And you know, if you were someone I knew in real life, I’d likely offer you that couch for a while. But I certainly wouldn’t invite someone off the internet to live in my house (including while I’m sleeping). That’s one reason I do support shelters and food stamps and universal healthcare, so that I don’t have to face the dilemma of deciding whether or not to trust someone I don’t know not to steal my stuff (or worse) while I’m unconscious. And that’s not a slam on the poor…I’d treat a middle-class stranger the same if he asked to crash at my place.
Sorry man, grilling here breaks the fire code. How bout some leftover lasagna?
It really is more of a practical matter. I’m not really equipped to help someone in the situation you described. I could give you my shirt, but then all you would have is a shirt, and I would be in need of one. Better to let the people with the necessary resources to help you out.
Enough!
If you want to participate in a serious discussion, here, do so. If you simply wish to make insulting comments about other posters, (however thinly disguised as political opinions), take it to The BBQ Pit.
That goes for everyone else, (and includes the mouth foaming in the OP), as well.
[ /Moderating ]
It’s also true.
This is not helpful. Rather than making blithe characterizations about libertarians (or liberals or conversatives for that matter), let’s stick to the OP’s comments on taxes. That goes for everybody, not just tagos.
But you pay taxes for police protection! So why worry? (I’m just messin’ with you man, I agree with you about the crashing with strangers thing.)
And anyone who is caught deficient on their taxes should have to pay ALL their back taxes. You’d expect that at the very least right? No, the person who is in charge of collecting taxes did not pay his back taxes beyond what was audited. That would be Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner.
The reason taxes are theft is really more simple than what the ops posted. It is a redistribution of labor hours and it discriminates against the tax payer. There is no reason why we can’t collect taxes from the poor in the form of the labor itself. But instead of doing that, we reward the poor for leveraging the tax disparity by producing more children who then require additional labor redistribution.
If we are going to increase the redistribution of labor hours with each new child then not only should their labor be taxed, there should be a penalty for the financial harm it creates just as we penalize thieves who steal.
If the current news reports are true and only half the people are actually paying taxes then that means we are going to have to support those people as well as pay off a 12 trillion dollar debt. Who is going to pay for this? What is stopping this labor disparity from continuing?
As it stands now the United States AAA bond rating is in question. It could slide down in the future which would increase the cost of our debt even further. Who is going to pay for that?
If we don’t start taking responsibility for our own existence then at some point there won’t be enough people to cover the cost. You can call taxes whatever you want but it’s somebody’s labor and there are no laws requiring the wealthy to live or work in the United States. They are the one demographic group capable of picking up stakes and taking their taxable income somewhere else.
Depends on how you phrase the question really. If you ask do you want to pay less taxes, of course they say yes . If you ask them what services should be cut, well that is fair bit more difficult.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/economistyougov_polling
Americans aren’t anti-government, they are pro free stuff.
Based purely on government statistics, I’m in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. So I pay plenty of tax. I still say I’m glad that government services are there for me if I ever need them.
INCOME TAXES, not taxes. When you see on the news that X% of people pay Y% of income taxes, while Z% pay W%, remember they’re talking about income taxes. Not property taxes, not sales tax, not social security tax, not medicare. Everybody with a job pays 7% of their income straight into social security, with no deductions allowed. And employers add another 7%, so that’s 14%.
It chaps my ass when people get confused like this.
Now, about taxes being theft. What defines theft? You have property that belongs to you, yes? And if someone takes that property without your permission, that’s stealing, yes?
But how did that inanimate object get labeled as your property in the first place? You bought it? You made it? You earned it? How does that make something your property? God didn’t create property rights, mother nature didn’t create property rights. Human beings invented property rights, as a way to keep from having constant arguments (and/or fights to the death) over who gets what stuff.
That’s right. Property rights are social constructed. They are artificial. They depend upon the agreement of your neighbors. And if your neighbors don’t agree that you own X, and they assert that Bob really owns X, then you’re going to have to either hand over X, or fight them. And if there are a lot more of them, they’re gonna kick your ass if you fight them.
Property rights are one of those concepts that turn out to work better than the alternatives. We could decide tomorrow that there’s no such thing as property rights, only what you can defend with a fist or a gun. Except then we’d all be so busy fighting each other to keep what’s ours that we wouldn’t have much time for productive things. So you agree to keep your goddam paws off the objects labeled “mine”, and I agree to keep my paws off the stuff labeled “yours”. And if we don’t agree, rather than knife each other, we go to a third party to resolve our dispute.
Of course, the concept of taxation as described in middle school civics classes is all sorts of wrong. Taxes really were a system of theft–if you didn’t pay tribute, guys with swords would come along and cut you up. And all you got in return for paying your tribute was to not get cut up. Except the swordsmen who threatened you found that other swordsmen wanted to rob you, instead of them. So they had to be ready to fight the other swordsmen over the right to rob you.
