Is Taxtion a bad thing/Slavery/Theft since we are paying taxes to a corrupt Fascist g

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is Taxtion a bad thing/Slavery/Theft since we are paying taxes to a corrupt Fascist government ? I know we need taxes to pay for Government Services but would it be moral to pay taxes to the Government of Nazi Germany if you were a German Citizen in the 1930's ?

Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery?
by Steven Yates and Ray E. Bornert II
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html

[tradeunionsupporter]

Does anyone have an opinion ?

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, taxation is "bad". Not because we pay it to a fascist government--our governments aren't fascist--but because it's coercive.

I wouldn't consider taxation "slavery", but it's coercive nonetheless.

[¿Que?]

My opinion is yes and no. It mostly has to do with who's being taxed (working class people or millionaires and corporations) and where the taxes are going (social services or military imperialist ventures).

In the US, the real left has always called for taxes to the rich and provide social services for the working class and poor. It's not simply a generic call to raise taxes at all costs, regardless of who the money is taken from, or what those taxes will be used for.

In the end, though, the sort of tax appropriations I describe are only a means to empower a healthier, better educated and stronger working class that can understand the historical necessity of taking control over the means of production.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't really think it's a moral issue. Whether or not you agree with where the taxes are being appropriated, paying taxes is something of a necessity.


Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery?
by Steven Yates and Ray E. Bornert II
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html


Just imagine how it would flourish if human beings owned 100% of Person and Labor, and could voluntarily invest the capital we currently pay to the government in our businesses, our homes, our schools, and our communities!

I lol'd.

[Catma]

You cannot live in a society and retain 100% of your output. Some of it will go to the society.

The relevant questions are "to what end?" and "on what terms?"

[Jimmie Higgins]

My opinion is yes and no. It mostly has to do with who's being taxed (working class people or millionaires and corporations) and where the taxes are going (social services or military imperialist ventures).This.

In capitalism, you can't evaluate taxes outside of class. In the abstract, yes, why give money over to a government by and for the rich so they can oppress you and people around the world. That being said, in the class struggle, since states have expenditures and force us to pay taxes, there are tax-related issues that can help or hurt the working class and its ability to fight back.

[Judicator]

You cannot live in a society and retain 100% of your output. Some of it will go to the society.

The relevant questions are "to what end?" and "on what terms?"

You could theoretically have a society where individual must directly pay government for even the most basic services, like police protection and contract enforcement (income taxes being lumped into one big budget is paying indirectly).



Yes, taxation is "bad". Not because we pay it to a fascist government--our governments aren't fascist--but because it's coercive.

I wouldn't consider taxation "slavery", but it's coercive nonetheless.

Some level of taxation to provide minimal services specified in the social contract is warranted, but anything beyond that does seem unjustly coercive.

[RichardAWilson]

Well, for once you've made sense. In theory, we could compensate the state for the appropriation of valued service. I.e. User Fee vs. Taxation. The problem is that there are those that can't afford those services. Would it be wise to allow children from a lower-income household to be molested by pedophiles because the mother and dad forgot to cover the police protection bill for this month?

I agree with the belief that we should have objections to wasteful spending. Taxation should be opposed when our money is being squandered. Corporate Welfare (I.e. Energy and Commerce), the Industrial Complex (I.e. Pentagon) and even social-welfare spending (Food-Stamps and TANF) should be slashed and burned.

The money that's saved could be invested in infrastructure, education and health care. Millions of new jobs would be created and the need for social welfare would be reduced. $1 billion in infrastructure spending creates between 10 and 14 thousand jobs. A PW-WPA System (building a high-speed rail system, modernizing our roads, highways and bridges, building new pipelines and building solar and wind farms) could create millions and millions of jobs. An Exchangeable Trade System, like the one proposed by Warren Buffet, would ensure those jobs are created in America (manufacturing, distribution and the infrastructure multiplier).

