U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:38 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,176,275 times
Reputation: 5399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
I understand it perfectly. You do not.



Right. And I'm applying it to stealing from one person for no other reason to give it to someone else.



Despite your continued harping on a false argument, nobody said that all taxes are immoral.



I'll ignore the stupidity of your argument for a moment and ask you to explain... Is it legal for you to rob me at gunpoint and take my money to give to someone else?



Oh, absolutely there is. Taking from one person, who owns it, just to give it to another... Is theft, which is immoral.
The right to collect taxes is limited to the government. So I would have no right to take your money. But the state does have the right to collect your share of the costs of the government.

Render unto Caesar...

What has this weird thought of yours got to do with the point made by Williams? You seem to be attempting some weird simile that there is some connection between the illegal acts of an individual and the legal acts of the state. But that is not even remotely related to the William's writing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2013, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 6,715,878 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The right to collect taxes is limited to the government. So I would have no right to take your money. But the state does have the right to collect your share of the costs of the government.

Render unto Caesar...

What has this weird thought of yours got to do with the point made by Williams? You seem to be attempting some weird simile that there is some connection between the illegal acts of an individual and the legal acts of the state. But that is not even remotely related to the William's writing.
If everyone was paying their share there wouldn't be a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 06:08 PM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,665,442 times
Reputation: 2161
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
The right to collect taxes is limited to the government. So I would have no right to take your money. But the state does have the right to collect your share of the costs of the government.
No, it has a right to tax certain things, not decide what my "share" is and come after it.

Quote:
Render unto Caesar...
???

Quote:
What has this weird thought of yours got to do with the point made by Williams? You seem to be attempting some weird simile that there is some connection between the illegal acts of an individual and the legal acts of the state. But that is not even remotely related to the William's writing.
Of course it is. But you're being deliberately blind.

Again, explain for me how government can take my money for the benefit of someone else, but I can't. Explain how it's moral for government, but not for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,204 posts, read 4,214,979 times
Reputation: 5458
Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
What would the effect be on "your paycheck" if the US stopped spending any money on naval assets?
My family's paychecks would increase dramatically, since we lose about 25% of our gross income every year to Washington--a big chunk of which goes to fund the Military Industrial Complex and the endless foreign wars that inevitably result. And we would use that money to save for our retirement (thus funding REAL private sector investment)--even though currency devaluation and interest rates being artificially held at zero for decades (to support Washington overspending) makes that an almost impossible task.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
No more "soft guarantee" for the world's sea lanes. No more underpinning of the shipping routes that have made much of the modern economy possible. All of a sudden. It's gone.
The U.S. Navy does not concern itself with protecting ocean trade routes; if you’re thinking about the movie “Captain Phillips,” we only became involved because an American was taken hostage. But say there is some perceived safety benefit to world trade—is it fair that working Americans are currently paying the ENTIRE cost--while the nations with MORE wealth per capita than America (in order: Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei, and the United Arab Emirates) pay NOTHING (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/egim4...ited-states/)? In about 8 years we will lose our place as #1 economy to China (China to Replace US as World's Biggest Economy in Eight Years - IBTimes UK), and no doubt the increasingly-poor average American will still be paying 100% of the tab for the U.S. Navy "protecting" the world's trade routes. This is a good thing?

And wouldn’t it be a shame if Big Business couldn’t continue to kill small businesses (and thereby crush upward mobility) by importing masses of “cheap” goods like baby food and dog treats filled with enough poison to kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal; http://www.thestar.com/business/2013...da_says.html)? Plus, without world trade, we would be forced to use our own energy resources, instead of making Saudi billionaires and funding world terrorism. We would be pushed to create a REAL economic engine for our nation—manufacturing—instead of sending aggregate U.S. wealth overseas to create a Middle Class in China. How terrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
Heck; let's say we also sell off some weapons to various pirates and shoreside armed groups around the globe in order to raise quick cash and close the deficit a bit.
That’s exactly what we CURRENTLY do, and no, it doesn't save us any money. The U.S. is the largest arms exporter in the world, by far, with $8.76 trillion worth sold in 2012 alone (Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Unfortunately, Washington’s endless war games never fail to bite us in the butt later: before Russia’s fall, our political leaders used American tax dollars to fund the arming of the Afghanistan rebels (In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path - Max Fisher - The Atlantic). Today we continue fight the Afghanis that we armed long ago, in our longest-running war to date, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, plus 2,150 deaths and 19,500 wounded (US Military Deaths in Afghanistan at 2,153 - ABC News Cost of National Security: Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour). Without Big Government and their Military Industrial Complex, this kind of criminal insanity wouldn’t continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
Your income would probably end up declining. Because the expenditure - financed out of your taxes - was actually an investment which made your accumulation of capital possible in the first place.
If you are in the working class, your income would increase--because you could KEEP more of it. And if you are in the upper class—like the big-time financial game players who form our top ½ of 1%, or the political elite, or the Big Business and Military Industrial Complex elite—you SHOULD lose some zeros from your (foreign) bank accounts. These are the people responsible for the financial bubbles that wiped out TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth from the Middle Class. They are the ones who made the policy decisions on immigration and taxes that crippled the working class in order to benefit the ultra-rich. They are the ones who pocketed 100% of the productivity gains since 1972, while the working class lost any hope of ever retiring or achieving simple financial security. Of course, these people would still be insanely wealthy NO MATTER WHAT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
This is not the only case in which government spending ends up behaving like an investment in terms of the ability of citizens to accumulate and securely house capital.
Once you understand that one thing depends on the other, these questions of taxation and "distribution" become a lot more complicated.
When the working class sends money to Washington, that money is NOT invested. It is handed to the upper class, who bank or invest most of it overseas—where it won’t be destroyed by our purposeful currency devaluation or the next financial bubble. It is spent on things that are bad for the nation, like foreign wars and foreign aid. It is spent on the “social safety net” that makes dependency far more lucrative than working for a living; that causes a majority of children grow up in single parent families and poor; and diverts more and more money from the productive economy that is the only hope of prosperity. And worst of all, money that continues to go to Washington from the working class is based on the false promise that at some point those taxes will result in benefits—even though demographics and the raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund prevent anyone other than the earliest Baby Boomers from getting ANY return on their tax “investment.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 06:20 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,583,901 times
Reputation: 2474
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Why? If I take your money from you, just to give it to someone else, because I want them to have it, is it not wrong?

