3 ms·

> Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" First, I don't think half the US population seriously thinks taxation is theft. Mainly b

> Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" First, I don't think half the US population seriously thinks taxation is theft. Mainly because a vast majority of us support medicare and defense spending, which are funded out of tax. But this is where you get into "unserious" territory. Let's say everyone agrees to abolish taxation. That means no government, which means no government services, which leads to a lack of policing. In that world, who is going to enforce your property rights? Only thing ensuring things you consider yours stay yours is if you are stronger than everyone else. Are you saying that half the US population really want to go back to eras when you only trusted your own tribe, wars and pillaging were rampant and only the might was right? If you don't intend to say that, then please explain who will enforce property rights in a nation of 330M people without any services funded by taxes.

pard68 4y ago
I'm assuming OP meant income tax. Those who say "taxation is theft" (Ron Paul's tribe) are referring to the Federal income tax exclusively. It's a catchy phrase that isn't descriptive enough. But too be fair, "federal income taxation is theft" isn't going to make a nice t-shirt. Also, "half" doesn't matter and I shouldn't have mentioned it. What matters is OP made a serious statement and then the comment I replied to dismissed it out of hand. Regardless of total percent, its a view which you will encounter at a level high enough that this sort of dismissal has effectively shut you off to a very large group of people.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > I'm assuming OP meant income tax. What are the principled differences between income vs other (sales, property, inheritance) taxes? And why does it matter whether it is at a federal level? We still need services at federal level, eg. to run our armies who are essential to deter potential invaders.
  - pard68 4y ago
    Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. The other difference, as I understand (not well versed in this it's not my pet-problem, I just like to understand something of what drives others to think what they think) is that an income tax brings a double tax. Taxed on all incoming money and then taxed on nearly all out going money. Prior to the amendment that made the federal income tax, there was still a Federal government, they relied on tariffs and other such taxes instead.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. So what? They followed a due process of getting the amendment ratified, which means there was overwhelming support for it. Seems pretty legit to me. If you don't like it, pass another amendment repealing it. If it is truly bad and people hate it, they will repeal it just like what they did to prohibition. > an income tax brings a double tax. And so? Ultimately, we the people want stuff (medicare, social security, defense, national parks...) so we gotta pay for it. If you think you have a better alternative, propose it. If you think the stuff people want is frivolous, propose repealing all that spending and see if people buy into your vision.
      - pard68 4y ago
        You should consider asking someone who cares and believes this. I literally just thought the other guy was being uncharitable. Taxation as theft ain't my hill to die on.

pard68 4y ago

I'm assuming OP meant income tax. Those who say "taxation is theft" (Ron Paul's tribe) are referring to the Federal income tax exclusively. It's a catchy phrase that isn't descriptive enough. But too be fair, "federal income taxation is theft" isn't going to make a nice t-shirt. Also, "half" doesn't matter and I shouldn't have mentioned it. What matters is OP made a serious statement and then the comment I replied to dismissed it out of hand. Regardless of total percent, its a view which you will encounter at a level high enough that this sort of dismissal has effectively shut you off to a very large group of people.

RestlessMind 4y ago
> I'm assuming OP meant income tax. What are the principled differences between income vs other (sales, property, inheritance) taxes? And why does it matter whether it is at a federal level? We still need services at federal level, eg. to run our armies who are essential to deter potential invaders.
- pard68 4y ago
  Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. The other difference, as I understand (not well versed in this it's not my pet-problem, I just like to understand something of what drives others to think what they think) is that an income tax brings a double tax. Taxed on all incoming money and then taxed on nearly all out going money. Prior to the amendment that made the federal income tax, there was still a Federal government, they relied on tariffs and other such taxes instead.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. So what? They followed a due process of getting the amendment ratified, which means there was overwhelming support for it. Seems pretty legit to me. If you don't like it, pass another amendment repealing it. If it is truly bad and people hate it, they will repeal it just like what they did to prohibition. > an income tax brings a double tax. And so? Ultimately, we the people want stuff (medicare, social security, defense, national parks...) so we gotta pay for it. If you think you have a better alternative, propose it. If you think the stuff people want is frivolous, propose repealing all that spending and see if people buy into your vision.
    - pard68 4y ago
      You should consider asking someone who cares and believes this. I literally just thought the other guy was being uncharitable. Taxation as theft ain't my hill to die on.