Justified Taxation v. Unjustified Taxation?

[PadawanBater]

Some of the current threads influenced this one, and I was just wondering what the opinion of the community was.

I hear a lot of people say it's wrong for the government to force people to pay for a medical plan provided by the US gov. for various reason. In the free society.. thread I started a while back, people equated it to extortion and pointed out that if we have a system in which a government forces it's citizens to pay a mandatory tax, even if they disagree with it (which most do in most cases, who want's to pay more taxes right?), the society cannot be completely "free".

I was looking at the budget and where our taxes go and almost a quarter goes directly to the US military (mostly for expanding current operations, not military families or housing, which actually dropped -21%).

Some people believe it's wrong to fund the health care via mandatory taxes, and some people believe it's wrong to fund the military's imperial conquests via mandatory taxes...

So what's the difference? Aren't both a form of extortion? How could one be, but not the other? Does it simply fall on how many people say something about it? Clearly more people disagree with gov. run health care than they do with the military's expansion, so is that the deciding factor? Should it be? Both are just as unjustified, aren't they?

 

[jeff f]

Some of the current threads influenced this one, and I was just wondering what the opinion of the community was.

I hear a lot of people say it's wrong for the government to force people to pay for a medical plan provided by the US gov. for various reason. In the free society.. thread I started a while back, people equated it to extortion and pointed out that if we have a system in which a government forces it's citizens to pay a mandatory tax, even if they disagree with it (which most do in most cases, who want's to pay more taxes right?), the society cannot be completely "free".

I was looking at the budget and where our taxes go and almost a quarter goes directly to the US military (mostly for expanding current operations, not military families or housing, which actually dropped -21%).

Some people believe it's wrong to fund the health care via mandatory taxes, and some people believe it's wrong to fund the military's imperial conquests via mandatory taxes...

So what's the difference? Aren't both a form of extortion? How could one be, but not the other? Does it simply fall on how many people say something about it? Clearly more people disagree with gov. run health care than they do with the military's expansion, so is that the deciding factor? Should it be? Both are just as unjustified, aren't they?

while i understand where you are going with this, you used a bad example. the govt has to protect its citizens as job one. so military spending is essential and taxing to provide protection needs to be done.

a better example would be to compare mandatory govt run health system vs paying to help some stragglers that are having trouble getting insurance. i think you would get 3 differing positions on this one.

1 its okay to tax for both
2 its okay for helping stragglers, its not okay to make it mandatory
3 neither is okay, its none of the govt business.

i would chose number 2 with strict limits on who is deemed "straggler".

i also think somthing thrown in with paying for highways, versus a culdesac. while this is the extreme there are a lot of govt projects that fall into this like fixing bridges in certain communties vs others. if you get my drift.

sorry not trying to hijack your thread and if i make no sense in this please disregard everything i said.

 

[Illegal Smile]

Some of the current threads influenced this one, and I was just wondering what the opinion of the community was.

I hear a lot of people say it's wrong for the government to force people to pay for a medical plan provided by the US gov. for various reason. In the free society.. thread I started a while back, people equated it to extortion and pointed out that if we have a system in which a government forces it's citizens to pay a mandatory tax, even if they disagree with it (which most do in most cases, who want's to pay more taxes right?), the society cannot be completely "free".

I was looking at the budget and where our taxes go and almost a quarter goes directly to the US military (mostly for expanding current operations, not military families or housing, which actually dropped -21%).

Some people believe it's wrong to fund the health care via mandatory taxes, and some people believe it's wrong to fund the military's imperial conquests via mandatory taxes...

So what's the difference? Aren't both a form of extortion? How could one be, but not the other? Does it simply fall on how many people say something about it? Clearly more people disagree with gov. run health care than they do with the military's expansion, so is that the deciding factor? Should it be? Both are just as unjustified, aren't they?

There is no difference. Both tax propositions (all tax propositions) get fought out in the marketplace of ideas and those that prevail become taxes and those that don't, don't. The concept of justification is empty although for sure, as you say, more people consider it a proper province of government to provide national security than to take over the healthcare industry.

 

[PadawanBater]

while i understand where you are going with this, you used a bad example. the govt has to protect its citizens as job one. so military spending is essential and taxing to provide protection needs to be done.

a better example would be to compare mandatory govt run health system vs paying to help some stragglers that are having trouble getting insurance. i think you would get 3 differing positions on this one.

1 its okay to tax for both
2 its okay for helping stragglers, its not okay to make it mandatory
3 neither is okay, its none of the govt business.

i would chose number 2 with strict limits on who is deemed "straggler".

i also think somthing thrown in with paying for highways, versus a culdesac. while this is the extreme there are a lot of govt projects that fall into this like fixing bridges in certain communties vs others. if you get my drift.

sorry not trying to hijack your thread and if i make no sense in this please disregard everything i said.

