Hello everybody

[Kidlicious]

The difference is that no one is forced to endure any of these taxes. There are ways to avoid all of them by simply choosing to do things in a different way. For example, choosing not to own and operate a vehicle, so that you don't have to pay to renew your license, pay for plates and registration, etc. With respect to public utilities, it would be living in a rural area, where such things are not provided by the state, and having your own well, being off the grid, etc.

Toll roads, would mean driving a different route in the morning, or choosing not to drive at all. Consumption taxes, you get paid and then things cost more, if you choose to buy them. You could avoid these by gardening, and raising your own crops, etc.

The problem with income tax is that it takes the money away from people and prevents them from making their decisions as to how the money should be spent. Money earned from state lands and industry on the state lands, is actually the best way to pay for the desires of the state, because it imposes no burden at all on the actual people of the state, and the state profits through investment into industry, and uses that to pay for other things. I know it seems less than obvious, but a significant portion of government revenue is already derived from these sources. Another way would be through the buying and selling of investment bonds, etc. There are all kinds of ways to raise revenue that rely on voluntary and not involuntary participation.

People don't choose to either pay taxes or not pay taxes. They make decisions for themselves and then consider taxation as one of the factors. But any taxation limits what they can do. Even if they were to choose to not pay any tax, what they can do has still been limited because of taxation. Even though they pay no tax they are less free. Your mistake is thinking that making choices makes you free. The fact is that you can be allowed to make all the choices I allow you to, but by making those choices cost you I can take your freedom away because if you choose not to pay my tax I've made you choose something less valuable to yourself.

[Kidlicious]

It comes down to this BK. The only type of reason why people care about they type of tax they pay is political. If I'm not politically motivated I don't care if I pay consumption tax or whatever. I only care about the amount. They only reason you don't like income tax and call it slavery is politics.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only type of reason why people care about they type of tax they pay is political.

Not so. There are good economic reasons for moving away from a progressively gradated income tax.

They only reason you don't like income tax and call it slavery is politics.

Actually, it's because I believe. :

1, that America will be stronger without it and the concamitant cuts to public spending.
2, that economically, America would be better off with it,
3, that the states that currently have this policy are better off than the ones that don't.

Your mistake is thinking that making choices makes you free

That's exactly it. Making choices is what makes you free.

[Ming]

That's exactly it. Making choices is what makes you free.

Yep... and how many choices were slaves allowed compared to your easy life....
Thanks for making my argument for me. You just proved yourself wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for making my argument for me. You just proved yourself wrong.

I'm arguing that indirect taxation provides greater choices than direct taxation and therefore, that it leads to an increase rather than a decrease in freedom. Kid's arguing that freedom has nothing to do with making choices.

We're on the same side here, Ming.

[Ming]

Not even close ben... You are the moron saying taxation is equal to slavery.
It's not. Again, do you have more freedom and the ability to make more choices than slaves.
The answer is yes... you have the ability to make choices, and you have many freedoms and rights.

So stop being a complete moron and fool.

Many people agree that the tax system sucks... but it isn't slavery.

[Kidlicious]

Not so. There are good economic reasons for moving away from a progressively gradated income tax.



Actually, it's because I believe. :

1, that America will be stronger without it and the concamitant cuts to public spending.
2, that economically, America would be better off with it,
3, that the states that currently have this policy are better off than the ones that don't.

[

you don't seem to even know what politics is. My point is that only the amount of taxes that I pay affects me if I don't care about politics. It doesn't matter how the tax is imposed.

That's exactly it. Making choices is what makes you free.

When it comes to taxes that's just nonsense. If I pay the same amount of tax in consumption tax as I would in income tax I buy the same stuff and therefore I'm just as free. It would just be stupid to not buy things because I don't want to pay a tax. Therefore you're just talking nonsense.

[Kidlicious]

I'm arguing that indirect taxation provides greater choices than direct taxation and therefore, that it leads to an increase rather than a decrease in freedom. Kid's arguing that freedom has nothing to do with making choices.

We're on the same side here, Ming.

The only extra choice in indirect taxation is the option to not spend money. And no one does that, which makes your argument irrelevant.

[Ben Kenobi]

you don't seem to even know what politics is.

And how does that address my points of the economic benefit associated with moving away from a progressive income tax?

My point is that only the amount of taxes that I pay affects me if I don't care about politics. It doesn't matter how the tax is imposed.

And how much and how you pay depends upon how the tax is imposed, which affects you personally, irrespective of politics.

When it comes to taxes that's just nonsense.

Not at all. It's the exact same principle. More choices = greater freedom.

If I pay the same amount of tax in consumption tax as I would in income tax I buy the same stuff and therefore I'm just as free

You would come out substantially ahead due to the way in which income taxes are collected. Your money would end up in your bank account first, and then you'd get to decide how much to spend.

It would just be stupid to not buy things because I don't want to pay a tax.

It's eminently logical that people would spend differently. They would end up spending more, all else being equal.

