Taxing your LIFE. Is it moral?

[Prometheus]

Where is the moral justification to tax a persons life?

I ask because 'we' tax a persons ability to cloth themselves and their children. 'We' tax a person to keep a roof over their head.

Some how, in this screwed up country, we think it is wrong to tax a person if they want to vote but it's somehow O.K. to tax their life.

So can anyone tell me why it is moral or how you can justify extorting money, at gun point, out of father (or mother) for simply trying to cloth their child or have a roof over their head?

If a parent doesn't pay these extortion fees they are thrown in a cage or murdered. Where is the moral justification for such a thing?

Lysander Spooner has some excellent thoughts on this:
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. "

"For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a government (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will.

2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future.

3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a mans money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it.

4. If a man wants protection, he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to protect him against his will.

5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.

6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support. "

 

[Stschil]

But but, if "we" don't pay our fair share, how would all the do nothings and non representin' politicians clothe and house their families?

I agree with you, to a point. There must be some taxation to fund the workings of government, however what goes on now is IMO excessive and irresponsible as is the manner in which those tax proceeds are used.

 

[jsgolfman]

All taxation is immoral. It is theft.

 

[cburnworth]

Since most products already have a tax somewhere in the process they do not need to be taxed again. It does not take a genius( which supposedly we have a ton of them in office) that the more money one has in there pockets the more money they spend. What we really need in this government is for the lazy asses to get a job.

 

[nicajack]

I would much rather have cancer, than the government that we have now....John

 

[J_Wales]

As a resident of Manor Farm one said, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."



pacem ora, para bellum

 

[John Galt]

As a civil society, we must have some form of government and said government has to be funded in some manner. However, our current funding mechanism has become so perverted as to be incredibly corrupt and immoral. Government picking winners and losers with the force of law perverts Liberty and respect for the Law. Funny thing how America rose from a backwoods country to a super power in a little more than a century (historically, a blink of an eye) without an income tax that took almost half (sometimes throughout history, much more than half) of ones property or plundered corporations through capital gains/corporate income/dividend taxes, not to mention the multitude of hidden taxes that are so prevalent today; Medicare tax, Medicaid tax, Social Security tax, inheritance tax, unemployment tax, workers comp tax, worker training fund tax, liability insurance tax, state taxes, county taxes, local taxes, gasoline tax, telephone tax, vehicle registration tax, inn keepers tax, airline ticket taxes, etc.
We have the government our Founding Fathers tried to protect us from ...

 

[army bratt]

What we schould all do is to go to our employers and change our fed witholdings to all 9's and at the end of 2012 nobody file the fed tax form. I relize that this could cause a personal problem for all but the fed will be so overwelmed and in all they're wisdom, they are bound to make the wrong desision on how to repair the financial situation that they will find themselves in. Treat them like children and CUT them off from the money... Any thoughts?

 

[strahd71]

What we schould all do is to go to our employers and change our fed witholdings to all 9's and at the end of 2012 nobody file the fed tax form. I relize that this could cause a personal problem for all but the fed will be so overwelmed and in all they're wisdom, they are bound to make the wrong desision on how to repair the financial situation that they will find themselves in. Treat them like children and CUT them off from the money... Any thoughts?

and next we take over the world! and then they will pay us tribute!

seriously it would work IF you could enough people to do it, which you prolly wont..................

jake

 

[buckstopshere]

What we schould all do is to go to our employers and change our fed witholdings to all 9's and at the end of 2012 nobody file the fed tax form. I relize that this could cause a personal problem for all but the fed will be so overwelmed and in all they're wisdom, they are bound to make the wrong desision on how to repair the financial situation that they will find themselves in. Treat them like children and CUT them off from the money... Any thoughts?

You get points for creativity in my book.

 

[Prometheus]

As a civil society, we must have some form of government and said government has to be funded in some manner.

Funded in some manner...

The question remains, is it moral to tax someones life and their ability to stay alive?

I would say no. No man (or government) has the right or moral authority to do so.

We have the government our Founding Fathers tried to protect us from ...

No argument from me there.

The US Government has become a slave owner and we all live on it's plantation.

Only the owner of a slave would believe he had a right to the fruits of someone elses labor.

I would submit having a slave that owed you 60% of their earnings (the amount people pay in taxes, who pay them) is just as evil and morally repugnant as taking 100% of a persons earnings.

Americans are slaves. There is no other logical way to view it.

 

[RockofStrength]

Is it not in our contract with the federal government (i.e. the Constitution) that it is empowered to do X and is given the ability in the Constitution to levy tax Y in order to perform the services demanded of it?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

"theft" implies it is taken from us unwillingly and without prior obligation to provide payment.

One could argue that the government has overstepped the bounds of what exactly constitutes the "general welfare" of this nation, and thereby claim that one has been robbed by paying money over what one should have. But the government does have right, by the contract we live under as U.S. citizens, to pay taxes for certain purposes which are not themselves immoral or evil. Therefore taxation is neither evil nor immoral.

 

[Prometheus]

Is it not in our contract with the federal government (i.e. the Constitution) that it is empowered to do X and is given the ability in the Constitution to levy tax Y in order to perform the services demanded of it?



"theft" implies it is taken from us unwillingly and without prior obligation to provide payment.

One could argue that the government has overstepped the bounds of what exactly constitutes the "general welfare" of this nation, and thereby claim that one has been robbed by paying money over what one should have. But the government does have right, by the contract we live under as U.S. citizens, to pay taxes for certain purposes which are not themselves immoral or evil. Therefore taxation is neither evil nor immoral.

Several problems with your reading of the the Constitution, let alone your rationale for justifying theft.

The federal government is prohibited from directly taxing any US citizens living in the US directly. The USSC even ruled that in 1915. Cute way to try and selectively quote the Constitution.

