Is Taxation Theft?

TaxationTheft

What are your views in relation to forced taxation? While I will agree with the argument that everybody who uses public services should pay at least to some degree, If I don't use these services, why should I be forced to pay tax?

Isn't forced taxation a form of theft? Would you live in a society that did not enforce large scale taxation?

I would hate to think what might happen if I did not pay all my tax here.

Chucky the tree

Who doesn't use public services?

jhegarty

Anyone else suspect the op has an agenda ?

laoch na mona

no it funds the country you live in
no tax = no police no hospitals no schools ect

JRant

jhegarty wrote: »

Anyone else suspect the op has an agenda ?

Yep, big schtyle. Could be Leo V incognito looking to see what support there is for some more right wing idea's. Sure we'll stop taxing people and they'll have more money for holidays!!!!!:)

Suryavarman

laoch na mona wrote: »

no it funds the country you live in
no tax = no Government police no Government hospitals no Government schools ect

FYP, if people want these services they will still pay for them without the Government stealing their money.

TaxationTheft

Suryavarman wrote: »

FYP, if people want these services they will still pay for them without the Government stealing their money.

Exactly. I am not agaisnt welfare or public services, just forced income/service taxation for services which I do not use. If I have never been to a public hospital in my life, why should I have to pay a % of my income towards these services? Let the Politicians pay it.

Arfan

FYP, if people want these services they will still pay for them without the Government stealing their money.

And indeed they do pay for these services through a financial charge levied by the state.

Duck Soup

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

You know, that trivial stuff such as a police force, clean water, a fire service etc. I’ve no problem people opting out of ‘forced taxation’ as long as they opt out of running water, don’t use roads, never call the guards, ambulance service or anything else that’s publically funded.

TaxationTheft

Duck Soup wrote: »

I’ve no problem people opting out of ‘forced taxation’ as long as they opt out of running water, don’t use roads, never call the guards, ambulance service or anything else that’s publically funded.

I agree. I will even pay more for these services than generally expected should I have to use them. Seems reasonable to me. No subsidy on my behalf.

Suryavarman

Arfan wrote: »

And indeed they do pay for these services through a financial charge levied by the state.

Why does the state have to provide them? Why can't people voluntarily pay for these goods?

Yahew

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why does the state have to provide them? Why can't people voluntarily pay for these goods?

Voluntarily isn't going to work for a police force, or a fire force. If people opt out they will have agree to their home burn down, or else you get the free loader problem.

If we had a volunteer legal system which we had to sign up to, those not signing up - and thus saving whatever tax they want - had better be cool with rape and murder not being prosecuted by the state, and had better defend themselves, leading to vigilantianism.

TaxationTheft

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why does the state have to provide them? Why can't people voluntarily pay for these goods?

Because that would force the Government to actually operate in an efficient manner. When you have competition over monopolistic practices, you will fail if you don't innovate.

The Government knows this, hence forced taxation.

Arfan

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why does the state have to provide them? Why can't people voluntarily pay for these goods?

People do voluntarily pay for these goods by living in the state and functioning in the society. Are you familiar with the term social contract?

Yahew

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Because that would force the Government to actually operate in an efficient manner. When you have competition over monopolistic practices, you will fail if you don't innovate.

The Government knows this, hence forced taxation.

When you have private competition in private police forces you will have, effectively, warlords and private armies. Good luck with that one.

TaxationTheft

I advocate forced charity perhaps for the poor/needy. Everybody else should be responsible for their own needs. I advocate purchasing public services in the same manner as seen in the private sector - by supply and demand.

There are services we the tax payers pay for, which serve little to no use for most people. Coilte and that minister who gets paid a sickening amount of money for "looking after the trees" is a prime example of this.

Seriously, who here gives a damn about global warming? I sure as hell don't.

nesf

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why does the state have to provide them? Why can't people voluntarily pay for these goods?

Tragedy of the Commons.

Yahew

Ack, this guy is a troll. That said , and last post from me, we should call the libertarian's bluff. Remove them from the tax roles, and charge them for their childhood education subsidy ( possibly a few £100K), and throw a charge on any public use of roads or public footpaths. If they cant pay, jail them in debtors prison until they can.
Old school.

While they are in jail ( or when out) we'll have a sign outside their house saying - HERE LIVES A NON-TAXPAYER; a sign to any thief, rapist or psycho that any theft, rape, or acts of torture they may wish to engage in with the inhabitants of the house will not be policed by the State funded police, or judged by the State funded judiciary.

so go wild.

( No, we should really do this).

laoch na mona

smells like trolling

nesf

Report trolls, don't accuse people of being trolls on-thread.

