Debunking Myths About Paying Taxes

MikeC said:
So rather than discuss the basis of your beliefs you have gone back to simply restating them as if they were the only truth.

well OK - it is obvious to me now that you have a very warped perception of what consitutes "natural law" - one that is designed to support your particular view to the exclusion of anyone else's who may disagree with you. And yet no doubt you do this without any irony, on a computer that owes its existence, at least in part, to taxes paid in the past, using electricity that was similarly supported, no doubt you drive or ride on highways that weer built with the public purse, and you would scream for eth police to defend you if you weer attacked i the street (as would I!)

But even within that view your conclusions are simply wrong - even in your anarchist libertarian utopia the IRS would still be required for those people who do want to pay taxes and benefit from the stable society that they enable.
Click to expand...
The argument that the "government" or authority is the place from which goods, services, roads, technology, etc. derives is demonstrably false. No "road" can be built by a government without first taking the property (taxes/money) from its citizens. It has been shown conclusively that the private sector (an individual or group of individuals) almost always outperforms government when given a chance to deliver such services. Almost all roads in the US were initially PRIVATELY built. Same thing with infrastructure. I would argue that even the defense of our country could be undertaken in a more efficient and effective manner if the military was privatized.
 
Who was in charge of Blackwater? Our military. Doesn't mean they are all bad. The waste, fraud, and abuse in the current system is rampant. We should never shut the door on an idea because it goes against what we "feel" is right. True intelligence is measured by someone's ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
Those laws have ALWAYS existed, they exist in spite of another's ignorance of them, and they will exist in spite of anyone's attempt to deny, obfuscate, or delete them. They were known and taught in the ancient mystery schools and have been occulted for thousands of years. Those in power still do their best to keep them hidden, for the unvieling of these immutable principles coupled with the knowledge of them being propagated throughout society, is the ONE THING that will ensure that those in power LOSE their power. Conversely, ignorance of these principles will keep us forever in the darkness we now find ourselves.
Click to expand...
If they are not obvious and apparent and are able to be 'hidden', then they're not really natural or inevitable.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
Who was in charge of Blackwater? Our military.
Click to expand...

No. The U.S. military was not "in charge" of the (formerly known as 'Blackwater' corporation). The mere fact that this company continues to change its name? Should raise a few "red flags" as to their accountability, and ethics.
 
One can do a simple thought experiment in order to determine if natural laws exist: on a world with only TWO people, would it be right for one of the two to claim that they have a "right" to confiscate and arbitrary portion of the other's labor. Would that be "moral"? Would it be "right"? Taxation is enforced by violence. According to natural law, violence is never acceptable. Self defense is not considered violence.
Historically, take slavery. The point was made that MAN made the law; that there were no laws that are immutable and of a higher source than man. I would argue that all of us would agree that "slavery" is never acceptable, even though it was "legal" for many years in the US.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
One can do a simple thought experiment in order to determine if natural laws exist: on a world with only TWO people, would it be right for one of the two to claim that they have a "right" to confiscate and arbitrary portion of the other's labor. Would that be "moral"? Would it be "right"? Taxation is enforced by violence. According to natural law, violence is never acceptable. Self defense is not considered violence.
Historically, take slavery. The point was made that MAN made the law; that there were no laws that are immutable and of a higher source than man. I would argue that all of us would agree that "slavery" is never acceptable, even though it was "legal" for many years in the US.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

ON edit to my post RE: "Blackwater" above (#85) I wished to add a bit of observation.

Some may argue that "Blackwater" was devised as a sort of "ad hoc" substitute for the U.S. military. Personal aside, I would not discount that as a possibility, given what I personally feel is the devious nature of a particular member of the U.S. government, back then (cough....Dick...Cheney....cough).

This, though, might deserve a special thread of its own...in order to validate, or refute, such a claim.
 
I ponder that perhaps if one wished to theorize about only two individuals on one planet, trying to "get along"...? One might wish to make a new thread.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
So your point, Pete, is that any knowledge that can be hidden or that is difficult to ascertain somehow has less meaning or viability?
Click to expand...
Just that the notion of natural self-evident laws that have to be taught by mystery schools is contradictory.

You seem to be talking about fairness - such concepts are subjective to humans, ants don't follow them as natural laws or care.
and it could easily be said that slavery is 'natural' - what is more 'natural' than getting your defeated enemy to do work you'd rather not? (no I am not condoning slavery).
This conversation will drift offtopic if we go much further, so can you try and bring your natural law question back to the subject of taxes?
Co-operation is 'natural', taxes are a form of co-operation.
 
