Black Wolf Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Please excuse me if I am asking a question that people have felt they've answered several times before, but I'm very curious about some things? - Why are taxes "theft"? If you want a government that protects all individuals from force and fraud, how is the government going to get the financing to do so? - Would objectivists object to taxes on the state or local level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllotrope Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 It's the act of not filing that is a (potentially) criminal offense. The filing does not produce evidence against you, the absence of filing does. Taxes are theft to the extent that they are not voluntary. If you did not want government to finance transfer payments, business regulations, anti-trust lawsuits, services (education, roads, hospitals), any use of your money for those purposes was without your consent, ie forcibly taken from you, ie theft. Now if all government is doing is protecting you from force and fraud, we have to ask if it's using force or fraud to protect you from others. If it is, we would live in a nearly fully free state, where the only compulsion is to pay the taxes necessary to block peoples' compulsion of others. If not, we live in a totally free state, and all taxes are voluntary. Either is quite preferable to our current system. Ideally government would function on a state level far more than a national one. Concentrated power is always a potential threat, and it's worth considering that freedom is a rather revolutionary idea in human history, so there will likely always be some pressure for more government controls and decentralization can help protect people from that. But if we start with the (fantastic) assumption that government is doing what it's supposed to, and no more, it doesn't really matter what the geographical or demographic jurisdiction is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The filing does not produce evidence against you, the absence of filing does. That's like saying, "Admitting to a crime does not produce evidence against you, the absence of admitting does." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Please excuse me if I am asking a question that people have felt they've answered several times before, but I'm very curious about some things? - Why are taxes "theft"? If you want a government that protects all individuals from force and fraud, how is the government going to get the financing to do so? If it's wong for one guy to steal from another, then it's wrong for one guy to steal from another, even if one guy calls himself "an IRS agent." If you want a government that protects all individuals from force and fraud, why would you finance that government through theft? - Would objectivists object to taxes on the state or local level? Why would theft not be theft if guy A steals from you in Wichita, but would be theft if guy B steals from you in Washington? Objectivism supports voluntary financing of a government limited to 100% rights-protecting, as TheAllotrope alluded to, this would be the last step on the transfer from a mixed economy to a 100% free country. Edited October 31, 2009 by 2046 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Folks, I suggest carrying the "taxes are theft" discussion to a different thread. Here (link) is one that is better suited. Let this thread focus mainly on U.S. Federal taxes: their de facto / de jure nature, whether the various web-sites that say one can legally avoid paying are legit, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The 16th amendment prevents us from avoiding the income tax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The 16th amendment prevents us from avoiding the income tax One might want to look into that three quarters of the states did not ratify the amendment per the requirements of the US Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) One might want to look into that three quarters of the states did not ratify the amendment per the requirements of the US Constitution.The amendment is law, whether anyone likes it or not. The only way it will change is with another amendment. Stay away from the conspiracy theorists. Edited October 31, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The amendment is law, whether anyone likes it or not. The only way it will change is with another amendment. Stay away from the conspiracy theorists. Amendments aren't law. Law has to be established through the process of a bill, etc. And laws don't always follow the US Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Amendments aren't law. Law has to be established through the process of a bill, etc. And laws don't always follow the US Constitution.No, amendments are law. Things that get established through the bill process are statutes, which are are a kind of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 No, amendments are law. Things that get established through the bill process are statutes, which are are a kind of law. Laws can be unlawfully ratified, though. There's nothing in the Constitution that protects laws which were not ratified within the terms set in place. I am not knowledgeable enough of the (conspiracy) theories associated with the ratification process of the 16th amendment, but if they were true, then that would raise serious questions regarding the legitimacy of the 16th amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooghost1oo Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 http://paynoincometax.com/ This site details why the income tax system is a fraud, and how you legally don't have to pay income tax, because no law provides for it. The author has a bet going with anyone. He will give $50,000 to the person that can find a law requiring anyone to pay income tax. Be sure to read the testimonials. Being obligated to pay taxes is wrong. Of course, if there is a service provided by the government which you actually WANT, you should be able to selectively and voluntarily pay taxes to support that service. However, try not paying taxes, even though it's wrong and some people claim to have ways around it, and you'll be CRUSHED if they ever find you out. The fact of the matter is that, wrong or not, the government nearly holds the full monopoly on force, and happily puts a gun to your head, threatening you with force if you don't give in to their demands. The only way taxation will ever become as it should be is if the government is reined in to an absolute minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted August 21, 2010 Report Share Posted August 21, 2010 I've got an idea: Military Compensation Eligibility Fees. If you want to join the military, you have to pay a certain fee.. say $5000/year.. if you want to be eligible for payment. If you refuse to pay that, then should you ever join the military, you would basically have to volunteer without pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.