PDA

View Full Version : Taxation is theft



SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 14:09
there you go.

xoggoth
25th April 2014, 14:16
I agree.

DodgyAgent
25th April 2014, 15:02
What is taxation?

craig1
25th April 2014, 15:02
Theft is also a form of individual-to-individual taxation. Sometimes more ethical than proper taxation as well.

BrilloPad
25th April 2014, 15:02
So is property.

DodgyAgent
25th April 2014, 15:11
Contractors Stripping 75% from my fee is theft :mad:

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 15:11
So is property.

Land or stuff? Either way you'll have to prove that one!

SimonMac
25th April 2014, 15:12
So is proper tea.

FTFY

KentPhilip
25th April 2014, 15:16
And no mention of UKIP. This thread is doing well!

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 15:22
Lemme see...

Accepting the concept of theft depends on accepting the concept of property. I.e. theft without property does not compute.

So saying that property is theft is contradiction and cannot possibly be true.

SunnyInHades
25th April 2014, 15:33
How to pay 0% income tax ...

1) Become a celeb (via pop band, reality show etc.)
2) Appear in OK/Hello magazine
3) Spend 100% of earnings on large house, cars, luxury items, forget tax obligations
4) When income tax bill 'arrives' declare bankruptcy
5) Goto 2


Dr John Tribe:
"Celebs going bankrupt to avoid tax bills
It looks like this trend has been developing partly in response to the recent changes which mean that
an individual’s bankruptcy record is effectively wiped clean after just a year, reducing both the stigma attached to becoming insolvent and, at the same time, providing a solution to their monetary problems.
Also, I suspect that some celebrities are being advised that bankruptcy is the best way to avoid their tax bills. In 2008, former popstar Kerry Katona filed for bankruptcy after failing to pay the final £82,000 of a £417,000 tax bill and just five years later in 2013, she was declared bankrupt for a second time"

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 15:38
How to pay 0% income tax ...

1) Become a celeb (via pop band, reality show etc.)
2) Appear in OK/Hello magazine
3) Spend 100% of earnings on large house, cars, luxury items, forget tax obligations
4) When income tax bill 'arrives' declare bankruptcy
5) Goto 2


Dr John Tribe:
"Celebs going bankrupt to avoid tax bills
It looks like this trend has been developing partly in response to the recent changes which mean that
an individual’s bankruptcy record is effectively wiped clean after just a year, reducing both the stigma attached to becoming insolvent and, at the same time, providing a solution to their monetary problems.
Also, I suspect that some celebrities are being advised that bankruptcy is the best way to avoid their tax bills. In 2008, former popstar Kerry Katona filed for bankruptcy after failing to pay the final £82,000 of a £417,000 tax bill and just five years later in 2013, she was declared bankrupt for a second time"

After it's wiped clean is it literally clean? Effectively like it never happened?

SunnyInHades
25th April 2014, 15:51
After it's wiped clean is it literally clean? Effectively like it never happened?

Believe so - 'unpaid tax bill' picked up by tax payers.

No problem getting ready cash for a 'bankrupt' celeb either during the year after declaration, a quick OK/Hello shoot and 250k in the back pocket and off to the Bentley dealership.

Paddy
25th April 2014, 15:52
there you go.

Income tax is only a temporary tax and expires at the end of the Crimean war. Oh, hang on.

vetran
25th April 2014, 15:58
After it's wiped clean is it literally clean? Effectively like it never happened?

the point is it doesn't matter while they still have earning power. They earn it, splurge it, go bankrupt, take a holiday and start again.

Any sensible legislation would exclude significant Tax liabilities from bankruptcy except in exceptional circumstances and have a climbing scale for expiry so 1st bankruptcy =2 years to clear, 2nd=5yrs and 3rd=lifetime.

Also significant earners should pay tax on account monthly. Earn > £150K you pay tax monthly, settle up at end of year and get penalised on say > 10% underpayments, base rate interest on overpayments.

