Are wages you earn your property?

[davjohns 1]

From reading the works of the Founding Fathers, I think the US started out with a principle that one's earnings were personal property and taking that away was tantamount to theft, whether the taker was private or government.

Today, it seems anything I earn belongs to the government for it's use or to someone else because they 'deserve' it. Government routinely decides that someone 'deserves' assistance. At the same time, they decide that I (and you) do not 'deserve' what we earned. Government takes what we do not deserve and gives it to someone else. Oddly, the 'deserving' person often votes for the government representative who makes this decision.

To answer the question: we once owned what we earned. Today, we all belong to the government and don't own anything. Doubt me? Don't pay your property taxes and see what home ownership does for you.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

As you know, whether tax protestors like it or not, the SCOTUS's decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), as well as its progeny, have pretty much ruled the land on the issue since 1916. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Brushaber was an 8-0 decision.

[kallend 1,625]

Sure they are my property.

And when I use them to pay bills, that money becomes the property of some other person or entity. If the bills are tax bills, then that other entity is some branch of government.

It's easy, really.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

These comments are directed not specifically to Davjohns, but to all who argue that taxes are "theft".

Can you suggest a mechanism by which you would be able to completely separate yourself from all the tangible and intangible benefits that you receive from government (i.e. taxpayer) funded services?

On the direct side there is of course law enforcement and firefighting, but also there is access to relatively safe food, water, and air. The situation would be very different if not for enforcement of laws and standards regarding food safety and pollution of water and air, as was the case in the past before those laws were enacted. In cities, massive epidemics of water-borne diseases such as cholera, with horrendous death tolls, were commonplace before the development of taxpayer-funded sewer systems and clean water supplies. The fact that average life expectancy has more than doubled compared to 150 years ago is mostly due to these public health resources.

On the less direct side, we all benefit from the wealth that is generated by private enterprise having access to an educated work force. If nothing else, this helps ensure that the "talent pool" is not limited to small segment of the population who can afford to hire private teachers to educate their children, as used to be the case before the development of public education. We all benefit from the medical advances funded by the NIH, as well as from the pool of trained scientists whose graduate training is supported by NIH, NSF, and other government agencies. We have all benefited from the taxpayer funded defense of our country.

If you don't want to pay your share for any of this, why should you derive any of the benefit? It seems to me that everyone who claims that taxes are unconstitutional or "theft" should present explicit alternative mechanisms for either funding such services, or ensuring that those who can pay but refuse to do so derive no benefit, direct or indirect, from these services.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are the wages you work for your own property or does some portion of them rightfully belong to some other entity?

Do you believe the cost of governmental services are free?

Government services do have a cost attached.

The cost of government services has nothing to do with the private property of wages.

Would it suprise you to know that the Federal Government operated for over 100 years without any income tax?

Peace,
Jim B.

And humans operated for 100's of 1000's of years without sewer or septic systems. You should enjoin the discussion in good faith instead of asking manipulative questions.

YES. The very simple and straightforward answer to your very simple and straightforward question is yes. Your wages are your private property.

Now that it has been answered, I'm interested to see where you go with this.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[wmw999 2,123]

Yes, they are. And since I choose to earn them and live somewhere with a pretty significant infrastructure, I pay some of them out. Sometimes more than I'd like but, well, there's only one infrastructure.

If I go out to eat, I pay the restaurant even if I'm disappointed with what I ate. That's because there are lots of restaurants, and it's (as compared with a power company or sewage plant) relatively cheap to open one.

I kind of like having sewage treatment, air quality regulations, law enforcement, etc. I kind of like the fact that being an officer is no longer restricted to the rich, because that's how the army was financed in part.

If I really, really didn't want to pay for all that stuff, I could live off the grid in some places, and make sure that my income was low enough not to pay income tax. It wouldn't be an easy life, but it would be pretty much all mine. A lot of the stuff that makes life easy is that infrastructure, and it costs.

There are ways not to pay for it. Most people just want to have it, and not pay for it. Or pay what they think is fair (which rarely reflects the cost).

I voted "yes."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rhaig 0]

let's start a campaign. who will chip in a few bucks to some developers to add a feature to manage a killfile feature?? It would give you the ability to ignore posts by and replies to posts by a list of users.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

>So you kinda see where that is, basicly the government cant take your
>shit unless they pay you for it.

Sure they can. They can take your property if you refuse to pay income taxes. They can even put you in jail. What gives them the right to do that? The Sixteenth Amendment.

>If Airborne division needs a few new rigs they cant just come to the dz
>and scarf up any rig on the packing mat unless they provide "just
>compensation".