That makes sense, I agree for the most part. I think it's the gov. job to protect the citizens.

I just think it's gone beyond protection and into the more imperialistic conquest style military.

The general question of the thread is "what criteria does the gov. use when deciding what is a 'justified tax'" - but I was aiming at keeping the focus on the military budget. I was looking up information about how they spend our tax money and it really pisses me off when they waste it, like they do with almost every single program they pay for. Especially when you hear about the stories from the war zones, how employees of the companies the gov. handed out no bid contracts to wasted so much money, while a lot of the soldiers were walking around with the wrong color cammo on or no body armor.. The problem I have lies with the wasteful spending (coupled with no accountability), and like I said before, the imperial conquest way we do things.

I'd rather be funding NASA, providing funds to rebuild our cities, improve education, fund science, provide better medical care... I mean there's probably a hundred things I could come up with that I would much rather be spending this money on, but I have no say at all. They simply take it from me, because I live here (which is also a reason innocent American civilians are targeted by terrorists).

Do you guys see this as a problem too?

 

[jeff f]

That makes sense, I agree for the most part. I think it's the gov. job to protect the citizens.

I just think it's gone beyond protection and into the more imperialistic conquest style military.

The general question of the thread is "what criteria does the gov. use when deciding what is a 'justified tax'" - but I was aiming at keeping the focus on the military budget. I was looking up information about how they spend our tax money and it really pisses me off when they waste it, like they do with almost every single program they pay for. Especially when you hear about the stories from the war zones, how employees of the companies the gov. handed out no bid contracts to wasted so much money, while a lot of the soldiers were walking around with the wrong color cammo on or no body armor.. The problem I have lies with the wasteful spending (coupled with no accountability), and like I said before, the imperial conquest way we do things.

I'd rather be funding NASA, providing funds to rebuild our cities, improve education, fund science, provide better medical care... I mean there's probably a hundred things I could come up with that I would much rather be spending this money on, but I have no say at all. They simply take it from me, because I live here (which is also a reason innocent American civilians are targeted by terrorists).

Do you guys see this as a problem too?

if you are looking for wasted money look to the things you dont mind spending on...NASA, providing funds to rebuild our cities, improve education, fund science, provide better medical care... thats where the real waste lies. they are just union handouts for the most part. if someone is living in a shit hole like afghanistan and are willing to do whats their govt is asking them to do, i generally dont have a problem with them even if they are a little over budget.

but build prison housing (inner city high rises) and make poor people live in them? i have a real problem with that shit. first off they (the politicians) award the building contracts to their union thug buddies. they bilk the taxpayer with shitty building practices, they are always over budget, and once they are done building they almost always fold the company and go away so you cant even sue the bastards. its fucking criminal.

take the weatherization bullshit coming down right now. they "hire" some douchbag to "administer" the program. then they use the money to pay some highschool kid summer wages to "fix" windows.

why not let the market work and if a person needs their windows fixed they will hire a reputable contractor to do it.

and when one of these kids fuck up the job and you dont find out for a year or 2, then what? what is your recourse? you cant sue the fuckers. you cant call them to come back for repairs cuz they closed the fucking program and the kid who "fixed" your windows is now in college getting free room and board from the "education" funds made available by our lovely supreme leaders. its a big circle jerk.


my 2 cents.

 

[Rob Roy]

All involuntary tax collection relies upon violence or the threat of violence. Most people call this extortion. Except when you're the government you get to change the meaning of words and the rules governing the meaning of words....oh yeah you get to make the rules too.

 

[PadawanBater]

All involuntary tax collection relies upon violence or the threat of violence. Most people call this extortion. Except when you're the government you get to change the meaning of words and the rules governing the meaning of words....oh yeah you get to make the rules too.

I agree.

What's your stance on taxes Rob? Do you believe some taxes are good/justified, or do you feel that since all taxes are extortion, as you put it, that all taxes are bad/unjustified?

If some are good and others bad, what criteria do you use to distinguish between the two?

(time to light up this first bowl of the day! )

 

[fitch303]

We either pay out the waazzou for an amazing, vastly superior army and take over a bunch of shit we need. Or we wind down the military spending and let people keep more of their money. Our founding fathers would look at our government today and beg for the brits to come back.

 

[Rob Roy]

I agree.

What's your stance on taxes Rob? Do you believe some taxes are good/justified, or do you feel that since all taxes are extortion, as you put it, that all taxes are bad/unjustified?

If some are good and others bad, what criteria do you use to distinguish between the two?

(time to light up this first bowl of the day! )

All INVOLUNTARY taxes are extortion. That is irrefutable by definition of the meaning of the words.

