Taxation is wrong...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Coersion is what government truely is. In its absence is merely anarchy. While that particular theory of anarchy has its merits it does in fact have little support. The best fix to the situation is through means of direct democracy where at least the individual has the ability to exercise the same amount of democratic coersion as everyone else.

[Renegade]

But why pick on taxation ? My country can declare war on my former countrymen for no good reason and I can't do anything about that either.

And weren't you comparing it to slavery a few posts back ?

You are correct the coercion is not restricted to taxation. It is equally wrong that coercion is applied to other aspects of our lives as well. I have limited my comments to taxation simply because that has been the focus of this thread.

In other words, cheating.

The word "cheating" implies that you already make a negative moral judgement on the form of protest used. Any action which violates the rules of the system is "cheating", irregardless of if the rules are just or not. By that standard, a slave trying to escape is "cheating".

Tax-avoidance is technically not cheating because one is able to exploit the rules for one's own advantage without violating those rules. Tax evasion is "cheating" in that the rules are explicitly violated. Personally I see very little moral distinction if you essentially believe the rules are wrong to begin with.

Well, how are you going to fix that ? Laws don't change themselves - people do it. If you make things work faster and more easily, there's the danger of abuse...

It is frequently the court system which has forced the governmetn to have laws changed. This has been especially true when minorities have had to fight for rights. I'd like to think that courts would vote consistently and their rulings would not depend upon the whims of society, but that is likely just idealism.

I admit I don't have a solution here, but what I would like to see are principles enshrined in a constitution and upheld by the court system. We have gone partway toward that by enshrining some individual rights, but I think there are other areas where individuals need protection against coercion which are not addressed.

Not all laws are designed to protect us from others either. Some protect us from ourselves, and others foment social peace.

In my view a govenment is not a parental authority who ought to be protecting me from myself. I'm an adult who should be free to act even if that action is not in my self-interest. Personally I wouldn't trust government to protect my self interest anyway. As far as laws which forment social peace, again I feel it is overstepping the bounds of government. Ironically a government which can compel me to go to war against my value system, is the same one which can pass laws to "forment social peace"

[Renegade]

I can not resist playing the devil's advocate here: what do you think will happen if you DID protest tax policy in the only way that you could -- by not paying taxes?

If I'm an employee the government makes it difficult to not pay taxes as it is witheld without my consent. If I did avoid paying taxes in areas where the government could not withold it, I know exactly what would happen. When the government found out, they would coerce me either with force or the threat of force into paying whatever they wanted.

I disagree with you. My definition of self-defense is more restrictive. I believe people have the right self-defense if their security of person is threatened but not if they "feel" their security of person is threatened. That would not be self-defense but rather a form of offense.

It is an important distinction. Where do you draw the line on if the person is threatened or only feels threatned? If someone draws a gun on me do I simply feel threatened or is my security already threatned? Do I need to wait until they pull the trigger before I take action and it becomes self-defense? If someone calls me up and utters threats to my life, do I just feel threatned or is that an actual threat to my security? Do I need to wait until there is an actual attempt?

In my view it is enough that a reasonable person would feel a threat to their security to justify self-defense.

As ridiculous as it may seem, I would permit people to own nuclear weapons. My justification is analogous to a person carrying a deadly disease. If the diseased person is careless they can spread the disease and should suffer the consequences. If the diseased person is carefull they will not spread the disease and should not be treated differently until they threaten another person's safety.

Whether disease or nuclear weapons, where we differ is simply that I would deem the potential for harm is sufficient justification for its restriction. If everyone could own a nuclear weapon, there would no doubt nut cases with an axe to grind who would explode one. Would you wait until someone exploded one before taking action?

Disease is somewhat different in that it is unlikely that someone would willingly acquire a disease. Regardless of if it were acquired willingly or accidentally, if someone had a disease which was a threat to others, it woudl be justified to quarantine such an individual.

Here is a challenge to you: name a weapon that you believe CAN NOT be used primarily for self-defense.

I think you misunderstand me. Of course any weapoon can be used for self-defense as it can for offensive purposes. The kinds of things which I refer to which are primarily for self-defense are generally not called "weapons". Militarily, systems as chaff used by aircraft fall into such a category.

[Michael Hardner]

The word "cheating" implies that you already make a negative moral judgement on the form of protest used. Any action which violates the rules of the system is "cheating", irregardless of if the rules are just or not. By that standard, a slave trying to escape is "cheating".

You're right. It's hard to resolve that analogy, because we're looking through a moral prism where slavery is just viewed as an egregious violation. So it's hard to expect someone with no rights and nothing to lose (a slave) to work within the system and it feels easier to expect someone to who is witholding a few extra dollars to work within the system.

Tax-avoidance is technically not cheating because one is able to exploit the rules for one's own advantage without violating those rules. Tax evasion is "cheating" in that the rules are explicitly violated. Personally I see very little moral distinction if you essentially believe the rules are wrong to begin with.

Well, everbody defines their own morality to a degree and that in itself says something about who you are.

Don't try to paint yourself as a moralist, though, if you're evading taxes period. That's a moral construct that attempts to rationalize selfish behavior, IMO.

In my view a govenment is not a parental authority who ought to be protecting me from myself. I'm an adult who should be free to act even if that action is not in my self-interest. Personally I wouldn't trust government to protect my self interest anyway. As far as laws which forment social peace, again I feel it is overstepping the bounds of government. Ironically a government which can compel me to go to war against my value system, is the same one which can pass laws to "forment social peace"

You may be that, but the current system doesn't differentiate you from any other citizen. Certainly there are people who need to be protected from themselves, but try to get anybody to admit that they are one of those...

[Renegade]

Well, everbody defines their own morality to a degree and that in itself says something about who you are.

Don't try to paint yourself as a moralist, though, if you're evading taxes period. That's a moral construct that attempts to rationalize selfish behavior, IMO.

Paint myself as a moralist? Never! I'm not out to impose my sense of morality on anyone, nor do I want society or anyone else to impose theirs on me. Personally I don't try and evade taxes, not for any moral reasons, but simply because the potential consequesnces are not worth the savings. I do however try and avoid taxes as much as possible, because there are no negative consequences of this. As I've said, I don't see one as morally superior to the other.

If you want to consider that selfish behaviour, that is your call. But then anyone who acts in his self-interest first would be then considered selfish.

Certainly there are people who need to be protected from themselves, but try to get anybody to admit that they are one of those...

If nobody admits to needing protection from themselves or even asks to be protected from themselves, why bother protecting them at all?

[Michael Hardner]

If you want to consider that selfish behaviour, that is your call. But then anyone who acts in his self-interest first would be then considered selfish.

At least tax avoidance doesn't require lying. And your assessment of acting in self-interest first needs context.

If nobody admits to needing protection from themselves or even asks to be protected from themselves, why bother protecting them at all?

Because they're wrong. Just as you might be wrong.

[Renegade]

Because they're wrong. Just as you might be wrong.

They are only wrong in your or presumably government's moral judgement. And even if they are "wrong", so what? I guess what I dispute is the presumption that society can impose its designation of what is right or wrong on the individual. IMV the rules of society should be defined based upon how we impact each other. (eg killing is disallowed, not because it is "wrong", but because it impacts another's right to live. Suicide shoud be legal, regardless of it is is "wrong", because it only impacts myself ).

There have been many societies which have tried to impose their view of "right" and "wrong" on their members. Theocracies are one example. They too, are dictating rules for your life, "for your own best interest". Not sure about you, but that's not my vision of society.

[Renegade]

your assessment of acting in self-interest first needs context.

Let me give you some examples:

1. Unions go to their employers demanding pay increases.

2. Parents demanding the government provide child-care programs.

3. Seniors demanding more investment in medicare

4. Investors demanding tax breaks for dividends.

It is rare that people lobby against their self-interest. So I guess, you should consider anyone who supports a program or policy from which they woudl personally benefit, selfish.

[Michael Hardner]

Let me give you some examples:

1. Unions go to their employers demanding pay increases.

2. Parents demanding the government provide child-care programs.

3. Seniors demanding more investment in medicare

4. Investors demanding tax breaks for dividends.

It is rare that people lobby against their self-interest. So I guess, you should consider anyone who supports a program or policy from which they woudl personally benefit, selfish.

