5 ms·

> California has laws in place to recoup those losses California does not own the employee, it is no longer the time of slavery. Or it is still slavery in a di

> California has laws in place to recoup those losses California does not own the employee, it is no longer the time of slavery. Or it is still slavery in a different form, where states own almost everyone, especially their revenue?

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
State taxes make it clear that the state has a fully legal claim on some percentage of anyone's income. If you want to interpret that as slavery, go ahead, but that's not very fashionable in legal circles.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Then explain how is that not modern slavery: someone declares rights over you (your income). I don't care what legal circles fashion, the same legal circles in various countries fashioned slavery, genocide, wars etc. without blinking.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Apparently you take an extreme position on this, in which it is not possible for a society to adopt political processes that end up asserting the collective right to some part of the society's economic output and a mechanism for obtaining that based on taxation ... at least, not without that being termed "slavery". I have no doubt that you can find some sort of analogy that explains how slavery and taxation are equivalent. Good work. I'll be moving on.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Look, if you want to expand the definition of slavery to include the power to levy taxes on income, fine, but you aren't speaking the same language as most people at that point and no productive conversation can happen without a shared language.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  It's clear from the context of this post and subsequent comments that the power to levy income taxes itself is not at issue. What is at issue is California's levying of taxes on non-residents without limit of jurisdiction. That's taxation without representation. It may not be fully-fledged slavery in technical terms, but OP's plight is nothing less than attempted dispossession by the Franchise Board. I'd also like to note that the term "slavery", in a colloquial or non-rigorous sense, has been applied to serious topics both on and off HN. e.g. wage slavery [1], overwork of graduate students, unpaid internships, medical residency practices, etc. I'm quite sure we still have a shared language despite the lack of rigor in those cases. [1] Applied strictly, the term is self-contradictory

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

State taxes make it clear that the state has a fully legal claim on some percentage of anyone's income. If you want to interpret that as slavery, go ahead, but that's not very fashionable in legal circles.

AdrianB1 5y ago
Then explain how is that not modern slavery: someone declares rights over you (your income). I don't care what legal circles fashion, the same legal circles in various countries fashioned slavery, genocide, wars etc. without blinking.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Apparently you take an extreme position on this, in which it is not possible for a society to adopt political processes that end up asserting the collective right to some part of the society's economic output and a mechanism for obtaining that based on taxation ... at least, not without that being termed "slavery". I have no doubt that you can find some sort of analogy that explains how slavery and taxation are equivalent. Good work. I'll be moving on.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Look, if you want to expand the definition of slavery to include the power to levy taxes on income, fine, but you aren't speaking the same language as most people at that point and no productive conversation can happen without a shared language.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
It's clear from the context of this post and subsequent comments that the power to levy income taxes itself is not at issue. What is at issue is California's levying of taxes on non-residents without limit of jurisdiction. That's taxation without representation. It may not be fully-fledged slavery in technical terms, but OP's plight is nothing less than attempted dispossession by the Franchise Board. I'd also like to note that the term "slavery", in a colloquial or non-rigorous sense, has been applied to serious topics both on and off HN. e.g. wage slavery [1], overwork of graduate students, unpaid internships, medical residency practices, etc. I'm quite sure we still have a shared language despite the lack of rigor in those cases. [1] Applied strictly, the term is self-contradictory