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.
Do you have a document with your signature that is legally admissible proving you issued consent? If not then by what means do you claim anyone issued their consent?
Actually you probably don't want to go too far down this road, because it's "the governed" that determine whether they consented or not, the governing have no say.
We signed it when we came flying out of a vagina. It's called the social contract.
I remember exiting the birthing canal with pen in hand and reading glasses on my nose. Slipped out, signed it, got burped.
Can you imagine being held to the terms of a contract that a great, great, great,great ancestor signed that basically made you a serf/slave for life?
So you don't think the Constitution is relevant in today's world? You would be in favor of scrapping the whole thing and starting over? Wow! That's just not something you hear a conservative say every day.
By maintaining your citizenship, you are consenting to taxes under the guise of "social contract".
Theft would also inherently mean that you get nothing in return for the "stolen goods".
Which, as far as tax dollars go, is simply not true. Everything from the food we eat, the houses we live in, to the roads we drive, to vehicles themselves, to even the most basic of healthcare services, to how banks handle your money, utilities from electricity to water sanitation to the very internet access that gives you the ability to post on this site. Every single part of our society has been propped up by tax dollars.
So to claim that taxes are theft, you are claiming a desire to take advantage of every benefit without contributing. That, m'dear, is a status even below the "welfare queen" stereotype. Those who desire to benefit from tax money without contributing are nothing more than leeches... and our country improve quite greatly if every leech denounced their citizenship and absconded.
By maintaining your citizenship, you are consenting to taxes under the guise of "social contract".
Theft would also inherently mean that you get nothing in return for the "stolen goods".
Which, as far as tax dollars go, is simply not true. Everything from the food we eat, the houses we live in, to the roads we drive, to vehicles themselves, to even the most basic of healthcare services, to how banks handle your money, utilities from electricity to water sanitation to the very internet access that gives you the ability to post on this site. Every single part of our society has been propped up by tax dollars.
So to claim that taxes are theft, you are claiming a desire to take advantage of every benefit without contributing. That, m'dear, is a status even below the "welfare queen" stereotype. Those who desire to benefit from tax money without contributing are nothing more than leeches... and our country improve quite greatly if every leech denounced their citizenship and absconded.
I'll give it another try:
I decide to shovel all driveways on your block. Snows overnight. I clear your drive and knock on the door demanding $20 for services provided.
A bit dazed as I awoke you from a winter's slumber you glance over and see that I did indeed cleared the drive.
You: "But I didn't ask you to shovel my drive. I'm not paying."
Me: "Oh no. See, you consented for me to shovel it by living on this block. I decided to shovel all the drives here."
You: "Is there any way to withdrawal my consent? I don't want you to shovel my drive."
Me: "Well, this is my block to shovel. The only way to withdrawal consent would be to move to the next block over. This is my block."
You: "If I don't move and don't pay you what are you going to do to me?
Me: "I have several options. I can fine you on top of what you owe me. I can cage you. And finally, I can murder you." (I lift my waistband revealing a glock)
You: "This is nuts! You have no right to provide a service to me without my consent then demand payment all because you've decided this block is yours to work."
Me: "You could move one street over. I hear the guy that shovels those drives charges $15 per clearing. Then again, he also says you can only have fences no higher than 6 ft on your property and your house must be either blue or green."
I decide to shovel all driveways on your block. Snows overnight. I clear your drive and knock on the door demanding $20 for services provided.
A bit dazed as I awoke you from a winter's slumber you glance over and see that I did indeed cleared the drive.
You: "But I didn't ask you to shovel my drive. I'm not paying."
Me: "Oh no. See, you consented for me to shovel it by living on this block. I decided to shovel all the drives here."
You: "Is there any way to withdrawal my consent? I don't want you to shovel my drive."
Me: "Well, this is my block to shovel. The only way to withdrawal consent would be to move to the next block over. This is my block."
You: "If I don't move and don't pay you what are you going to do to me?
Me: "I have several options. I can fine you on top of what you owe me. I can cage you. And finally, I can murder you." (I lift my waistband revealing a glock)
You: "This is nuts! You have no right to provide a service to me without my consent then demand payment all because you've decided this block is yours to work."
Me: "You could move one street over. I hear the guy that shovels those drives charges $15 per clearing. Then again, he also says you can only have fences no higher than 6 ft on your property and your house must be either blue or green."
Your move buckaroo. What do you do?
Well, at least in my neighborhood, several people take it upon themselves to do it for everyone in our cul-de-sac for free. But if they asked for $20 for clearing my driveway and walkway, I'd not hesitate to oblige. But that's just me. I have wonderful neighbors.
In most cases, things like plowing snow-covered roads, trash removal, water sanitation services were services requested by people in the past. Budgets were created, taxes were instituted to cover.
