Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Dauphin]

DeityDude:

When a sales tax is added to the cost of a good, the cost of the good never increases by as much as the tax. This implies that the cost of the tax is being paid, to an extent, by the retailer. The reason the sales price does not increase by as much as the tax is simply supply and demand economics, it is not a choice of the retailer to absorb the cost - it is an action forced upon it, to absorb the cost is the only way to remain competitive.

It therefore follows that sales taxes reduce the profit margin of the retailer. As a profit margin for a retailer (e.g a personal business) is identical to income, sales tax is affecting the income of the retailer in much the same way as an income tax as the payment of such a tax is entirely unavoidable and involuntary.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Customer: "How much will that cost?"

Me: "424.00 including tax"

OUTCOME A:

Customer: "Nah $424.00 is too expensive I think I'll pass"

And suppose customer A had considered $400 a fair price? In effect the tax has lost you a customer. The cost of a tax has directly reduced your income.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I was giving a quick example and the number were meant to be illustrative not necessarily accurate.

I own my own business in Michigan. We have a 6% sales tax in Michigan. You want a real example:

My cost of product 260.00
Shipping 10.60
---------
My Cost 270.60

My price for product 400.00
Sales Tax 24.00
----------
Amount consumer
must pay 424.00

Customer: "How much will that cost?"

Me: "424.00 including tax"

OUTCOME A:

Customer: "Nah $424.00 is too expensive I think I'll pass"

OUTCOME B:

Customer: "Thanks, I'll buy it"

Whether A or B the consumer decides what to do with his property. No one has forced him to pay for anything he doesn't want to. Tax, like profit and shipping and cost of goods is just another element making up the price.

So when you sell your product for $424.00, do you have a choice whether you give the government $24? Or perhaps the government came to you beforehand and asked you if it which particular products, if any, you wished to be subject to tax?

Alternate way of looking at your scenario:
OUTCOME A:
"No, $424.00 is too much." Customer doesn't want to pay your price, so you could either lower your profit margin or not make a sale

OUTCOME B:
"Thanks, I'll buy it." Customer obviously is willing to pay $424.00, which means that the government screwed you out of $24.00 which could have been added to your profit instead of sent back to the government.

It's an endless loop - the customer is willing to pay X price - if you don't get to keep the full amount over your cost of goods sold, the government is "stealing" some of your would-be profit. So you adjust your prices whereby you will still sell the goods.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Slavery isn't analogus because slaves were actively stopped, caught and punished for leaving. No one would try and stop you if you left, because you were unhappy about paying taxes.

A person breaks the slavery law when he tries to leave. That is the point where the government enforces the law.

A citizen breaks the income tax law when he fails to pay the taxes. That is the point when the law is enforced.

If a person avoids the tax situation by either never entering the country or leaving before he has earned any money he has broke no law and no one will pursue him. If he attempts to leave the country after breaking the law he will be actively stopped, caught and punished.

If a person avoids the slave situation he breaks no law. If he attempts to leave after breaking the law (i.e. escaping) he is breaking a law and will be pursued.

They are analogous. The government defines something immoral as legal. It uses its own laws and definitions to support its case. Then uses it power to enforce it rules

You keep on saying that taking property is wrong... that very well may be... but its not your property to begin with.

You may own some Federal Reserve notes, but the value that they have, and their taxable state is determined by congress, as per the Coinage Act.

The Government can't steal what was theirs in the first place.

Very little of my taxable income is in federal reserve notes. Most of it is in credit card transactions and checks. Those represent transaction between 2 individuals. But even if they were all in federal reserve notes it doesn't matter. A debt guaranteed by a third party owed to you is yours until you voluntarily give/exchange it with someone else.

In the past they said blacks ahd no rights because they were property. Just because the law defined it that way didn't mean it was right.

You are saying the fruits of my labor aren't mine because they are represented in currency and therefore they are the government's. Just because you say that doesn't mean it is right.

The fruits of my labor and my property are mine, no matter how you or the state define. Just as a person is not property, no matter how many laws, court cases and examples of convoluted logic you want to present.

