Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Ramo]

I am being consistant. The seller determines his price based on his cost. If he chooses to absorb sales tax - he chooses. The government doesn't set the price.

The bottom line is that the gov't is coercively taking away the fruits of someone's labor (if not the consumer's, that of the workers and owners of the business that's sellling me goods).

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I am being consistant. The seller determines his price based on his cost. If he chooses to absorb sales tax - he chooses. The government doesn't set the price.

Yeah, but the seller doesn't have a choice about which items are taxable and which aren't. In a sales tax scenario, the vendor has to fork over the required amount of tax per item sold - whether the vendor pays that out of his own pocket or passes it along to the consumer, it's still a coerced payment to the government.

Also, it's hardly just non-essential items that have taxes levied on them. Depending on where you live, aren't most food items or clothing taxed?

[Sava]

"Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay.
That is the only American principle."

--FDR

Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.

--FDR

[Az]

FDR

[Sava]

yeah, what a concept FDR thought about... hmm... in getting revenue for the government, we should tax those who are able to pay.

It's the same techniques corporations use in marketing. They market their products to their targeted consumer base... those ABLE TO PAY.

And what are tax-payers getting for their money? How about freedom... protection by the most powerful country the world has ever known... a system that should be fair to all...

I'm still waiting for the intelligent argument about how it's unfair that the rich pay more in taxes...

[Deity Dude]

This whole currency argument as a legitimization of Income Tax makes no sense.

Income Tax is not a currency usage or currency transfer tax. If so everytime I made change I would have to pay a tax.

Non-currency Income is taxed at the same rate as currency generated income. The US Tax Code reads "Income from whatever source derived" and mentions nothing about currency as a qualifier.

The following cases have been adjudicated:

Illegal income transactions are taxable.
Pure barter income transactions are taxable.
Foriegn currency income transactions are taxable.

Currency is not the property of the government. As I said earlier it is a bearer note. Whoever owns the currency owns it and the value it represents.

Whats funny about this currency argument is that the government doesn't even make it.

The government's stance is simple. It's the law and we have the power to enforce it.

As some people have said if you are a citizen of a country you have made an implicit contract with the state to follow the laws. I don't agree with that terminology because a contract involves a consentual agreement between 2 informed parties. A baby upon birth cannot make an informed agreement yet they are a citizen and subject to all of the countries laws from birth. And to say that this type of relationship is consentual is hogwash.

If you live in a country you make a personal decision, not an agreement, to follow its laws, to break it laws at your own peril or to attempt to move somewhere else.

That is true. And I have made a personal decision that the states power thru threat of imprisonment is worse then following the law. I have also made the personal decision that it is impractical to leave a country everytime I find one of its laws immoral, especially when the same immoral law exists in most other countries.

But when I make this decision I am not upholding my end of a contract. I do this out of pure coersion. No different then if I owned a store and the Mafia came and said "we need $2000 a month protection money" and I felt that the police could do nothing about it. I could choose to pay it, not pay it and take my chances or close my store. Just because I have that choice doesn't mean that the act isn't a form of theft.

Suppose I live in a country that legally requires involuntary servitutde for a certain class of people. The state defines these people as worker-citizens. Have I upon birth entered an implicit contract to be a slave? I don't think so. Furthermore, I have the choice to follow the law (be a slave), break the law (escape and risk death or capture) or go somewhere else (escape to a country that has the same laws). If I choose to stay am I not still a slave?


My stance that the income tax is immoral isn't necessary a "libertarian" point of view. I realize that governments need some sort of funding to carryout thier legitimate functions. Libertarians, socialists, communists etc will argue about what the functions are and how much of the goods and services a society needs should be free market and how much should be state-run.

In theory you could have a very socialist society and not have an income tax.

MY stance is a moral one. IMO the Income Tax is organized theft by the state because it involuntarily takes your money or your labor from you.

Other taxes I have mentioned allow the taxpayer to decide if they want to pay the tax and still not break the law.

Lots of different issues hav coem up here and alot of people are mistakenly trying to lump them together.

[Sava]

MY stance is a moral one. IMO the Income Tax is organized theft by the state because it involuntarily takes your money or your labor from you.

you are wrong... it is not involuntary... it is a social contract... you can always LEAVE AMERICA if you don't like it. Hence, taxation is voluntary because you are choosing to live in this country.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and where is tha contract written? i dont remeber signing any.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Yeah, but the seller doesn't have a choice about which items are taxable and which aren't. In a sales tax scenario, the vendor has to fork over the required amount of tax per item sold - whether the vendor pays that out of his own pocket or passes it along to the consumer, it's still a coerced payment to the government.

Also, it's hardly just non-essential items that have taxes levied on them. Depending on where you live, aren't most food items or clothing taxed?

I wasn't referring to the way it is, I was referring to how it should be.

First of all the buyer not the seller pays the sales tax. If a seller decides to absorb that, that is no different then if the seller offers free shipping or a 10% off sale etc. In that scenario, the seller has voluntarily offered a price concession to the buyer in an attempt to increase sales (I presume). If the price concession happens to be equal to the sales tax that the seller is required to pay and the buyer markets it that way, it still does not change the voluntary nature of the transaction.