Same with VAT for larger companies monthly payments so the business slowly builds up a surplus in case they go bankrupt owing VAT.

The tax man should be winding up most dodgy firms before they rip off all their suppliers & customers.

d000hg
25th April 2014, 16:48
there you go.Tax is taken legally - in fact not paying it is illegal. Theft is by very definition illegal. Ergo, taxation is not theft.

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 17:02
Tax is taken legally - in fact not paying it is illegal. Theft is by very definition illegal. Ergo, taxation is not theft.

So would I be right in supposing that if UKIP legalised killing on a whim then killing someone on a whim would no longer be murder? Wouldn't that only be the case if the law was considered to be some a priori axiomatical truth? In which case how was this truth determined and why does it keep changing? :freaky: It doesn't make any sense.

What does make sense is that taxation means legally permissible theft? (assuming that you agree that the idea of theft pre-dates legislation). Otherwise if the meaning of theft is dependant on the current laws imposed upon us, then it's a pretty meaningless word and no more heinous an act than getting a speeding ticket.

d000hg
25th April 2014, 17:06
So would I be right in supposing that if UKIP legalised killing on a whim then killing someone on a whim would no longer be murder?If a soldier kills someone in combat or a country applies the death penalty, this is not murder because murder is by definition killing someone illegally.

The semantics of law have nothing to do with morality. But you cannot call tax "theft" anymore than you can use the term "bedroom tax" seriously.

xoggoth
25th April 2014, 17:11
Income tax is only a temporary tax and expires at the end of the Crimean war. Oh, hang on.

I seem to recall summit of the kind or was it the Napoleonic wars? Can't be arsed to look it up but shows you can't trust the F* state ever!

stek
25th April 2014, 17:14
I seem to recall summit of the kind or was it the Napoleonic wars? Can't be arsed to look it up but shows you can't trust the F* state ever!

Was it Pitt the Younger?

xoggoth
25th April 2014, 17:19
Tax is taken legally - in fact not paying it is illegal

Technically you are right but, by the same definition, every action by every dictator throughout history has been legal.

d000hg
25th April 2014, 17:31
Technically you are right but, by the same definition, every action by every dictator throughout history has been legal.Until they lose a war and other countries decide those laws were not legal.

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 19:13
I seem to recall summit of the kind or was it the Napoleonic wars? Can't be arsed to look it up but shows you can't trust the F* state ever!

I thought it was WW1 or 2. I think i'm thinking of the Americans.

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 19:16
If a soldier kills someone in combat or a country applies the death penalty, this is not murder because murder is by definition killing someone illegally.

The semantics of law have nothing to do with morality. But you cannot call tax "theft" anymore than you can use the term "bedroom tax" seriously.

If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

vetran
25th April 2014, 19:50
If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

you can vote in a new Government that will abolish it, by definition it is with the mandate of the people. We may not like all tax but we know we have to pay it if our civilisation is going to survive.

You can pop down to the Thames and start throwing tea overboard but you might well be alone.

Zero Liability
25th April 2014, 22:24
If a soldier kills someone in combat or a country applies the death penalty, this is not murder because murder is by definition killing someone illegally.

Which just pushes the question back a step, like SO said...


How to pay 0% income tax ...

1) Become a celeb (via pop band, reality show etc.)
2) Appear in OK/Hello magazine
3) Spend 100% of earnings on large house, cars, luxury items, forget tax obligations
4) When income tax bill 'arrives' declare bankruptcy
5) Goto 2


Dr John Tribe:
"Celebs going bankrupt to avoid tax bills
It looks like this trend has been developing partly in response to the recent changes which mean that
an individual’s bankruptcy record is effectively wiped clean after just a year, reducing both the stigma attached to becoming insolvent and, at the same time, providing a solution to their monetary problems.
Also, I suspect that some celebrities are being advised that bankruptcy is the best way to avoid their tax bills. In 2008, former popstar Kerry Katona filed for bankruptcy after failing to pay the final £82,000 of a £417,000 tax bill and just five years later in 2013, she was declared bankrupt for a second time"

Become a public "servant". Your earnings are purely tax funded so you are a net tax recipient. :)

SpontaneousOrder
25th April 2014, 23:24
you can vote in a new Government that will abolish it, by definition it is with the mandate of the people.

