Hmmmm.
Which probably explains why he isn’t posting here, eh? 
Like I said; you just don’t normally run into left wingers who push the taxes-are-theft idea. On the other hand, I’ve seen right wingers talk like that right here on the SDMB.
Why do lefties only drink herbal tea?
Because all proper tea is theft!
Why are you acting like the atrocities committed by fiscally liberal, big government Republicans is a point in favour of your position? You’re both on the same side of this argument, even if they’re too stupid to realise it.
Perhaps he would discuss the atrocities committed by the libertarian political leaders, if any existed. Until then, it seems merited to discuss the leaders for whom “taxation is theft” types generally vote: Republicans. Your critique, an echo of a common one around here, is correct from some kind of abstract two-dimensional chart of political philosophy. But I have to tell you that it reads more like a “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote” bumper sticker.
I don’t consider taxation “theft.”
I do, however, believe it’s the wisest social and governmental policy to start from the position that we should have no taxes at all, and then make a strong case for every exception, every program that seeks to use tax dollars to operate. If I could draw an analogy to buying a car, we shouldn’t start from the sticker price and negotiate downwards; we should start from the dealer’s true cost and negotiate upwards.
The real issue is not so much whether taxes are theft but whether avoiding (legally or illegally) paying taxes is theft, or immoral.
I’m kind of ambivalent about this. I’m down with the general idea that everyone needs to contribute to the common good, but the question is the amount. Just because some democratically elected officials decided that the amount I’m supposed to share is X, does this mean I have a moral obligation to share that amount? Suppose I decide on my own that the proper amount of sharing is X minus Y?
Possibly a discussion that deserves its own thread.
Suppose everybody decides that the proper amount of sharing is X minus Y? Either the actions of a democratically elected government are legitimate, or they aren’t. Unless their conduct is criminal, you simply have to take the good with the bad.
As a practical matter you probably have to, because otherwise you risk going to jail. But that doesn’t mean you’re morally required to.
Again, I’m not saying that someone who works for the tax collector is an extortionist. From the perspective of the government, that’s the only way to operate. But I’m discussing it from the perspective of the taxpayer.
You take the good
You take the bad
You take them both
And there you have…
(HA HA!! Try getting that out of your head for the next hour!!)
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.
If I may draw another analogy:
“I need this car RIGHT NOW, and it doesn’t matter what it costs. It’s a matter of national security!”
[Barely audible over screeching tires]“Bill it to my grandkids!”
Well, this brings us back to that GQ question from the other day about why Canada has the right to tell the OP (some noob) what to do - and the answer is because if it didn’t, people with guns would be telling him what to do.
You don’t have a moral imperative to pay taxes at all; if you like, you can opt out of your current system and go live somewhere else.
However, if you choose to remain where you are, you are accepting the legitimacy of whatever governments reign there, and therefore you have a moral imperative to pay taxes.
Er, people with guns are already telling him what to do. If he doesn’t obey the law he’ll soon see them, they’re called the police, and, if he really wants to get stubborn, the army.
If Canada didn’t have the right he’d just see different people with guns, that’s the only difference.
I don’t agree with this logical sequence. The government is legitimate in that it has a right to do what it does, but that doesn’t mean I personally have to go along with it.
No, the difference is that the other people with guns would not say, “you made $50,000 this year, so you owe us $10,000,” they’d say, “give us all of your money. Also, your daughter looks like a nice piece.”
ETA: In any case, we’re not talking about violent crime; we’re talking about tax evasion. He won’t get marched off by people with guns, but served with a warrant requiring him to appear in court.
Jesus Fucking Christ. :rolleyes:
Help! Help! You’re being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Truly, you’re a modern-day Galileo.
We both resent your sarcasm.
Death and taxes, man. Death and taxes.
Just to add a data point:
This is the Pit right?
Well then, FUCK YOU!!!