As for your other point. Earlier I said Income Tax and any sort of tax to the purchasers of essentials is immoral because they are both involuntary. The Income Tax is pretty cut and dry, whereas essentials could be debated. Either way it doesn't change the theory.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Sava
you are wrong... it is not involuntary... it is a social contract... you can always LEAVE AMERICA if you don't like it. Hence, taxation is voluntary because you are choosing to live in this country.

You obviousl didn't read my entire post or just choose to ignore it.

I explain why it is not a contract.

I also explain that just because you are given choices does not mean you have made a voluntary decision

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and where is tha contract written? i dont remeber signing any.

it's a social contract... go read some John Locke and educate yourself.


and it is VOLUNTARY if dopes don't want to pay taxes, they can leave... it's as simple as that...

hey, I'm not happy about the prices I might have to pay for a lot of things, but I don't sit here and whine like a ***** how it is stealing...

taxes are just the price for living in America and in this society... don't like it? leave...

now stop this inane and incessant libertarian BS

You obviousl didn't read my entire post or just choose to ignore it..

I'm not about to waste my time... it doesn't matter how much you write or what you say, you cannot prove a point to be right when it is inherently (and by definition) wrong. You could write a thousand-page book on why the sky isn't blue... you are still wrong.

and it only takes one small sentence for me to say why you are wrong

[Ramo]

You're still ignoring the clear fact that sales taxes are involuntary. Even if consumers didn't have to pay any of it because businesses would absorb it (which is certainly not the case; as BC pointed out, this occurs only in the rare circumstances where the price is extremely inelastic), businesses would have to pay, which takes away the "fruits of labor" of the businesses' owners and employees.

In fact, sales taxes are more coercive than income taxes since sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor, and the poor have far less of a capacity to pay taxes than the rich (the standard of living of a poor person decreases from sales taxes far more than Bill Gate's standard of living decreases from income taxes).

[Ramo]

All this crap about sales taxes being moral, but income taxes being immoral is equivalent to saying that it's ok for the gov't to coerce money out of people, as long as those that suffer from this coercion are poor.

[Ramo]

and it is VOLUNTARY if dopes don't want to pay taxes, they can leave... it's as simple as that...

Income taxes aren't voluntary. Not to say that they're necessarily wrong, but saying that they are voluntary is silly. Using reasoning like that is like saying, "Concentration camps are voluntary. If you don't want to go to a concentration camp, leave Germany."

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

The rule is that all people should be treated equally.

what do you mean by "treated"? there are many things that are utilitarian, but aren't completely egalitarian. Like different paychecks for different professions, different goods for different amounts of money paid, etc.

I mean society should treat every citizen equally. That is never discriminate. What can I say? Only equal is truly equal. :

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

I think you can make all of them happy.

So do I. I don't think that they must be COMPLETELY EQUALLY HAPPY, though. The important thing is that as much people would be as happy as possible. equality is only in the importance of the happiness of different individuals.

I don't agree. You have to take each persons happiness into consideration. In my opinion it is unethical to force people to give up a kidney because there is no just compensation to that individual. Therefore the person who the kidney was taken from was treated unfairly - an injustice has occured, and I don't care if the recipient is happier than the victim is sad. Injustice is not ethical.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo


Income taxes aren't voluntary. Not to say that they're necessarily wrong, but saying that they are voluntary is silly. Using reasoning like that is like saying, "Concentration camps are voluntary. If you don't want to go to a concentration camp, leave Germany."

except America is an open country and you can leave any time you want... now if there were gestapo thugs forcing you to work and taking your money and you couldn't escape... then income taxes would be stealing.

none of this libertarian bs floats...

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sava
except America is an open country and you can leave any time you want... now if there were gestapo thugs forcing you to work and taking your money and you couldn't escape... then income taxes would be stealing.

none of this libertarian bs floats...

Just because some one has a choice doesn't mean that they aren't being coerced. There is a cost involved with leaving the country. As long as the tax costs less than the cost of leaving the country the govt is able to coerce you into paying the tax.

[Ramo]

But you could've left Germany before the round-ups (just like you can leave this country before the IRS comes knocking). Then, you don't have to deal with the Gestapo.

In fact, let's imagine a scenario where the Gestapo comes up to you and says "You either can leave this country or come to the concentration camp." Would that be voluntary?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
This whole currency argument as a legitimization of Income Tax makes no sense.

Income Tax is not a currency usage or currency transfer tax. If so everytime I made change I would have to pay a tax.

US Currency is by its definition valued by congress and taxable (as per the Coinage act)... the government can choose to tax it in one transfer but not in another... E.G. inheritances are taxed, but gifts under a certain value are not... the rules of taxation are arbitrarily formed.

Non-currency Income is taxed at the same rate as currency generated income. The US Tax Code reads "Income from whatever source derived" and mentions nothing about currency as a qualifier.

As for currency being income...

14. U.S. v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257. C.A.Tex. 1979.

Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for taxes, and constituted income for income tax purposes.

The federal government instituted equivalent taxation for non-currency transactions to prevent companies from avoiding taxation by those methods.