During an emergency, they can do just that. During peacetime, they do it more indirectly; they tax the DZ (and everyone else) to pay for those rigs.

[KidWicked 0]

jimbrown has run from this thread now that the counter arguments have come out.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>So you kinda see where that is, basicly the government cant take your
>shit unless they pay you for it.

Sure they can. They can take your property if you refuse to pay income taxes. They can even put you in jail. What gives them the right to do that? The Sixteenth Amendment.

>If Airborne division needs a few new rigs they cant just come to the dz
>and scarf up any rig on the packing mat unless they provide "just
>compensation".

During an emergency, they can do just that. During peacetime, they do it more indirectly; they tax the DZ (and everyone else) to pay for those rigs.

The government(s) absolutely have the right to tax. Taxation is NOT deemed a "taking of property" subject to the 5th Amendment. That principle has been so firmly entrenched in the court caselaw of the land, for so long now (well, since 1916, and reiterated many times thereafter), that it's quite obvious that only a constitutional amendment could now make it otherwise. Period. Which is why this manner of "tax protest" is, frankly, just pissing into the wind.

Having said that, the 5th Amendment does guarantee just compensation if the government takes private property outside of taxation, like in the example of the US military requisitioning rigs from a DZ in time of emergency. The DZ must eventually be fairly compensated for that.

The most typical example of that which we commonly see today is when a government uses "eminent domain and condemnation" to take private property for public use, like for the right-of-way for a new highway. In such cases, the government must fairly compensate the property owner. Plus, the government cannot simply set the figure unilaterally: if the parties cannot agree on valuation, there is an absolute right to a jury trial to determine the proper amount of compensation.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

If you don't want to pay your share for any of this, why should you derive any of the benefit? It seems to me that everyone who claims that taxes are unconstitutional or "theft" should present explicit alternative mechanisms for either funding such services, or ensuring that those who can pay but refuse to do so derive no benefit, direct or indirect, from these services.

I liked your answer a LOT...


I pay my taxes which support many things which benefit my neighbors and I. I want to live around an educated populace that can be productive members of society. I pay for government services which sometimes get to be onerous, but does lead to living in a civilized society.

To those who do NOT want to pay to make for a civilized and educated populace... I think a one year "vacation" to Somalia is in order. It seems the Somali's have cast off all that silly government taxation, with little or no education, little or no remaining infrastructure, and a lack of any rule of law outside of gang/tribal violence within their realm of influence. It seems to be a LIBERTARIAN nirvana... now if all these so called LIEBERTARIANS around here would just head on over for that vacation, perhaps they might start to appreaciate this country.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Would it suprise you to know that the Federal Government operated for over 100 years without any income tax?

And during this time, America as a third rate power. Hell, the Brits burned down our White House. Would you trade income taxes for our global influence, and become a really big Greece instead?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

jimbrown has run from this thread now that the counter arguments have come out.

Still, he was the best damn running back of his day, so show some respect.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

jimbrown has run from this thread now that the counter arguments have come out.

Still, he was the best damn running back of his day, so show some respect.

didn't kill his wife, neither.

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

It seems to be a LIBERTARIAN nirvana... now if all these so called LIEBERTARIANS around here would just head on over for that vacation, perhaps they might start to appreaciate this country.

Just for the record, not all of us are extremist wack jobs. You average middle of the road Libertarian understands that there is a certain amount of government that must be maintained in order to remain a society. Likewise, we understand that taxation is required to fund that government.

Do we want to reduce interference in our personal lives (from whatever source)? Yes, but more importantly, we undertand that the price of our liberty is acceptingthat there will be consequences for making those decisions. In this particualr case if a wack job decides they have the liberty of not paying taxes, than they deserve the consequences of that decision.


-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

It seems to be a LIBERTARIAN nirvana... now if all these so called LIEBERTARIANS around here would just head on over for that vacation, perhaps they might start to appreaciate this country.

Just for the record, not all of us are extremist wack jobs. You average middle of the road Libertarian understands that there is a certain amount of government that must be maintained in order to remain a society. Likewise, we understand that taxation is required to fund that government.

Do we want to reduce interference in our personal lives (from whatever source)? Yes, but more importantly, we undertand that the price of our liberty is acceptingthat there will be consequences for making those decisions. In this particualr case if a wack job decides they have the liberty of not paying taxes, than they deserve the consequences of that decision.


-Blind

I have run across some of those whack jobs out here in WA, ID, OR and MT... They support a Balkanization of America.... all of them seem to have a distinctly ultra conservative and libertarian very bent world view.

[tr027 0]

Well Jim now you have your answer as to the prevalence of hardcore fascistic statism in the skydiving population.