If it is wrong for me, how is it right for government?
Lets make this simple, seems like your a simple person


If the goverment had no access to any funds

we would not have defense
regulation (of anything from meat to drugs)
we would not have roads
we wouldn't have a goverment
we would not have police
we would not have schools

then it would just be serfdoms. . .without a govt some local person would round up some friends, and start his own little warlord fiefdom


Mankind, since forming societies, have given up part of their skill/ability in order to join a larger group. This has been the deal since before the pyramids were built

if it isn't a fair exchange, why don't you relocate yourself to some deserted island
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 10:54 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,583 posts, read 11,799,985 times
Reputation: 15402
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Oh, I see. So, it's ok for me to come to you and take your money by force, if I just take it and hand it to someone I want to have it, then.
I think you misunderstand me. First of all, I'm a taxpayer and I believe there are a lot of problems with our system of taxation. To those people who are infuriated by the free-loaders and scam artists who are exploiting the system (at the expense of those worthy folks who are elderly, disabled, and genuinely needy because of no fault of their own) ... I am with you.

On the other hand, my point is that the concept of taxation in itself is not "theft." I mean, how many modern day countries exist with absolutely no taxation on it's citizens?

Is all taxation "theft?"

Should the US terminate everything that is supported by taxes: the military, embassies, roads, research, NASA, disaster relief, etc., etc. ad infinitum???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 11:15 PM
 
11,415 posts, read 5,574,612 times
Reputation: 1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
I think you misunderstand me. First of all, I'm a taxpayer and I believe there are a lot of problems with our system of taxation. To those people who are infuriated by the free-loaders and scam artists who are exploiting the system (at the expense of those worthy folks who are elderly, disabled, and genuinely needy because of no fault of their own) ... I am with you.

On the other hand, my point is that the concept of taxation in itself is not "theft." I mean, how many modern day countries exist with absolutely no taxation on it's citizens?

Is all taxation "theft?"

Should the US terminate everything that is supported by taxes: the military, embassies, roads, research, NASA, disaster relief, etc., etc. ad infinitum???
In Alaska, isn't the state government funded by taxing globalist corporations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 04:57 PM
 
1,496 posts, read 1,427,392 times
Reputation: 1205
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
No, you're arguing that calling it a "moral obligation" makes it perfectly fine to take money from one to give to another. But you put people in jail if they take the initiative and do it, calling it theft.
what exactly is your argument? That you shouldn't have to pay any income taxes? Or that none of your income taxes should go towards making sure we have a stable and living society?

You wouldn't even be able to make a living if the government didn't insure that society was stable enough for markets to prosper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 05:05 PM
 
8,399 posts, read 5,087,515 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk View Post
Didn't say that. It's amazing that you cannot argue honestly. You accuse other people of various levels of insanity, bad character, etc, but yet, your argument above is 100% dishonest.



Wrong. This is absolutely and utterly false.



Nope, just more dishonesty from you.
You did say that. You said redistribution is immoral. The simple reality is that ALL taxation is redistributionist. So to claim to be against redistribution of tax dollars is to in fact be against ALL taxation since again all taxation is redistributionist.

No, my argument is 100% accurate. The position you take on taxation is 100% insane.

Explain to me how all taxation is not redistributionist in nature.

The government COLLECTS taxes from some to be redistributed to other individuals, government agencies, the military, etc, that is the very meaning of redistribution. That is how taxation works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 05:06 PM
 
9,473 posts, read 5,665,442 times
Reputation: 2161
[quote=ChrisFromChicago;32537853]Lets make this simple, seems like your a simple person


Quote:
If the goverment had no access to any funds
NOBODY in this conversation is arguing there can be no taxes. Stop making straw man arguments.

Quote:
we would not have defense
regulation (of anything from meat to drugs)
we would not have roads
we wouldn't have a goverment
we would not have police
we would not have schools
I totally disagree with all but the first.

Quote:
then it would just be serfdoms. . .without a govt some local person would round up some friends, and start his own little warlord fiefdom
This is all a strawman argument. Not relevant to the discussion.


Quote:
Mankind, since forming societies, have given up part of their skill/ability in order to join a larger group. This has been the deal since before the pyramids were built
Wow, how totally wrong.

Quote:
if it isn't a fair exchange, why don't you relocate yourself to some deserted island
It seems you're determined to argue against what isn't said, and at all costs to avoid the subject. Your responses are insulting to everyone's intelligence, since we can ALL plainly see you're overtly constructing straw man arguments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top