Interest rates are low and bond yields have fallen. I would support deficit-spending, if it were used for meaningful infrastructure programs. In the longer-term, we should revise income tax rates higher on the super-rich and hedge fund managers to raise capital for these investments. (Human capital is more valuable and yields a higher return than speculation in gold, silver and foreign currency.) We could even add an "Educational Surcharge" to the Income Tax to abolish the college tuition and reimburse pupils for textbooks. It has been calculated that a college degree offers a higher return than investments in large cap stocks. Why then do we penalize and discourage an education with high-rate loans, outrageous tuition fees and high-priced books that are often used?

To review:

1. Tax the super-rich and financial speculation
2. Eliminate tuition fees and reimburse for textbooks
3. Institute a Balanced International Trade Policy
4. Revive the economy and create millions of jobs via infrastructure spending
5. Use record low interest rates to raise capital for socializing certain sectors of the economy (I.e. Health Care, Commercial Banking, Insurance, Transportation and Utilities)

Like I've said before, the corporate tax also needs to be reformed. However, lower corporate tax rates would have to be correlated with higher personal income tax rates on high income individuals. A National Energy Policy should be included with the infrastructure program and the socialization of utilities. Wind, Hydro, Natural Gas and Ethanol can offer us the energy we need. Solar can be used in Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.

Things can be done. The American economy has room to grow. There's surplus labor and surplus capital that can be mobilized to increase production, income and wealth. The problem is that those resources are being wasted. Even more labor and capital is being wasted when you consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Lockheed Martin and Gunman.

[RGacky3]

we gotta take the government back too.

[Tim Cornelis]

Some level of taxation to provide minimal services specified in the social contract is warranted, but anything beyond that does seem unjustly coercive.

On what grounds? What level of coercive theft (taxation) is legitimate, and who decides that?

Why should I be forced to pay for "minimal services" I possibly don't want (e.g. army and police), because my great-great-great-great-great-great-, etc. grandparents supposedly signed an imaginary contract in a hypothetical situation? I am bound by their decision? That doesn't sound like freedom to me!

That makes as much sense as divine rule, in my opinion.

[balaclava]

paying taxes to a corrupt Fascist government ?


There's that word again! Why qualifies them for the label fascist?

[Judicator]

On what grounds? What level of coercive theft (taxation) is legitimate, and who decides that?

Why should I be forced to pay for "minimal services" I possibly don't want (e.g. army and police), because my great-great-great-great-great-great-, etc. grandparents supposedly signed an imaginary contract in a hypothetical situation? I am bound by their decision? That doesn't sound like freedom to me!

That makes as much sense as divine rule, in my opinion.

Who knows, maybe it's somewhere in the social contract.

To the extent a country allows free exit, I'm not sure that you are required to pay for minimal services.

Perhaps any theory about rights/ethics makes about as much sense as divine rule.

[RGacky3]

Who knows, maybe it's somewhere in the social contract.


Well no its not the social contract, no one ever asked me.


To the extent a country allows free exit, I'm not sure that you are required to pay for minimal services.


So then whats your problem with socialism? As long as it allows free exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Who knows, maybe it's somewhere in the social contract.

To the extent a country allows free exit, I'm not sure that you are required to pay for minimal services.

Perhaps any theory about rights/ethics makes about as much sense as divine rule.


Who knows, maybe it's somewhere in the social contract.

A social contract is by its very definition imaginary (in case of government) or based on real interaction between individuals (in case of voluntary association). And only the former exists in today's world.


To the extent a country allows free exit, I'm not sure that you are required to pay for minimal services.

In that case China is a free and voluntary country since you can leave.


Perhaps any theory about rights/ethics makes about as much sense as divine rule.

No, but a theory that states that my great(etc)grandparents who died 6000 or 500 years ago get to decide how I live my life is nuts.

[Judicator]

So then whats your problem with socialism? As long as it allows free exist.

