Topic: why do people agree to pay taxes? - page 109. (Read 51023 times)

hrm.... naw, not really. thats some kind of logic. I think statism is really just the idea that a large body of people ends up being something more than simply a large body of people.

what that image refers to is probably more the dualistic nature of american politics, which is a fraggin shitshow and is plenty silly.

But goverment have the army on his side, and police follow their orders too.

People dont pay taxes because they love to do it, people pay it because is an obligation.

The State does not force you to sign the false premise "servitude/branding" document nor the false premise "abandonment" Document--at least not in theory.

The taxes are simply a deception run by the false premise foreign COPYRIGHTED "UNITED STATES" in order to ultimately benefit the Zionist elites as you can see from the book "Are You Lost at Sea?" And these important links:
http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/12-33012.pdf
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

You misunderstood what a "contract" is.
The problem is that racket is a word with a bad karma.
But obliging me to pay something by force is a racket, the definition does not depend on who does it.
The question is : is it a morally acceptable racket or not ? (I'm not attacking people defending it, I just asking for the right terminology to be used)

Well, actually you can. Concrete example, Halsey Minor, founder of Bitreserve. (personal bankruptcy does not prevent him to create great business and living great)
Get your money out of your personal account, use your multiple companies money, possibly off shore, for buying stuff.
You can even combine tricks : live on your company, and at the same time get all the social benefits because you have technically no income.
I have no doubt that expert on the subject have more tricks than that under their hat, without being called illegal.

But once again, I'm not against paying for a service.
I just want to be free to choose what I consume.
If other people don't want to choose, it is their problem, and nothing prevent them, from a libertarian perspective, to delegate their decisions, but don't ask me to be like them.

Simple solution for such problem : Add a road tax on the gazoline, now, if I use more than my share, I will pay more than the others. Fair.
Right now, I am actually in the other case, I don't use roads (I have no car), but still pay for it.
Murray Rothbarth has another solution that do not depends on taxes.

Well, I don't want to be a citizen, a country meaning nothing to me, but I need a place to live.
What you say would be fair if the land of the country was property of the state. But on juridic perspective, the land is mostly owned by individuals, or moral entities, not by the state.
If I chose to live somewhere, this is a contract between me and the owner, not with the state, since it does not own the land.

Then you can say that the state owns the land because he can expropriate the owner. And you are actually right.
But so we should not pretend living in a country embracing capitalism, free enterprise with respect of your rights of ownership.

As I have no choice about that and as the sailor in "Waking life" says :
That is it say, I'll just organize my life to play the game with their rules, to my advantage, not fighting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

On the totalitarian planet we live in, most "crimes" (and criminal offenses) are in fact malum prohibitum: victimless, and so not legitimately defined as crimes.

And you misunderstand what social contract is - social contract is you pay because you expect things from the society.

Let's say you live in a country with 100 million people. You may use more than your 1/100 million share of the roads. But may not have kids in school. What social contract does is it keeps you from saying I don't want to pay for school but then not paying extra to use the roads more.


You are right a contract assumes two consenting people and that is what government does - you don't go to jail if you don't consent you go to jail if you break the law. And the law states that if you want to be a citizen and live in the U.S. you have to pay taxes. You don't have to pay taxes in the U.S. but you can't choose to live in the U.S., be its citizen and receive those advantages without paying taxes.

Saying so is equal in effect to the denial of social nature of men, which most obviously contradicts the facts of life. Humans live in societies.

The most people are not comitting crimes out of fear, nothing more, nothing less, weather its the fear of god for some religious people, weathers its fear from legal prosecution.
But to say that its not in human nature to hurt another human, is purely unrealistic comprehension of the matter.

cheers

Despite the fact that tax evasion is considered a criminal offense in many countries, it is not considered as a crime against the person (which makes most of criminal offenses). My post was primarily about this type of crime.

A person choosing to pay taxes out of fear is precisely a person choosing not to commit the crime of tax evasion out of fear.

Far from being an isolated example, there are many laws which terrorise* the public into modified behaviour, laws which do not mirror what most consider good social behaviour, laws which do not directly concern "bringing damage to another human".  "crime" and "wrongdoing" are quite distinct notions.  "legality" and "morality" are poles apart.

*The word "terrorise" sounds loaded but I honestly just needed a verb to capture "force behaviour using the threat of violence" and I'm trying to use "coerce" less these days.

Though I agree with the first part of your post (that people pay taxes to avoid having their anuses overstretched), the second part is far from reality. The majority of population don't commit crimes since humans are social beings, and bringing damage to another human is obviously antisocial, thus being against human nature.

You and I both man. The more I read into the history and the current policy of the US, the more I see the reason for the policies being how they are. Democracy is an illusion in a way, meant to pacify the public's need for 'freedom.'

Your comments got me reading more into apportionment. So interesting to see that there were a few men at the time who had their heads on right, but were eventually killed or forced out by the majority rule. America was founded under freedom from the same principles it now uses to control.

Is there a place to find out which elements are up for vote at a given session?

"Our master isn't going to like that kind of talk.  Let me go tell him."  

The word is spreading.  Free yourself and your family first then go back and try to help the next groups.  

what do you mean?
language is too difficult to understand the little guy like me.
 I wish you could explain again, please

So many overly thought replies in this thread.

Most 'sane' individuals agree to pay taxes to avoid having their anuses ripped in prison from tax evasion.  No more, no less.

Kind of like how most sane individuals choose to not commit crimes.

Then again, sanity and bitcoin don't always go together, as evidenced by many replies (and the creation of this thread).

well right, yes. There's even evidence that the party in power was responsible for the cap because they were loosing seats due to the booming populations of the cities.

I meant arbitrary as in the number. 435 is just outta the blue if yah think of it. "yeah, 50 senators, and yah know what? 435 representatives"

i spent a lot of time in my 20's railing against the government and trying to figure out whats wrong with it.

Then i came across the whole apportionmnet nonsense. You fix representation, you let the great democracy experiment of USA continue where it left off roughly a century ago.

I think its a testament to the wacky design of the US government that its been able to maintain its "legitimacy" for so long with such a flagrant misrepresentation of the people.

But the 17th is probably also to blame for some of that. Giving the people power of the senate made them disregard the actual power they had in the house.

but its all changeable, just like our cryptocurrency protocols. Just need a goddamned consensus! If you read the above link, and found some of the other links, like this one
http://www.articlethefirst.net/

You'll find that the first ammendment to the constitution is actually still on the books (that caps the limit at 1:50k) and up for vote and waiting to be ratified. I think its something like less than 10 states are all needed to sign it.

This shits crazily real and crazily possible.

They lose on technology, but apparently, they win in the mind control space.

Sadly, I don't think it was arbitrary, but directly tied to the Webster Method (i.e. Sainte-Lague Method) for good reason. In short, the SLM is primarily used in voting elections to set voting percentage minimums for representative parties to be allocated seats. Even if enough votes are gained, a threshold percentage must be met for the party to receive a seat (even if they have the votes; usually ~4%).

Now apply this to a non-voting situation like apportionment. By having a set number of seats, you can selectively eliminate representation growth for certain areas (states with lower populations). In a fixed system of historically 2 parties (US), this is an excellent way to rig representatives in favor of one party or another based on a fixed seats available. Especially with all the slaves not even counting as "full people."

They failed before WWI to reset the apportionment, thus continuing the old 1911 ruling. After WWI and II, the pop. exploded and the ruling was never changed (435). A simple screw up? I think not.

Indeed!  In fact every time you spend or trade any asset, it can be called a tax.  I am currently taxed about 4 millies when I purchase a US dollar.