[MrBaggins]

Non-federal banks hold the same liens as Federal Reserve notes, to the government, and the currency therein is subject to the same taxation in the Coinage Act.

The actual value isn't "owned" by you since it couldn't be instantly collected (by the bank), even if it was desired, since the monetary system has massive multipliers.

The fruits of your labor are liens to the government... which you do, in fact own, but those liens are always subject to taxation, as defined by congress... as has been mentioned.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

"The taxation system is the worst insult ever... I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

"the special interest strangelhold is the worst insult ever. . . ihate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If a person avoids the slave situation he breaks no law. If he attempts to leave after breaking the law (i.e. escaping) he is breaking a law and will be pursued.

They are analogous. The government defines something immoral as legal. It uses its own laws and definitions to support its case. Then uses it power to enforce it rules

Absolutely not... a slave was either captured and forced into slavery or born into slavery. You weren't forced into taxation... you could leave.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


"the special interest strangelhold is the worst insult ever. . . ihate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

Sure... freedom to leave applies to most things.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


And suppose customer A had considered $400 a fair price? In effect the tax has lost you a customer. The cost of a tax has directly reduced your income.

OK, I am really enjoying this debate but I don't think anyone is changing anyones mind here so this will be my last post on the subject, at least in this thread. (Unless, of course, I just can't help myself.)

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

No it means my final price to the consumer was more then he voluntarily wanted to pay, or perhaps he could get it somewhere else cheaper.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

Now at the end of the quarter I will be forced to file my quarterly income tax return and will be forced to give a portion of MY money against my will or face the consequencecs. I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

I hope someone here can see the difference between the 2.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


OK, I am really enjoying this debate but I don't think anyone is changing anyones mind here so this will be my last post on the subject, at least in this thread. (Unless, of course, I just can't help myself.)

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

No it means my final price to the consumer was more then he voluntarily wanted to pay, or perhaps he could get it somewhere else cheaper.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

Now at the end of the quarter I will be forced to file my quarterly income tax return and will be forced to give a portion of MY money against my will or face the consequencecs. I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

I hope someone here can see the difference between the 2.

How can you not see this?

Of course there is a difference between the manner in which income tax and sales tax is collected. But at the end of the day, you had NO CHOICE but to collect tax for the government on products that IT DEEMED taxable (and before you go down the road of "I don't have to sell those products", hopefully common sense will tell you that if the government wants to raise money, it's going to tax items bought in reasonably large quantities). Further, since the market will obviously tollerate a price of $424 for your product, the government is A) interferring in the free market and B) causing you to lose an additional $24 you could otherwise have.

Do a little simple extrapolating: let's say you could sell 100 units of your $424 item a year. By your scenario, you're making 100x129.40=$12,940 a year in profits when you could be making 100x153.40=$15,340 a year in profits with the same volume of sales, advertising, etc. Where do you think you are drawing your income from, if not your profits? You put $2000 less in your pocket simply because the government decided that you owed them 6% of your sales. Does your arguement rest on which form you fill out in giving the government money?

The customer is simply a superfulous character in your scenario. The government is still collecting income tax - it's taking away your income as the merchant. Or perhaps you are really just upset over the double taxation. Ok, so let's do away with income tax, but now in order to fund its coffers, the government says that instead of 6% of each sale you make, they now want 35%, but of course the market will still only tollerate a price of $424 per item. Do you see how much your income is being affected yet?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

Just wanted to address this point more directly. If the customer thought $413.60 was a fair price, you could either eat the shipping cost or not sell to him. If every customer thought this, then you wouldn't make any sales. So what would you do? Tell the shipper that he can no longer charge you the $10.60 because it's erroding your profit margin? Do you have a choice but to pay the shipping cost? Or, put another way, how much more money would you make if you didn't have to pay shipping costs?

[Berzerker]

Claiming that a sales tax is akin to the price we pay for a product ignores a couple relevant points.

1) The price I pay for a product includes the manufacturer's cost and profit, and the retailer's cost and profit if a retailer is involved.

2) A sales tax is a 3rd party intruding upon that exchange with their demand for my money.

Who would argue that it is moral for a Mafioso to walk up to 2 people exchanging goods/money and demand a "sales tax"?