Pete Tar said:
...so can you try and bring your natural law question back to the subject of taxes?
Co-operation is 'natural', taxes are a form of co-operation.
Click to expand...

This makes sense....it is an implicit agreement in a society (such as ours, as Humans....who can think and plan ahead). Compared to most of the other species on this planet, who (as far as we know) are not cognizant and self-aware...and do not organize into "structured" economy-based societies.

(EDIT: This post attempts to address the topic, which is about "taxation"...in a society).

(EDIT, 'Phase 2': It's possible that another 'MB' member is advocating a sort of ....not wishing to put words into their mouth.... a "libertarian" or other sort of anarchy (not to appear to be dismissive, or disrespectful...... there are great debates to be had...I wrote "anarchial" but was spell-checked...so, STET!).
 
Last edited:
Quantumbeliever said:
The argument that the "government" or authority is the place from which goods, services, roads, technology, etc. derives is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...

Who ever said it was true?? :cool:

No "road" can be built by a government without first taking the property (taxes/money) from its citizens. It has been shown conclusively that the private sector (an individual or group of individuals) almost always outperforms government when given a chance to deliver such services. Almost all roads in the US were initially PRIVATELY built. Same thing with infrastructure. I would argue that even the defense of our country could be undertaken in a more efficient and effective manner if the military was privatized.
Click to expand...

and yet every such "private" sector activity can only exist in a socially stable structure that allows for protection of life and property by rules and regulations..

Whether you elect it or have to attend the Althing or have it imposed by a strong-willed individual and his (or her) mates, the natural outcome of having 2 or more people trying to achieve something together - agreement of some rules - formal or informal - is government!
 
Quantumbeliever said:
Saying something is "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. The thought experiment is COMPLETELY relevant to the discussion. If you are unable or unwilling to glean its relevance, that's your issue, not mine.
Click to expand...

This was the post: (#88)

Gravity was an unknown force for most of the history of humanity. Doesn't make it any less of a "real" force.
Click to expand...

I stand by MY previous comment.

But perhaps, neither of our comments are relevant to this particular discussion. "Gravity" is not "man-made".....taxes, are. This a difference between social constructs, and natural forces.

THAT is why invoking "gravity" into the discussion was irrelevant.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
One can do a simple thought experiment in order to determine if natural laws exist: on a world with only TWO people, would it be right for one of the two to claim that they have a "right" to confiscate and arbitrary portion of the other's labor. Would that be "moral"? Would it be "right"?
Click to expand...

As long as the Lockean Proviso was satisfied then no, but in the real world there is almost never enough and as good left over so according to this pretty reasonable principle, some form of taxation is almost always justified.

One justification for an income tax is that society as a whole invested time, labor, resources, and energy to create the infrastructure and institutions that make it possible for individuals to generate surplus revenue, thus society is rightly owed that portion of the surplus that can be fairly attributed to social investment and social cooperation. So when Obama said "you didn't build that" he was essentially right, although he should have qualified his statement with 'on your own' or 'without the help of society'.


Quantumbeliever said:
Taxation is enforced by violence. According to natural law, violence is never acceptable. Self defense is not considered violence.
Click to expand...

So with the above justifications in mind, refusal to pay just and fair taxes could rightly be considered a form of theft, and society has every right to defend itself from would-be thieves that would appropriate unto themselves that which rightly and justly belongs to society as a whole.
 
McGurnicle said:
As long as the Lockean Proviso was satisfied
Click to expand...

Wow! Thank you for introducing me to something I'd never heard, before. I did have to "google" it....here for all to read and study:

http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-I-SL5.htm

This is really fascinating. Not sure if I've fully absorbed it yet, but nonetheless....thanks for the mention.

(Edit: I have no foundation in law....but a casual glance seems to indicate that the "Lockean Proviso" might have a bit of "Libertarian" within it? I do not confirm, nor deny this concept of "government"....just asking, as a 'neutral'). To spur "discussion".
 
WeedWhacker said:
Wow! Thank you for introducing me to something I'd never heard, before. I did have to "google" it....here for all to read and study:

http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-I-SL5.htm

This is really fascinating. Not sure if I've fully absorbed it yet, but nonetheless....thanks for the mention.