"But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
-Lysander Spooner

Harry Reid saying taxes are voluntary and not forceful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sC10wyLOs

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[billvon 2,400]

>Harry Reid saying taxes are voluntary and not forceful:

They're not, in the same way that paying your credit card bill is voluntary. If you never use it, you never have to pay off the bill.

But if you use it for years, enjoying the benefits of it, and then refuse to pay the bills you rack up - expect to wind up in court. Does that mean that credit card companies are making you their slaves? Are they robbing you of what is rightly your property? Should you be absolved of your debt because of the Fifth Amendment? Nope. You still owe.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

But if you use it for years, enjoying the benefits of it, and then refuse to pay the bills you rack up - expect to wind up in court. Does that mean that credit card companies are making you their slaves? Are they robbing you of what is rightly your property? Should you be absolved of your debt because of the Fifth Amendment? Nope. You still owe.

Obviously if you used your credit card to buy guns or books, you should not have to pay for it.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Well Jim now you have your answer as to the prevalence of hardcore fascistic statism in the skydiving population.

tr027, building a bridge to the 19th century one quote at a time!

I would argue that the real thief is the one who wishes to avail themselves of the benefits of an organized society, yet shoulder none of the costs. I'll repeat to you the question I asked above: if you regard taxation as theft, then how do you propose to ensure that you, personally, do not derive any benefit whatsoever, in any way, from the services provided by the institution you so disdain?

Mr. Spooner lived in a day and age when the total population of the US amounted to less than 50 million people. There were no cars, no highway system, no medical technology to speak of. Industries just dumped their waste directly into the same water people relied on for drinking. If you didn't like living in one of the polluted Eastern cities, there was plenty of land for the taking out West, as long as you didn't mind clearing off the natives. If you wanted to be an "island unto himself", that could be done. Most of the population was illiterate, but that didn't matter too much as most jobs didn't require much reading and writing anyway. How well do you think that description translates to today's world? What do you imagine the life expectancy would be today with no public health infrastructure, no restrictions on industry's ability to pollute common resources, no investment in medical research? How wealthy do you imagine America would be if 80% of our workforce had less than a 3rd grade education? Would the rest of the world really step aside and let such a country, unwilling to invest at all in the health and education of its population, be a leader in anything?

The problem with all you tax abolitionists is that you were born 200 years too late. Either that, or you do expect all the benefits of living in the wealthiest society in the world to be handed to you for nothing. Who's the welfare bum here?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[tr027 0]

Quote

then how do you propose to ensure that you, personally, do not derive any benefit whatsoever, in any way, from the services provided by the institution you so disdain?

I don't, I instead propose not having a special parasitic, wasteful, and unnaccountable class of people with unlimited "rights" of violence and coercion against the population; to do away with the mafia style of farming people for money. To ask whether your wages are your property is like asking if the farmer's cow owns the grass it eats. We have no real property rights because the gov't claims ownership of us as its livestock. The livestock aren't free to suicide or do drugs because they do not own their bodies. If you accept the Non Aggression Principle everything else follows quite logically and consistently.

I fully expect none of this will be at all agreeable to anyone here so dont be surprised if I give up the discussion for more productive activities (like watching grass grow) and feel very free to count it as a debate victory with me running from the thread.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[david3 0]

Quote

Are the wages you work for your own property or does some portion of them rightfully belong to some other entity?

Peace,
Jim B.

Don Jardine...?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

As you know, whether tax protestors like it or not, the SCOTUS's decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), as well as its progeny, have pretty much ruled the land on the issue since 1916. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Brushaber was an 8-0 decision.

I can't tell if you are suggesting I am a tax protestor or not. I am not. I have no problem with moderate and reasonable taxation for essential government services. I have a problem with taxation to support a vote generation machine and poor money management systems.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

-Lysander Spooner

Lysander Spooner... really

That was one crazy mofo... no wonder the LIEBERTARIANS and Anarchists wish to diefy him

[Skwrl 56]

Taxes are expressly authorized by the Constitution, and all taxes are a taking of property. As the Supreme Court explained in 1916:

Quote

“So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon, it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause.”

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916).

In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the federal income tax violates the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.

The claim that “income taxation, tax withholding, or the assessment or collection of tax is a ‘taking’ of property without due process of law or just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.

Unless you are going to take the position that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of what the law is in the US (pro-tip, it is, that was settled in Marbury v. Madison in 1803), you're dead in the water on this argument.

Now, you may not think it's right, you may think it somehow runs afoul of the "Rights of Man", you may think it's dumb policy, whatever... All of that may be true, but that's not what the law is.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork