Topic: Counter to "Why Bitcoin is dropping ...buying." AMA format / doomsday debunked - page 2. (Read 5604 times)

Is that not "enforcing the collection of taxes" ?

If you really want to be nerdy about it, filing your taxes constitutes a contract to pay them.  If you are financially capable of honoring the contract, but fail to do so, jackbooted thugs will drive you around in a partyvan & put you in jail.  Gratis.

You ARE cheering for it.
You ARE thinking up reasons why people SHOULD pay taxes (not why they have to pay taxes, namely that otherwise they get in big big trouble).

I'm back to my initial comparison between the state requiring taxes, and maffia thugs requiring you to pay them "for protection".

You do have more "feelings of duty" for the former than the latter, don't you ?  You do not have the same attitude towards both of them, don't you ?

So you are relatively cheering for taxes.

Because the state's the violence monopolist (by definition).  Its business is violence.  It should remain with its business.

I'm not cheering for it any more than I cheer gravity--it simply is

The state expects value in return for pay, that should be obvious.  If you knowingly fail to provide value, you are a crook.  Stop stealing taxpayer's money, dinofelis.


You are paying the property owner for the right to be on that land.  A right that he, in turn, has paid the state for, as you've suggested.


If the state doesn't own the land, what right does it have to "enforce exclusivity"?
Curiouser and curiouser...

Because visibly, I can be (if in the US) punished if I am dishonest on the filing, but I cannot be forced to pay, according to what you say !

So, logically, according to what you say, if I file my declaration honestly, I cannot be punished for a false declaration, but if I don't pay, the state cannot put me to jail (using force to collect taxes?).

Because there is a difference between undergoing might, and cheering for it !

The point is that if you want to pay me for something, you want some PRODUCED VALUE in return.  If I am paid by the state, I don't have to produce any value (except on paper).  In your example, there are two free decisions between you and me:
- I work for you for a pay we agreed mutually on
- I rent your house for a rent that we agreed mutually on.

We can both NOT agree with any of these deals.


Land is not infrastructure.  It is nature. The building is infrastructure.



No, you didn't understand my proposal.  The state doesn't own the land, in the sense that "ownerless land" is public land on which anybody can do anything, and there is NO right of exclusivity.  Which makes it unproper for building investments on it, as one cannot enforce exclusivity on that land, and hence on those buildings.  Un-owned land, being public, can be used by me to build a house on, but tomorrow you can come there in the house I build, and I cannot invoke any exclusivity and require the state to force anybody OFF that land or out of that house.

However, the state receives the income of the bid for the right of exclusivity during a certain lapse of time (50 years, 20 years... whatever is the bid).  In return, the state will enforce the exclusivity during that lapse of time.  In other words, the bid goes over the right to require from the state to enforce exclusivity.

This should be the sole income of the state, and with that, the state does as it pleases.

This, survival of the fittest.

Generally, penalties/fees/interest are amassed on the amount you owe. Why would you honestly file and then refuse to pay?

The logic for criminal tax evasion and jail time has to do lying/failure to file. Tax evasion is punishable by jail time.

If you honestly file and can't pay, there are numbers of ways to go on payment plans, eventual consolidation, striking of deals if the amount is large enough, etc.

Yup.  Might makes right.  Which doesn't stop keyboard revolutionaries from grumbling.

The US government gets to determine what the laws mean because they have a lot of guns and military power.

The income tax is allowed in its current form simply for the shitty reason that it has been that way long enough so they use that excuse to make it legal.

Like if it was found out that using eminent domain to create military bases was against the 3rd Amendment, just nobody really thought about it until now, it would be de facto legal because of precedent.

There is no point in arguing with an entity with a lot more power than you that they should have less power. You will never win that argument.

Not even wrong.  If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?
If this is difficult for you to grasp, try not paying taxes on what you earn to understand why.



It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package.  Like living in a country.