So the personal federal income being imposed upon US citizens, residing in the US is unlawful. Unlawfully taking something is theft.

The rest of your argument is absurd, I'm not arguing with your strawman.

You are missing out on something though, I'm not talking about just federal taxes.

Where does ANY government (fed, state, local) get the right to tax a persons life?

 

[rambone]

 

[leftsock]

The purpose of taxation is to raise funds for the operation of our government, and any other reason is a perversion. We find that our governments, both federal and state, use taxes as a means to influence our behaviors and lives. We're encouraged to have kids, invest in retirement accounts, not buy cigarettes, have student loans, have a mortgage, and many other various agendas where we as individuals will either pay higher prices for some special goods or receive tax credit when we file our taxes. Our government is in the business of social engineering. We should be engineering our government, not the other way around.

 

[RockofStrength]

Several problems with your reading of the the Constitution, let alone your rationale for justifying theft.

The federal government is prohibited from directly taxing any US citizens living in the US directly. The USSC even ruled that in 1915. Cute way to try and selectively quote the Constitution.

So the personal federal income being imposed upon US citizens, residing in the US is unlawful. Unlawfully taking something is theft.

The rest of your argument is absurd, I'm not arguing with your strawman.

Unless you think that quoting the rest of article 4 , section 8 is somehow relevant to taxation I don't see the problem. This is what my quote looks like when you add a few sentences (bolded part is from my original quote)

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And so on. There is nothing else about taxes in article 4, section 8.

Article 4, section 9 says:

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken;

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

And that's about all I can find referencing taxes regarding the powers of Congress in any way even vaguely related to taxation. Congress is the only body empowered to actually levy a tax regarding the Federal government, so...

The only change to the above is in the 16th Amendmet, which states

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That sounds like the income tax you mentioned. Made legal by a legally ratified amendment. I'm afraid it's still not theft, because your contract was modified following the legal procedures to do so to include the ability to tax your income. You do of course have the ability to change it back, as has been done once before, with another amendment.

I would be interested to find out how I managed to create an exaggerated form of your position when I was merely answering a question you asked. I didn't even address any arguments from your position by which I could create a strawman in the first place. I would also like a link to that 1915 case you mention, as my Google Fu seems to be weak this morning.

In regards to your general question,

You are missing out on something though, I'm not talking about just federal taxes.

Where does ANY government (fed, state, local) get the right to tax a persons life?

Governments (as we love to say) do not have rights, they have privileges and powers granted to them by their authority (the people they govern). We, the people, have given up a freedom, to be free from taxation, in exchange for an organized governmental system.

For example, in Article 8 of the Indiana constitution, sections 1 and 8, we the people of Indiana surrendered our right to be free from state taxation of property (section 1) and income (section 8).

Theft is taking someone else's property without legal right to the property in question. Taking what is rightfully owed you by force is not immoral, even if you are the government.

I am also confused as to the reason why you decided to belittle my arguments instead of answering my facts with others that reflect positively on your own position. "Cute" though my interpretation my have been, my points are valid unless you can demonstrate that I have taken the Constitution out of context or in some other way misinterpreted it. If you would rather engage in emotional appeals by all means do so.

 

[qmikep]

I for one would love to see this purported contract with the government, as I have signed nothing agreeing to the terms. In fact I would be astounded if the U.S. Gov-co could provide any contract with them that I signed with intent and legal capacity and consent.

And in regards to the 16th amendment, according to the Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. Co the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. The "income tax" is not a direct un-apportioned tax. It is an excise on a specific privileged activity of which most Americans are not involved in.

 

[mrjarrell]

I for one would love to see this purported contract with the government, as I have signed nothing agreeing to the terms. In fact I would be astounded if the U.S. Gov-co could provide any contract with them that I signed with intent and legal capacity and consent.

And in regards to the 16th amendment, according to the Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. Co the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. The "income tax" is not a direct un-apportioned tax. It is an excise on a specific privileged activity of which most Americans are not involved in.

No Treason, no. 1 - Lysander Spooner - Mises Daily

 

[RockofStrength]

I for one would love to see this purported contract with the government, as I have signed nothing agreeing to the terms. In fact I would be astounded if the U.S. Gov-co could provide any contract with them that I signed with intent and legal capacity and consent.

The Constitution itself is the contract between the government of the United States and her citizens. Just as the current government officials must abide by the past concessions of previous office holders if they are to claim the privileges of the offices they hold, so too are you required to accept the responsibilities of taxation etc that have been previously arranged in order to claim the privileges of a U.S. Citizen. If you surrender that citizenship and yet continue to live here, you will still pay taxes according to the will of the Citizens as they have outlined in their Constitution as a foreigner living in their nation.

And in regards to the 16th amendment, according to the Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. Co the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. The "income tax" is not a direct un-apportioned tax. It is an excise on a specific privileged activity of which most Americans are not involved in.

. To quote the Court in that case,

The Sixteenth Amendment was obviously intended to simplify the situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing power of Congress and not to create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system.
The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed,
or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income tax and another, but its purpose is to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from consideration of the source whence the income is derived.

 

[88GT]

I for one would love to see this purported contract with the government, as I have signed nothing agreeing to the terms. In fact I would be astounded if the U.S. Gov-co could provide any contract with them that I signed with intent and legal capacity and consent.

And in regards to the 16th amendment, according to the Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R. Co the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation. The "income tax" is not a direct un-apportioned tax. It is an excise on a specific privileged activity of which most Americans are not involved in.

Ah, the "I haven't given my consent" argument.

In addition to the reference provide for Mr. Spoon, you might also want to consider the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke (and to a lesser extent Rousseau) for a more realistic rendition of human behavior and it's practical application, one that doesn't have as its premise a reality that has never existed within human history.