I couldn't say if any of these examples are selfish or not. I know that in our society, the person who makes the best case for the press gets more attention. So seniors can stage a theatrical event where the worse situation possible is held up as the norm then demand benefits that the wealthiest of them don't need.

I'd like to see a more pragmatic assessment of what needs funding and what doesn't.

And I do think that some people are doing much better, and others much worse only because of the rules of the game.

[Charles Anthony]

I couldn't say if any of these examples are selfish or not.

Why not? In each example, the people asking for something are asking for something to be given to themselves.

How would YOU define selfish??

Unfortunately, these injustices are pervasive. If you want to select taxation as the focus of your protest, I suggest there may be other areas that you might prioritize: conscription, possibly or unfairness in the justice system.

I agree with you that there are injustices in those other fields that are more severe. As an anarchist, I oppose all sorts of coersion and my solution to all of those injustices would be the same: eliminate the coersion. If you understand anarchism or basic libertarianism, you will see that solutions to taxation, justice and national defense end up being the same. It is monopoly of power that is the source of most of our ills. I will start (or possibly resurrect) a thread to discuss those other topics you mentioned.

Back to taxation.

If you're selecting taxation as your area of concern because you personally don't want to pay (I don't know if this is the case or not) then you should frame the argument that way.

Forgive me, but this is not the first time where you make me wonder: "Has he even read this thread?" even when I know that you have. Please read my very first post that started this whole thread. I was asked in a previous thread to explain why I think taxation is wrong. I refer you to:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=125136

Now I am trying to do that: explain why taxation is wrong.

I am not arguing because I "personally don't want to pay" and thus, I will not "frame the argument that way" at all. Why would I? I never even suggested that in this thread nor in the referring thread nor in any other thread at all. I still trust that your question are genuine and that my writing might not be clear. I strategically wrote the title and the subtitle of this thread to be as focussed as possible.

1) it does not make sense to generalize over the whole world nor between past and present; we really do not know

We don't know, it's true. But we can never know - and looking at the past does tell us what happens when power accumlates without a counter balance.

Give me an example.

I would submit that looking at the problems of the present tells us what happens when power accumulates.

Conversely, there could be a whole host of things that make life easier for us now compared to the past. However, we can not compare.

I say that we can. The large forces that govern society are present at many points in history.

You can not compare. You said that above.

Those people are dead and we do not know their minds.

Concentrations of power have certainly been most common. I still do not think that it is right.

There are many good things about the past, but having a weak social safety net is not one of them.

That is just a tiny aspect of our lives and only for people in the more affluent parts of the world. People who slave away in third-world sweatshops would probably take less domination over social safety nets any day. They would probably laugh at you if you tried to explain what a "social safety net" was and think you were trying to sell them a phony magic trick.

In general, I would say a social structure is wrong if it requires coersion for its support. Taxation is one type of coersion.

Coersion is a part of even society, including tribes. The law coerces us in many ways. You can't distribute hate literature, you can't choose to take certain drugs, you can't buy a human being, even if they're willing.

You can not live your life in peace and mind your own business either.

The best fix to the situation is through means of direct democracy where at least the individual has the ability to exercise the same amount of democratic coersion as everyone else.

I think that I would agree with you that direct democracy would reduce the concentrations of power without a doubt. We would be better off and we would have more freedom.

[Charles Anthony]

In my view a govenment is not a parental authority who ought to be protecting me from myself. I'm an adult who should be free to act even if that action is not in my self-interest.

How do you reconcile mental illness? This is one area that is difficult to handle.

For example, if you were suicidally mentally ill and refused to take your medications. Would you attribute a sense of responsibility to anybody else to intervene on your behalf to force you to medicate?

I know what I would want for myself but I do not know how to objectively justify a solution.

It is an important distinction. Where do you draw the line on if the person is threatened or only feels threatned? If someone draws a gun on me do I simply feel threatened or is my security already threatned? Do I need to wait until they pull the trigger before I take action and it becomes self-defense? If someone calls me up and utters threats to my life, do I just feel threatned or is that an actual threat to my security? Do I need to wait until there is an actual attempt?

In my view it is enough that a reasonable person would feel a threat to their security to justify self-defense.

Truly, this is a dilemma. how would you reconcile people who were unreasonably paranoid or schizophrenic?