How many people makes a new government legit? I'm my own governor. Perhaps I need a partner? A hundred? Thousand? Million?
What if the rest of the world vote to make slaves of the British - is that legit because they had a majority?

If truth or falsehood, right or wrong, legit or not is dependant on the mob in the majority, or perhaps so long as it's a mob you choose if you don't think it's be right for the world to enslave the British, then you cannot tell me that taxation is not theft - the best you can try to argue is that there is no such thing as theft. Ofcourse it'd also mean that there is no such thing as murder, rape, truth, false, up, down, left, right, or anything else that a mob could possibly ascribe an arbitrary decision to. :confused:

Sysman
26th April 2014, 00:35
Was it Pitt the Younger?

Yep (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_Kingdom)


2d in the pound (0.8333%) on annual incomes over £60 and increased up to a maximum of 2s in the pound (10%) on incomes of over £200 (£170,542 in 2007).

That's proper old money, that is.

which means that <1% rate started at £51,162.60 at 2007 prices.

tractor
26th April 2014, 07:10
RTI is the precursor to the government taking ALL your salary and then sending you some back through the (privatised) post!

Mark my words!!!

tractor
26th April 2014, 07:14
If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

And a huge chunk of legislation is deception, passed by a government on one pretext but designed for another, just like the enabling legislation for IR35 was snuck in on a clause in the welfare reform bill and many MPs didn't even realise what they were voting for.

xoggoth
26th April 2014, 07:39
If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

Some things we know make us unhappy, like violence or theft, and it is logical for society to have laws against them. You could similarly argue that men are social, empathetic animals and it makes sense to redistribute some wealth via tax but can the argument reasonably be extended to all taxes that governments choose to levy, the welfare for those who do not try, the very many things that are arguably not necessary for the multiple levels of the state to be doing?

Here's one for d000000000000000000000000000gh! Where does it say in the ten commandments though shalt not avoid thy tax?

tractor
26th April 2014, 07:59
People would bear the tax burden far more easily if they were allowed to 'vote' for spending priority along with their employer's RTI submission.

Then, if there were no votes for foreign aid, and huge votes for education and health, things would both improve in those areas and people, generally would feel their money is better spent.

We could also vote weekly/monthly on issues of government and then we would only need a Speaker in the House and could relegate MPs to supporting their constituency. Big saving on expenses and free booze n grub in the Commons as a benefit too :yay:

Before you say the unemployed and pensioners would not have a vote, there could be a bunch of tick boxes on your signing sheet. I'll have to think about how I am going to deal with pensioners though...

Gym beast
26th April 2014, 13:15
If a soldier kills someone in combat or a country applies the death penalty, this is not murder because murder is by definition killing someone illegally.

The semantics of law have nothing to do with morality. But you cannot call tax "theft" anymore than you can use the term "bedroom tax" seriously.



Hypocritical of you to mention semantics, as you have a loose grasp of them. When a soldier kills in combat, he is legally guilty of Murder, in the judiciary of the dead citizen's nation, if there is no current declaration of war between them.


Even if there has been such a declaration, I consider him still morally guilty of state-sponsored murder IF his nation was the initiating aggressor.

doodab
26th April 2014, 13:49
In a state of total anarchy where might is right the taking of things would happen. You might call that theft, or you might call it the natural order of things. It's pointless to talk of rights in such a situation, the only right is the right to exert what power one has.

In a civil society, which most prefer, both theft and taxation are defined by law and are clearly not the same thing.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 14:18
Pitt the Younger, 1798/9.