(Edit: I have no foundation in law....but a casual glance seems to indicate that the "Lockean Proviso" might have a bit of "Libertarian" within it? I do not confirm, nor deny this concept of "government"....just asking, as a 'neutral'). To spur "discussion".
Click to expand...
 
Oh, sorry about that.

It's good to know that you're interested in Locke's proviso - the proviso is basically anathema to the hard right libertarian set(or so I take it), which is to be expected since it provides a straightforward, commonsense basis for distributive justice. I'm not a libertarian myself, more of a practical centrist, but I do wholeheartedly embrace and endorse this principle. I think the principle of 'enough and as good' as a justification for acquisition and holding of property is central to the thought of most left leaning libertarians.

The proviso can theoretically be extended to employment by recognizing that there are a large number of qualified people who are either unemployed or underemployed due to a shortage of full employment opportunities. This would serve as justification for taxing income and using the revenues to compensate those who have unfairly lost out in the labor market.
 
McGurnicle said:
the proviso is basically anathema to the hard right libertarian set(or so I take it), which is to be expected since it provides a straightforward, commonsense basis for distributive justice. I'm not a libertarian myself, more of a practical centrist, but I do wholeheartedly embrace and endorse this principle.
Click to expand...

It is fascinating, and again I am glad that you brought it into this discussion.

At first glance, it seems to comport with my (perhaps simplistic) views of a future "Star Trek" sort of (imagined) 'utopia'.

But, that was a "vision" that was meant to encompass, and involve, all equally. ...might be unrealistic....given known historical Human nature examples.....
 
WeedWhacker said:
At first glance, it seems to comport with my (perhaps simplistic) views of a future "Star trek" sort of 'utopia'.
Click to expand...

There is a strain of libertarian thought, bleeding heart libertarians they call themselves, that uses the proviso to argue for a universal basic income.
 
It;s a shame. Could have had some interesting discussions.
perhaps.
As others have pointed out though, people who seem to think taxes are unjust still want to have services provided by the government. I don't imagine the government would get far on "donations".

I would say that taxes are NOT unfair or against what people would call natural law.
What IS unjust is making people in privilege exempt from paying. but that is a totally different kettle of fish.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
One can do a simple thought experiment in order to determine if natural laws exist: on a world with only TWO people, would it be right for one of the two to claim that they have a "right" to confiscate and arbitrary portion of the other's labor. Would that be "moral"? Would it be "right"?
Click to expand...

It would be if they had previously agreed to contribute towards some common goal.


Taxation is enforced by violence. According to natural law, violence is never acceptable.
Click to expand...

Rubbish - in the natural world violence is the norm.


Self defense is not considered violence.
Click to expand...

Self defence might be JUSTIFIED violence, but to say it is not violence is patent absurdity!!

When you have to start making special cases for something that clearly IS violence you really are losing the plot!!

Sorry you aren't here to reply to this
 
You can protest paying taxes and even not pay them but eventually several things are going to happen:

(1). They are going to garnish your wages.
(2). You will go to jail for tax evasion.
(3). Both of the above.

I hate paying taxes as much as anyone to me its the government taking money thats not theirs. But Dracula does wear a gray flannel suit just look at Washington. There are two things that are certain death and taxes neither you can avoid because eventually both will get you.
 
Minimalists 56 said:
I hate paying taxes as much as anyone to me its the government taking money thats not theirs. But Dracula does wear a gray flannel suit just look at Washington.
Click to expand...

Sorry. "...the government "taking money thats (sic) not theirs"??

Yes, certainly you can "protest" paying taxes legally. But, only after you stop receiving the benefits that others in a democratic society also contribute, through their taxes. So, this means (as a "protest") do not drive on State or Federally-maintained roads and highways, just for a start. AND, do not bike or walk on them either. Don't take advantage of the countless other services provided, by society. (The list is rather long, actually.....but, my point was made....).
 
They work for it? My point was made as well.

(1). They are going to garnish your wages.
(2). You will go to jail for tax evasion.
(3). Both of the above.
 
Anyone who dislikes U.S. tax policy has essentially 3 choices:

A) Work your ass off to change it. Convince others that taxes should lower.

B) Move to a country which you feel follows "natural law" better...whatever you think that means, re. taxes :rolleyes:

C) Do nothing.... [...]

p.s. Of course, the U.S. is already about 18 trillion dollars in dept, because taxes are too low to pay for what the country has spent
 
NoParty said:
B) Move to a country which you feel follows "natural law" better...whatever you think that means, re. taxes
Click to expand...

