[scudco]

Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.

[breily]

I think I'm as libertarian as anybody, but I fail to see a connection between not paying taxes and being murdered by the government. Obviously there are consequences to not paying taxes, but those would be fines/jail time, not certain death. Could you explain a little more?

[scudco]

Fines or jail time are merely the better alternative once one has decided to non-comply. If one nonviolently non-complies with the state's demands to pay taxes they will likely fine her. If she refuses to pay the fine they will likely come knocking with armed men. If she further refuses the authority of the armed men to arrest her then the only recourse that the state has is to perform an act of aggression against her. It is true that they might drag her to jail--subduing her, a non-violent person, in the process. This is hardly what I would call humane. Anyways now she is in jail and still believes the state to have no authority over her. What recourse does she have to get out without capitulating to the state's authority over her? If she attempts escape she will be severely punished or killed. It is easier for her to fall in line and listen to the state than disobey simply because the consequences of choosing alternatives are much, much worse.

Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh

I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good.

Thanks for your question.

[krschultz]

Roads, airports, the internet, at a minimum, not to mention many other technologies. Taxes bought the rest of this country after the initial settlement. Taxes save thousands of people who otherwise would not be able to pay for medical care.

Although if you want to save 30% on taxes, and let thousands of innocent people who do not have as much money as you die at the doors of a hospital they can't afford - you can definitely keep the righteous tone you have going without one hint of irony.

Taxes are a necessary evil, the only question is to what extend we should tax ourselves.

[potatolicious]

Honestly, the GP sounds like an antisocial anarchist, of the sociopathic variety. Just because he's made a good life for himself he is completely unable to empathize with the less fortunate, nor is he able to comprehend how significantly services provided by taxation have contributed to his presumptive success.

He is also unable to comprehend how the fabric of society functions. We all necessarily give up our freedom of total choice in exchange for the opportunity to live peaceably amongst one another. This is the fundamentals of democracy - that decisions are made jointly, and that whatever the decisions may be, people will abide by them (or challenge them in a structured, organized way).

[kaens]

To be frank, I think most of this tax-related drama would be solved if people had a much more direct say in what their taxes went to support.

I don't think that most people who view taxes as theft would view them that way if we were using our available resources and technology to allow them to accomplish what taxes should be accomplishing anyhow - whatever the people want them to.

At the moment taxes accomplish whatever the state, city, and federal governments want them to, with the people only having a (at best) second-hand say in what happens through a system of representative voting that has historically had a high rate of greedy, power-hungry liars being on the receiving end of the votes.

My ideal politics fall much closer to anarchism than not, but I don't think that taxes are always theft. However, at the moment I don't think that it's much of an error to compare the two.

[APLonDrugs]

Roads in Illinois and most of the USA, before Lincoln’s system of spoils were actually private toll roads. In fact, most of the early days of government internal improvement projects, while having serious competition from the private sector, mostly were examples of failure. Perhaps it is far easier to make a case why you/we must be mugged, by the powers that be for some social good then it is to make a case for freedom, in all forms.

“Taxes are necessary evil”… I conceive the idea that this is like 1+1=3

[tlrobinson]

They'll throw you in jail, only if you're a citizen (you have certain rights and responsibilities with that citizenship).

If you're not a citizen they'll deport you and you can be on your merry way finding another country that will let you do what you want.

You could always give up your citizenship...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/17/news/expat.php

[andreyf]

If you stop paying taxes, will you also stop using public roads, public transport, FDA-tested food and drugs, airplanes flown by ex-airforce pilots, internet protocols developed by DARPA, etc, etc? Or do you want to just leech off the things other people's taxes pay?

[scudco]

Do I have a choice? Aren't all(if not most) of the things you've mentioned government-controlled monopolies?

More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.

[Brushfire]

Unfortunately, the economics of your proposed system do not work out. People are short-sighted. People are locally-political (ie 'Not In My BackYard'). Some things require economies of scale.

I'm with you, taxes are bad. In some ways, I agree with you that we should be able to earmark our dollars for things we 'prefer', but unfortunately that system will never work out.