Xogg is right once again. :smokin

Thankfully they haven't thought of bringing back hearth tax, window tax or ship tax. Yet.

Is Pitt the younger the one Blackadder screwed over?

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 14:30
In a civil society, which most prefer, both theft and taxation are defined by law and are clearly not the same thing.

That's just begging the question.


If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.

If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from? If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct?
And if neither of us is correct then you cannot tell me that taxation is not theft - the best you can do is to tell me that I cannot tell you that it is.

And if that is the case, then your attempt to show that I'm incorrect is a performative contradiction - your argument itself can only conclude that there is no such thing as correct/incorrect (at least in the context of this discussion).

The only logical conclusion to be made is that there is in fact an objectively valid true/false answer to the question "is taxation theft?"; And with that being the case your position is proven to be incorrect.

doodab
26th April 2014, 14:40
If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from?

From the agreement of the legislative bodies that make the law.


If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct?

Neither. What counts is the law of the land, not one's personal opinion, which isn't "legislation" at all.


The only logical conclusion to be made is that there is in fact an objectively valid true/false answer to the question "is taxation theft?";

Indeed. Although they may have some characteristics in common, and while you may object to taxation as strongly as you object to theft, they are qualitatively different things. Anyone can steal, for example, but only someone with the authority to do so can tax. So the objective answer is clearly no. It's simply naive sloganeering to equate the two.

cojak
26th April 2014, 14:40
But you've still got to pay it. I like having roads and the NHS.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 14:52
From the agreement of the legislative bodies that make the law.

I'm a legislative body.



Neither. What counts is the law of the land, not one's personal opinion

So what is "the land" ? Again all we're doing is pushing the question back a level each time which will go on forever so long as you can think of more abstractions and euphemisms for things which don't really exist. It's no different from answering the question "how did we get here" with "God made us" and supposing that that has actually answered anything.




Anyone can steal, for example, but only someone with the authority to do so can tax.

We're just begging the question again.
If stealing and taxation aren't objectively definable actions (i.e. if they are dependent on legislation), then what sense does it make to state in an objective fashion that anyone can steal but only people with authority (where does this authority come from? I have the authority to not be taxed. How do we proceed from here?) may tax.

All you're doing is saying that you can fit a square peg in a round hole because you and your pals have written a law that states that a square peg will indeed fit into a round hole.

So me and my pals have written a law stating that it cannot fit. So what?



naive

Hahahah!

NotAllThere
26th April 2014, 14:54
...If the definition of theft, murder, rape, whatever is dependent on legislation, then where does that law come from? If my legislation says taxation is theft (which it does), and yours says that it is not, then who is correct? ....The law of the land is the correct one because it can be imposed on you by force. Their police force is bigger than yours, and, ultimately, their army is bigger than yours.


Their law wins over your opinion (you don't have any legislation, that's just being silly), because it's backed by people with guns. If you are a US citizen, then "it's backed by people with far bigger and more guns".

If you feel that calling someone a **** is perfectly acceptable under your rules for this forum, and Cojak thinks it isn't, then Cojak's rules wins, because she has the ban-hammer, and you don't. You then hack the server to implement your rule, and admin calls PC Plod to take you away.

It's called "might is right". It might annoy bleeding heart wishy washy tree-hugging sandal wearing hippies, but ultimately all authority derives from who controls the people with guns.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 14:55
But you've still got to pay it. I like having roads and the NHS.

So you'd be happy to pay for it then. What's the problem?

I like roads too. I'd pay for the ones I like if someone owned ones I wanted to use.

I don't like the NHS. I would't pay for that.

i don't think we need nuclear submarines either, so I wouldn't pay for those.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 15:01
The law of the land is the correct one because it can be imposed on you by force. Their police force is bigger than yours, and, ultimately, their army is bigger than yours.


So "the land" is defined as the biggest mob? I'm fine with that - we just need to be clear with our definitions.