People should pay for what they WILLINGLY participate in.
If people want to willfully enter into a cooperative and assess their members / themselves fees or "taxes" I do not object. I would consider joining some myself as long as participation is voluntary. If participation is not voluntary, it can only by definition be INVOLUNTARY.
As in "involuntary servitude".

It is ALWAYS immoral to force people into paying for something they do not want / use. Involuntary servitude is not "like slavery"...it is slavery.

The "goodness" of the service provided
by the extortionist has no bearing
on the immorality of their method of collection. I own me, my labor, my body, my property. You own you etc. Government extortion may be "legal" but legality often contradicts morality.

Any time you or I take something without permission it's stealing...Why should we allow government to wordsmith their way out of theft?

Most people have been blinded and rationalize when they dispute my label of taxes = extortion. They say things like, "well er um you have to pay etc. " Of course they cannot refute that ultimately the government will resort to violence if you dont' pay. Just like the mafia does.

I guarantee anybody that attempts to refute my statements above will say that taxes are authorized etc. Well of course they are...they are authorized by the COLLECTORS, not by the person forced to pay. Theft is unathorized taking. "Legal theft" is still theft.

 

[jeff f]

All INVOLUNTARY taxes are extortion. That is irrefutable by definition of the meaning of the words.

People should pay for what they WILLINGLY participate in.
If people want to willfully enter into a cooperative and assess their members / themselves fees or "taxes" I do not object. I would consider joining some myself as long as participation is voluntary. If participation is not voluntary, it can only by definition be INVOLUNTARY.
As in "involuntary servitude".

It is ALWAYS immoral to force people into paying for something they do not want / use. Involuntary servitude is not "like slavery"...it is slavery.

The "goodness" of the service provided
by the extortionist has no bearing
on the immorality of their method of collection. I own me, my labor, my body, my property. You own you etc. Government extortion may be "legal" but legality often contradicts morality.

Any time you or I take something without permission it's stealing...Why should we allow government to wordsmith their way out of theft?

Most people have been blinded and rationalize when they dispute my label of taxes = extortion. They say things like, "well er um you have to pay etc. " Of course they cannot refute that ultimately the government will resort to violence if you dont' pay. Just like the mafia does.

I guarantee anybody that attempts to refute my statements above will say that taxes are authorized etc. Well of course they are...they are authorized by the COLLECTORS, not by the person forced to pay. Theft is unathorized taking. "Legal theft" is still theft.

i am not as hardline as you but agree with yoou about 90 percent. i think most spending should be put before the people that have to pay for it.

for instance if you want to put a highway through your town, you take a vote, if it passes, build the highway.

 

[Rob Roy]

i am not as hardline as you but agree with yoou about 90 percent. i think most spending should be put before the people that have to pay for it.

for instance if you want to put a highway through your town, you take a vote, if it passes, build the highway.

Roads can be tricky can't they?

What would you do to somebody that politely refused to move? Would you agree with government imprisoning them or killing them?

My point is NONE of us truly own our bodies or "our" property do we?

 

[jeff f]

Roads can be tricky can't they?

What would you do to somebody that politely refused to move? Would you agree with government imprisoning them or killing them?

My point is NONE of us truly own our bodies or "our" property do we?

no need to imprison them just remove them. but in my mind there are very few things that fall under emminent domain.

 

[Rob Roy]

no need to imprison them just remove them. but in my mind there are very few things that fall under emminent domain.

If they don't want to move, but elect to peacefully remain where they are, does government have a right to initiate force against them? Do they have a right to defend themselves against this force?

 

[jeff f]

If they don't want to move, but elect to peacefully remain where they are, does government have a right to initiate force against them? Do they have a right to defend themselves against this force?

this is a very tough thing to decide. imagine a property owner that owns the only mountain pass out of an area. and for emergency and other purposes the govt wants to put a highway through his 10000 acres. he refuses and decides to protect himself with force. pretty much this is what the court was invented for....and i dont necessarilly trust them either....but its the best system on earth.

 

[Rob Roy]

this is a very tough thing to decide. imagine a property owner that owns the only mountain pass out of an area. and for emergency and other purposes the govt wants to put a highway through his 10000 acres. he refuses and decides to protect himself with force. pretty much this is what the court was invented for....and i dont necessarilly trust them either....but its the best system on earth.

...flying cars and helicopters if they were allowed to be mass produced and sold without heavy regulation would eventually (like VCR's and computers did) become attainable as prices would lower for them. Now who regulates those modes of transportation? Hmmm. Road maintenance costs would be lower too.

 

[jeff f]

...flying cars and helicopters if they were allowed to be mass produced and sold without heavy regulation would eventually (like VCR's and computers did) become attainable as prices would lower for them. Now who regulates those modes of transportation? Hmmm. Road maintenance costs would be lower too.

just what i need, a big fatty and a fucking helicopter....awesome

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Taxes are not extortion. Taxes imposed by unelected despots is extortion. But with representation, taxation is acceptable.