But some here have bought into the lie that the government has this moral authority because it's "legal" or that this "tax" is the cost for living here. But who set this cost? Other citizens who, like the Mafioso, lack the moral authority to demand a "sales tax" on the commercial activities of others. This is their argument - it isn't moral for a Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange, but it is moral for that Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange if they hire a politician to make the demand on his behalf. And that brings us back to the fallacy that making an immoral act legal makes it moral...

And to add to the in(s)anity (Sava ), some say the victims can leave if they don't like it. Fine, tell the victims of the Mafia they can leave if they don't like it. I can just see Sava telling Native Americans they can simply leave if they don't want to give up their land and live on a reservation. And if Bush wins re-election, Sava et al can leave too if they don't like it. Hell, the fact they are still here after Bush won the first time shows they don't practice what they preach... In other words, that "response" is hypocritical...

[Kontiki]

Wow, Berz and I see eye-to-eye (well, sort of ) on a libertarian issue. Who'd a thunk it?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker

But some here have bought into the lie that the government has this moral authority because it's "legal" or that this "tax" is the cost for living here. But who set this cost? Other citizens who, like the Mafioso, lack the moral authority to demand a "sales tax" on the commercial activities of others. This is their argument - it isn't moral for a Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange, but it is moral for that Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange if they hire a politician to make the demand on his behalf. And that brings us back to the fallacy that making an immoral act legal makes it moral...

"legal" and "tax" need no quotes... they are real enough terms for the discussion at hand.

As for who set these terms? That would be the States, who did and do have the moral authority to demand a sales tax (notice the lack of quotes) for the commercial activities of others... in their state, because those businesses and their patrons utilize the amenities, facilities and roads of that state. A simple quid pro quo.

[Berzerker]

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Glad you agree with me Berzerker... that was a silly argument you made.

[Berzerker]

"legal" and "tax" need no quotes... they are real enough terms for the discussion at hand.

If they were real enough, some people would understand that a "legal tax" is a euphemism for (legalised) stealing.

As for who set these terms? That would be the States, who did and do have the moral authority to demand a sales tax (notice the lack of quotes) for the commercial activities of others...

The "States"? What is that? Oh, CITIZENS? More specifically, a minority of citizens (am I getting real enough for ya? So a minority of citizens who are 3rd parties to my commercial transaction have the moral authority to walk up and demand money from me. How is that "morally" different than a Mafioso demanding my money?

in their state, because those businesses and their patrons utilize the amenities, facilities and roads of that state. A simple quid pro quo.

Then the moral approach would be to charge a user fee for using these amenities, e.g., a gas or vehicle tax for using public facilities for transportation that covers the cost of road construction and maintenance. If you want to mail a letter, buy the stamp to pay for delivery - a moral user fee.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If they were real enough, some people would understand that a "legal tax" is a euphemism for (legalised) stealing.

Maybe if you're myopic

The "States"? What is that? Oh, CITIZENS? More specifically, a minority of citizens (am I getting real enough for ya? So a minority of citizens who are 3rd parties to my commercial transaction have the moral authority to walk up and demand money from me. How is that "morally" different than a Mafioso demanding my money?

Nope... States are represented...

Obviously, you couldn't have states run by the entire populace of the state, since the logistics of informing millions of people about each decision that needed to be made, and dealing with voting would ensure that nothing ever got done, and the whole system devolved into anarchy.

Then the moral approach would be to charge a user fee for using these amenities, e.g., a gas or vehicle tax for using public facilities for transportation that covers the cost of road construction and maintenance. If you want to mail a letter, buy the stamp to pay for delivery - a moral user fee.

What sounds a nice idea in practice sucks in reality, since tax collection isn't cost free. Administrating dozens/hundreds of different use taxes for each facility and amenity would wipe out billions of tax income, and increase the tax burden.

Abstracted taxation works... K.I.S.S.

[Berzerker]

Maybe if you're myopic

Or liberal

Nope... States are represented...

And a minority of voters determine that representation.

Obviously, you couldn't have states run by the entire populace of the state, since the logistics of informing millions of people about each decision that needed to be made, and dealing with voting would ensure that nothing ever got done, and the whole system devolved into anarchy.

