Is Taxation Theft?

[graddium]

My friend, please read the constitution...it does not give a group of elites any power over you...it protects you by guaranteeing you life, liberty and property...it restrictes the actions of government and protects the rights of the individual and the states. You are sadly misinformed about what the constitution is, how it is supposed to work, and how it has been USURPED by the very group of elites you're afraid of. That is not the fault of the constitution, or the men who signed it. That is the fault of WE THE PEOPLE who allowed it to happen. Its on us to get it fixed.

Here is a link to a .pdf of the constitution...PLEASE READ IT.

http://constitutioncenter.org/files/constitution.pdf

Maybe you should read it, cause it took about 5 seconds to get to "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

How is that not giving a group of elites (congress) power over me?

I can opt out of the taxation by congress without recourse? Not likely.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So, to you ALL taxation is thievery? How do you run a gov't without some form of taxation?

Download "The Market For Liberty" to learn how it's done. I believe RP has written some things about it too.

 

[nodope0695]

Maybe you should read it, cause it took about 5 seconds to get to "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"

How is that not giving a group of elites (congress) power over me?

I can opt out of the taxation by congress without recourse? Not likely.

If you read futher, it lays limits on the type of taxes that congress may lay. Forget not that congress is SUPPOSED to represent the people from the states from where they serve, thus the taxes would reflect the will of the people thru thier representative in congress. We elect our representative and senators. Therefore, any misuse of power, or levy of taxation porposed by said rep. or senator SHOULD be at the will of the poeple. Now, that isn't happening anymore. Why? Because we elect people who don't have our interests in mind...but we continue to reelect them. So, who's fault is it?

You can't blame the troubles of today on the men who signed that document, nor can you blame the document. The usurpation of the constitution has been going on for decades, and it is OUR fault for allowing it. It is OUR job to fix it. Read the quote on my signature by a founding fauther, Thomas Jefferson. That should tell you all you need to know.

Oh, and I have read it. Many times. I've studied it. I believe it has been usurped, and that we must work to bring government back to it. Please use your anger for good and study this document, its history, and how it came to be. There are more than just words on the paper.

 

[graddium]

If you read futher, it lays limits on the type of taxes that congress may lay. Forget not that congress is SUPPOSED to represent the people from the states from where they serve, thus the taxes would relect the will of the people thru thier representative in congress.

You can't blame the troubles of today on the men who signed that document, no can you blame the document. The usurpation of the constitution has been going on for decades, and it is OUR fault for allowing it. It is OUR job to fix it. Read the quote on my signature by a founding fauther, Thomas Jefferson. That should tell you all you need to know.

Oh, and I have read it. Many times. I've studied it. I believe it has been usurped, and that we must work to bring government back to it. Please use your anger for good and study this document, its history, and how it came to be. There are more than just words on the paper.

Oh I'm far from angry (just the opposite, infact). And don't think that I don't know the constitution either. I was actually going to paste that Jefferson quote to you when I saw it scrolling through posts, but then noticed it was actually yours! Why would we think that after creating one of the best statements for liberty ever (declaration of independence), then creating a document that intends to restrain government into the smallest possible entity, and then watching this tiny government turn into the biggest empire/state the world has ever seen, that there is ANY chance that government can ever work?

Jefferson also said, that which governs the best is that which governs the least. Why don't we have the courage to actually finish that by saying, and that which governs the least is nothing! ANY government ALWAYS turns into tyranny. The constitution lasted about 10 seconds before those in power threw it out the window (remember Washington raising an army to forcibly collect taxes?)

Government always fails, why don't we just recognize that and try something different (liberty)?

 

[nodope0695]

Oh I'm far from angry. And don't think that I don't know the constitution either. I was actually going to paste that Jefferson quote to you when I saw it scrolling through posts, but then noticed it was actually yours! Why would we think that after creating one of the best statements for liberty ever (declaration of independence), then creating a document that intends to restrain government into the smallest possible entity, and then watching this tiny government turn into the biggest empire/state the world has ever seen, that there is ANY chance that government can ever work?

Jefferson also said, that which governs the best is that which governs the least. Why don't we have the courage to actually finish that by saying, and that which governs the least is nothing! ANY government ALWAYS turns into tyranny. The constitution lasted about 10 seconds before those in power threw it out the window (remember Washington raising an army to forcibly collect taxes?)

Government always fails, why don't we just recognize that and try something different (liberty)?

I'm with ya. I really am. And I agree that a dreastic change is needed. But sadly the sheeple aren't awake yet. Even with this "economic crisis" most people go about blindly.

I don't have all the answers, not do I think I ever will. But nothing is going to change unless the people wake up. And, any change that takes place in this government will NOT be peaceful....too far gone to for "talking."

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I voted no because the Constitution allows for taxation so long as it is apportioned. Taxes on income and property ARE theft, and give government ownership of one's person, and property.

Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here.

 

[The_Orlonater]

It depends on the tax. For example, excise taxes, tariffs, taxes on unearned income - all fair. Taxation on wages is not only thievery, it's unconstitutional.

Tariffs, fair?

They're evil. If I want to trade with people overseas because they have a better product, it should be more expensive for me to trade with them because I need to keep my dollars at "home" with some jackass I don't want to trade with?

Fuck your tariffs.

I'm going anarcho...

 

[Deborah K]

Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world.

 

[nodope0695]

Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here.

Good point. But I guess taxes are a nessessary evil...no denying that they're outta control today.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just because the constitution allows taxation, does not mean its not theft.

There is no definition for taxation that does not equate to theft.

Covered pretty well, here.

According to the constitution, unapporitioned taxes (like the income tax) are a no-no, and therefore theft. (See article 1, section 9 of the constitution).

 

[slothman]

Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world.

Problem is, if you adhere to the Constitution, an amendment to nullify the income tax must be ratified by congress.

 

[nodope0695]

Problem is, if you adhere to the Constitution, an amendment to nullify the income tax must be ratified by congress.

Yep, so don't hold your breath...violence is the only thing that is gonna change things in this nation...count on it. Sad to say, but it is coming.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Sorry I'm going to have to pull a truth warya here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

I disagree.

For it not to be theft, all taxes would have to be given voluntarily. Meaning every single person wanting to give the amount of tax requested of them.

The poll question asked to disregard whether or not you think taxation is necessary.

If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

As perfect as the world could get, this still only means a hypothetical majority agree to being taxed - plenty of people would still disagree with the amount they were taxed or disagree completely with taxation.

I'll have to thank the OP for making this thread, love these kinda convos.

Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

That is a fallacious argument, your presuming that

a) the state (which is an abstraction) comes before individuals, has a right to exist before man. taking up this view naturally leads to things like property tax.
b) that all people who object to taxation on principle have means to move to a distant foreign country

 

[nodope0695]

Sorry I'm going to have to pull a truth warya here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft



For it not to be theft, all taxes would have to be given voluntarily.

The poll question asked to disregard whether or not you think taxation is necessary.



As perfect as the world could get, this still only means a hypothetical majority agree to being taxed - plenty of people would still disagree with the amount they were taxed or disagree completely with taxation.

I'll have to thank the OP for making this thread, love these kinda convos.

I'd vote down property tax and income tax in a heartbeat. But I'm all for road tolls, parking meters, sales tax (especially a 1% national sales tax).

 

[Deborah K]

Tariffs, fair?

They're evil. If I want to trade with people overseas because they have a better product, it should be more expensive for me to trade with them because I need to keep my dollars at "home" with some jackass I don't want to trade with?

Fuck your tariffs.

I'm going anarcho...

Whoa, take a chill pill. I get your point, and I'm no expert on this but it seems to me that this so-called free trade we have going on is nothing of the sort. Tariffs were what our founders used, I know tariffs are considered protectionistic. I'm not necessarily arguing for them as much as I am arguing against taxation on wages.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why don't yous (that should be a word) guys move to a different country where there are no taxes?
By living here you agree to some of those taxes.
By electing representatives and them creating taxes you are participating.
Theorecticly(sp) you agree to the taxes, and the other laws as well.
Ignoring At the wikipedia aspect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Consent says, and I agree, that if you don't like it then move, to another country.
You could also try to change your Congress reps but that obviously isn't working.

I didn't agree to those taxes-I signed no such agreement. Why should I have to move? Why not just arrest the criminals who insist on stealing (taxing)? Sounds like you have a rather skewed perspective on this, mate. The only reasonable taxes are those passed at the state and local level that have legitimate apportionment.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards of their future security." (from the Declaration of Independence)

 

[The_Orlonater]

Whoa, take a chill pill. I get your point, and I'm no expert on this but it seems to me that this so-called free trade we have going on is nothing of the sort. Tariffs were what our founders used, I know tariffs are considered protectionistic. I'm not necessarily arguing for them as much as I am arguing against taxation on wages.

Eh, sorry. Long day...

Alright, I see.

 

[danberkeley]

I disagree. If, in a perfect world, the Constitution was for, by, and of the people, then we the people could amend it and remove taxation if we chose to. Therefore, the fact that it is still there, indicates that the people agree to it.

In theory, mind you. In a perfect (adherance to the Constitution) world.

No, no, no. So if your grandfather, before you were born, signed a contract where all his progeny were bound to the contract, should you, as a person who didn't (and could not have had) consent to the contract, when it was signed, be bound to it and obligated to honor it?

 

[Deborah K]

No, no, no. So if your grandfather, before you were born, signed a contract where all his progeny were bound to the contract, should you, as a person who didn't (and could not have had) consent to the contract, when it was signed, be bound to it and obligated to honor it?

Of course not, hence the ability to amend.