Current Events > Is taxation theft in your opinion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Every community has rules its members must abide by if they want to continue enjoying its privileges. Taxation is one of those rules. Unfortunate yet optional because you are always free to leave.

There are plenty of isolated places people opposed to coercion or taxation could live off the grid. Funny enough, all libertarians choose to remain in regular society instead.
---

Taxes are how we pay for civilization. Government may not be perfect, but given the alternatives......
---

The way taxes are used, yes
---

No one should go to jail for not paying taxes. That's ridiculous.

I just wish the US included sales tax in the price of all items like in other countries instead of adding tax at the time of sale/purchase
---

xsouljah posted...

I just wish the US included sales tax in the price of all items like in other countries instead of adding tax at the time of sale/purchase

Yes, please.
It's obvious why we do it this way, but it's still annoying.

Taxation is theft if you don't want to pay it. But that just makes you an asshole.
---

Only if it is pocketed.
---

@Giant_Aspirin posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

A forced contract is not a real contract.

by willingly living here you're tacitly agreeing to the rules set forth by the country. you're also free to leave the country if you don't like the rules it sets. nobody forces you to stay anywhere.

just like when you travel to a new country, or even a new state, you're tacitly agreeing to the laws of the land by placing yourself in said lands. it's not like when you travel to a new country they make you sign a piece of paper explicitly agreeing to their laws --- it's tacitly implied by your entrance and continued existence there.

Do you just spout whatever you think supports your argument at the time?
This is quite an ignorant post.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2016/may/12/donald-trump-president-move-to-canada

If youre very young and flexible, have in-demand skills, and really understand what it means to leave it all behind, or if youre ultra-wealthy, leaving is possible. For most of the rest of us? Its much, much trickier to actually move to Canada or anywhere else than to just utter the phrase. And if you do leave well, brace yourself for the financial consequences.

Out of curiosity, I decided to see whether Id qualify for the Canadian equivalent of a green card. My fluency in French, the fact that I attended a Canadian university and have family in Canada help, but without a job offer from a Canadian company or skills in demand in Canada, Id be rejected. Go ahead, see how youd fare.

Many Americans will find it tougher to win admission to Canada than they assume. Then, too, there are some Americans that Canada wont want, including, sadly, those they feel will be too much of a drain on the countrys single-payer healthcare system. A university professor from Costa Rica, Felipe Montoya, recently was denied permanent residency in Canada because his son has Downs syndrome.

You may leave the United States, but the US wont let you go so easily. Specifically, you may be residing overseas but the IRS insists that you keep filing tax returns. Nope, it doesnt matter that you dont live here any more, dont have any income or assets here, or dont even visit any more. All that counts is that youre still a citizen.

Many havent lived in the US since their birth or childhood; some may not even have social security numbers. That doesnt matter. They were born there, and if they havent relinquished their citizenship a costly and cumbersome process they have to keep filing tax returns and being aware that they cant invest in some kinds of mutual funds that might be standard products in their home countries but might trigger big tax liabilities in the US.

Or maybe you are just rich and out of touch?

Best part is the fact that when you leave you still get taxed. Like LMFAO your whole argument was riding on "hey, you don't like being taxed? just go somewhere else!" and it turns out even if you go somewhere else they MAKE you pay the taxes still
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Best part is the fact that when you leave you still get taxed.

not if you relinquish your citizenship.

and you had the audacity and arrogance to dismiss my post as ignorant.

but the underlying point of my post way back when was that you TACITLY agree to a state's laws by residing there. you don't get to pick and choose which laws apply to you, and you don't have the option of opting out of a territory's laws simply because you don't like them. if you live someplace, you tacitly agree to follow it's laws. i really can't believe you think that's up for debate.
---

No, but only because it is analytically distinct, not because I buy the social contract argument that you've agreed to them by living here
---

No, but I also wasn't dropped during child birth so I understand the necessity of taxation. I'd rather not have to pave my own highway to get to to work.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Best part is the fact that when you leave you still get taxed.

not if you relinquish your citizenship.

and you had the audacity and arrogance to dismiss my post as ignorant.

but the underlying point of my post way back when was that you TACITLY agree to a state's laws by residing there. you don't get to pick and choose which laws apply to you, and you don't have the option of opting out of a territory's laws simply because you don't like them. if you live someplace, you tacitly agree to follow it's laws. i really can't believe you think that's up for debate.

The article said it was a costly process. Did you not think to see why it said that?

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/exposing-the-hidden-tax-costs-of-renouncing-us-citizenship.html

So if you are poor, you will have trouble relocating in the first place but also have to pay a $2,350 fine. How many such poor people have this much in savings?

Then if you a moderately rich, you have an exit tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax

Under the new law, any individual who had a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of $139,000 for the five previous years[11] who renounces his or her citizenship is automatically assumed to have done so for tax avoidance reasons and is subject to additional taxes. Furthermore, with certain exceptions covered expatriates who spend at least 31 days in the United States in any year during the 10-year period following expatriation were subject to US taxation as if they were U.S. citizens or resident aliens.[12]

Notwithstanding the above, certain dual citizens by birth and certain minors as defined in Section 877A(g)(1)(B) are not considered "covered expatriates". Under the new expatriation tax law, "covered expatriates" are treated as if they had liquidated all of their assets on the date prior to their expatriation. Under this provision, the taxpayer's net gain is computed as if he or she had actually liquidated their assets. Net gain is the difference between the fair market value (theoretical selling price) and the taxpayer's cost basis (actual purchase price). Once net gain is calculated, any net gain greater than $600,000 will be taxed as income in that calendar year

You had said before you tacitly agree just by becoming an adult. And now it is, if you don't leave then you agree.
Reminder, minors cannot consent to contracts. So you lived here as a minor for 18 years without tacitly agreeing to a single thing.
Then one day you magically agree to everything? Because you didn't leave to another country through a burdensome process and pay 2000 dollars?
Sorry, but that doesn't work.

if you live someplace, you tacitly agree to follow it's laws. i really can't believe you think that's up for debate.

What is up for debate is if a forced contract is actually a contract at all:

According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

---

No

But truth be told, the distinction is pretty fine and really more intuitive than logical.
---

If you think it is then you better be traveling by jet pack and never set foot on a public street or sidewalk
---

It's a gray area. I think the important thing to consider, when wanting to tax people to pay for something, is "Would I be okay with fining someone or throwing them in jail if they refused to contribute towards this."
---

No it isn't theft, and the great thing about countries is you can drag the stupid people kicking and screaming into the future, and taxes are necessary to build that future.
---