The only reservation I have is that I do not know how to judge whether an other person's feeling is valid. At the same time, what constitues a threat could also be a very arbitrary too.

Whether disease or nuclear weapons, where we differ is simply that I would deem the potential for harm is sufficient justification for its restriction. If everyone could own a nuclear weapon, there would no doubt nut cases with an axe to grind who would explode one. Would you wait until someone exploded one before taking action?

It may be strategic to just get your own -- an arms race.

Here is an other challenge: how in the world could you restrict it? It sounds like you are advocating a policy that could never be enforced? Would you pre-emptively attack people that you "suspected" to be developing weapons of mass destruction before they do so?

CAVEAT: I approach warfare in a very cynical manner. I firmly believe that most warring sides are only in it for the money and greed. Everybody can be bought inlcuding the non-negotiating suicide bombers could be appeased.

Where would I draw the line? I would say that unless an arm can be shown to be primarily for self-defense it shoudl be restricted.

Here is a challenge to you: name a weapon that you believe CAN NOT be used primarily for self-defense.

I think you misunderstand me. Of course any weapoon can be used for self-defense as it can for offensive purposes. The kinds of things which I refer to which are primarily for self-defense are generally not called "weapons". Militarily, systems as chaff used by aircraft fall into such a category.

No. I think you are misunderstanding my challenge.

You suggest restricting weapons that are primarily for offensive purposes and permitting weapons that are primarily defensive. I suggest that line can not be drawn. I may get myself a nuclear missile to deter my neighbor from striking me with his missile. My nuclear missile is a defensive weapon.

[Renegade]

How do you reconcile mental illness? This is one area that is difficult to handle.

For example, if you were suicidally mentally ill and refused to take your medications. Would you attribute a sense of responsibility to anybody else to intervene on your behalf to force you to medicate?

I know what I would want for myself but I do not know how to objectively justify a solution.

In our society we DO distinguish those who are fully mentally competetent and those who are not. For example, we don't allow people who are less than 18 to vote, presumably because they do not have the maturity to make such a decision. It is entirely consistent to only give the ones with mental illness a subset of the rights, but it would have to be demonstrated that they lack the competence to make their own decisions. My previous remarks were directed and were presuming a fully competent adult member of society.

Truly, this is a dilemma. how would you reconcile people who were unreasonably paranoid or schizophrenic?

Same as above. Someone with a mental illness may not be capable of exercising the same rights as others.

The only reservation I have is that I do not know how to judge whether an other person's feeling is valid. At the same time, what constitues a threat could also be a very arbitrary too.

Yes, so to remove the arbritariness of individual perception from play, in setting rules for society, we have to determine what a reasonable person would constitute a threat. In my view a resonable person would consider it a threat if others posessed nuclear or other arms.

It may be strategic to just get your own -- an arms race.

Here is an other challenge: how in the world could you restrict it? It sounds like you are advocating a policy that could never be enforced? Would you pre-emptively attack people that you "suspected" to be developing weapons of mass destruction before they do so?

It may be strategic but it is not logical and it defies common sense to suggest a policy where individuals are allowed arms. How do we restrict it? Dont we do today by outlawing posession? On a national level we should also do so, but unfortunately we don't currently have a system of enforcement which is strong enough. And yes it woudl mean that those now in posession should give it up, and new nations would not be allowed to construct or possess it. Just as police would raid a grow-op, an international force woudl be justfied in raiding a nation suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.

No. I think you are misunderstanding my challenge.

You suggest restricting weapons that are primarily for offensive purposes and permitting weapons that are primarily defensive. I suggest that line can not be drawn. I may get myself a nuclear missile to deter my neighbor from striking me with his missile. My nuclear missile is a defensive weapon.

I would not consider deterence as a defensive capability of the weapon. Deterence is the reaction of others based upon posession of the weapon. You need to look at the direct capabilities of the weapon itself not the indirect outcomes.

Since you believe that you cannot distinguish offensive from defensive capability, do you advocate that society allow the individual posession of any type of weapon? Do you really believe if posession were allowed on a widespread basis, it woudl not be used? Perhaps the reason no society exists which permit the unrestricted posession of any weapon, is becaue any that did wouldn't exist very long.

Why are we discussing this in this thread anyway? Isn't this way off tangent from the original thread topic?