I also agree that taxes are theft from the government. Unfortunately, the government has a need to steal from you. But its important to look at it like this. I've always maintained that TAX DAY should be 1 day before VOTING DAY. Anyone else notice how they are 6 months apart? This is by design. I believe in small, local government, which is a less extreme view than you are expounding above.

Unfortunately, some Federal/State taxes ARE necessary for a functioning society. We MUST have a military in some form. We MUST pay some government workers to regulate trade and commerce between states and other countries. We MUST have basic amenities that are built out at the cost of the populace as a whole, together, through taxes (Read: Water).

Everything else, however, is up for debate.

Remember -- as Winston Churchill once put: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried.."

[scudco]

I tend to think "economies of scale" or simply economics is a very difficult thing to understand. Governmental economic policy, whatever it may be, is the implicit practice of saying "We, the chosen few, understand one of the most complex things in the world and we will control it for you." I'm pessimistic of anyone claiming omniscience in something so complex whether they are an individual or a mouthpiece for a group of people.

Order in economy tends to come about more quickly and more judiciously when government is not involved. Corporations though they may finance or have interests in a warfare state are only allowed to exercise power through the fictitious legitimacy of the state. If Joe's Diner went to war with Bob's Diner we quickly see the cost of war. They are both out of business because war is expensive. Not to mention ordinary folks would not say to themselves, "Well Joe over here is fighting for my rights! Support The Troops (of Joe's Diner)!" This, of course, is ridiculous.

So this is why we need taxes? Warfare or welfare. I would rather be peaceful and sleep at night. I would rather trade with my neighbors than impoverish them through blockades, embargoes, or whatever else the government can only do through force of arms.

I notice you are very strident about what taxes must be used for, but my whole point on taxes is that if we MUST have these things then let us do them voluntarily through cooperative efforts. If you and I both want an organization to achieve goal X let us get together and achieve that goal. If someone doesn't want to help us out then let's try to convince them we're right not through force of arms(taxation), but through discussion and friendship. Be peaceful.

I think you might do well to study Winston Churchill's policies during and leading up to World War II. He and FDR both colluded to embolden western government to become more interventionist and war-like. I have heard that quote before, but I would challenge you, seriously, to consider a world without government. Start small with a family, then a city, then a region, then a continent. At what point does government intervention by force of arms against peaceful non-compliers become okay? I only ask that you answer that question for yourself.

[krschultz]

The good news is that in America it is not the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When you look at the population distribution vs the electoral college vote distribution the minority of Americans in this country, it quickly becomes apparent that the rural minority has more power than the (sub)urban majority. This largely correlates to conservatives winning 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections, so truly, it is the minority telling the majority what to do. The founding fathers greatly understood the problem you are pointing to - and put many safe guards in place. Many of those have been eroded, but not all.

And to characterize taxes as stealing is utterly ridiculous. If you don't pay taxes should the police not protect your house? Are you saying that taxes should be volunteering? Maybe you should brush up on economics, but it is clear that there are somethings government has to do. Why would I volunteer to pay for the roads or the schools or the military if I don't have to and someone else will? And no person could really avoid using the services of the government.

[APLonDrugs]

I agree on the republic idea, but those safe guards that have been eroded, make it stealing. The 16th was fraudulent ratified; “The Law That Never Was” makes this point well. If we “apportion” as the constitution says to, we have problem too, because it is a check as well. It would be hard politically to tell California to cough up their portion of the debt. So the constitution is not obeyed perhaps more so to divide the people, that is how the power that be controls populations. If it is gold and silver coins, to declaration of war to the way the 16th was passed turned into law, or the state’s picking of senators, who benefits? When the rule of law is not obeyed, I conceive the idea that perhaps you do have robbery, be it in different forms, but still robbery.

[krschultz]

I've read all the conspiracy theories about the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but honestly if we had to ratify it again today you and I both know that it would pass and so the whole arguement is moot. You are using loaded words to describe taxes. It is NOT stealing. Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money, if the taxes are approved by the rulers we all collectively voted for, then they are lawful. The fact that you disagree with everyone else, means that you simply disagree - not that taxes are stealing.

[APLonDrugs]

Legal plunder, perhaps would be a better term:-) And I would stand by that term as being correct. “Stealing is the unlawful taking of your money” agreed, so why is the constitution not being obeyed? Most of the programs, etc. are not constitutional along with everywhere the government is not obeying the constitution… there is a lot of this from not declaring war, to gold and silver coins. If the rule of law is not being obeyed, or was changed legally, by your own definition, perhaps it is stealing in many forms first of the power reserved for the people or the states.

I didn’t know “The Law That Never Was” was a conspiracy, I thought it was a factual record of what the state’s recorded and what the GSA and government recorded. Perhaps the term of conspiracy is a better label? or you are using a loaded word, to mark an area of taboo. After pushing towards a 100 years of tax/need brainwashing, I don’t know what the affect would be if the 16th was to pass today, I think it would never have passed in 1800, though:-) to say it is moot is like saying because the people would not approve the constitution today, using that document of freedom is moot as well, we should disregard it. I do not believe that would be wise. The more I think about how the rule of law is not being obeyed, in all its forms, the more I think stealing might be better than legal plunder…. I like your case though, thanks for reply

[ntoshev]

I always wondered what a government would look like if everyone could decide for theirselves where to go, say, 50% of their taxes.

[DanielBMarkham]

A democracy?

[jrockway]

I'm not sure this makes much sense. Can you choose to eat non-FDA approved foods or drugs; no, you go to jail if you do. Airlines can train their own pilots, if someone was in the air force before becoming a commercial pilot, that's great but not relevant. People outside of the US use Internet protocols paid for by DARPA, but they don't pay taxes.

Anyway, it is very easy to avoid income tax in the US -- don't have any income. Last time I checked, you don't forfeit any services, either.

[enomar]

Murdered? Certain death?

Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't think they impose the death penalty for not paying taxes.

In any case, paying taxes and not voting seems to be an ineffective strategy. What's your end game?

[scudco]

I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state.

Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.

[jdavid]

@scudco, you are trying to explain freedom to a domesticated person that has never experienced freedom.

i feel like i am explaining the same arguments over and over to people that believe the must be mastered or complete chaos will ensue. i think all libertarians feel this way talking to people.

for me, freedom is a dream worth dieing for. I just have not figured out what will lead to freedom.

[krschultz]

Expect as a libertarian too, you guys are the ones who sink our chances to ever enact any meaningful progress. There is no society that has ever existed without some form of taxation. If you want no taxes, than you want no government. Then you are anarchists, not libertarians. I have no problem with that, but don't lump us in with you. Small government is a lot different than no government.

[dougp]

Cayman Islands GDP per capita is the 12th highest in the world. And has no direct taxation on individuals or companies. The Caymanians enjoy one of the highest outputs per capita and one of the highest standards of living in the world. From CIA world fact book.

[Brushfire]

This is sort-of correct. There are taxes on real-estate changes, corporate taxes, and import taxes.

Real estate and import taxes are the two that could be considered 'direct' taxes. Paying 7.5% or 10% of the value of your home at sale time is DEFINITELY a direct tax, its just highly delayed. This tax is based on the idea that most valuable property in the caymans is not owned by locals or is owned by very wealthy people. But everyone pays it...

Corporate taxes are indirect, but if you arent living off your own personal wealth, you are paying for those taxes through the products you buy from those companies or the lower wages you receive from those companies if you work there.

Aside from all of that -- it is foolish to assume that this would work in other countries that are not very small, exotic, and dependent (at least in some part) upon tourism/foreigners. In some sense, you could say that the taxes are paid by foreigners more than locals. Thats all fine and good for Caymans, but again, that would never work in the US, Europe, etc where populations are large compared to the number of visitors/foreigners.

Find me a country with a population of 50 Million that does anything like this, and I'll move there. :)

[potatolicious]

Wealth in the Caymans is:

1 - Imported by wealthy residents who live there because of the exotic locale. 2 - Imported by tourism. 3 - Imported by the banking industry.

This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations, or a country that has actual, tangible, real industrial production.

[jdavid]

i am all for the balance transfer tax of 0.3% its not game-able and its fair TO EVERYONE. i don't like tax policy that discriminates.