[arg01]

I'd point out that your definition of slavery is just as applicable to any work were the person being employed needs to work to get the basics of survival (with corresponding parallels between changing jobs and changing countries, choosing not to eat and choosing not to work for income above the tax free limit, etc).

The only reason I point this out is because while there are plenty of rational arguments for different forms of tax (including whether or not income scales to labour and whether this means a tax on income (especially a tiered one) is actually comparable to a tax on labour) however comparing it to slavery is not productive as it re-frames the conversation to an area of extremes where quite reasonable tax systemss become either no slavery or everyone's a slave. Much like calling the other person either a libertarian if you believe "any type of free market is ok" or a communist if you believe "any taxation is ok" would not be productive.

[jqm]

Very simply, involuntarily appropriated the results of someone's labor is a form of slavery. In this case, one is being caused to labor for the benefit of the state.

Pointing out the essence of the practice isn't extreme. And just because it is customary doesn't change the essence.

I don't think this is a productive nor a just, way to fund society. The government doesn't (or shouldn't) own us. So I disagree very strongly that this is a "reasonable" basis for taxation just as I disagree keeping some people as property is "reasonable" because it is maybe customary.

These "reasonable" and "extremist" type arguments are simply support of custom and status quo and could have just as easily been leveled at abolitionists 200 years ago (and almost certainly were).

But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps. And for the record I am not opposed to taxation. I am opposed to taxation specifically on labor and innovation. I don't think the government (or society) has any moral claim on those. I think they have a very strong moral claim on resources and these should be the basis for taxation.

[mikeyouse]

> But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps

I can add some more color.

I find it interesting because I largely agree with your stance on taxation, but could not disagree more strongly about the comparison to slavery.

My first reaction is entirely visceral, "This is an obscene and offensive comparison."

After some less reactionary thought, it still sounds ridiculous. You can't choose to stop being a slave. At any point, you can choose to stop paying taxes (either illegally or by ceasing to earn income). If you had adequate resources, you could live off of the land entirely on your own and keep all of the fruits of your labor.

At many lower incomes, there is no income tax bill due whatsoever. So you're saying the government is enslaving the wealthy to a greater extent than the poor? And you honestly think that? The government represents the will of the people, via democratic action, we set our own tax rates. So the 'people' are enslaving themselves? I don't think that makes any logical sense whatsoever.

Call income tax 'theft' if you must (a comparison I still disagree with) but slavery doesn't hold up and distracts the conversation.

[jqm]

Ok. I accept and appreciate your view. After three responses in agreement apparently the rhetoric is somewhat inflammatory, and (although I do feel how I posted), maybe a different approach is better.