Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax.*SNIP*

Coerce means "to compel to an act or choice"

not "to encourage an act or choice"

There is no compulsion... you've stated its a choice on the individuals part, since another course could be taken.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I didn't say it didn't concern me. The point is that a decrease in value in something doesn't necessarily mean someone stole something from you.

If I have a lousy harvest because the weather was bad, the value of my harvest went down... I am concerned... but niothing was stolen. If I have a harvest and someone comes along and takes a portion of it against my will, now that's a different story.

Nature doesn't steal, but people do. If some one raises the price of something that I normally buy it's no more stealing than the govt taxing me. In both instances some one has something of mine and I did not recieve just compensation for. It doesn't matter if I've been obligated or if I decided. I've been coerced.

[Ramo]

Coerce means "to compel to an act or choice"

not "to encourage an act or choice"

There is no compulsion... you've stated its a choice on the individuals part, since another course could be taken.

Again, I can choose not to have a taxable income or to leave this country, so does that make the income tax voluntary?

You can still have plenty of choices with constraints.

[MrBaggins]

Its not voluntary if you are a US resident and earn income, but by that same token you could choose to cease to be a US resident... or... I guess... earn income.

[Ramo]

Sure. I can quit my job and stop earning income.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax. It's no different from being obligated to pay a tax.

No you are wrong.

Let's say a box of nails costs $2.00 and the box costs $0.12 and shipping is $0.40 and tax is $0.40 making the cost $2.92 and the store marks it up $0.50 for a price of $3.42 to the consumer. If the consumer buys it, saying he was coerced to pay the tax is like saying he was coerced to pay for the shipping. He wasn't coerced into paying for anything. He chose freely to pay $3.42 for the nails. The price of which was mad eup of multiple components. No one has forced him to buy anything them.

Now the seller has exchanged his nails for $3.42, which despite what some people say here, is now his $3.42. That $3.42 may be a promissary note from the government (currency), in older times it may have been pieces of gold, perhaps they strike a deal and the purchaser agrees to sweep the back room for the nails, either way, what he recieves is his. Now if somebody comes along and takes some of that money against his will, whether it be a thief, a charity that uses the money for a good purpose, or the government, they are still taking it from him against his will. Taking someone's property/rightful possession against thier will is stealing.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Nature doesn't steal, but people do. If some one raises the price of something that I normally buy it's no more stealing than the govt taxing me. In both instances some one has something of mine and I did not recieve just compensation for. It doesn't matter if I've been obligated or if I decided. I've been coerced.

Give me a break. Raising the price on a voluntary puchase is not stealing. Having your money taken from you without your consent is.

[Ramo]

No you are wrong.

Let's say a box of nails costs $2.00 and the box costs $0.12 and shipping is $0.40 and tax is $0.40 making the cost $2.92 and the store marks it up $0.50 for a price of $3.42 to the consumer. If the consumer buys it, saying he was coerced to pay the tax is like saying he was coerced to pay for the shipping. He wasn't coerced into paying for anything. He chose freely to pay $3.42 for the nails. The price of which was mad eup of multiple components. No one has forced him to buy anything them.

That's some great logic.

So let's say a person's income can be deducted through multiple things (for example, the amount of vacation, the amount of health care, taxes). Therefore saying that he was coerced into paying for an income tax is like saying he was coerced into paying for his vacation days. After all, he freely chose to take the job.

[Az]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I mean society should treat every citizen equally. That is never discriminate. What can I say? Only equal is truly equal. :

and why is that good?

I don't agree. You have to take each persons happiness into consideration.

I never claimed otherwise.

In my opinion it is unethical to force people to give up a kidney because there is no just compensation to that individual. Therefore the person who the kidney was taken from was treated unfairly - an injustice has occured, and I don't care if the recipient is happier than the victim is sad. Injustice is not ethical.

what's your definition of injustice? you say that something is wrong because it's injust. wtf is injust?

[Ramo]

Give me a break. Raising the price on a voluntary puchase is not stealing. Having your money taken from you without your consent is.

No, taking illegally is stealing. Income taxes are legal.

[MrBaggins]

You give your consent to taxation by participating in the US economy.

[Sava]

you are wrong... it is not involuntary... it is a social contract... you can always LEAVE AMERICA if you don't like it. Hence, taxation is voluntary because you are choosing to live in this country.

Deity Dude... there's my one sentence... well, it's not one sentence, but it's short, sweet, and proves you wrong. So far you haven't said didley**** to repute it.

[Ramo]

You give your consent to taxation by participating in the US economy.

No I didn't. The gov't would prosecute anyone who doesn't collect sales taxes. Consent isn't gained by the threat of force.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


* MrBaggins chuckles

especially since the judge was adjudicating for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and against an individual making an argument such as you (and the libertarians) have made.

I would never make such an argument and do pay my income taxes. The law is the law and the state has the power to enforce it.

Even if the judge agred with my anaylsis he would still hae to find me guilty. I am not trying to amke a legal case. I am aware of the law.

I am making a moral case, that even though a law is passed and enforced it can still be immoral. (i.e. segregation, slavery, drug laws, sodomy laws etc etc)
And once again, just because I find a law immoral doesn't mean I hae an obligation to break it to prove so nor am I obligated to leave the country.

[MrBaggins]

The basis of some of the mentioned judgements that were adjudicated against were some of the same arguments that you've used...

That income you earn is your property, and hence the government taking it is theft.

These judges have unanimously said no... income is taxable, period. There is no precident for any judge, however liberal, ever adjudicating contrary to that.

If you want to state your opinion that you consider it personally immoral... then I guess thats up to you... but its not a socially or legally acceptable argument.