“I believe I see your point. If you have a choice of paying or not paying taxes, they can be considered “voluntary”.

As such income taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of working or not working. Property taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of owning property or not owning property. Sales taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of buying or not buying.

When I was growing up, we called such options “Hobson’s choice”. They were of the ilk, “You’re money or you’re life.” You have a choice there, also.

Matter of fact, ALL U.S. taxes are “voluntary” in that you may leave the country at your option.”

always,
tony

ROFLMAO – you have a choice of working or not working. Really?

It isn’t a “working” tax. It’s an “income” tax. You have a choice of having no income?

All property has tax on it. Do you have a choice of living somewhere other than property?

Maybe you can live on a boat with no income.

Good luck with that.

I think you have more “choices” than most of the world who must have an income, must work, and ignorantly assumes their labor is taxable and must pay extortion on their own property and/or business.

You’re very confused again

“Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property and disarm you. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.”

This is pointless. Saying you don’t have a right because a criminal can commit a crime violating your right is stangely so illogical it only proves my point. How can the criminal “roving gang” or more likely “roving government” violate your right, unless you have a right to violate?

Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Its very simple. I’m not worried about dung or trumpets, this article and this principle is in application to taxation. If you understand you don’t have the right to take someone else’s property – the taxation issue is crystal clear. If not, I guess you failed grade school.

When government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.

The only dung I smell is in here.

I believe I see your point. If you have a choice of paying or not paying taxes, they can be considered “voluntary”.

As such income taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of working or not working. Property taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of owning property or not owning property. Sales taxes are “voluntary” since you have the choice of buying or not buying.

When I was growing up, we called such options “Hobson’s choice”. They were of the ilk, “You’re money or you’re life.” You have a choice there, also.

Matter of fact, ALL U.S. taxes are “voluntary” in that you may leave the country at your option.

always,
tony

Sorry to be so late with this. This is the fourth time I’ve tried to post it. For some reason, it doesn’t seem to “take”

Youse sed:

b. assumption: everyone (citizen) is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country in terms of rights and privileges.

~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~

————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need” nor “from each according to their ability”.

I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status. I don’t pretend to be able to define the “legitimate purpose of government”.
=====================================================

c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his means

==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument. Call it wazoos if you wish.
==========================================================

Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property and disarm you. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================

You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?

=============================================

Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.

When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. In MY world, if there is a draft, EVERY ONE serves equally. The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even the constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system.

‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them and it don’t make no never mind what those products are. (It’s one reason I used the term “bounty”.) For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make. If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of “unequal distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise or a special tax) may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production or sale of a good,[1] or narrowly as a tax on a good produced within the country. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises, whether broadly defined or narrowly defined, are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes.

As a previous writer asked, “How is this voluntary?”
If excise taxes are the same thing as “import duties”, are import duties “voluntary”?

always,
tony

The articles on W&G are important and informative, but our exchanges below them are where the work begins. We inspire each others, and I am coming to hope that a few of us will be fortunate enough to form friendships that have practical benefits. I don’t know a better place to find others who share our interests-which span multiple universes. If even a few of us can band together when “if” comes into being…smile…at least we few will be safer.

I recognize your handles, friends, and have a small request: don’t be just “j” when you could be “Jesuitical mind” or “Jules” or “Jemima.” Tony, ALWAYS a joy to read the questions you elicit and your answers.

Hugs, Linda

You’ll wind up like Tony trying to argue the nuances of tyranny, what is the best case scenario for the people in the tyranny, and never figure out that the gov’t system is just a tyranny with the people begging to keep it at a 50% tyranny, and the government constantly trying to incrementally increase the level of tyranny to 100%

I don’t want the tyranny at all. That is the point. There are other options to 50% tyranny besides more tyranny.

When all else fails, we could try freedom.

When the gov’t stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.

http://www.cashistrash.webs.com

~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~

————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need”

I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status.
=====================================================

c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
nor did I state “from each according to their ability
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his needs

I refer to whatever benefits accrue to the individual from being associated with government. This might be something as simple as “mutual defense”–and ONLY mutual defense.

==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument. Heck, call it a wazoo.

==========================================================

Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================

You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?

Those are the “easy ones”. What happens when one “right” conflicts with another? Does your “free speech” allow for blasting your views through a PA system at 2 a.m.? or blasting “hate speech”?

=============================================

Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.

When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. In MY world, ALL citizens would have to serve if ANY were required to serve. (equal pay) The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even our constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system.

‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them. For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make–or how much the clerk THINKS I make.

If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of “unequal distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.

================================================================
Incidently: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An excise or excise tax (sometimes called a duty of excise or a special tax) may be defined broadly as an inland tax on the production or sale of a good,[1] or narrowly as a tax on a good produced within the country. Excises are distinguished from customs duties, which are taxes on importation. Excises, whether broadly defined or narrowly defined, are inland taxes, whereas customs duties are border taxes.

Why do you believe such taxes are “voluntary”?

always,
tony

~Sorry I’m not a communist. I guess you’re trying to confuse the legitimate purpose of government equitably protecting everyone’s freedom with some entitlement to an amount of wealth or other people’s property.~

————————————————————————————————
One of us is confused. I did not say “to each according to their need” nor “from each according to their ability”.

I stated an EQUAL amount to each person–regardless of their status.
=====================================================

c. If everyone is entitled to an equal share of the bounty of the country, then clearly each citizen should pay equally for that privilege, since they obtain the same “product”.
~See #1~
——————————————————————————————————
Again, pay equally–not pay according to his means

==============================================================
in addition, there are no “priviledges” in a free country when it comes to rights. A priviledge would be something along the lines of forming a corporation and relieving yourself of some of the liability that an unincorporated business owner would be vulnerable to.
————————————————————————————-
Call it what you wish–right, benefit, privillege, etc., it makes little difference to the thesis of the argument.
==========================================================

Government can’t provide rights, it can only take them away. You will clearly understand what is a right if you imagine there is no government at all. You’d have the right to work, to have private property, to travel freely, to be armed and defend your life and property, to speak your mind, etc.
——————————————————————————————–
Aktually, the only “rights” you would have would be those you could exercise. Any roving gang can easily remove your right to private property. Fundamentally, that’s why folks “organize”–for mutual protection of those “rights” or “privilleges” or “wazoos” they deem important enough to protect.
================================================================

You’d not have a right to take someone else’s property, to injure, kill, torture or enslave. Your freedom ends where someone else’s begins. Pretty simple.
—————————————————————————————————
Actually, it’s not so simple. While you can easily come up with many examples where it is “easy”, you need only review some of the supreme court’s decisions to realize that it can become quite complex and difficult. For example, can your neighbor maintain a dung pile which you can smell from your property? May he practice his trombone at 2 a.m. on his property?

=============================================

Understanding this you can see why the only legitimate tax is an excise tax. It is a voluntary tax paid by the governed for the narrow and specific scope of government carrying out its desirable duties.

When the government stops asking and starts taking, it is a tyranny.
————————————————————————————–
The government “takes” all the time. The draft is classic “slavery”. The gubbermint takes property all the time through emminent domain. Even the constitution provides for “postal roads”, and taxes to provide them. In MY world, all citizens have equal access to those roads. The gubbermint provides for a court system. In MY world, all have equal access to that court system. (Perhaps “should have” would be more accurate.)

‘pears to me that if folks are getting identical products, they should pay the same price for them. For some reason, I don’t want to go into a grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, and be charged on the basis of how much I make. If folks are NOT getting “equal access”, it strikes me that we should work on the problem of unequal “distribution”, not charge different rates based upon some perceived notion that we can charge differentially based upon our notion of how great the differences are.

always,
tony

I hope you are right, I fear you are wrong.

In writing that paper, some things occurred to me that are not obvious.

For one thing, here’s ploy for you. Walk up to any person and ask, “If inflation is 5%, what amount does your pay have to increase for you to break even?” Invariably, they say, “5%”. Few consider taxes.

Like my lefty friend that wanted to pay a nickle more for a hamburger so the employee could get $1/hr raise, few folks realize that if business costs go up, then store owners must increase THEIR costs based upon their MARKUP, not by the amount of increase. (Of course it’s more complicated that that, and an input/output model is far more accurate, but the example serves the purpose.)

You need only recall the debate about Bush lowering taxes to increase revenue to realize that the Laffer curve is NOT common knowledge. Most folks were at a total loss defending the action. Here are some bullets for them.

Finally, the initial article was not written for W & G folks, but for a more general population. Hopefully W & G is constantly getting “new blood”. If not, then p’haps the W & G folks may be able to use the arguments in discussions with family/friends.

always,
tony