Suryavarman

Yahew wrote: »

Voluntarily isn't going to work for a police force, or a fire force. If people opt out they will have agree to their home burn down, or else you get the free loader problem.

If we had a volunteer legal system which we had to sign up to, those not signing up - and thus saving whatever tax they want - had better be cool with rape and murder not being prosecuted by the state, and had better defend themselves, leading to vigilantianism.

I do agree that a voluntary police force wouldn't work as people benefit from having the police patrolling the area and deterring criminals. As for a fire service I don't see anything wrong with making it voluntary and leaving peoples houses burn down if they don't pay.

Arfan wrote: »

People do voluntarily pay for these goods by living in the state and functioning in the society. Are you familiar with the term social contract?

Are you aware that I never signed any social contract? Are you aware that it is a meaningless term? As for the concept that living in a country makes me fair game for whatever that tyranny that Government imposes upon me is quite frankly laughable.

Arfan

leaving peoples houses burn down if they don't pay.

That would be extremely dangerous given urban planning. For the safety of others fire service sign up would have to be mandatory much like motor insurance. At that point the difference becomes moot.

Are you aware that I never signed any social contract? Are you aware that it is a meaningless term? As for the concept that living in a country makes me fair game for whatever that tyranny that Government imposes upon me is quite frankly laughable.

I'm not aware of that but I am aware that you're misunderstanding the far from meaningless term. A social contract isn't a legal document, it's a device in political theory used to formalise the relationship between individuals and government. You exchange certain freedoms, services or goods and in return receive rights, services or again goods. A social contract is ultimately the means by which an individual benefits from working within the society on which it is based.

Digressing into my own theory. To reject the social contract model is to reject the society on which it is based. Rejection of society inevitably places you outside it. This necessitates the creation of a new society to replace that which was lost. This is not as uncommon as one might think. In fact Permabear posted quite recently on the exploration of such a venture.

si_guru

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Exactly. I am not agaisnt welfare or public services, just forced income/service taxation for services which I do not use. If I have never been to a public hospital in my life, why should I have to pay a % of my income towards these services? Let the Politicians pay it.

So you'd stump up €500,000 or so tomorrow to equip and build a dental surgery if you need 1 filling?

TaxationTheft

While I will agree that some taxation is may be required, why should income tax be allowed for example? To pay the coilte wages? I have no problem with minimal taxation, provided they aren't wasted.

Why should I fund these services through wages for example? If an economy works through the free market, Government should be recieving these funds anyway. At least indirectly.

Direct taxation is not always required for a stable government.

TaxationTheft

si_guru wrote: »

So you'd stump up €500,000 or so tomorrow to equip and build a dental surgery if you need 1 filling?

I would prevent fillings in the first place. My teeth are my responsibility.

Max Keller

Every month when I see the tax deduction line in my payslip I think so.

TaxationTheft

Max Keller wrote: »

Every month when I see the tax deduction line in my payslip I think so.

Don't worry, your hard earned money is going to line this guys pockets:(

http://www.thejournal.ie/coillte-boss-under-pressure-to-take-pay-cut-290333-Nov2011/

300,000 is simply unjustified. A brain surgeon would not get that much, let alone a guy who looks after trees. Sickening waste of money.

Forced income taxation leads to monopolistic dictator situations like the above. Plain logical reasoning really. This salary is not justified.

chunkylover4

When you place your labour into a job the wage you recieve is as a result of placing a part of you within that job, so when the state force you to pay tax ( or rather make it very uncomfortable for you if you don't) then they take a part of you, the part of your labour which was placed into the job. Of course you do recieve security in terms of services, roads etc which after a cost benefit analysis is probably better than not recieving them.

Suryavarman

Arfan wrote: »

That would be extremely dangerous given urban planning. For the safety of others fire service sign up would have to be mandatory much like motor insurance. At that point the difference becomes moot.

If people are being endangered by another persons recklessness they should be able to sue.

I'm not aware of that but I am aware that you're misunderstanding the far from meaningless term. A social contract isn't a legal document, it's a device in political theory used to formalise the relationship between individuals and government. You exchange certain freedoms, services or goods and in return receive rights, services or again goods. A social contract is ultimately the means by which an individual benefits from working within the society on which it is based.

It's a device used by politicians to justify mass theft in order for them to advance their own ends. What if you don't consent to exchange these freedoms for the shoddy services that Government provides? How then can you claim the social contract to be legitimate?

Digressing into my own theory. To reject the social contract model is to reject the society on which it is based. Rejection of society inevitably places you outside it. This necessitates the creation of a new society to replace that which was lost. This is not as uncommon as one might think. In fact Permabear posted quite recently on the exploration of such a venture.