Even if it was logistically possible, it still wouldn't be moral. It's still one group of people demanding money from another group based solely on the desire of the former for the latter's money. The only difference between this group and the Mafia is it's "legal" for them to steal...

What sounds a nice idea in practice sucks in reality, since tax collection isn't cost free. Administrating dozens/hundreds of different use taxes for each facility and amenity would wipe out billions of tax income, and increase the tax burden.

How do you think a sales tax is collected? We buy stamps to have our letters delivered. We pay a gas tax, ostensibly for road construction and maintenance which makes it a user fee.
I pay a tax for water consumption, that too is a user fee. Waste disposal? Another user fee... Right now we pay a sales tax on virtually every legal transaction, so why would eliminating that and replacing it with a user fee on only those services we want and use increase collection costs? Sure, if we simply had an income tax to cover all these user fees (and sales taxes) and did away with all other taxes that currently serve as user fees, we could avoid some costs (although the cost of government would dramatically increase since taxes are no longer linked to paying for what we want and use), but then we'd be taxing people for services they don't use in addition to services they do use and that becomes legalised stealing. What you're saying (real enough) is that logistics prevent us from being moral... Fine, at least admit our current tax system is immoral...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Or liberal

Or myopic

And a minority of voters determine that representation.

Thats the fault of the voters... not the system. Everyone has the opportunity to vote.

Even if it was logistically possible, it still wouldn't be moral. It's still one group of people demanding money from another group based solely on the desire of the former for the latter's money. The only difference between this group and the Mafia is it's "legal" for them to steal...

What? One group of... everybody... demanding money from... themselves.

Run how that isn't equitable by me again.

How do you think a sales tax is collected? We buy stamps to have our letters delivered. We pay a gas tax, ostensibly for road construction and maintenance which makes it a user fee.
I pay a tax for water consumption, that too is a user fee. Waste disposal? Another user fee... Sure, if we simply had an income tax to cover all these user fees and did away with all other taxes that currently serve as user fees, we could avoid some costs (although the cost of government would dramatically increase since taxes are no longer linked to paying for what we want and use), but then we'd be taxing people for services they don't use in addition to services they do use and that becomes legalised stealing. What you're saying (real enough) is that logistics prevent us from being moral... Fine, at least admit our current tax system is immoral...

No... because even when you get past the impossible logistics, not every system works well from a usage standpoint.

Case in point... healthcare.

Not everyone gets sick, but generally when you do, it gets expensive...

Therefore you either...

a) deny healthcare to that person on the basis that they can't afford it. They die... Thats tremendously moral... having the poor die.

b) spread the cost amongst the community to deal with the issue... E.G. Sales tax.

Another problematic system with no direct usage correlation would be the police...

Education would also be a thorny issue, since society requires that children be educated. You'd have to remove this requirement, if a usage tax was instituted, and almost certainly see literacy rates plummet, and ultimately total income fall.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ahhh, mrbaggins, you just lost the arugment.

[Deity Dude]

I'd like to make the point one more time that my argument wasn't a libertarian one, it was a moral one.

Unless you are an anarchist, you realize thier must be some government. As a libertarian, I'd estimate about 5%-20% of the current budget would be appropriate. Socialists might say the government should be funding more things and need more taxes. I wasn't arguing either point.

My point is that, even a Libertarian realizes that the government needs to raise some money. How should they do it?

Sales tax was used as an example superior to the income tax. While it has coercive elements to it, it is still voluntary. The Income Tax is not voluntary. Sales Tax, however, was only one of 3 or 4 examples I threw out as options.

Speaking now, and for the rest of the post, as a Libertarian, I actually prefer use taxes and fees that directly relate to the service being performed. If possible, I prefer that other free market options also be available.

For example, if you want to go to a public school, it should fund itself thru fees. Theoretically, since it doesn't need to make a profit it should be cheaper then a private school, but we all know about government inefficiency. Therefore, private schools should also be made available. Citizens should then be free to choose to pay the government fee or go to a private school and pay thier fee.

