[bena]

Don't pay your mortgage/rent and that will also happen.

Because that's what happens when owe money that you don't pay.

You chose where to live when you bought that property. That choosing is an implicit agreement with the government of that area to pay them taxes in exchange for certain services (schools, roads, police, fire, etc). And you are part of that choice whenever elections come up. Sure, you may vote 'No' on every tax increase, but that doesn't exempt you. Because, once again, as part of the agreement you implicitly made, you agreed to abide by the decision of the group in order to live in the area.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Because that's what happens when owe money that you don't pay.

When you owe money that you don't pay, and you refuse the normal first consequence (eviction).

[bena]

That applies to what the person I responded to as well. So my statement still is fine within that context.

Taxes aren't some special category of owed money that carries with it a unique consequence.

[WincysWife]

If you don't pay income taxes they might throw you in jail. No private debtor can do that.

[AnimalMuppet]

If you don't pay your mortgage, and you refuse to leave, they might still throw you in jail. Ditto if you don't pay your car loan, and you try to keep them from taking the car.

[dantheman]

Don't pay off the mob, and they show up because that what happens when you owe money that you don't pay.

[bena]

Equating the government with the mob and taxes with extortion are also thought terminating cliches.

Do you ever wonder why you have to make such hyperbolic analogies to even come close to a point?

[dantheman]

There are very few interactions where someone comes up to you without your consent and demands money at the threat of force. If anyone other than the government tries to do that we'd call it theft.

Look at how the Amish were able to opt out of social security.

[jdlshore]

I can’t agree. There are many interactions in which payment is expected, and, if not provided, you will be threatened with force. I.e., eating at a restaurant.

A lot of people decided, before you were born, that people living in your location would pay taxes. You or your parents chose for you to be subject to those rules when you moved there or were born. By continuing to live there, you subjected yourself to those rules. If you don’t agree, you can move somewhere else. However, part of those rules means you may have to give up something you value in exchange—citizenship, the right to vote on the rules, property, exit taxes, etc.

Unfortunately for you, there is no desirable place on this planet that doesn’t follow this “our land, our rules” approach. Most of them are very picky about who can be citizens. Luckily for you, you’re one of the privileged few who gets to live in one of the good places. (I presume, since you’re commenting here.)

You call taxes theft. I call NOT paying taxes theft—taking from the common good we and generations before us have all worked to establish.

[WincysWife]

A system like that could work if you are actually presented with the social contract when you turn 18 and you can choose to sign it or not. I never consented and my ancestors can't consent for me. I'm glad you are acknowledging that the government owns all the land and we are merely renters and they can increase the price every year however they want. But that still doesn't explain why the government can throw us into jail for doing things like not paying income tax. Surely if the problem is that we aren't paying the bill we should be allowed to leave the country, but we are told we aren't allowed to leave the country. So the government claims the right to own us. We never consented, we have no way to express that we do not consent, they own all of our property, and own our bodies, and our only option is the leave the country which is very difficult. What great benefit are we getting from all this? To live in a 1st world country? But the reason 3rd world countries are terrible is because they violate the rights of their citizens even more than 1st world countries do. Well managed countries that give their people freedom quickly develop and become nice places to live. And this seems like a good deal to you? You're satisfied that we have reached the peak of human flourishing and can not be improved upon any more?

[jdlshore]

I appreciate you taking the time to write thoughtful responses. I’m on mobile so I’ll be brief. (Edit: Hah! Apparently not.)

In a nutshell, I didn’t find your arguments convincing. You weren’t able to express how your initial idea (don’t take property from people who don’t pay taxes) would work. Instead, you made it “work” with another, grossly impractical idea that we replace taxes with service charges. Your rebuttal to my concerns about that idea (inconvenient, regressive) was that other things are also inconvenient and regressive, as if that somehow excuses an idea from being inconvenient and regressive. You could have at least tried to argue it would be less inconvenient and regressive.

The cherry on the cake, though, was your championing HOA dues. Not only does that show a profound “let them eat cake” lack of awareness and empathy for people who struggle to make ends meet, it’s functionally equivalent to a tax! It’s a fee paid by a community to support the common good of the community. And do you know what happens to people who don’t pay HOA dues? Go on, look it up.

Yeah, you’ll get sued and your house could get foreclosed.

Your HOA is a just like a small government. If you have kids and they inherit your house, they will be subject to its rules, just like you are subject to the rules of your country. If they don’t like those rules, they can move out, just like you can. They might take a loss, just like you might.

Anyway, again, I appreciate you making an account and engaging civilly on this. I can’t imagine we’ll ever agree, so I’ll let you have the last word.