Rejection of a social contract does not place you outside of society nor is society necessarily based on a social contract. It would be quite possible to have a society based on natural rights.

nesf

Suryavarman wrote: »

If people are being endangered by another persons recklessness they should be able to sue.

Suing someone only makes sense if they have enough money or assets to make it worthwhile. If their house just burned down that's a major asset that they've just lost. And suing would be very small comfort for losing the family home and the potential danger to lives.

ilovesleep

Well it is in this country when there is so much wastage:

Building a spire in Dublin city. How much did that cost? Did anybody want it there?

Galway's eyre square before they did it up. Spent way over budget on that project and there is fcek all there.

There were plans to build another road in Galway to take traffic of the Galway to Rosaveal road yet a proper public transport system ie more regular buses will work much better so that people don't have to rely on cars. Those plans have stalled for now.

Currently in Galway a lot of roundabouts are being dug up and replaced with junctions. The roundabouts were working just fine.
Newspaper article in a Galway paper recently mentioned that funding is gone and 5million more is needed. From the bank.

People who complain are whinging naysayers and yet any arguements put across against such projects are very valid. People have no say what so ever in how things are run here in this country.

Suryavarman

nesf wrote: »

Suing someone only makes sense if they have enough money or assets to make it worthwhile. If their house just burned down that's a major asset that they've just lost. And suing would be very small comfort for losing the family home and the potential danger to lives.

If they have no assets then they should go to prison. It also likely that the victim would also have insurance to cover the loss of their home. They would hopefully also have fire insurance to have prevented excess damage to their home in the first place.

nesf

Suryavarman wrote: »

If they have no assets then they should go to prison. It also likely that the victim would also have insurance to cover the loss of their home. They would hopefully also have fire insurance to have prevented excess damage to their home in the first place.

Fire insurance is all well and good but I and the vast majority of other people will prefer to pay some tax and have a fire brigade to put out that fire rather than lose our house and have to make a claim.

Arfan

Suryavarman wrote: »

If people are being endangered by another persons recklessness they should be able to sue.



It's a device used by politicians to justify mass theft in order for them to advance their own ends. What if you don't consent to exchange these freedoms for the shoddy services that Government provides? How then can you claim the social contract to be legitimate?



Rejection of a social contract does not place you outside of society nor is society necessarily based on a social contract. It would be quite possible to have a society based on natural rights.

I already addressed your first point with my formulation that rejection of the social contract implies a rejection of the society on which it is based. By participating in the society you agree to the society's rules, much as by attending a party you agree to abide by the dress rules of that party and its social decorum.

Of course the social contract is not an either/or. Extending the metaphor you could ask if casual dress is allowed for the party, or perhaps you might bring your own beer.

The Irish government is exceedingly Hobbes when it goes to 'renegotiate the social contract'

Pete_Cavan

Suryavarman wrote: »

As for a fire service I don't see anything wrong with making it voluntary and leaving peoples houses burn down if they don't pay.

If the total cost of the fire service (including manpower, training, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) over a year was calculated and divided that cost by the number of call outs that year, then a bill was sent out to everyone who used the service for their proportion of the bill, we would end up with a situation where it is too expensive to use the fire service and people would be wishing the cost of it was spread out over the population through general taxation.

TaxationTheft

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If the total cost of the fire service (including manpower, training, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) over a year was calculated and divided that cost by the number of call outs that year, then a bill was sent out to everyone who used the service for their proportion of the bill, we would end up with a situation where it is too expensive to use the fire service and people would be wishing the cost of it was spread out over the population through general taxation.

Then don't have a fire in your house. Besides, if the service is expensive, it will disincentivise people to burn their houses down either intentionally or unintentionally.

High cost? So what? How often does the average family require fire services? Once every serveral decades?

Pete_Cavan

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Then don't have a fire in your house.

If that is the level of debate you are offering then I think this thread should be closed immediately.

nesf

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Then don't have a fire in your house.

Right...

TaxationTheft

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

wishing the cost of it was spread out over the population through general taxation.

Why do you think this? Most people barely care you are even alive I would reckon. I don't give a ****e about other people as long as they aren't meddling in my affairs. Why should I have to indulge in the concept of helping others when they are unwilling to help me?

For example, I work 50 hours a week on average, yet the people beside me live on welfare. These people are indirectly stealing my wealth. Why should I have to "care" about other people?

Why should I be forced to pay tax to people I don't give a hoot about?

TaxationTheft

nesf wrote: »

Right...

Let me explain. I meant to say you should watch your home like a hawk. For the same reasons high health prices keep people in line for not wasting resources, a high callout rate would actually incentivise people to diligently look after their home. To avoid a fire. Not that it will never happen. I never said that.