[Charles Anthony]

Isn't this way off tangent from the original thread topic?

Yes!

Why are we discussing this in this thread anyway?

Uh.... a challenging question, indeed!

In a practical sense, taxation is an across-the-board restriction on everything a single individual wants to do. The fine details of restricting specific behaviors certainly do not belong in this thread.

[Michael Hardner]

Why not? In each example, the people asking for something are asking for something to be given to themselves.

How would YOU define selfish??

Wanting something for yourself isn't necessary selfish. I need some context for the examples.

Forgive me, but this is not the first time where you make me wonder: "Has he even read this thread?" even when I know that you have. Please read my very first post that started this whole thread. I was asked in a previous thread to explain why I think taxation is wrong. I refer you to:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=125136

Now I am trying to do that: explain why taxation is wrong.

I am not arguing because I "personally don't want to pay" and thus, I will not "frame the argument that way" at all. Why would I? I never even suggested that in this thread nor in the referring thread nor in any other thread at all. I still trust that your question are genuine and that my writing might not be clear. I strategically wrote the title and the subtitle of this thread to be as focussed as possible.

These are the pitfalls with reading a thread once per day. Sorry about that.

Give me an example.

I would submit that looking at the problems of the present tells us what happens when power accumulates.

Yes. In some respects, you are correct.

Look at a totalitarian dictatorship as an example. Without a check on their power, they devolve into greedy and corrupt entities. So it is with every large organization, including corporations.

[Charles Anthony]

so if you make $650,000 a year, live in Forest Hill in a 2.2 million dollar McMansion and buy a lot of wine and cigarrettes.....you pay a lot of combined taxes.

One day, I hope to have that problem but I am not there yet. You really do not know many people in the private sector, do you?

Charles, I am not trying to sound like a nit-picky jerk, but can you explain how more than 50% of your income goes to taxes?

Nit-picky jerk? Do not worry! In my book, you will have to do much worse than that to qualify as a jerk. It takes a lot to offend me. Bigotry is one of the things that enrage me.

Anyway, about the 50% thing, combine all taxes at all levels -- all the way down to the municipal level. With all of the downloading from the higer levels of government down to the lower levels, it makes no sense to just look at income taxes.

More importantly, my income is low, to say the least.

In other words, you pulled the number out of your ass because it sounded good, but you actually pay very little taxes.

Here in Canada the 50% tax rate on income tax is just a little after $60,000.00 yearly income. For the person who makes $650,000.00 per year he dinfinitely would be paying way more in his total taxation of all things, and it would probably be around 65% of every dollar made would be for taxes of some sort or another. Most people with that kind of income though do have tax shelters to make this much less.

I will be more explicit for people who are completely ignorant of sectors in the Canadian economy who do not mooch off of the tax-payer and are called private:

I am an entrepreneur.

I have employees.

I must pay their deductions AND THE EMPLOYER'S PORTION of the deductions.

My profits are not high.

I am living off of my savings.

I also must pay property taxes.

Now, go spin and say that if my profits are not high, I must be a stupid entrepreneur or I should go out of business anyway or some other display of your complete ignorance of anything outside your narrow selfish world.

[Riverwind]

I must pay their deductions AND THE EMPLOYER'S PORTION of the deductions.

This is really a tax paid by the employee because their wages could be higher if employers did not have pay the tax. I would not count that as tax you pay.

If you are running your own company with low net income they you should be paying no more than 18-20% small business income tax and zero personal income tax if your company pays you dividends. However, if your income is low then you could pay all of profits as salary which, if done properly, should leave you paying less than 10% in personal income taxes. If you are paying more then you may need to find a better accountant.

Property taxes should not exceed $2000-$3000 a year on a typical residential home. Property taxes on businesses are a different issue - many municipalities screw business owners because they can. What percentage of your tax burden comes from commercial property taxes?

[Charles Anthony]

I must pay their deductions AND THE EMPLOYER'S PORTION of the deductions.

This is really a tax paid by the employee because their wages could be higher if employers did not have pay the tax. I would not count that as tax you pay.

But it is a tax that I must pay. I am not free to spend it on other business expenses. In fact, the extra amount of money could allow me to hire an extra employee, too.

