Topic: Why are people so eager to pay tax? - page 10. (Read 13586 times)

Tax system became rotten and perverted. It stimulates ignorance and laziness.

I've moved myself to an "offshore" Caribbean country and now I'm paying zero income taxes, legally!

Now I don't have social security, medicare and other social shit and I feel that I have just thrown off the shackles of slavery.
I pay fair price for anything I need - security, medicine, education, insurance. I don't have any "subsidies", but I also don't pay for someone who does nothing.

It really shocks me when I see those insane prices for medical service in the US! $200 for a single visit to a doctor just to get recipe for antibiotic! $5k for simple treatment of minor wound! This way they force you to be drawn into bondage of medicare and give away $700 every month!

I pay 5% sales tax when I shop, I pay road tax when I fill my car with gas. These taxes are pretty enough to maintain civilized environment in the country. People do charity and It's enough to feed the poor. But I'm free of enslaving income and capital gains taxes, I'm happy not to see my money disappearing in the abyss of pseudo-social care!

Dang.  Which parts did I goof up on? 

One day Steve was walking down the hill to fetch a pail of water from his well, when all of a sudden, a band of armed men set upon him and threw him in shackles.

They carried him off to where he was forced to work for the men and others like them.

There were many other people also forced to work for the men, and over time Steve became friends with some, with his best friend being Martin. Unlike Steve though, Martin was never captured and enslaved; he was born into slavery.

Steve often complained to Martin about how he missed his home, and how much he enjoyed simply staring down into his well some days.

Steve also complained about how hard they were forced to work, and how he had to work much less at home, but received much more for his efforts.

Martin: I don't understand why you always complain. You have free housing and all your food is free.

Steve: A loaf of bread and occasionally a cup of milk? That's what you call free food?

Martin: Well, how else could you possibly get bread if it weren't given to us by our masters?

Steve: I could buy it from the baker that lives a short spell from my old home.

Martin: You're just an ingrate. You complain about the work you must do, so why do you eat the bread you are given? You shouldn't have any bread. Nor should you have the bed given to you by our masters if you're going to complain like that.

Steve: I work just as much as you do, so why shouldn't I get to eat and have a bed?

Martin: Because you don't like working like the rest of us.

Steve: And none of my efforts count if I don't like being a slave?

Martin: You're an ingrate. Everyone else has to work, so why shouldn't you?

---

You cannot argue with slaves that cannot see their own shackles. There's a lot of that in this thread.

You might want to look again at when the king's power was first limited by whom and for whom.  It was not for the rights of the citizens but the wealthy landowners who were able to pose a threat to the king.

Camel's nose and all that, time passes, and look what happened in the hundreds of years since...  Gov't discovered it could bamboozle the common people into thinking gov't was good, and gov't was caring, and gov't could provide a nice teat to suck on yet still stomp on the people whenever it was needed, just so long as it smiled while so doing.

Nothing that wasn't predicted hundreds of years ago, of course.  But people that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

It is not stealing to prevent a thief from taking your property.

It is not stealing to recover your property from a thief.

My relationship or arrangement with gov't is not a contract I agreed to.  The laws of the government do not allow enforcing a contract if I was not presented all the terms prior to agreement and also prohibit changing the terms after I agree.  The fact that the government does not have to follow contract law shows our arrangement with government is not a contract.  Further, the remedy for breach of contract does not include either party taking out with other party with military action.  Yet that is the government's remedy against the people.  Of course, the people are not allowed to have equivalent capability of arms, nor are they allowed to exercise even the limited capability of arms they are allowed.  This imbalance of power and exercise of force shows that the arrangement with gov't is so far from contract it is not even a binding agreement.  In any other setting the law would define this arrangement as extortion.  But when the thugs write the law, they define it differently.  But what is a name?


Of course the same logic holds impeccably for that which is sweet only in name but deed is not.  Extortion by any other name...

At least I understand it.

Check out the origination of the Danish monarchy and how long those Germans had absolute power.  You really think everybody wanted that?  Then look at how many constitutions the Kingdom of Denmark has had.  4?  5?  Maybe the 1953 one will stick around for a bit because it requires at least 40% of voters to approve changes.  Of course, all gov't has to do is make more promises or declare a state of emergency and the constitution will be changed or discarded as desired.  Sure, there would be controversy (just like joining the EU).  But that can be quelled if it becomes too strident.

Don't forget not shooting your dogs. That's a service which has apparently been in very high demand during the last few years.