Continuing with the school example for a second, the other thing the government never seems to realize is that this is not a "one size fits all' world. I may want to send my child to a private school that specializes in something geared towards my child as opposed to a generic public school. Price is not the issue with Libertarians, choice is. Price will figure itself out on its own in a free market system.

Let's look at roads for a second. If you want to use a govt road you should be required to pay a fee that relates only to the cost of the road. If someone in the private sector wants to build a road and offer it as an alternative that should be allowed. I could envision a lower priced road that wasn't as well maintained or perhaps was partially paid for by billboard advertising. Perhaps a higher priced road would be more scenic or allow for a faster speed limit. I wouldn't even mind if the governemt set a standard for roads and private roads had to report how the compared to that standard. But in the end the government standard was a suggestion and you as an individual had the right to choose which road you drove on.

But lets face it, in every society there are gonna be a certain percent of the people that are criminals, even considering the limited laws libertarians would have. Murderers, pedophiles, thieves etc. will exist in any society and need to be dealt with. Here is where government serves a purpose. Society needs to be protected from these people. In addition, when one is accused of these crimes they need a fair trial. Afterall, they could very well be innocent.

Now I can't see a system that guarantees everyone's rights are adhered to that does not involve a government. If everyone had thier own police force it would be costly and could eventually lead to conflicts between the forces. Obviously a court system needs to be impartial, therefore we need a government to administer it. When someone is found guilty of a crime, some sort of system has to enforce the finding of the court. In addition, to protect this free society, we need some sort of national defense. It would be cut back significantly, because its role would be diminshed to its valid function only. But we still need it.

We also need to make sure that "in the name of personal freedom" someone doesn't pollute the air, poison the water supply, sell contaminated food or commit other frauds against the public.

Those things do cost money. Unfortunately things like national defense, local defense (police/fire) court systems etc have no direct way for citizens pay for them. Fees and Use Taxes do not apply. Thus, some general money would have to be raised.

To fund these sorts of limited activities, I prefer tariffs and a sales tax on non-essentials, as opposed to an income tax. I say this because ultimately no one is forced to purchase a non-essential. Nor are they forced to import/export goods. Therfore noone's property is taken from them involuntarily. Even if a cost is added to the final price, the consumer still makes a voluntary purchase decision.

On the other hand, everyone must earn a living. Taxing income and essential purchases forces someone to pay a tax.

Taking someone's money involuntarily is stealing. Adding to the price of a voluntary purchase is not.

I know this is getting long, but there are a few other things that people knock Libertarians about that I want to dispel. Libertarians don't think that everyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon, develop small pox, set up a factory in the middle of a neighborhood, sell crack to school children or the hundreds of other bogus arguments I've heard used to try and make the Libertarian cause seem silly and unworkable. All most Libertarians are after is personal and economic freedom to the extent that it does not trespass on someone elses rights.

Maybe what I am proposing is Libertarian Lite, but the Libertarian party is way more in line with my beliefs then any other party. Hopefully, people will look at this sort of approach to personal freedon open-mindedly and disregard the extremist claims by non-Libertarians. Maybe a few of you will even change your mind.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you agree to live in our country and partpate in our society, there are certain rules you have to abide by. Income tax is one of those rules. You have defacto agreed to abide by these rules by remaining in our society. If you chose not to abide by these rules you must leave. You are free to try and convince us to change the rules, but until you succeed, you must abide by them. Taxation is not theft. It is the price of living here.

You don't believe this for a minute. We have rules about speeding, crossing the street, spitting on the sidewalk, sodomy, marijuana, alchohol, ad nauseum. Do we all have to leave the country?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava


btw even the BIBLE says taxation is not theft "give unto caesar"...

I don't know where these libertarian dopes come up with this ****

And you aren't even intelligent enough to come up with your own stupid thing to say, but simply give a thumbs up to Che's worst post of the year.

[Berzerker]

Baggins -

Thats the fault of the voters... not the system. Everyone has the opportunity to vote.

