Create account

Why are you defending it as a whole?
Of course there are more and less painful ways of doing it.
The entire problem, is the how:
Systematic theft is immoral, unsustainable, and wrong.
I have yet to see a reason why taxation is theft. I have explained why it is moral, so I have yet to see how it is immoral. There is no evidence it is unsustainable. Quite the opposite
How isn't taxation theft?
Could you explain again how it's moral?
What is the evidence that taxation is sustainable?
I have participated in representative democracy myself, and cant help but see the pros outweigh the cons.
If I and others had the choice to not be included, there would be no problem.
The entire problem is that we are included involuntarily.
Kind of a huge con... game.
I can see that point of view, but it is due to the way the society has built up over time. It gives the society ownership over that area. Almost like leaving to not pay rent.
Could you define "society" and explain what you mean by "built over time", that justifies systematic theft, "or leave"?
Let's use city as society. Construction and establishment of systems take time and effort and money. If you dont like that established system then you should leave the system.
The system of theft/taxation is worldwide.
Anywhere I go there will be the same system.
So that's beside the point.
But again: Why do the bullies get precedence?
It isn't worldwide, just found all over the world. If you leave civilised areas no one bugs you about taxes. The precedence is due to a type of ownership. Property rights.
Could you define city? Are you saying city is people?
"It gives the society [city] ownership over that area."
How does a concept, city, have ownership over an area?
Those representing the citizens of that city have control over the city, granted by the citizens. Telling the people and organizations and businesses to leave so you can stay is wrong.
It's harder to move the city than for a person to leave. So the person who doesnt want to pay should leave. That city didnt appear overnight.
To be clear I am not counting it high on the morality scale. It is just a general "hey, we are all paying our share. You should too." I cant help but think we benefit from government.
Where is the should?
I don't have a choice. If I did, then we could talk "should".
I'm stolen from regardless.
That's the problem to begin with.
You kind of do have a choice. Black market incomes are not taxable. Some choose that route. Often just undocumented work, and pay under the table.
Yes, and why should I hide and be forced to go through hoops to be free, to act or feel like I'm guilty, when the entire system that you're advocating, is immoral?
If people require the transit system to travel they realise they must pay. You then have riders asking why they should be stolen from simply to ride. The paying riders are stolen from.
If people require a transit system, then unless there's a monopoly on violence, there will be competing services/businesses to meet that demand.
I was using a transit system as an analogy for city, and paying the fair as taxes. A competing system would be another location with different tax rates. Freedom of movement helps.
The system is moral. The only theft is from those not paying into the system. Like some public transit, paying is on the honor system. If no one paid the transit wouldnt work.
The system is immoral. The theft is from those who do not consent and are included anyway.
If payment was on the honor system, people would not be included without consent.
The theft from the system is immoral. The theft is from those who contribute, while one decided to not contribute. It is leeching off others.
Taxation supports our system of government, and society. Every person receives the benefit of society when within society. Not paying your share while receiving the benefits is immoral
That was poorly phrased.
How is it immoral to resist the process of getting benefits when they are at the behest of theft, kidnapping, or murder?
Resisting getting benefits means leaving the benefitted area. That isn't immoral. I feel like I am not fully getting the question.
Why do thieves and bullies get to lay claim to any area by providing something after theft? To justify that thieves and bullies stay while the abused leaves is morally abject.
The only thieves and bullies are those trying to take advantage of the system without contributing to it as asked. To steal from the system everyone else contributed to.
If that were actually happening, you'd have a point.
The entire issue is the inverse:
Money is taken from you regardless of whether you consent, there is no such "theft".
The benefit of being stolen from under threat of kidnapping and if you resist, death?
How is resisting theft/kidnapping/murder immoral?
Can there be benefit if there is lack of choice?
Those are quite the false equivalencies. The issue of jail itself is only for the most extreme cases. Often it is more like getting a bad credit rating, and debt collectors after you.
Could you explain this and give examples of "more like getting a bad credit rating" and "debt collectors after you" in regard to taxes? I haven't heard that before.
That is the normal experience. I think the IRS is harsher than the Canadian CRA, but often they work as debt collectors instead as well.
I have an uncle who owes about 2 million in unpaid taxes froma business he owned. He has had credit is the consequence. He doesn't get given any form of tax return anymore.
That was vague gibberish to me. Did it affect his credit score?
Is he able to get credit cards? Take out a loan?
No he can't. His credit rating has tanked. Any tax return just gets deducted from the balance owing.