You're right. How could I be so selfish? They're not burning my house down or killing my family and here I am childishly holding onto what I've worked for instead of being grateful for all of their kindnesses to me.

Of course you're stealing.

It's like if you were a business owner and refused to pay the local mafia's "not breaking all your windows" fee. Of course that would be stealing, because you'd be getting the benefit of them not breaking your windows without paying like everybody else. Don't you think the honest, hard working thugs deserve compensation for the time and effort they devote to not breaking windows? They have kids to put through college and mortgages to pay, you know.

I don't care about citizenship. I limit my exposure to theft by legislation as much as possible and I require nothing of the State's administrative functions. I'm a model citizen: they get something from me and I don't file paperwork or petitions looking for anything from them.



I don't recall agreeing to it. It was forced on all of us.


Why does this confuse you? I take nothing from them.

These kinds of conversations are bullshit.

''Government'' isn't something that only exists after the existence of money, to pull us all down because we all have money. This is garbage right wing talk from the same people who legislate that an employer must be allowed logins into our facebooks, the same people who legislate that sharing torrents should be sued. To see something and merely evaluate it on the basis of whether there are property rights in it, you'd have to have a very warped view. Would it be a blessing to approve of all abuse just because it comes from the private sector, of Oscar Pistorius or the crazy guy in Human Centipede, or demeaning jobs imposed by stronger people? Of course not. Fact is, in order to have money be the right in this world, people of this persuasion have to keep legislating. They look not for a world that isn't governed by something, but for a world where our selves are sold and marketed to each other, where we don't share, and where we are consumers and we are consumed and where dissent of this ideology is cornered and alienated. Capitalism infects the bloodstream of the world with its perniciousness, class, feudalism, power, coercion, abuse and a variety of other instrumentalized solipsisms. Its definition of coercion excludes itself because once everything is capitalist and the only freedoms left are capitalist, you are engaging in voluntary work for the customer because you have nowhere to run to.

But by restricting money with savage tax rates like Denmark and socialism does, there also aren't many kinds of freedoms. You can't do this, you can't do that because it could harm someone down along the line, you have to consult with the village assembly what you can do, you have to stay put, you have to pay social security so we are all at the same level. The ultimate case of socialism where there are freedoms, communism, doesn't quite ever happen, it's always on the verge of happening.

So it's not a matter of government vs no government, but of one ideology over another, some certain kinds of freedoms versus other kinds of freedoms. You choose.

I understand you completely, but why care about citzenship at all then? My point is that government offer something. The deal might be bad from your point of view, but you have a choice. It's a contract you agree to!

You can't claim moral superiority over your government if you steal back from them.

Actually separating yourself from any government affiliation by saying no to handouts and government money and refuse to vote or participate in any public life is a much stronger message. in the US religious minorities have that privilege, thats quite unique for the US. I can think of a lot of countries where such separatist cultures would be either discriminated or worse.  

This is the most accurate observation

Governments are poor, they have to facilitate lots of public services using either tax money or borrowing money from banks. If they tax too much, they will not be voted, so their best option is always issuing bonds instead of increase tax, and the result is the national debt keeps rising

And, in a debt driven money issuering system, no matter how much tax the government charge, the society as a whole would still be debt laiden, since every dollar in existance are borrowed from central bank at the first place, no matter how you redistribute these money, the total debt will not change

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is insanity. Defending myself from theft by "legal" coercion isn't stealing.

That's not the point!! If you feel that the Danish government is stealing money from cycling tax payers to favor motorists or is building an insane amount of highways in Jutland because of lobbyism, you still pay your taxes as you know that the things you appreciate being publicly funded, like maybe health care and education are payed for by more people than have use for it.
You really only have the choice of paying all your taxes on non at all, i.e. change citizenship. Stealing by not paying all your taxes disqualifies you as an accuser of government theft.

However, Gandhi started out as a tax avoider!

If you're a reader, "The State" by Oppenheimer might prove beneficial:

The Rothschilds transformed the interest system already in place. They just moved it to their family's advantage by buying governments all over Europe and the US.

An excellent work on the subversion of the American government by Money and Oil (Rothschilds and Rockefellers) is "Wealth Against Commonwealth" by Henry Demarest Lloyd, late 19th century.

the state of denmark became a democracy, to ensure the civil rights of the citizens, and to limit the kings power.

Aye true, but the bastichs are the ones that got the ball rolling .. grrrr

Mind you tbh, damn Bank of England started fiat (1694), just the Rothschilds that started interest.. (and then went and took over the Bank of England in 1812).