Topic: Why are people so eager to pay tax? - page 6. (Read 13672 times)

So, in other words, you're saying that it's better to preempt violence with violence rather than to meet violence with violence?

Fair point.  But does it matter? If you object to funding for police services you can pretend that your taxes only get spent on the fire department.  But what you can't do is refuse to pay any taxes.

For starters, not wanting to be stolen from at the point of a gun is not at all the same thing as being uninterested in helping the poor or putting out fires ect... Dont get me wrong it could mean that, im sure there are plenty of people who subscribe to your argument and yet dont pay taxes anyway because they legitimately dont care about the poor or having fires put out, but it doesn't necessarily mean this. There are those who believe that these same services could be provided, probably at a higher quality and for a lower price, by voluntary interaction instead of state threats of violence. Now it may be the case that we are wrong about this, and if you provide me with good evidence i will accept it. But either way i feel it is important to understand that many tax avoiders are, at the very least, 100% legitimately well intentioned.

i mean come on do you really think that just because someone doesn't want to pay taxes that he doesn't want his house to be protected from fires. Isn't it POSSIBLE that he might also donate some of his money to the local volunteer fire department? do you really think there is not one tax avoider on earth who does this?  

As I say, that a nice ideal.  Sadly, its not true - without the threat of punishment, people descend into barbarism.

maybe, in some few cases.
[/quote]

So, are you saying that the best way to chat in this thread is for us to get together with some baseball bats and beat the shit out of each other? That's the best way to have a heated discussion?

Speaking of... I don't know any stores where I can buy a baseball bat with BTC... Perhaps we'd be better off trying to kill each other with consumer electronics?

maybe, in some few cases.

I think that you seem to be missing the point...

We can rise above settling disputes with violence.

I agree.  We are a violent species and no society can ever exist without violence.  I see you would prefer we were not a violent species.  That's very nice.

TJ wasn't perfect, but he was on the right track there.

You nicely illustrate just how collectivists and statists always end up resorting to violence. They are basically incapable of not resorting to violence because they simply have no rational arguments otherwise. What better argument than just running around and beating and murdering people? Great argument! Got a problem? Kill it! Violence DOES solve invented and contrived problems!

Thomas Jefferson had no problem with slavery or taxation.  If you are happy to accept his authority, you are happy that taxation is moral as is the violence needed to back up tax demands.

Ahem...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

Yes. I understand how mashups create social hysteria, chaos, bedlam, dogs sleeping with cats...

But seriously? Safe?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

Because the law and police to such a great job of keeping people safe...

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=46843

Chicago. Enough said.




Yes. Just look at some of the greatest cities in the US, e.g. Detroit:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/detroit-symbolizes-americas-decline.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/24-facts-about-city-of-detroit-that.html

Because there's so much wealth, that houses only cost $200 now!




Absolutely. Just like the megacorps like General Electric:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/general-electric-taxes_n_2852094.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/

Ooops... Nope. They didn't pay tax. They got a $3.2 billion tax refund.

(Countless more examples like GE. Look them up if you like.)




Or Chicago, or Detroit, or...




"Moral?"

I do not think it means what you think it means.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk for fun! )

Read a bit of Kant if you want to understand "moral", because it sure doesn't sound like you're using that word right.

http://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com/kants-ethics/the-good-will/

You are flat out advocating violence and theft. Unless by "insist" you mean call people nasty names if they don't cough up.

Nobody is born with an obligation to any state or anyone. Just in case you are unaware, there is a word for being born with obligations... it's called "slavery".

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be moral or good. There is no requirement there. The only thing people need to do is follow that little pearl of wisdom so nicely stated by TJ there.

The correct way to look at it is that wealth and income are created by the state providing a safe legal and social environment.  In countries like the US with well run systems, the wealth created is huge.  The recipients of this largesse pay some of it in taxes.  Take away the taxes and you take away the safe legal and social environment and US incomes fall to the levels of Somalia.  Its perfectly moral to insist that those who are lucky enough to profit from living in a well run state make a contribution to the running costs of that state.

Come back when you've actually thought that through.


That is obviously illogical for a whole bunch of reasons. To start with, it's not really a tyranny if people actually wants the "goodies" as you put it. Second, if a society of a hundred people works well for everyone except one who keeps rambling about "tyranny", shouldn't just this person be kindly asked to leave, instead of ninety-nine people acommodating for the crazy one?

However you need to justify it. I know that it is wrong to initiate force. But I understand that tyranny exists because people accept it in exchange for goodies.

Oh well, when you come back to planet Earth, where using force to maintain a stable society is needed, do let us know. 

I am from a planet where using force against someone to take their money is considered a bad thing.

Will it be ok if someone steals your money at the point of a gun on your way home tonight?

"Decent" is a relative term.  The US is not as decent a place to live as the UK or most Northern European countries.  I would still be perfectly happy living in pretty well any US state and would much prefer that to living in, say, India or China. 

Do you think American society is a decent society?

Of course not.  What planet are you on?  You can't have a decent society without taxes and taxation ultimately relies on force.

Forcing people to hand over their money is not evil?