(you don't have any legislation, that's just being silly)

How many people are required before it ceases to be 'silly'?



because it's backed by people with guns.

So, again to be clear, you hold that the definition of theft, murder, etc is dependant on the subjective opinion of whoever holds the most guns?

So if the United States invaded and forcefully had sex with and then killed every woman in the UK, by your definition, there would have been no rape or murder? Again, we just need to make sure our definitions are clear.

Sysman
26th April 2014, 15:20
What possible incentive can rates of 98% and 99.25% create?

For 98%, 2p of every pound you earn is yours, and at 99.25%, 0.75p (1.8d) in every pound is yours.

I remember Alan Whicker doing a programme on top rate tax payers.

Ian Fleming would get 50K for a Bond film script, of which he saw 7K.

If he did two in a financial year he'd get 100K, of which he'd only see 8K, so he wasn't going to do that.

The bastards therefore deprived us of the chance of more than one Bond film a year.

:mad:

stek
26th April 2014, 15:23
Is Pitt the younger the one Blackadder screwed over?

Wasn't that Pitt the Embryo? Or Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 15:32
Wasn't that Pitt the Embryo? Or Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?

I'm going to have to put the DVD in later :happy

Sysman
26th April 2014, 15:42
The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%.

It was slightly reduced after the war and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.

In 1971 the top-rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%.

A surcharge of 15% on investment income kept the top rate on that income at 90%.

In 1974 this cut was partly reversed, and the top rate on earned income raised to 83%.

With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war.

This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£176,477 as of 2014).

In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax

What possible incentive can rates of 98% and 99.25% create?

For 98%, 2p of every pound you earn is yours, and at 99.25%, 0.75p (1.8d) in every pound is yours.

When Thatcher got in and cut the top rate of tax to 60% I made a back of a fag packet calculation that our MD probably saw a rise in his take home pay equivalent to my gross salary. Good luck to him, he was a dynamic sort full of ideas, didn't sit on his derrière and deserved rewarding.

However I later discovered that he was taking a pretty low salary, as were lots of folks in his sort of position, because there were other more tax efficient ways to pay themselves.

In practice, those salaries taken were imposing an artificial ceiling on the rest of us.

doodab
26th April 2014, 16:07
I'm a legislative body.

Poppycock. You don't have the power to legislate or to enforce it, which is ultimately what it's all about.


So what is "the land" ? Again all we're doing is pushing the question back a level each time which will go on forever so long as you can think of more abstractions and euphemisms for things which don't really exist.

At the end of the day, there is a prevailing system of rules in any particular region of the earth. That is the law of the land. Whether you like them or choose to obey them or not, they do really exist. How they get there varies from place to place, sometimes it's majority/mob rule, at other times such rules are simply imposed by powerful minorities.



If stealing and taxation aren't objectively definable actions (i.e. if they are dependent on legislation), then what sense does it make to state in an objective fashion that anyone can steal but only people with authority (where does this authority come from? I have the authority to not be taxed. How do we proceed from here?) may tax.

You don't have the "authority not to be taxed" though. You might have the desire not to be taxed but it's not the same thing.



All you're doing is saying that you can fit a square peg in a round hole because you and your pals have written a law that states that a square peg will indeed fit into a round hole.

It's not "me and my pals", it's the prevailing social order. You may not like it, I may not like it, but unless you have the power (political support, army or whatever) to overthrow it and put something else in it's place there is piss all you can do about it. Making up an "alternative" set of rules counts for tulip all unless you have a way to persuade society to adopt them.

eek
26th April 2014, 16:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3jIE3b-bhY

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 16:17
It's not "me and my pals", it's the prevailing social order. You may not like it, I may not like it, but unless you have the power (political support, army or whatever) to overthrow it and put something else in it's place there is piss all you can do about it. Making up an "alternative" set of rules counts for tulip all unless you have a way to persuade society to adopt them.

