Topic: Defend Taxation - page 6. (Read 6132 times)

Where did you miss the part within my argument that I said I don't care about what you require in the way of a contract or what you expect from others with regard to your viewpoint?

Hmmm... Compelling argument.

I don't care where your contract is. I suppose it's your birth certificate, your citizenship papers, the signing of your tax return, the receipt you received for buying a hamburger that spells out the sales tax you paid, the W-4 you signed, the deed to your property, whatever.

I don't fucking care where your contract is. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't earn and don't buy.

Let me make myself crystal clear: your AnCap world is going to nickel and dime me to death if I choose to live, and in ways that I will feel coerced to do so.

So I don't care that you're complaining and demanding that someone defend taxes to you. I don't care that your requirements for what a contract is not being met.

I don't fucking care.

So, now it's not rent, but association dues?

I've been in a Home-owner's association, before, they had a big long contract I had to sign before I could move in. I could probably still dig it up.

Where's the contract? When did I sign it?

Taxation is no more theft than the paying of association dues. But if you don't view it that way, and reject taxes outright, at this point in your life, then are you really someone who's going to change his mind? Does it really matter that much to the rest of us how you think?

Yes, I know that you view association dues as voluntary. Good for you. But they really aren't that voluntary. The alternative is to move (being coerced to, it would seem) if you don't wish to pay the association dues.

Nobody really cares that you have labeled taxes as violent coercion. Because, really, it would seem that in your world with no taxes, I will be violently coerced to remain on my property if I object to payment of fees, tolls, and any number of other expenses.

I'll take the bundled package and simply not be bothered all the time by decisions of where I wish to be the least violently coerced on a daily basis, thank you.

Probably.

But is that because taxes are undefendable? I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. If you can prove that I am.

If I say 2+2 is 5, you can show me, mathematically, how and where I am wrong. And when you do so, I will (however reluctantly) be forced to admit that 2+2 is, indeed, 4, and not 5.

Can you do the same with my argument that taxation is theft, and not only unnecessary, but wrong? I doubt it.

Anyone would fail miserably in defending taxes to you (as by your standards). It's no great loss, though.

Because though it "evolved", as you say, it is wrong, and coercive, and I say, unnecessary. Prove me wrong. That's what this thread is for. And you're still failing miserably.

Three times? You need an accountant. Anyway, go live your dream on a converted oil rig or cruise ship. More power to you. I for one, cannot even begin to think that would be more desirable. But I can see for you, the real allure comes from satisfying your ideology, even to the point of putting it before the focus of just enjoying life.

Hum, let me see, earning almost trice* as much as I earn now... I guess I could afford to take a ferry each time I'm willing to visit the mountains.

* Only in direct taxes, deducted from my payment and added to my employer's payroll, I could have 3 times more money. That does not count taxes embedded in things I buy. Of course, living in the sea would have its particular expenses, and I would have to pay for things which currently are covered by taxes. I'm pretty sure the net result can be quite positive though, specially when you take into account the prosperity added by the freer market context.

If seasteading really works out (a big if), it could have strong positive effects on continental governance as well, due to the competition it would generate. Anyways, that's getting too off-topic.

Question: are you so hell bent on eliminating taxes that you'd rather live on a platform in the sea? Be my guest, while I enjoy a hike in the mountains this weekend.

FirstAscent in his 17th century version: "So, there's no slavery-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why?  You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no slaves society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "

Or even today: "So, there's no murder-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no murder society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. "


He won't succeed to create a tax-free nation because he'll likely be attacked by forces much stronger than him if he tries. As anyone trying to secede from the antique Roman empire to create a little slavery-free nation would be attacked and conquered.
That doesn't imply slavery or taxation are good or unavoidable. If anything, it only shows that unfortunately we live in a society of criminals.

That said, a seastead that manages to acquire actual sovereignty could be an example of "legitimate state", in which any "tax" they levy wouldn't be coercive and thus wouldn't enter in the definition of taxation OP is talking about. We can only hope they succeed.

So, there's no tax-free country, as you admit. That's what has evolved. So you want a process which has evolved to be defended. Why? You have the opportunity to demonstrate the feasibility of a no tax society yourself. So far you've failed at demonstrating a working example of it in any significant size. But you still have the opportunity to create one. But I doubt you will succeed.

I'm gonna be honest. I just don't feel like looking that up.  Still, tax is tax. Foreign banks pay 20%, as well, and there are import duties of up to 10% on non-alcohol or tobacco luxury goods, and as you said, 33% on booze and cigarettes... which most people just avoid by buying black market.

So, still no tax-free country, and still no justification for taxation. Can't say I'm surprised at either.

UAE: Corporate taxes on Oil companies, mostly (Up to 55%, according to CNBC)
Qatar: 5% social security income tax (employers pay 10%), Tariffs, and they're considering a VAT.
Oman: 6.5 percent social security, 3% "stamp duty" on land purchases.
Kuwait: 7.5% social security income tax (employers pay 11%)

I could go on. but it's just more of the same.

Maybe the Conch Republic?

hehe, sorry for the deception - I'm also disappointed, but well, I should have expected it.

Please, this is nonsense. It assumes for granted that the state is the legitimate owner of all the territory it controls, which is obviously false.  You can't legitimately own a land you took by force (otherwise you'd be justifying theft by... theft! Brilliant! ). You can't just claim enormous virgin territories as yours either (specially when parts of it are already occupied!).

Every state in this fucked world was established by violence, wars and crimes.  They do not legitimately own the land they claim thus they cannot claim their inhabitants are "tenants".

Actually, to be honest, if you consider Sealand and the Hutt River principalities as actual states, then yeah, these would be the only two examples I know of legitimate states. If you go live there, you can be considered a tenant. I don't know any other example.

EDIT: I forgot to post this video, about the "you can always leave" argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF-awFssf0&list=UUhG0VoTGXAB5gSsR0PHKg8A

Oh, you had my hopes up on that one.... I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. (I'd start planning my trip immediately) But, no. Monaco does indeed levy taxes:

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jmcpetx.html

Most notably:

You could, but I doubt most people would recognize it as a State. Certainly, it would not resemble anything we have today.

Is it? I'd say is monopoly over justice (conflict resolution).
Isn't Monaco an example of tax-free state? I'm not sure, but I heard the government revenues in Monaco come exclusively from the prince's investments, properties (like his casino) and things like public parking and traffic tickets. But I'm not sure, you'd better check before believing me.

Anyway, that's not how I'd define a state. You could have a minimal state which doesn't tax, only charges for the particular services it provides and takes money from sources like punishments for having committed an aggression etc.