My beef is how that tax money is being spent. A significant portion of taxes servicing a National Debt is piss-poor management and the result of the Federal government overreaching. Doing too much under the fiction that the U.S. is a Democracy. If the government actually stayed within Constitutional limits, there would be no federal budget problem.

And there is a huge difference between Federal funding of the military and Federally mandated health insurance. The military is Constitutional while the health care/health insurance debate is appropriate for each individual state to decide. The Constitution states that the federal government has no say in the matter.

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

I like to be simple and straight to the point.
I don't mind higher taxes if they are used for there intended purpose's,,Be defense,education,welfare,healthcare,infastructure,,,the list goes on,,,The problem is everyone in the government,,,being local, regional,state,,federal,military,,Have there own agenda's and no one is on the same page, Due largley to misinformation,and lobbiest,,,money talks and Bullshit walks.
When The taxes go to cover other shotfalls or interests is where the problems are IMO.
Some people have big pockets with empty promises

 

[Rob Roy]

Taxes are not extortion. Taxes imposed by unelected despots is extortion. But with representation, taxation is acceptable.

My beef is how that tax money is being spent. A significant portion of taxes servicing a National Debt is piss-poor management and the result of the Federal government overreaching. Doing too much under the fiction that the U.S. is a Democracy. If the government actually stayed within Constitutional limits, there would be no federal budget problem.

And there is a huge difference between Federal funding of the military and Federally mandated health insurance. The military is Constitutional while the health care/health insurance debate is appropriate for each individual state to decide. The Constitution states that the federal government has no say in the matter.

Johnny, I find many of your posts informative, well thought out and insightful, but I think we disagree some here.

Taxation is not extortion because we have representation you say? I disagree, here's why...

Your initial premise assumes EVERYBODY agreed that if there were "representation", that taxation was acceptable. That's never happened. There was not unanimous agreement to this idea of "taxation with representation", not even close.

The constitution was agreed to by whom? A very small minority who declared they were speaking for everybody. That is impossible, did they speak for the yet to be born? A handful of rich white land owners, spoke and wrote eloquently about freedom, but they had no moral power to bind ALL persons then, just as nobody today can bind ALL persons. Unless ALL persons have given their consent to that arrangement.

Voluntary interactions, ie "contracts" where each and EVERY party WILLINGLY agree to the conditions would be the only situation where taxation is not coercive on at least some people.

When somebody declares they are your representative, but they do it without your direct consent any actions or taxes they commit you to are IMPOSED upon you. To forcefully IMPOSE, is not the same as being a person's willfully declared representative.

If one man has no right to impose his wishes over another, then ten million have no right to impose their wishes over on the one, since the initiation of force is wrong (and the assent of even the most overwhelming majority can never make it morally permissable) Opinions - even majority opinions- neither create truth nor alter facts.

note - In my last paragraph I quoted / paraphrased a bit from Morris Tannehill.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Johnny, I find many of your posts informative, well thought out and insightful, but I think we disagree some here.

Taxation is not extortion because we have representation you say? I disagree, here's why...

Your initial premise assumes EVERYBODY agreed that if there were "representation", that taxation was acceptable. That's never happened. There was not unanimous agreement to this idea of "taxation with representation", not even close.

'No taxation without representation' is just that. It does not translate to 'No taxation without my explicit agreement.'

The constitution was agreed to by whom? A very small minority who declared they were speaking for everybody. That is impossible, did they speak for the yet to be born? A handful of rich white land owners, spoke and wrote eloquently about freedom, but they had no moral power to bind ALL persons then, just as nobody today can bind ALL persons. Unless ALL persons have given their consent to that arrangement.

Each of these wealthy property owners of pallor were elected by their respective states for the express purpose of creating a Constitution for the new Republic. The beauty of the document is that not only did we learn that it protects landed gentlemen, but eventually we learned it protects all citizens.

Voluntary interactions, ie "contracts" where each and EVERY party WILLINGLY agree to the conditions would be the only situation where taxation is not coercive on at least some people.

When somebody declares they are your representative, but they do it without your direct consent any actions or taxes they commit you to are IMPOSED upon you. To forcefully IMPOSE, is not the same as being a person's willfully declared representative.

Such an arrangement is impossible in a civil society. One cannot pick and choose what he will participate in and what he will not when it comes to government. A free market allows us those choices, but government must be applied equally to everybody.

If one man has no right to impose his wishes over another, then ten million have no right to impose their wishes over on the one, since the initiation of force is wrong (and the assent of even the most overwhelming majority can never make it morally permissable) Opinions - even majority opinions- neither create truth nor alter facts.

note - In my last paragraph I quoted / paraphrased a bit from Morris Tannehill.

The absence of limited government bounded by a Constitutional Republic is a recipe for anarchy.