So in that case I'd ask you the same question I asked NotAllThere regarding the US invading the UK, forcefully molesting and then killing every woman in the UK. As they are in the majority with the forceful power to enforce their own ideas of what is law, then would no rape or murder have taken place?

doodab
26th April 2014, 16:25
So in that case I'd ask you the same question I asked NotAllThere regarding the US invading the UK, forcefully molesting and then killing every woman in the UK. As they are in the majority with the forceful power to enforce their own ideas of what is law, then would no rape or murder have taken place?

The US idea of law makes it quite clear that the crimes of rape and murder would have taken place.

Even if it didn't, many observers or historians might conclude that rape and murder took place based on their own definition of such things.

You ask some very ill thought out and melodramatic questions. How old are you?

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 16:32
You ask some very ill thought out and melodramatic questions. How old are you?

My questions become seemingly more ridiculous because you go to ridiculous efforts to evade answering the question.


The US idea of law makes it quite clear that the crimes of rape and murder would have taken place.

That's being deliberately obtuse because you already know its a hypothetical scenario in order to illustrate a point, so it's perfectly reasonable to also suppose a hypothetically different set of laws in the US.

So...


Even if it didn't, many observers or historians might conclude that rape and murder took place based on their own definition of such things.


But you just told me that personal definitions aren't what counts :confused: You said that whether theft, murder, rape etc had occurred was dependant on the law, which was determined by the majority with the force to back it up :confused:

doodab
26th April 2014, 16:37
But you just told me that personal definitions aren't what counts

When it comes to legislation and making law.

To relate it back to your original point, you can say that "theft" occurred when you pay your taxes if you like, but ultimately no crime was committed under the law. Only people who buy your definition of theft need agree with you.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 16:41
Only people who buy your definition of theft need agree with you.

That's the point. Law exists because of things like theft, not the other way around. To try to reverse the cause & effect wouldn't make any sense.

So deliberately choosing the present legal definition of theft in order to justify taxation and the violence used to collect it is to deliberately ignore the context and play with semantics in order to reach a justification.

Language reflects reality - it doesn't define it.

doodab
26th April 2014, 16:43
Language reflects reality - it doesn't define it.

And we have different words for taxation and theft. What does that tell you?

Theft is theft. A monkey can steal a peanut from another monkey.

Taxation is something done by some prevailing authority, usually with the, sometimes reluctant, agreement of those being taxed, and usually involved getting something in return.

They are different things.

This is a stupid discussion. I have better things to do I'm afraid.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 16:51
And we have different words for taxation and theft. What does that tell you?

Theft is theft. A monkey can steal a peanut from another monkey.

Taxation is something done by some prevailing authority, usually with the, sometimes reluctant, agreement of those being taxed, and usually involved getting something in return.

They are different things.

This is a stupid discussion. I have better things to do I'm afraid.

By conspicuously avoiding the US invading and raping and murdering question, I conclude that "better things to do" means "better than being shown up" :p

xoggoth
26th April 2014, 17:49
It's called "might is right". It might annoy bleeding heart wishy washy tree-hugging sandal wearing hippies, but ultimately all authority derives from who controls the people with guns.

Indeed. What a very practical chap you are! Most rare among CUKers. Although, if you exclude any notion of what is moral or right or even best for society as more sensible people would define it, then anything that works or that one can get away with, including tax evasion, is equally valid.

speling bee
26th April 2014, 18:06
Well I've missed this joyful discussion and CBA to read it all. But if taxation is theft, so what?

Gym beast
26th April 2014, 18:12
The law of the land is the correct one because it can be imposed on you by force. Their police force is bigger than yours, and, ultimately, their army is bigger than yours.


Their law wins over your opinion (you don't have any legislation, that's just being silly), because it's backed by people with guns. If you are a US citizen, then "it's backed by people with far bigger and more guns".

If you feel that calling someone a **** is perfectly acceptable under your rules for this forum, and Cojak thinks it isn't, then Cojak's rules wins, because she has the ban-hammer, and you don't. You then hack the server to implement your rule, and admin calls PC Plod to take you away.