Unreasonable?

nesf

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Let me explain. I meant to say you should watch your home like a hawk. For the same reasons high health prices keep people in line for not wasting resources, a high callout rate would actually incentivise people to diligently look after their home. To avoid a fire. Not that it will never happen. I never said that.

You should, and probably will, do that anyway even with a fire service. I really am not seeing the argument for why having a fire brigade is a bad thing here. The only reason we need to do it through taxation is to avoid the free rider problem of the Tragedy of the Commons.

TaxationTheft

nesf wrote: »

You should, and probably will, do that anyway even with a fire service. I really am not seeing the argument for why having a fire brigade is a bad thing here. The only reason we need to do it through taxation is to avoid the free rider problem of the Tragedy of the Commons.

I need to educate myself on that Tradegy of the Commons concept, so I will keep my mind open to correction on this...

nesf

TaxationTheft wrote: »

I need to educate myself on that Tradegy of the Commons concept, so I will keep my mind open to correction on this...

Imagine a fire service as a public resource. If we all pay into it then it is a strong resource. If people start freeloading then it becomes weaker but if only a few freeload it's not that noticeable. The issue is then that everyone wants to be in the few that freeload and not in the majority that pay. Creating serious problems in the system. The only way around this is a system of forced payment, i.e. tax/duty/levy.

It's not strictly a tragedy of the commons but the concepts are similar.

Lockstep

Suryavarman wrote: »

Are you aware that I never signed any social contract? Are you aware that it is a meaningless term?

Unsigned contracts exist alright: think about heading into a resteraunt and eating their food without paying. That's a breach of contract even though you didn't sign anything.

AhSureTisGrand

Lockstep wrote: »

Unsigned contracts exist alright: think about heading into a resteraunt and eating their food without paying. That's a breach of contract even though you didn't sign anything.

Continuing this analogy, how does one avoid going into the restaurant in the first place?

Liam Byrne

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Duck Soup wrote: »

I’ve no problem people opting out of ‘forced taxation’ as long as they opt out of running water, don’t use roads, never call the guards, ambulance service or anything else that’s publically funded.

I agree. I will even pay more for these services than generally expected should I have to use them. Seems reasonable to me. No subsidy on my behalf.

So you're assuming that unless you have to actually call the Gardai yourself they're of zero benefit to you ?

The fact that they're some bit of a deterrent is no use to you ?

The fact that they arrested a scumbag 2 blocks away before he robbed your house or car is no benefit to you ?

The fact that their checkpoint got a drunken idiot off the road before he turned onto your street ?

Honestly ?

Lockstep

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Continuing this analogy, how does one avoid going into the restaurant in the first place?

By not entering. Or by leaving once you become aware that there are obligations upon you.

TaxationTheft

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're assuming that unless you have to actually call the Gardai yourself they're of zero benefit to you ?

The fact that they're some bit of a deterrent is no use to you ?

The fact that they arrested a scumbag 2 blocks away before he robbed your house or car is no benefit to you ?

The fact that their checkpoint got a drunken idiot off the road before he turned onto your street ?

Honestly ?

I am responsible for my own property. Big guns are the key to keeping scumbags away, not coppers who arrive long after the commission of the said crime has taken place.

Every household should have at least one gun. Provided the owner is mentally competant to hold one and keeps it in a safe place. The guards aren't going to do **** if they can't catch the guy.

Yahew

TaxationTheft wrote: »

I am responsible for my own property. Big guns are the key to keeping scumbags away, not coppers who arrive long after the commission of the said crime has taken place.

Every household should have at least one gun. Provided the owner is mentally competant to hold one and keeps it in a safe place. The guards aren't going to do **** if they can't catch the guy.

In the absence of a police force where you are responsible for your own property, then you will lose it. The guy with the bigger gun will take it, and there will always be a a guy ( or guys) with bigger guns. With the lack of a State, private armies, and criminal warlords take over. Your property is yours as long as you can defend it, but you haven't a hope.

( unless you live in a hovel, and nobody cares).

Tayla

TaxationTheft wrote: »

Every household should have at least one gun. Provided the owner is mentally competant to hold one and keeps it in a safe place. The guards aren't going to do **** if they can't catch the guy.

So noone should pay any tax unless they use the specific services and now we should all have at least one gun in our households any more radical changes you'd like to propose for the country?

Yahew

Tayla wrote: »

So noone should pay any tax unless they use the specific services and now we should all have at least one gun in our households any more radical changes you'd like to propose for the country?

everybody should have a wild animal, like a tiger, to defend against terrorists.