My understanding is that in most Western civilized countries...the percentage of taxation based on earned income is significantly higher than in the United States. (Though of course, these statistics will vary. It's worth a bit of Googling, perhaps, to take the time to learn about the facts).
 
This thread is about myths about the law (on a practical basis) regarding having to pay taxes. Not about how high taxes should be, or what type of taxes they should be. Those are more ideological topics, and not suitable for this thread.
 
Mick West said:
This thread is about myths about the law (on a practical basis) regarding having to pay taxes. Not about how high taxes should be, or what type of taxes they should be. Those are more ideological topics, and not suitable for this thread.
Click to expand...

"Myths" about tax laws? I must have missed that component. Perhaps semantics get in the way of a proper discussion, on that aspect?

ETA: Went back to the OP, in order to get back into the "thread" of discussion. Got it, now.
 
It is what it is. As far as changing anything anybody knows full well you ain't changing shit! When you go biting into tax dollars you bite into the vampires pocket book! That takes away their mansions, Cadillacs, fine dining and what ever else they waste our tax money on. Anyone here familiar with the Packard Commission?

By the mid-1980s, this spending became a scandal when the Project On Government Oversight reported that the Pentagon had vastly overpaid for a wide variety of items, most notoriously paying $435 for a hammer,[1] $600 for a toilet seat, and $7,000 for a coffee pot.[2]
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_Commission

Government over pays and we get the bill! How exactly is that a fair deal?
 
I will say it again. There is no real "natural" law. That is a phrase John Locke and other thinkers developed. Again though, many people seem to read the first parts of John Locke's work in which he talks at length of the "natural rights of man", and seem to skip the second part in which he talks about how man simply cannot live effectively on his own usually. That is why man developed society. And to be a part of society one must cede a portion of your rights for society to work. Bluntly put: not everyone can say that their opinion is the "twue" opinion and therefore the most important one that needs to be followed. In democratic society you agree to live by the rules that are laid down (including taxes) to reap the benefits of society like: clean water, sanitation services, waste management (of the bathroom kind), roads, communication infrastructure, etc.
 
Quantumbeliever said:
One can do a simple thought experiment in order to determine if natural laws exist: on a world with only TWO people, would it be right for one of the two to claim that they have a "right" to confiscate and arbitrary portion of the other's labor. Would that be "moral"? Would it be "right"?
Click to expand...
There's only one rule when it comes to thought experiments, and you broke it by omitting half of the social contract. The social contract doesn't really work with only two people, so let's redefine your experiment:

How about a world with 10 people and a pack of wolves. Each person eats 1 food per day. On a good day, each can produce 1.5 food, however, if forced to fend off wolves that day, they produce 0. There are two wolf attacks per day in the world. Is it "moral" or "right" for two of the ten people to confiscate a portion of the other eight's labor, and then spend their entire day fending off wolves (the wolf fighters do this because without 8 farmers they )?

How about when a flood wipes out one person's food production. There's still enough surplus food to cover them. Is it "moral" or "right" for the wolf fighters to confiscate a portion of the remaining 7's surplus to ensure the 10th does not starve?

How about if there's a second tribe of 10 people, who occasionally use their surplus labor to send three people over to steal from you. No single member of your society can fend them off, but they can with the help of both wolf fighters. However, both wolf attacks go unanswered on days when they do this. Is it "moral" or "right" to use a portion of your own group's labor to field additional fighters on attack days?


I can make this thought experiment more and more complicated, adding disease and different kinds of product than just food along with the attending need for marketplaces and mediums of exchange but... Well, I think my point is made.
 
Hevach said:
I can make this thought experiment more and more complicated, adding disease and different kinds of product than just food along with the attending need for marketplaces and mediums of exchange but... Well, I think my point is made.
Click to expand...

Well made. However this is not a philosophy forums. And unfortunately QB was banned a week ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mendel
Can US churches be debunking?
Replies
12
Views
3K
deirdre
deirdre
T
Need Debunking: Climate scientists are in it for the money
Replies
38
Views
4K
Ann K
Ann K
Mendel
Sean Kirkpatrick in Scientific American
Replies
1
Views
499
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
T
Need debunking: EU to introduce law banning 15 years or older cars from being serviced
Replies
30
Views
1K
deirdre
deirdre
T
Need Debunking: Afghani and African immigrants 40-70x more likely to be suspected of gang rape than Native Germans
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Tezcatlipoca
T

Latest posts

Back
Top