It's called "might is right". It might annoy bleeding heart wishy washy tree-hugging sandal wearing hippies, but ultimately all authority derives from who controls the people with guns.



The keyboard is mightier than the F-22, son.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 21:29
So, to sum up, like, tax really is theft by those with the biggest guns.

:smokin

I'd sort of thought that.

Not rocket science, is it.

SpontaneousOrder
26th April 2014, 21:30
Well I've missed this joyful discussion and CBA to read it all. But if taxation is theft, so what?

It's a thread not related to UKIP

speling bee
26th April 2014, 21:37
It's a thread not related to UKIP

All threads are related to UKIP.

Sysman
27th April 2014, 08:28
I'm given to understand that in those far off days, well beyond recall, rich bastards were up to stuff like renting their business suits & such like, possibly because of tax relief on such payments.

I didn't hear about the suits but there were expensive holidays and "special" pension funds in there. Trust funds for education and even houses.

If you watch old Saint* episodes you'll notice how often tax free money gets a mention, and you'll also note that a surprising number of episodes were filmed abroad. If you spent 30 days abroad in a tax year you then qualified for tax free status for further days abroad. This was a very nice perk which even truck drivers could take advantage of. British forces overseas didn't pay tax either; presumably the diplomatic service fell under a similar ruling.

* Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) took a very different tone and tax dodging was very much frowned on. I didn't realise the programme was so full of propaganda when it first showed.

The really sad thing is that it gave the beancounters too much of an upper hand, and that was never going to be a good thing.

NotAllThere
27th April 2014, 11:26
...So, again to be clear, you hold that the definition of theft, murder, etc is dependant on the subjective opinion of whoever holds the most guns?It is not the definition I hold but it is, in practice, the definition from the world in which we live, as imposed by the people with the most guns.


So if the United States invaded and forcefully had sex with and then killed every woman in the UK, by your definition, there would have been no rape or murder?By the definition I presented, which I believe (as noted) is that one that in practice is how the world works, then yes, of course.

Now, if you have any actual desire to inform yourself on these matters, which I doubt since you are, as I've said before, a bit silly, you might like to buy a copy of New Scientist and consider this article, which is quite appropriate to the discussion. Sign in to read: What's war good for? It's made a more peaceful world - opinion - 23 April 2014 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229650.200-whats-war-good-for-its-made-a-more-peaceful-world.html)

NotAllThere
27th April 2014, 11:29
Indeed. What a very practical chap you are! Most rare among CUKers. Although, if you exclude any notion of what is moral or right or even best for society as more sensible people would define it, then anything that works or that one can get away with, including tax evasion, is equally valid.With moral relativism how could it be otherwise?

NotAllThere
27th April 2014, 15:48
...A deeper meaning to me is that although tax is legal, and you should pay it, there is in turn no ethics attached to it; hence I don't see any issue with legal (stress the legal) tax avoidance...Indeed. A system of government could be possible with no taxation, yet still be able to maintain adequate service provision for people regardless of their income.

SpontaneousOrder
27th April 2014, 21:43
It is not the definition I hold but...

...By the definition I presented, which I believe (as noted) is that one that in practice is how the world works, then yes, of course.

Cool, so you agree with me then - It's your opinion that I'm interested in. Not what some piece of paper called "the law of some such land" says.
Killing outside the remit of self-defence is murder, forcing sex without consent is rape, and taking from someone by force is theft.

Taxation is taking money from me by force, regardless of what is 'offered' in return. Therefore taxation, as opposed to voluntary trade, is theft.

We got there in the end! It's funny how one has to get some people to answer enough questions until they come around to the inescapable truth - even though they persist in not admitting it to themselves directly.

d000hg
28th April 2014, 07:57
If that is the case, then all that happens is that the question regresses a level - if the definition of theft or murder depends on the law, then where does the law come from? My law considerers theft to be theft under all circumstances, i.e. taking what isn't yours by force is theft.