But that doesn’t change the fact that nowadays we choose the people who collect the tribute, and if we don’t like it, we can argue for changes in policy.
Fact is, humans are social animals. We are obliged to live in groups. And therefore we have to have some method of resolving disputes between us. And that means some people won’t like the resolution of the dispute. Which means the rest of us have to be ready to kick the asses of the people who don’t like the resolutions, otherwise, they’ll kick our asses.
And this is why armies and police and courts are essential to the functioning of society. Even countries in anarchy have traditional methods of resolving disputes. In Somolia there are clan leaders and warlords and religious people who perform these roles. And random guys with AK-47s.
So there’s no escaping from other people, except by literally living in the wilderness by yourself. And if you find it intolerable to live by the rules the rest of us made up, then that’s the only option for you. I believe there’s an aphorism about doors and asses that might apply.
Yes. Or to put it another way, life does not have to be nasty, brutish, and short just because you happen to be.
And not only that, but the hard-earned money that the libertarians consider to be all their own is actually created by society. And society makes it possible for the libertarian to earn that money, but creating an economic society, by consenting to the activities that earn money. You can’t earn money in the absence of society as a whole and other people as individuals both consenting to it, cooperating with you, and sacrificing some of their own assets to you. The individual doesn’t create his or her own property out of thin air.
This is not keeping this thread in the realm of civil discourse, either.
[ /Modding ]
Since Obama cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, you must be a real big fan of his.
OK, so let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that taxes are theft. What do you plan to do, call the police to arrest the thieves? Clearly not, because the police are paid for out of taxes. Obviously, when you get robbed, you expect to be able to deal with it yourself, and believe that you can, from your own resources, defend against any thieves.
So do it. Since you claim to be able to deal with thieves using your own resources, fight off these thieves that are stealing your tax money from you. If you can’t, that’s clearly just a sign that you need to work harder so you can afford it.
Oh, and don’t bother saying that you’ll join in with a bunch of other similarly-minded folks, pool your resources, and fight off the evil thieves together. Because, you see, when you do that, you need some structures in place to decide how to use those resources, and how much each member should contribute. And guess what? Once you do that, you’re right back to having a government and taxes, just a different government.
I’ve often said I’m a liberal because I’m too selfish to be conservative. I don’t want my down on their luck relatives and friends crashing at my place for “just a few weeks.” I didn’t want to have to listen to my mother if she had been forced to live with my grandmother. And don’t want her living with me either. Yea for the social safety net! It allows me to tut tut and sympathize without actually having to go out of my way other than to write a big check to the IRS at tax time.
Having read some of the OP’s other threads, I’m guessing this is just an exercise for discussion’s sake. (No, I’m not saying he’s trolling – just using a different debating tactic.)
Here’s one local example where taxes can be considered theft/extortion;
I live in state “A”, which has sales tax
I am a 10 minute drive from state “B” which has no sales tax…
I make purchases in both states
When I do my state taxes for state “A”, one of the “optional” taxes is a flat-rate tax based on a percentage of my yearly income to make up for “lost” sales tax for purchases made outside of state “A”
…Or, I can keep every reciept from every out-of-state purchase and have my sales tax rate calculated from those purchases
…Or, I can ignore both those options and run the risk of getting audited/penalized for out-of-state purchases
To me, this “estimated sales tax” tax smacks of legalized extortion, “we know you made out of state purchases, pay us this amount and we won’t audit you”, how is this not an extortion/protection racket with the blessing of the state government?
Hey, state “A”, if you don’t want to lose sales to state “B”, then get rid of the smegging sales tax, problem solved!
Actually, no, which is sort of the point. I’m able to buy my own books, I don’t have kids, and I don’t cause fires. And if I could have my tax dollars back for those things, I’d be able to enjoy more of the things I like without having to subsidize the things you like.
I use a few highways, but why do I have to pay for millions of highways I don’t use. Those that use them can pay for them. If it’s of value to you, you can pay. I’ll gladly pay my share of the highways I use.
Why is it that I’m the one that has to move. If you want socialism so badly move to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, since socialism is so great I’m sure that country is doing fine right now.
Also consider that if I move, and people like me move, where are you going to get your tax revenue from?
Well, no, if you’ve taken my money for something, I’m not a hypocrite for using it. What I’m trying to say is that I DON’T want you taking my money, and when you stop taking my money I’ll stop using those things.
So anyone with a differing view point than you is a sociopath?
Exactly, why don’t I get to choose? Competition will make better strongmen that operate more efficiently.
There is so much straw in this debate I hope you have great medical coverage for when it falls on you.
The fire department is there in case you start a fire, not because you’re likely to start one.
Most of society does not agree with you. From a free market perspective, it seems like you would be the one who has to leave.
From the almost-everyone who stays.