In my city, there's been back and forth talk about what it would financially take to institute an actual plowing/salting service to residential communities after a single snowstorm gridlocked the city for almost an entire week. I live in an city that actually shuts down schools at just 1" of snow because we have no plows. I'm not personally affected because I can work from my living room or home office, so I didn't lose any money. :P But if we start seeing more and more snowstorms, despite never being affected, I wouldn't be opposed to something like a per-storm-fee being tacked onto the city utility bill to cover the costs of salting and plowing the roads.
So your example would be a new charge for a new service that was not previously provided. The difference is that many taxes and services in this country existed before you and I were even born. I can agree with scaling back government inclusion and costs as a way to reduce taxes, but the cost of government should go down before those taxes go away.
But, hopefully it bring you some iota of relief, but at the very least on the federal level, exemptions and standard deductions have been going up and the rate schedule is going down. So less income is being taxed at lower rates. So if you made the exact same amount in 2015 and 2016, your tax bill will actually be lower for TY16.
Well, at least in my neighborhood, several people take it upon themselves to do it for everyone in our cul-de-sac for free. But if they asked for $20 for clearing my driveway and walkway, I'd not hesitate to oblige. But that's just me. I have wonderful neighbors.
In most cases, things like plowing snow-covered roads, trash removal, water sanitation services were services requested by people in the past. Budgets were created, taxes were instituted to cover.
In my city, there's been back and forth talk about what it would financially take to institute an actual plowing/salting service to residential communities after a single snowstorm gridlocked the city for almost an entire week. I live in an city that actually shuts down schools at just 1" of snow because we have no plows. I'm not personally affected because I can work from my living room or home office, so I didn't lose any money. :P But if we start seeing more and more snowstorms, despite never being affected, I wouldn't be opposed to something like a per-storm-fee being tacked onto the city utility bill to cover the costs of salting and plowing the roads.
So your example would be a new charge for a new service that was not previously provided. The difference is that many taxes and services in this country existed before you and I were even born. I can agree with scaling back government inclusion and costs as a way to reduce taxes, but the cost of government should go down before those taxes go away.
But, hopefully it bring you some iota of relief, but at the very least on the federal level, exemptions and standard deductions have been going up and the rate schedule is going down. So less income is being taxed at lower rates. So if you made the exact same amount in 2015 and 2016, your tax bill will actually be lower for TY16.
Trying out for the tap dancing olympics?
Chalk up another statist unwilling to answer my simple question.
Chalk up another statist unwilling to answer my simple question.
Nah. Your example was regarding a new charge for new services. You are stating a desire to stop paying taxes on existing services.
There's a difference.
If a city decides it wants to institute a new public transportation service by instituting a tax on real estate sales, the citizens can referendum against it. They can also vote out people who support the new tax to where they feel their requests are better represented.
:P Also, I answered your "simple question".
Quote:
if they asked for $20 for clearing my driveway and walkway, I'd not hesitate to oblige
Or do you need me to define the word "oblige"? I realize it's a difficult word not often used. It means that 90% of your blather would not apply. As soon as the neighbor asked for payment, as long as the cost of service was reasonable, I would pay him or her.
But please continue to throw around labels at your leisure. -shrug- The incoherent blather of welfare leeches doesn't phase me. If you don't like the services rendered, look for a new provider, not leech off the rest of us taxpayers.
Nah. Your example was regarding a new charge for new services. You are stating a desire to stop paying taxes on existing services.
There's a difference.
If a city decides it wants to institute a new public transportation service by instituting a tax on real estate sales, the citizens can referendum against it. They can also vote out people who support the new tax to where they feel their requests are better represented.
:P Also, I answered your "simple question".
Or do you need me to define the word "oblige"? I realize it's a difficult word not often used. It means that 90% of your blather would not apply. As soon as the neighbor asked for payment, as long as the cost of service was reasonable, I would pay him or her.
But please continue to throw around labels at your leisure. -shrug- The incoherent blather of welfare leeches doesn't phase me. If you don't like the services rendered, look for a new provider, not leech off the rest of us taxpayers.
A statist calling an anarchist a "welfare leech".
Sweet Jesus we've entered the bizarro world.
My example is based on principle. I thought that was implied but I often forget that statists have no principles and believe ends not only justify means but do not care what means actually transpired.
I'll try it again brother.
There is no State. No government. (I know, hard to do...don't soils your undies just yet)
You live in your house that you built. You farm and get by thru mutual consensual cooperation with your neighbors.
I move into your neighborhood. I then run the snow clearing game on you.
The OP stated the issue as a moral proposition: If Theft is Wrong: Why government gets to do it.
By virtue of evolution providing the human brain with specific neutral circuitry ... the individual is able to make individual and possibly wide ranging moral judgments.
If that judgment is at odds with the stance taken by a more powerful group there will be consequences.
Now depending on the society, some moral dissonance may escape sanction but usually that does not happen with issues involving property (or money).
Always been that way, always will.
If theft (taxes) are wrong (to you), the government "gets to do it" because YOU choose to not (1) go to prison for tax evasion or (2) renounce citizenship and find a more tax-friendly environment (should one exist) or (3) self-impoverish.
Not relevant whether or not you think those options "right."
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.
