of knowing.

That's why extensive networks of government employees at different branches are necessary to gather the data to determine what hunting should be allowed and when, to enforce the rules, and to essentially protect the right to hunt at all.

That's where a lot of taxes are going. It's going to people and branches that exist to protect and enhance the livelihoods of the many and the few.

Because if there were no hunting regulations, eventually John the hunter would have no bison to hunt, even though he was personally upholding sustainable practices.

And hunting is just one tiny example compared to other consequential topics like healthcare, infrastructure, etc. If I can't trust people to do the right thing in something like hunting (which I can't for the record, as someone who's done seasonal work with the US Forest Service).... then I sure as hell am not trusting them with anything more important.


You say that you don't consent to paying taxes, but I don't consent to having unregulated selfish people ruining my life by destroying my roads, killing all the animals, ruining all the forests we need to continue to survive as a species, etc.

Swallowing the lie.

This is what taxes really are there for....

Taxes and Special Interests - Americans For Tax Fairness

Democrats' tax bill is loaded with special interest giveaways

Its called leverage.

 

[PureX]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented.

You consent every day as you continue to participate in a representative democracy, and in a very complex, inter-dependent society. You could choose to leave it and go somewhere that functions more to your liking. Or you can accept the fact that you are not living on this planet alone, and so you are obliged to cooperate with the will of your many fellow humans.

I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

There is no such condition as the "absence of government". It doesn't exist. You can be governed by the biggest, meanest, most ruthless bully-boy in your area, and his gang of thugs, or you can try and band together with other like-minded people and create a government that will protect you from those bully-boys. But that will require you to pay taxes to hire, equip, and oversee the public servants necessary to maintain that protection. What you can't have is life free of the bully-boys. Because that condition does not exist on this Earth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

Well, I gave you an example last time around we were doing this.
But here is a new one.
You are born with inability to functionally work. You have poor parents and they can't support you forever. In fact all your relative are dirty poor and can't help you, when you come of age.
Now what?

 

[exchemist]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

You never opted out of the benefits that taxation provides you with, either, though.