[Flubber]

You're a lawyer. Residency isn't that simple. I have to file + report for both US and Canada, as I have substantial and ongoing interests on both sides of the line. Just moving isn't enough to change residency, according to the tax treaty, you have to have greater ties to your new country and not to the old. You can live on one side, but if you maintain a permanent home in Canada, and if your spouse stays there, you'll remain a tax resident of Canada, even if you move to another country.

Ben -- why do you try to explain simplistic things?? Your explanation is the equivalent of explaining to a math guy that 2 times 2 equals 4. If you wanted to talk about the wording of the relevent statutory provisions or the positions as set out in the Interpretation Bulletins maybe you would have something to offer. In the meantime don't be an ass and act like you are correcting me . Tax law is complex with many exemptions and exceptions, all of which are irrelevent to my point.

My wording was precise and correct here .

You have equated taxation to slavery and I simply point out the fact that we (as canadians) can be free to leave behind that burden. I said if you leave Canada your obligations "can cease" and this is completely correct. I never said it was simple or automatic. But it is legal and can be practically done. No slave could say to their slave owner " ya I am going elsewhere-- my obligation to you is over". Also slaves had no power to elect people that could change their obligations.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the meantime don't be an ass and act like you are correcting me.

I thank you and get treated like ****. Same ol', same ol.

Thanks for your advice.

Take your own medicine.

[rah]

So your own evidence says that 5 percent of all adoptions are made to single people. Are you suggesting that this indicates that it is a significant proportion? I don't see that. You dug it up to save your point and ended up confirming that the vast majority are not done with single people, confirming my point that there is a significant preference to place children with 2 parents.

God are you dense. You originally said

then why don't we let single people adopt as well?

I pull out a source that says we do allow single people to adopt and your response is that 5% isn't enough to save my point. Well of course I would expect most adoptions would be to couples. I never said or implied otherwise. What a moron. I'm was not suggesting anything beyond you were wrong when you said we don't allow singles to adopt. What part didn't you understand? Just admit you were in error. Trying to change the argument doesn't make you right.

[notyoueither]

I'm pretty sure he's trolling.

[molly bloom]

You asked what would a black person from Texas believe, and I answered, with a black person born in North Carolina who believes the same things that I do.

I'll say it again: there is no comparison between paying a tax and the institution of slavery. You are not comparing like with like, simply stating that if there is a punishment for non-payment of a tax, then it MUST be like slavery, since punishment was a feature of slavery.

A slave lacked any fundamental freedoms. You, as a taxpayer do not. You may choose not to pay a tax, knowing full well that you may be punished. If you choose not to, you are cognisant of the likely outcome, and making use of your free will. How does that compare with someone who does not even control their own body ?

You are so lacking in basic compassion and commonsense, that you can seriously compare having to pay income tax with the lot of those people made child slaves in Saudi Arabia, sex slaves in Cambodia, and household slaves in the Sudan. It's grotesque, and rather disturbing.

And income taxes force me to hand over part of my livelihood to the state. Ergo, I do not have rights over my own body

That's not even logical. The state doesn't control your body- you're free to emigrate, if you don't like paying tax to Canada- or the U.S. . Before you get classed as a common thief though, perhaps you'd like to reimburse Canada for what the state spent on you.

As opposed to Prison?

'Arbitrary'- notice that slaves could be punished without having even done anything wrong- just for being 'uppity'. Prison may be a result of non-payment of taxes, but you know that it is a possibility should you CHOOSE not to pay taxes. It isn't arbitrary.

Putting your family in a foster home.

When is this meant to have happened to you ? And what does it have to do with the right to marry someone legally ? Nothing.

All this save sold abroad applies to prisoners in the US.

You're saying that all the above,except being sold outside the country, routinely applies to offenders in the U.S. as a matter of policy or as a system of state punishment. Then prove it.

Just don't 'drop the soap'.

Gosh, how terribly witty and understanding of you.

Your disagreement isn't with me

Yes, it very much is- since you're the one making the spurious comparison, and the one lacking the evidence and logic to back it up.

Whaddashock- same old Ben, within days of your return.

[Dauphin]

So your own evidence says that 5 percent of all adoptions are made to single people. Are you suggesting that this indicates that it is a significant proportion? I don't see that. You dug it up to save your point and ended up confirming that the vast majority are not done with single people, confirming my point that there is a significant preference to place children with 2 parents.

I pull out a source that says we do allow single people to adopt and your response is that 5% isn't enough to save my point. Well of course I would expect most adoptions would be to couples. I never said or implied otherwise. What a moron. I'm was not suggesting anything beyond you were wrong when you said we don't allow singles to adopt. What part didn't you understand? Just admit you were in error. Trying to change the argument doesn't make you right.

If 4% of people applying are single people, it would rather suggest a preference for single people if 5% of all adoptions are by single people. The 5% stat alone demonstrates nothing substantive. The wonders of self-selecting samples....