I could leave a socialist country after it fell apart. However, I'd prefer it not fall apart, so thus I'd prefer they not implement socialism.


In that case China is a free and voluntary country since you can leave.

Why? You are free to leave, how does this make the country free?


No, but a theory that states that my great(etc)grandparents who died 6000 or 500 years ago get to decide how I live my life is nuts.

Yeah, the social contract is just a general set of powers rational individuals would be willing to transfer to government, not an actual piece of paper.

[RGacky3]

I could leave a socialist country after it fell apart. However, I'd prefer it not fall apart, so thus I'd prefer they not implement socialism.


Well I moved from LA to Norway, anyway, ethicly in that case you have NO problem with socialization and so on.


Why? You are free to leave, how does this make the country free?


Based on your definition numbnuts.

[Judicator]

Based on your definition numbnuts.

Read again. You're free to leave. This doesn't make the country free.

[Tim Cornelis]

Read again. You're free to leave. This doesn't make the country free.

No you read again.

You said:


To the extent a country allows free exit, I'm not sure that you are required to pay for minimal services.

In other words, since I can leave it means I'm not coerced to pay taxes, therefore I'm free = your logic.

When applying reductio ad absurdum in an example we get:


In that case China is a free and voluntary country since you can leave.

Then you said:


Why? You are free to leave, how does this make the country free?

Which was exactly my point.

Therefore RGacky3 said:


Based on your definition numbnuts

I'm forced to pay for minimal services like police and army (for which I don't want to pay as it's not unlikely I paid the bullet they will use to shoot at me). You say "oh well, you can leave so you're not required/forced to pay for those services", on other words I'm "free". By your logic, a dictatorship is free "to the degree that it allows free exit". North Korea is not, but China is free since it allows free exit.

We can take your logic a step further even. This can also be applied to the workplace. The workplace is ruled by a small privileged minority (the owners) who subject the workers by enforcing their will through negative reinforcement (punishment, treat of firing them). You said it yourself a country is not free just because you can leave. And a capitalist workplace is not free just because you can quit. Both have authoritarian top-down hierarchical control over its subject, the people and workers respectively. By your own logic you must either acknowledge wage labour (and therefore capitalism) and freedom are incompatible, or say "well, freedom isn't everything. I'll support capitalism anyway". Freedom or capitalism... which one is it?

[Judicator]

In theory, we could compensate the state for the appropriation of valued service. I.e. User Fee vs. Taxation. The problem is that there are those that can't afford those services. Would it be wise to allow children from a lower-income household to be molested by pedophiles because the mother and dad forgot to cover the police protection bill for this month?

Is it a question of wisdom or of justice? To get the fee to cover police protection for everybody, you have to take it from someone else. I don't know what makes this reallocation warranted.

Generally I don't know why people should have families if they can't provide for them.



The money that's saved could be invested in infrastructure, education and health care. Millions of new jobs would be created and the need for social welfare would be reduced. $1 billion in infrastructure spending creates between 10 and 14 thousand jobs. A PW-WPA System (building a high-speed rail system, modernizing our roads, highways and bridges, building new pipelines and building solar and wind farms) could create millions and millions of jobs. An Exchangeable Trade System, like the one proposed by Warren Buffet, would ensure those jobs are created in America (manufacturing, distribution and the infrastructure multiplier).


I don't see why infrastructure spending "creates jobs" anymore than doing the census did. You bump up spending, you get a blip in jobs. Spending stops, jobs disappear. Not really looking to have the economy on government support forever... Infrastructure is nice to have but there's no reason to repave 5 year old roads in the name of jobs.



It has been calculated that a college degree offers a higher return than investments in large cap stocks. Why then do we penalize and discourage an education with high-rate loans, outrageous tuition fees and high-priced books that are often used?


Loan rates are high because of the risk involved in loaning to someone with no money. Tuition is high because colleges can charge whatever they want and people value education a lot. If you think the product is overpriced don't buy it.