I don’t pay my taxes voluntarily. I’m being threatened with jail time. If I resist jail time, i’m threatend with death.
Most people was defined at the beginning of the thread as a democrat or republican. If you are on these forums I would be willing to bet that you are neither. So if we use the definition of most people as democrat or republican, then most people pay taxes voluntarily. Therefore thier stuff is not being taken by force, its being given by thier own free will.
Southern: “Therefore thier stuff is not being taken by force, its being given by thier own free will.”
That’s a logical impossibility. The only way to test the above assertion is by giving these people a choice. That is, to remove the threat of violence from the equation.
Now, how many people do you really suppose would pay their taxes if they were given the choice not to?
It is nonsensical to speak of free will in the absent of free choice. The “choice” you refer to is taking place under the threat of violence. There is no free will. The choice is obviously impacted by the fear of ending in a cage.
Those who insist they are paying their taxes voluntarily must also insist that they would pay them if they were no longer mandatory. Ask your fellow Democrats and Republicans if they would continue to pay their taxes in the absent of such a mandate, and see how your initial assertion was false.
I pay mine voluntarily as long as the government forces everyone else to pay. I wouldn’t willingly pay if everyone else didn’t have to. The value of taxes to me is not that I have to pay but that everyone else does too and that some people pay way more than I do. Therefore, I will allow myself to be taxed.
@Clayton, I agree, but I wager those men benefit me more doing what they’re doing than they would if they weren’t allowed to do what they’re doing. Also i favor universal legal plunder, which is what we have. Some pay more than others though and certainly the wielders of the weapon receive greater benefits than I do but I still receive benefits nonetheless. The bailouts and the stimulus, because I have been decently good at investing my money, have made me relatively richer than I was before they happened. Ironic considering I was one of their greatest critics I turn out to be a benefactor.
That’s a logical impossibility. The only way to test the above assertion is by giving these people a choice. That is, to remove the threat of violence from the equation.
Now, how many people do you really suppose would pay their taxes if they were given the choice not to?
As I said above most people dont pay taxes because they are afraid of government. They pay because they beleive that it is the only way to have roads, infastructure, etc.
Its the same logic that we use when an advocate of government claims that people will be killing each other in the streets without government there to threaten us with jail. We wouldnt kill each other in the streets because we would have little to gain from that sort of behavior.
I would imagine many would continue to provide funds for public goods. Either way we will never know.
It is nonsensical to speak of free will in the absent of free choice. The “choice” you refer to is taking place under the threat of violence. There is no free will. The choice is obviously impacted by the fear of ending in a cage.
Fair enough. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part.
“I would imagine many would continue to provide funds for public goods.”
Right, they’ll pay for what they demand. Like milk and bread. Nobody said they’ll stop demanding education for their kids or roads for their travel. And some will also pay for their own protection opting out of the “public” police services, forcing the reality of transforming all “public” to private.
“Either way we will never know.”
We will never know what? If people stop paying taxes once they become voluntary? In respect to you, I will not press you on this ridiculous argument you are about to make in order to support your initial assertion.
I do - at least social security and medicare - you have to pay that full amount if you are working for yourself or for a company that is at least 10% owned by an American or American corporation (you don’t if you are working for a foreign employer, but then you are supposed to get dinged with many taxes in the country you are in). Also the foreign earned income exemption is only good to like $80,000 a year (I’d be happy making a small fraction of that, but…)
Moral credibility, like reputation, is something that others attribute to you, it is not something you confer upon yourself. Universal legal plunder is the total breakdown of property boundaries. It is like living in a world where thieves are never punished. To be in favor of such a social system is inherently morally bankrupt and those who espouse it have no moral credibility.
Who cares what values you attribute to me? Property boundaries are a legal concept, they are whatever the law says they are. No one is a thief unless the law says they are and in this case, I’m perfectly within my legal rights to favor universal legal plunder. You say I’m morally bankrupt, but who gives a damn about what you think? If I have no moral credibility to you, I could care less. The fact is that I have more people who would certainly agree with me than you do. It doesn’t make me right, but it means my moral credibility will certainly survive your meaningless downgrade. Not that you have the legal right to rate me anyways.
“The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to Pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Sounds like universal plunder to me. My stance is in line with the law. Your moral downgrade is irrelevant in the face of the law.
They are constitutionally given the ability t o tax income, not the obligation. They could simply create an income tax of zero percent across the board if they had the politcal will to do so.
I think that Bloom is saying he will steal from as many people as possible if he can benefit from it.
Some of us are saying that stealing is unethical. Bloom doesn’t care.
Some of us are saying that in the current system, Bloom is being stolen from more than he’s stealing from others. This is is something bloom would care about in theory, but has yet to be developed.