Also, you can not make that connection in all markets. It all depends on the available labor pool and skills set. In a highly competitive labor market (to illustrate: if an employee quits, they could be replaced quickly) it is not that easy for a current employee to command a higher wage.

If you are running your own company with low net income they you should be paying no more than 18-20% small business income tax and zero personal income tax if your company pays you dividends. However, if your income is low then you could pay all of profits as salary which, if done properly, should leave you paying less than 10% in personal income taxes. If you are paying more then you may need to find a better accountant.

My profits currently are still not that high. I am relying on my savings.

Property taxes should not exceed $2000-$3000 a year on a typical residential home. Property taxes on businesses are a different issue - many municipalities screw business owners because they can.

Indeed, they do.

What percentage of your tax burden comes from commercial property taxes?

The full amount of my commercial property taxes is more than my take home pay.

[Charles Anthony]

The above is conditional on our collective delusion that taxation is right and that we need someone else to change our diapers or to pick up after ourselves.

Have you ever worked at a place with a benefit package or a pension plan?

No.

Chances are participation in this plan was mandatory because the plan would be not economical if it was optional. In fact, private for profit insurance companies will often deny coverage to most people who wants to join an 'optional' plan because they assume that anyone choosing to join a plan must be expecting to claim or they would not join. Taxation is like a group benefit plan.

In your example, participation is not mandatory because nobody is forced to take any job.

Taxation is like unpaid labor.

[Riverwind]

In your example, participation is not mandatory because nobody is forced to take any job.

Hardly, many people are forced to submit to the compulsory benefit plans because there is no equivalent job that does not have a compulsory benefit plan. The same issue exists with taxation. One could argue that anyone who does not like taxes can move to a country without taxes. Pratically speaking this is not an option for many people just like changing jobs to avoid a cumpulsory benefit plan is not an option for many people.

[Charles Anthony]

Hardly, many people are forced to submit to the compulsory benefit plans because there is no equivalent job that does not have a compulsory benefit plan.

That reasoning hinges on an assumption that people are responsible for other people beyond the results of their own actions.

Nobody owes anybody else a living.

[Figleaf]

Taxation is no different, ethically, than any demand society imposes on those living within it. Any rule society imposes is coercive on would-be dissenters. The extreme libertarian stance, that society has no 'right' to impose laws, puts the cart before the horse -- if society were not able to establish rules, there would be no 'rights' at all.

At a more micro level, tax coercion is necessary to keep it fair. Otherwise it would collapse under the strain of free-ridership.

[Charles Anthony]

At a more micro level, tax coercion is necessary to keep it fair. Otherwise it would collapse under the strain of free-ridership.

If that is truly the case, it is enough proof for me to say that nobody wants taxation. Therefore, taxation is wrong.

If you want to be charitable, be honest about it. Pay it out of your own pocket.

[Figleaf]

At a more micro level, tax coercion is necessary to keep it fair. Otherwise it would collapse under the strain of free-ridership.

If that is truly the case, it is enough proof for me to say that nobody wants taxation. Therefore, taxation is wrong.

If you want to be charitable, be honest about it. Pay it out of your own pocket.

Nonsense. People do want police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it. These things require funds, and so, taxes are necessary. It is necessary to enforce them to redress the incentive to free-ride.

If people didn't want government service they could elect different governments.

[Riverwind]

Hardly, many people are forced to submit to the compulsory benefit plans because there is no equivalent job that does not have a compulsory benefit plan.

That reasoning hinges on an assumption that people are responsible for other people beyond the results of their own actions.

I was forced to participate in a group benefit plan at my last employer. A colleague injured himself outside of work and had to collect disability benefits. His choices caused the injury and I was forced to pay for it indirectly because I was forced to participate in the group benefit plan. I don't see any problem with this because I know I would be entitled to the same benefits if I had done the same. IOW - I was not responsible for his actions - I was just lucky enough not to need the benefits of the shared risk program we both participated in.

[Charles Anthony]

People do want police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it. These things require funds, and so, taxes are necessary. It is necessary to enforce them to redress the incentive to free-ride.

People need shoes, too. Why not add that to the tab?

If people didn't want government service they could elect different governments.

When was the last time YOU could elect anything?

I was forced to participate in a group benefit plan at my last employer.

You picked that job.