*SNIP*

Currency is not the property of the government. As I said earlier it is a bearer note. Whoever owns the currency owns it and the value it represents.

Wrong. The notes are Federal Reserve notes, and they are liens on the Government. They have no intrinsic value, other than the value of the paper, ink or metal.

Note that:

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt cancelled (repudiated) the Redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold within these United States of America and forbid the private ownership of gold coins or bullion by Citizens, upon penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Sava
it's a social contract... go read some John Locke and educate yourself.

Who said everthing John Locke ever said was correct.

A contract is a voluntary agreement, between informed parties for consideration along with a few other points. It does not have to be written.

Just because you choose to call something a contract which isn't, doesn't mean it is

and it is VOLUNTARY if dopes don't want to pay taxes, they can leave... it's as simple as that...

the legal term for what you described above would be "duress" Contracts made under duress are null and void

hey, I'm not happy about the prices I might have to pay for a lot of things, but I don't sit here and whine like a ***** how it is stealing...

Not liking a price set for something that you are not required to pay for is not immoral because you simply don't have to buy it and u dont have to go to jail if you choose not to buy it. I'm not complaining because the cost of stereos is too high. In this thread, I am not even attempting to make the point that taxes are too high (although I think they are)

taxes are just the price for living in America and in this society... don't like it? leave...

I agree that taxes that don't involve theft and involuntary servitude as I defined above are a legitimate way to pay for the country, even if I don't agree with the amount or how they are used. Theft and involuntary servitude to pay for the government isn't.

now stop this inane and incessant libertarian BS

If you are unable to make a valid argument that relates to what I am saying please stop your inane and incessant BS

I'm not about to waste my time... it doesn't matter how much you write or what you say, you cannot prove a point to be right when it is inherently (and by definition) wrong. You could write a thousand-page book on why the sky isn't blue... you are still wrong.

The sky isn't always blue

and it only takes one small sentence for me to say why you are wrong

I'm still waiting for that one sentence

[Ramo]

Nevermind, I'm antsy today.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Not liking a price set for something that you are not required to pay for is not immoral because you simply don't have to buy it and u dont have to go to jail if you choose not to buy it. I'm not complaining because the cost of stereos is too high. In this thread, I am not even attempting to make the point that taxes are too high (although I think they are)

So the value of money doesn't concern you? It decreases the value of your income, whether you spend it or not. What's the difference between decreasing the value of your income and decreasing your income?

[MrBaggins]

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].

Heres a quote from Idiot Legal Arguments

that federal income tax is "contractual": US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122; US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); (similarly, claim that Social Security is a contract which perp can repudiate) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B (court quoted from Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, 363 US 603, that Soc.Sec is "noncontractual", and said "Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion ... Social Security is not a voluntary system, and he did not become a participant in it by contract. His arguments regarding fraudulent inducement or that the fact that he may have been a minor when he obtained his SSN therefore are not persuasive."); ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); similarly Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; similarly Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; Van Hall v. IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410;tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924

There are plenty more issues completely debunked by the courts at http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].

Isn't it so true.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Isn't it so true.

/me chuckles

especially since the judge was adjudicating for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and against an individual making an argument such as you (and the libertarians) have made.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
All this crap about sales taxes being moral, but income taxes being immoral is equivalent to saying that it's ok for the gov't to coerce money out of people, as long as those that suffer from this coercion are poor.

Untrue. My scenario was to avoid all essentials, which the poorer you are the higher percent of your income goes to.

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases. When making the buying decision (note the word decision and not obligation) you look at the price and determine if you want to buy it or not. You could if you want set up a system where the rich were the only ones that paid the tax. (i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

[GePap]

Interestingly enough, while I disgree with Deity Dude's belief that income tax is theft (and I assume he thinks taxes on dividends at profits are the same-not sure), I do think the gov should make further use of use taxes.

[Ramo]

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases.

Every purchase is discriminatory (even ones you might classify as "essential" like food). I can make a discrimination about whether or not I should buy food; if I don't, I could go to friends and relatives, a soup kitchen, I could even die. And even if owning a yacht isn't a major priority for a person like food might be, that doesn't mean a sales tax on it is not coercive (see the other posts I addressed to you). For exactly the same reason why an income tax is coercive.

(i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

You're really going to fund a modern government through sales taxes from things like yachts and airplanes?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Untrue. My scenario was to avoid all essentials, which the poorer you are the higher percent of your income goes to.

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases. When making the buying decision (note the word decision and not obligation) you look at the price and determine if you want to buy it or not. You could if you want set up a system where the rich were the only ones that paid the tax. (i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax. It's no different from being obligated to pay a tax.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So the value of money doesn't concern you? It decreases the value of your income, whether you spend it or not. What's the difference between decreasing the value of your income and decreasing your income?

I didn't say it didn't concern me. The point is that a decrease in value in something doesn't necessarily mean someone stole something from you.

If I have a lousy harvest because the weather was bad, the value of my harvest went down... I am concerned... but niothing was stolen. If I have a harvest and someone comes along and takes a portion of it against my will, now that's a different story.