So when you say that taxation is legal... says who? It's illegal. it always has been and always will be.You don't have any laws, just opinions.

Also, are you suggesting moral absolutism i.e. some fundamental external definition of right or wrong? I didn't have you down as the religious type.

speling bee
28th April 2014, 08:14
Taxation is taking money from me by force, regardless of what is 'offered' in return. Therefore taxation, as opposed to voluntary trade, is theft.


Is deducting tax from employees at source taking by force?
Is forcibly enforcing a debt theft?

d000hg
28th April 2014, 08:24
Is deducting tax from employees at source taking by force?
Is forcibly enforcing a debt theft?Don't start him off on this, it's his favourite topic. Do a forum search of his posts.

speling bee
28th April 2014, 08:31
Don't start him off on this, it's his favourite topic. Do a forum search of his posts.

Don't worry, it's just Randian objectivist nonsense.

SO and ZL are the new CUK 6th form debating society. The thread on God was an interesting insight into this.

NotAllThere
28th April 2014, 08:31
Cool, so you agree with me then - It's your opinion that I'm interested in....You really need to read properly what I've said. I do NOT agree with you.

I think there are moral absolutes, and it is possible for something to be legal and immoral (and illegal and moral). I do not think that taxation is theft. Taking from someone by force is not theft when it is mandated by the law. Similarly, state executions, since they are legal, are not murder.

evilagent
28th April 2014, 08:33
Cool, so you agree with me then - It's your opinion that I'm interested in. Not what some piece of paper called "the law of some such land" says.
Killing outside the remit of self-defence is murder, forcing sex without consent is rape, and taking from someone by force is theft.

Taxation is taking money from me by force, regardless of what is 'offered' in return. Therefore taxation, as opposed to voluntary trade, is theft.

We got there in the end! It's funny how one has to get some people to answer enough questions until they come around to the inescapable truth - even though they persist in not admitting it to themselves directly.

Tax is the price of being part of a coherent society.

Try policing where you had to pay for an investigaton.
Try health where you are unconscious after an accident, and they need your "consent" before before being taken to hospital for treatment.

Try a strategic longterm investment where you don't see the benefits for decades, or such things like airlines (without military investment, there wouldn't be the knowledge base), or satellites (you would have no mobile phones without the bottomless pit of money needed for military rocketry knowledge)

It's a tough one, and the issues are more about a reasonable taxation.
And of course the slice the government takes.
And the bottom section of society that seeks to milk systems.
And the top section of society that seeks to milk systems through govenment contracts (knowing the tax-payer is underwriting everything, and essentially not operating a true business affected by supply and demand. weapons amnufacturers particularly, and pharmaceutical corps overcharging for meds)

It's a mess. But better than any other mess we can find anywhere else on the planet.

doodab
28th April 2014, 08:34
SO and ZL are the new CUK 6th form debating society.

I thought they were the same person.

speling bee
28th April 2014, 08:35
I thought they were the same person.

WGAS

evilagent
28th April 2014, 08:37
And another thing:

re: "force" or "voluntary";

I don't have the knowledge to know if stem-cell research will result in any benefit in the future.
Nor do I know if fusion will work.

How can you make a "voluntary" decision about blue-sky thinking?
It's a social risk we are taking, and hopefully will benefit from.
How could you possibly finance these through anything other than govt projects?
(given the short-termism of most corps)

cojak
28th April 2014, 08:45
You lot do realise that this thread could go on ad infinitum, don't you?

doodab
28th April 2014, 08:46
You lot do realise that this thread could go on ad infinitum, don't you?

Isn't that true of any thread? Look at TPD. This one would be known as TIT :laugh

evilagent
28th April 2014, 08:55
You lot do realise that this thread could go on ad infinitum, don't you?

Like the ideal contract...

Keep calm and keep posting (invoices)