The opportunity to vote does not mean we are represented, it may mean the winners are represented and even that's dubious given corruption. And no, even the candidate who wins with %55 still only got %55 of those who voted. That leaves the %45 they didn't get and all the other people who can't vote or won't because the 2 major candidates suck. Throw in more than 2 candidates and you lessen the over all percentage. Look at the last 3 Presidential elections, Clinton got pluralities and Bush won with fewer votes than his primary opponent. But let's assume you can find an election where the winner got %50+ of everyone, why does that make it moral for these people to forcibly take what belongs to the minority? Does slavery become a moral institution if the slaves were shackled after a vote via majority rule? Nope...

What? One group of... everybody... demanding money from... themselves.

Those who oppose the sales tax are not demanding others pay a sales tax.

No... because even when you get past the impossible logistics, not every system works well from a usage standpoint.

You haven't even proven the logistics are impossible, you just assumed it. This country relied mainly on tariffs and sales taxes for much of it's history, these taxes required collection mechanisms no different than user fees.

Case in point... healthcare.

Health care isn't a user fee wrt government under libertarianism.

Not everyone gets sick, but generally when you do, it gets expensive...

Therefore you either...

a) deny healthcare to that person on the basis that they can't afford it. They die... Thats tremendously moral... having the poor die.

b) spread the cost amongst the community to deal with the issue... E.G. Sales tax.

There are other options, health care providers can let the destitute off without paying or set up payment plans tailored to the patient's ability to pay over time. They can shift the user fees of those who can't pay to those who can... Charities can be set up to offset these fees, etc... Much of this happens now and we have pay per service within the private sector...

Another problematic system with no direct usage correlation would be the police...

You want police protection, you pay a user fee... That's direct...
Right now many people (communities) and businesses pay user fees for private security/protection in addition to paying for police.

Education would also be a thorny issue, since society requires that children be educated.

Can we get "real enough"? You keep using mis-leading language... "Society" doesn't require this, some people require this and they force others to help pay for it... Now, people who send their kids to private schools pay a "user" fee. Why don't these impossible logistics you claim prevents user fees also prevent private tuition?

You'd have to remove this requirement, if a usage tax was instituted, and almost certainly see literacy rates plummet, and ultimately total income fall.

You mean if people had to pay for their kid's education they would refuse? But they pay now thru taxes, it's just that some of the money they pay gets siphoned off by politicians in Washington, their state capital, then politicians at the local level. Do you think this is more efficient than parents paying tuition directly to the people educating their kids?

[Berzerker]

btw even the BIBLE says taxation is not theft "give unto caesar"...

I don't know where these libertarian dopes come up with this ****

Wow! Does this mean Sava (and Che?) now believes homosexuals are an abomination and should be executed? When did libertarians take a pledge to live by what the Bible says? Btw Sava, the people portrayed on our currency are dead so we can't render unto them... Furthermore, Jesus didn't say it wasn't theft. He (or Paul) may have just wanted to avoid getting people killed for not paying taxes.

If you agree to live in our country and partpate in our society, there are certain rules you have to abide by. Income tax is one of those rules. You have defacto agreed to abide by these rules by remaining in our society. If you chose not to abide by these rules you must leave. You are free to try and convince us to change the rules, but until you succeed, you must abide by them. Taxation is not theft. It is the price of living here.

Was this from Che? So if the Mafia comes up and demands money to "protect" your business, it isn't stealing if you can leave? It's just the price of living with the Mafia around? Why do you get to decide what price the rest of us have to pay to live on our land and in our homes? Even assuming you have this power is arrogant enough, but to suggest we owe you in order to exist is morally bankrupt. Did you acquire your POV from Henry the VIIIth (I am, I am)?

[notyoueither]

Still on that mafia nonsense?

[Berzerker]

Would that be the nonsense you guys keep avoiding?

[notyoueither]

Outside of Sicily and some parts of the US, most of us avoid the mafia just fine.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

Without the shipping you wouldn't have a customer at all. The cost of shipping is a necessary cost of business that allows you to make sales. Taxation is not a necessary cost and its presence does nothing but impinge on your ability to make sales.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

If no one is forced to do anything, would you please voluntarily raise me some money by adding a Big Crunch tax. The customer is paying the money to me thru you, so there is no reason for you to object to it - its not coming out of your pocket.