7 ms·

Why would I ever not pay my taxes? I have no desire to harm society. That you require the threat of a gun to pay your taxes is scary.

oleganza 13y ago
Society != government.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  An assertion I disagree with.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    If you feel that you don't get enough of gov "care" when someone doesn't pay taxes, it means you are personally entitled to that amount that he didn't pay, right? If you feel you are personally entitled, will you consider it moral to come and get what's yours? Will you allow other citizens to do so towards you? About income tax: imagine I work an hour and sell some artwork to a friend. How did this affect anyone on the planet so that government is entitled for an income tax from what my friend gave me? If I tell you about that transaction, will you consider it moral and good to report it to IRS? Will you do that to any of your friends, or only people you don't like much?
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      Blindly equating the actions of society and the actions of individuals is at the heart of the problem with your worldview, and one of the many reasons I disagree with it.
lgbr 13y ago
That you might pay your taxes voluntarily is charming, but do you really think that if all enforcement behind tax collection is lost that most of the population will pay their taxes?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Enforcement of laws does not require threat of violence except against those who threaten violence in response to enforcement. Wage garnishment, liens, and asset forfeiture are effective means of collecting sums owed without anybody pointing a gun. Even if you are arrested for tax evasion, violence will not be used unless you appear to pose a threat. All I hear when someone talks about how laws are enforced with guns is "I am civilized only so long as someone has the capacity to be more violent than I.". To me, this is madness.
  - lgbr 13y ago
    Speaking for the US here, but I believe the same is true in most places. If I fail to pay my taxes and I sit at home completely non-violently, at some point, a man with a gun will come to my house and move me. If I ignore liens, my home will be foreclosed, and eventually the sheriff will forcibly remove me from the property. If I am subject to asset forfeiture and my cars, trucks, bulldozers, gold bars, or prized kittens are ever found, they will be forcibly taken from me. This is all done through the use of force by men who wield guns.
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      You continue to equate the person possessing a gun with the gun being used against you. The gun isn't there to be used against you unless you're going to be violent. The gun is there because they can never be sure when someone might become violent.
      - snitko 13y ago
        A robber comes to you on the street with a gun in his pocket. He kindly suggests you hand him your wallet and that'd be the end of it, no violence is going to happen, he promises. He also points out that if you decide to fight back, he's probably gonna shoot you. So what we have here is a threat of violence. It may be not as awful as violence itself, but it's still immoral, don't you agree? And a robber is still a criminal because he takes away things you don't want to give him voluntarily.

oleganza 13y ago

Society != government.

nknighthb 13y ago
An assertion I disagree with.
- oleganza 13y ago
  If you feel that you don't get enough of gov "care" when someone doesn't pay taxes, it means you are personally entitled to that amount that he didn't pay, right? If you feel you are personally entitled, will you consider it moral to come and get what's yours? Will you allow other citizens to do so towards you? About income tax: imagine I work an hour and sell some artwork to a friend. How did this affect anyone on the planet so that government is entitled for an income tax from what my friend gave me? If I tell you about that transaction, will you consider it moral and good to report it to IRS? Will you do that to any of your friends, or only people you don't like much?
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Blindly equating the actions of society and the actions of individuals is at the heart of the problem with your worldview, and one of the many reasons I disagree with it.

lgbr 13y ago

That you might pay your taxes voluntarily is charming, but do you really think that if all enforcement behind tax collection is lost that most of the population will pay their taxes?

nknighthb 13y ago
Enforcement of laws does not require threat of violence except against those who threaten violence in response to enforcement. Wage garnishment, liens, and asset forfeiture are effective means of collecting sums owed without anybody pointing a gun. Even if you are arrested for tax evasion, violence will not be used unless you appear to pose a threat. All I hear when someone talks about how laws are enforced with guns is "I am civilized only so long as someone has the capacity to be more violent than I.". To me, this is madness.
- lgbr 13y ago
  Speaking for the US here, but I believe the same is true in most places. If I fail to pay my taxes and I sit at home completely non-violently, at some point, a man with a gun will come to my house and move me. If I ignore liens, my home will be foreclosed, and eventually the sheriff will forcibly remove me from the property. If I am subject to asset forfeiture and my cars, trucks, bulldozers, gold bars, or prized kittens are ever found, they will be forcibly taken from me. This is all done through the use of force by men who wield guns.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    You continue to equate the person possessing a gun with the gun being used against you. The gun isn't there to be used against you unless you're going to be violent. The gun is there because they can never be sure when someone might become violent.
    - snitko 13y ago
      A robber comes to you on the street with a gun in his pocket. He kindly suggests you hand him your wallet and that'd be the end of it, no violence is going to happen, he promises. He also points out that if you decide to fight back, he's probably gonna shoot you. So what we have here is a threat of violence. It may be not as awful as violence itself, but it's still immoral, don't you agree? And a robber is still a criminal because he takes away things you don't want to give him voluntarily.