So the state owns the land?  Good.  Finally getting somewhere.
You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property.  Get off my lawn

How's that ?  If you file an honest tax declaration, but you don't pay, you don't go to jail ??

^@B.A.S: Which Florida vs United states are you talking about?  If you ever read case law, you'd know there's a shitton of them

The point is that if you live on taxpayer's money, you don't ACTUALLY pay taxes. Of course I do file my tax declaration, and of course I "pay taxes".  But this is just taxpayer's money that was given to me and of which I return a part.  I just got less taxpayer's money than is noted on my salary.  Nevertheless, I get NET money FROM taxpayers.  That the state gives me some more, and then I have to return a part, is not really "paying taxes".  It is receiving less tax money.

If I give you $1000,- and I ask you back $200,-, I still gave you $800,-, right ?  You can't really say that you GAVE me $200,-, right ?

However, if you earn ON YOUR OWN by producing useful stuff for others, $1000,-, and then I ask you $200,-, then you REALLY gave me $200,-.  Of your hard-earned $1000,-, I took away $200,- from you.

See the difference ?

If there are 10 times more people producing stuff on their own, then I (as the state) will get 10 times more out of you.  However, if there are 10 times more dudes like me living off the state, and they pay each of them $1000,- to get back $200,-, this will COST the state 10 times more !


That's infrastructure, right ?


Indeed, owning land is an aberration.   It is as ridiculous as owning sea.  When USING natural resources, whether it is land, or minerals or whatever, ideally, this should be lend to the highest bidder for a certain lapse of time, and the bid should be the replacement for compulsory taxation: you BORROW land from the state at the bid you are willing to offer, on terms you agreed to.  In return for that, you get protection of your right to use that land exclusively for the time agreed upon.
Land that is not borrowed, can then be used by anybody, but no enforcement of any "property" can be asked from the state.  So you can build a house there, but someone else can then decide to live there.  If you don't want that, and you want to have exclusivity to access to land, you have to bid for it, and become the highest bidder, for the period you want to have your exclusive access to that land.  During that time, you can build a house there, and ask the state to have your exclusivity of access enforced.  After the end of that period, the land becomes public again, and your house that you put on it, too.  Until you, or someone else, makes a highest bid on it again.
The state should be financed exclusively with the income from those bids.
Because natural resources belong to everybody and to nobody, and wanting their exclusivity must be paid for whatever you are willing to put on the table for it.
On the other hand, produced goods are property of individuals.

This makes that the state gets an income based upon the bids for natural resources, and no taxation is necessary.  The state has to handle its stuff with its income.

I wasn't arguing about whether it is a right or wrong policy or that I was the first to think of it. No special snowflake status for me. I was just conveying how laws are organized around certain issues. I did not get my statements from the intertubes, I got them from Supreme Court Case Florida v. United States regarding the ability to file income taxes as voluntary, i.e. the government doesn't have to do it on your behalf, it gives the citizen the right to do it.

Taxation is NOT voluntary in the US unless in criminal situations and other special cases. I didn't say this. I said forced taxation is unconstitutional, i.e. using force. You don't go to jail for not paying your taxes. You go to jail for failure to file your tax return, for lying on your forms, etc. This is how the government gets around using actual force. It made it voluntary to file income tax, i.e. gave the responsibility to its citizens. In effect, the government provided the rope to which its citizens voluntarily hang themselves.

No.
 

Stop listening to batshit crazies from the intertubes.  Do you really think you're the first to think of "it's unconstitutional" argument, snowflake?

Speaking about the US:

1) Forced taxation of its citizen is unconstitutional, i.e. in the US, it is illegal for the government to force its citizens to pay taxes just because they are in the US.

2) However, the law states that all citizens must file a tax return. It is illegal to not file a tax return, i.e. all citizens are forced to file a return.

3) In effect, failure to file is illegal (punished constitutionally) in order to in force taxation (unconstitutionally).