[itistoday2]

http://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/11/24/top-5-livable-countrie...

Of the most "livable" countries:

- United Arab Emirates: don't want to live in the middle east, no thanks. I disagree with many of the laws there and have no close family or friends anywhere nearby.

- Bahamas: gotta buy land there or pay an annual fee. This is probably the most reasonable of all options, but my work precludes me from living there.

- Bermuda: One of the world's most expensive places to live. Possible if I could afford it (can't at the moment).

- Andorra: would be awesome. Not sure what the situation is with living there as a non-citizen (it takes 20 years to become one). Since one has to be a citizen of some country one wouldn't be able to renounce their US citizenship for 20 years (at least) and therefore would still have to pay income taxes to the United States.

- Monaco: "Getting a residence permit practically requires millionaire status."

I think ebrenes framed the situation well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9540888

Copied here:

~~~~

While you can theoretically leave the U.S. whenever you want, you cannot stop paying taxes whenever you want.

You have to renounce citizenship, pay a fine for renouncing said citizenship to avoid paying taxes and possibly be audited. And you might argue that's fine, because they should be able to collect back taxes but you'll generally have to pay taxes for the next 10 years.

~~~~

10 years, 20 years, whatever.

None of this changes the fact that what is being done in the United States is theft, plain and simple. The government never came to me and asked if I agreed to any of these income taxes, they just say pay up or we'll ruin your life. No negotiation, no agreed upon exchange for goods or services, just extortion.

[Frondo]

It is not theft.

You listed several countries you could move to. The fact that you don't want to move to any of them, for whatever reason, does not turn US taxation into "theft".

And again, you agree to pay them by continuing to live here.

Just like, when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal, you're agreeing to pay for it without negotiation, without a specific contract outlining specifications for the food, etc. Don't like it? Go to another restaurant.

[itistoday2]

> Just like, when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal, you're agreeing to pay for it without negotiation, without a specific contract outlining specifications for the food, etc.

There is a verbal agreement (contract) outlining the specifications of the food. It says "pancakes" in the menu, it shows me the price, and I choose to order the pancakes for that stated price.

That is completely different from how taxes work in the United States. An appropriate analogy would be being born in a restaurant and being forced to pay money for what you have no idea and no say in. There is no menu. What's given to you is chosen by people you don't know and who you've never had a single conversation with. And btw, you can't just "get up and leave" the restaurant either.

When the analogy is this incompatible, you can compare anything to anything else and declare that bananas are just like soap.

If you can't see the difference, you are deluding yourself.

[Frondo]

Again, your parents made the decision for your citizenship when you were a child and they had custody of you.

As an adult, you can revoke your consent and leave.

You keep telling me how:

1) Other countries don't offer what you want, 2) It's expensive to move to another country, 3) Many countries won't grant you citizenship,

And so on.

None of those mean that you can't leave and go somewhere else. They just mean that wherever you go, you'll have to make a compromise.

Being forced to make a compromise elsewhere does not mean that taxation here is theft.

None of your claims support the false assertion that "taxation is theft".

I really don't understand what part of this you're missing. I really don't get what part of this plain language is in dispute.

[itistoday2]

> As an adult, you can revoke your consent and leave.

To revoke consent I would have had to have been of a mind to have given it in the first place.

My parents payed taxes when I was a child. I did not. I then grew into a situation where I had to make money to stay off the streets and was forced to pay this government.

Maybe this isn't so black and white. I would be willing to agree that your point of view carries more weight the longer I stay here in a capacity where I am capable of moving to another country.

However, it starts out as theft and remains so until I have no excuse remaining for not leaving, and then it's only if there is a fair alternative available.

If there's some country out there that doesn't have an income tax but rapes its citizens 12 hours out of the day, that can't be counted as a fair alternative. It would still be extortion then ("pay us or get raped!").

[Frondo]

No, taxation does not start out as theft.

The government provides you services, and you consent to paying for them by continuing to live here.

Before you were old enough to give consent, your parents made that decision for you. As an infant, you weren't capable of making such decisions, and as your guardians, your folks made it for you.

Now that you're (presumably) old enough to give consent, you are doing so by remaining here.

The government isn't forcing you to stay, even if you can't afford to leave right now. If your finances don't permit it, then I would suggest you save up until you can afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico, and then emigrate. Our government won't stop you at the border. (Canada or Mexico might, but that's them, not us.)

That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft. It means you're picky, or you don't want to compromise, or whatever.

It doesn't change the fact that, as long as you're here, you're obligated to pay for a small share of the government's cost of doing business.

You may not like that obligation--it's still not theft. You may disagree with how tax dollars are spent--it's still not theft. You may dislike how you never signed an "I agree to pay taxes" contract--it's still not theft.

[itistoday2]

You're just repeating yourself now. You are not making logical arguments or responding to arguments made before.

> That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft.

Yes, it does. The word for it is extortion.

1. No consent existed to begin with and money was taken forcibly. Theft. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.

2. An alternative presents itself but the alternative is rape and so the choice is between theft or rape. This is called extortion. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.