One of the greatest mysteries of today is whether a pirate is good or bad.
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
No, it's really not. It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
It doesn't matter what a thief does with the money, if he takes it without permission it's theft.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
That argument would work if taxes were payed in proportion to the government services that are rendered, but they're not.
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from
barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
The fed. doesn't keep the poor from barbequeing the rich first of all. Police are provided by state and municiple governments. Further that's not a service provided to the rich, it's a service provided to everyone. If you've lived in both bad and good neighborhoods you'll also know that it's a service that's taken advantage of far more in poor neighborhoods than rich ones.
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to cr
Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value.
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Actually, I was born into the part of the bell curve that earns less, and I'm still on that part of the bell curve. I live in a ghetto and earn so little yearly that most years I get a full refund on taxes (though within a few more years that should start changing). I don't like the system because it's inequitable and allows, even promotes rampant social irresponsibility. The people just keep voting themselves bread and circuses... (if you don't know what that's from, take a look into roman history)
How would it be "fair" for someone to not be able to pass on their accumulated wealth however they see fit when they die? It's their wealth, they should be able to do whatever they want with it! And how is it fair if gifts are limited? These things aren't fair at all... Fair is allowing peoples private property to be left unmolested by the state. Would you think it "fair" if your neighbors decided that upon your fathers death they were going to take the family house from you?
People who dupe or force others to give them money already are punished, for fraud and theft. So what was your point?
The highest income earners pay less proportionate to WHAT? Their income? So what, that's not a reasonable method for determining someones tax burden...
Taxes are taken to fund government services, services that are implemented at the behest of the people, through their representatives. Why should a majority vote enable the populace to enact measures that they themselves won't have to pay for? What sense does that make? Should I be able to add an addition to my house and make my neighbors pay for it?
"Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value."
That doesn't even make sense to me. "we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value" huh?
and what do you mean people aren't taxed on the wealth they produce, they certainly are. Can you show how they're not?
"and you want to justify your outrage at having some of it taken away to support the people who put you there (or whose ancestors helped put your ancestors there). That doesn't sound very bloody fair to me."
Unless we're talking about slavery, people are paid for their work. If 100 people work for someone who gets rich, unless he defrauds them in some way, how is it that he should owe them anything but the agreed upon wage? Sounds more like it's fraud the other way around to me... You're saying "you paid these people for work that got you rich, and even though you paid them just as much as you agreed to, they're going to take more by way of government intervention". Gee, sounds like someone wants to renegotiate the contract after the work has been done to me...
It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
When the individual does the stealing, it's is called piracy. When governments do the same thing, its called policing, military intervention, or taxation.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Of course I don't know of too many bridges built by pirates, or fire departments they fund or many of the thousands of other useful things that governments do. Sure governments and beuracracies are wasteful, and should be held to task for that, but to equate taxation with theft is such simple-minded thinking that it's laughable.
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
That's what the government does, under the flimsy justification of a "social contract" that nobody alive today has signed, and which they break regularly and with impugnity.
No simple-mindedness, the government takes your money by threat of force. They don't even do it equitably, just like a common theif, the more you have, the more they take. The wealthiest half of the US population p
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and try to leave without paying the bill, and the restaurant uses force (say, by getting a cop to hold you until you pay) to make you pay, is that theft? Nope. You owed a debt, the money was no longer yours. Defining what's "yours" and what's "mine" and what's "his" is far from trivial.
If you - directly or indirectly - enjoy the benefit of various public goods, you incur
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
If you eat dinner at a restaurant, and when you're done the manager comes over and says "I couldn't help but notice that you make quite a bit of money... The folks over at table 30 don't make very much, so you'll be paying for their meal as well as yours", then when you refuse they hold you down and take the money out of your pocket, yes, that would be theft.
I'm not arguing for the el
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:1)
Arguable. The rich benefit immensely from having a government around to keep the poor from barbecuing them ("eat the rich, the poor are tough and stringy").
The state creates and defends many artificial "property rights" - patents and trademarks, mineral rights, water rights - that obviously benefit those it designates as owners. Its reserve banking systems, chartering of corporation
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
property rights, both real and artificial benefit whoever takes advantage of them. They benefit the poor person who attempts to cr
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
You seem to be arguing from a fairness point of view - to complete that point of view all money from inheritance should be put into a common pool, no one should be allowed to give gifts beyond some token value, and anyone who dupes or forces other people to give them m
Re:It?s a matter of semantics (Score:2)
How would it be "fair" for someone to not be able to pass on their accumulated wealth however they see fit when they die? It's their wealth, they should be able to do whatever they want with it! And how is it fair if gifts are limited? These things aren't fair at all... Fair is allowing peoples private property to be left unmolested by the state. Would you think it "fair" if your neighbors decided that upon your fathers death they were going to take the family house from you? People who dupe or force others to give them money already are punished, for fraud and theft. So what was your point?
The highest income earners pay less proportionate to WHAT? Their income? So what, that's not a reasonable method for determining someones tax burden...
Taxes are taken to fund government services, services that are implemented at the behest of the people, through their representatives. Why should a majority vote enable the populace to enact measures that they themselves won't have to pay for? What sense does that make? Should I be able to add an addition to my house and make my neighbors pay for it?
"Punishing people for producing wealth? People are taxed for the money they take from others, not for the wealth they produce. Much more money is taken because we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value."
That doesn't even make sense to me. "we don't have any choice but to give it than we give because we get a good value" huh?
and what do you mean people aren't taxed on the wealth they produce, they certainly are. Can you show how they're not?
"and you want to justify your outrage at having some of it taken away to support the people who put you there (or whose ancestors helped put your ancestors there). That doesn't sound very bloody fair to me."
Unless we're talking about slavery, people are paid for their work. If 100 people work for someone who gets rich, unless he defrauds them in some way, how is it that he should owe them anything but the agreed upon wage? Sounds more like it's fraud the other way around to me... You're saying "you paid these people for work that got you rich, and even though you paid them just as much as you agreed to, they're going to take more by way of government intervention". Gee, sounds like someone wants to renegotiate the contract after the work has been done to me...