Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I pay 7.65% of my income to the government each year for something known as social security, which I don't and will never benefit from. How do you explain that?
I pay 7.65% of my income to the government each year for something known as social security, which I don't and will never benefit from. How do you explain that?
OP is right on the money. I say let the conservatives and libertarians stop paying taxes, since they want all of "their" money in their pocket. In exchange, they can't use any public roads, use any police or fire services, take any public transit, walk on public sidewalks, stand under public streetlights at night... et cetera.
Fallacy extraordinaire on so many levels, from my viewpoint, having rejected (a) preposterous claims to land ownership that fail every coherent litmus test, and (b) having rejected the preposterous social contract fallacy which only children should believe in. The fallacy really doesn't start with the issue of services, but of that of land, and who owns the entirety of the landmass under that social contracts jurisdiction such that it is considered "their property" upon which to even have the right to set terms. The land issue is the antecedent of the social contract issue, and those who mistakenly start their social contract analysis at Step 2 instead of Step 1 may be prone to drawing the wrong conclusion as a consequence, if they implicitly take the government land claim at face value. The notion that property is obtained by simply gazing upon a piece of land as far as the eye can see (or even gazing upon a whole planet, or a whole continent from space), or with the stroke of a pen, and declaring it yours to rule over as ones own 'country" is an absurd concept that fails almost every coherent litmus test for property that man has ever devised.
Governments view of land is entirely sui generis in the history of all land ownership philosophy.... as they are the only entity which singlehandedly lends imprimatur to the idea that with a single gaze, or stroke of a pen, a million, a billion, a trillion, or infinite acres could be owned, simply claiming it to be so (or through conquest), rather than having to have their claims constrained by very narrowly construed views of land use (which is what all legitimate land philosophy demands - and which is exactly why land ownership philosophy has always, since time immemorial, evolved exactly this way - with narrowly constred rules).
Most government property is 'booty' which is obtained from robbed funds which is as illegitimately owned and held by them as is somebody who orders a house full of goods from credit card numbers that thief stole and used. All such property should rightfully have a lien on it on behalf of those whos money was pilfered to pay for such ill gotten goods. Those who have a lien on it can seize the stolen proceeds just as we would from a thief who has a house of ill gotten goods bought with stolen credit cards.
Those who are not subject to the social contract (everyone) are under no more obligation to pay for some of the things listed (e.g. standing under the streetlight) than one is obligated to pay a musician on the street who thinks he has the right to demand extraction of payment for his alleged services, or a rock concert played in the local baseball stadium which I can hear and see from my high rise apartment, even though those in the stadium had to pay for the privilege of hearing and seeing the same concert.
Nor does one have any more obligation to pay for other services (e.g. defense, police, fire) than one is obligated to pay money to a bunch of extortionist (lets call them Nicky, Vinny, and Tony) who are running a protection racket, and who demand payment for their "services." Particularly if one makes it explicitly clear they want no such services upon arrival, but the extortionists don't want to take "no," for an answer. One should have serious pause when confronted with demand of payment for services based upon very sketchy claims of "implicit consent," and a fortiori, even less so should we take serious the claim to be expected to pay for explicitly forced services.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 03-13-2011 at 03:12 PM..
I pay 7.65% of my income to the government each year for something known as social security, which I don't and will never benefit from. How do you explain that?
Why do you think you will never benefit from FICA?
I pay 7.65% of my income to the government each year for something known as social security, which I don't and will never benefit from. How do you explain that?
You are being robbed. That's all there is to it. I am too.
No sales tax at all (local taxes still count as taxes)? So people who work part time have NO deductions either? What about utility taxes in some municipalities?
Okay, indirectly people help pay property taxes if they are renters...that doesn't count as well.
People pay taxes one form or another...unless you are a squatter who literally buys everything on the black market and is employed in the informal sector.
I havent paid income taxes in over 10 years.. legally.. Property taxes though are another thing..
So you have paid taxes. Property tax. The government is not limited to the federal level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
