In most of the western world, the vast majority of taxes are payed by the employer, by sellers and by importers, not directly by the private person. So what is the exact nature of the crime here? It is probably not robbery per se because the people whom you trade with are robbed not you directly. So what is it?
Well it is still robbery because they’d rather not pay it if they didn’t have to. You are still impacted in the form of lower wages or higher cost products.
Employers, sellers, and importers are subject to extortion.
Yes, but what are YOU subjected to in case you are not importer, employer or seller?
Indirect extortion.
Yes, but what are YOU subjected to in case you are not importer, employer or seller?
You are prevented from becoming an importer, employer or seller yourself, by the threat of extortion if you do. “Do not become more useful for yourself and the society, or esle we will take part of your property”.
Sellers and employers aren’t people? Lololololol
These are all crimes as in each case there is a victim who is having wealth take from them without their permission. Infact in each of the cases there is more than one victim. In the case of an import duty there are an uncalculable number of victims as we have no idea what their buying decisions would be absent the tariff.
It’s the double crime of taxation as theft, and unpaid slavery in forcing the companies to collect taxes for the gov.
Sellers and employers aren’t people? Lololololol
Nah they’re our reptilian Illuminati oppressor overlords.
Suppose that such scheme would be done by citizens in a state, what would the state call it? I don’t think “indirect extortion” is a valid offense in the law books.
They’re threatening someone with a gun. The person they’re threatening is extorted.
what would the state call it?
I would not be surprised if they called it “terrorism”.
It does not mean we should use such a term. Basically, the state is using threat of force towards existing taxpayers in order to coerce them (this can be called extortion for short), and a threat of doing the same (a threat of using threat blah blah) towards would-be taxpayers.
Unlike other posters, I do not think there is a crime other than threat of taxation towards people who currently do not pay taxes - despite the fact that they are indirectly harmed (e.g., by reduced wages). Imagine, if the tax laws said that only redheads have to pay taxes - would you still believe there is a crime going on against anyone except redheads?
business register with the government, therefor consenting to be taxed. people do business with business registered with the government, therefor consenting to be taxed.
if people really want to stand up to not being taxed, use the black market.
Ah that usual load of bullshit. For the government to actually tax it needs to demonstrate it has a prior claim to the territories it holds. It can’t. Therefore any agreement with it on that basis is null and void.
if people own a territory, then form a government to govern that territory, then the government would have claim on the territory that people that owned the land agreed apon forming a government in. some governments are shareholder towns run by those with property.
so it’s null and void for a business to contribute to a government for hiring police, and that business is being violated should police come and stop a crime in that business property, thus serving what the business paid and for? the business paying money for a democratic vote on hiring police is also something null and void and the business is only a victom and not in complience to the crime of police stopping a crime?
is a private business set up to support raising taxes ( or taxing at all or government at all) not also part of the crime, or is that business only a victim?
If taxes on gasoline are for a highway fund and you do not get an exemption for filling up your lawn mower I also consider it fraud.
There’s an argument to be made that indirect taxes are less bad than direct taxes for pragmatic reasons. But, ethically, all taxation is theft. Whether every individual is taxed for having an income, or some individuals are taxed for moving goods across international borders or for buying/selling certain products, etc doesn’t change the fact that in all cases the State is extorting money from someone.
Okay, sure, but the territory would consist purely of their collective territory, and could not be binding on for instance their children. And any ‘laws’ would be only voluntarily followed, and any punishments voluntarily submitted to, and secession would be an option at any point, at which time they could remove their property from the ‘governed’ territory.
I’d say it’s victim only in that case.
its not like government exists without people forming and supporting government.
how to people form something, then be called the victom of what they formed with no responsibility for what they formed?
the state is not separate from the people that form and support the state.
support for taxes as a “private citizen” is different from support for taxes as a “government worker”, where a person is guilty under one role and innocent under another role? i figure people have to support taxation as private citizens before they can support taxation as government workers.