No horse feathers here, a tax is a tax. Taxes designed/intended to further social and economic goals are still taxes and the revenues are used to pay the expense of government. Hmm, what the hell does that mean? Just who is offering poverty? A tax on cigarettes or gasoline or any other commodity or service affects the livelihood of the taxed. It matters little what is being taxed. Money is being transferred from the taxed to the state.
ONE MORE TIME: INCOME tax. Do you read English? INCOME tax. Not "tax" I said INCOME tax. But, lets go to the definitnion as I think it's quite interesting: HA!!! That is some funny shit PJ. Maybe you should read the definition before commenting :roflmao: Notice the words in blue: ... a compulsory financial contribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the income or property of persons . The initiation of force to take something from someone is STEALING. Just because one makes it LEGAL does NOT make it MORAL. You can't legislate morality. Change TWO words and it becomes clear how IMMORAL this situation is: ... a compulsory KIDNEYcontribution imposed by a government to raise revenue, levied on the BODY of persons. WHY? Why have you given a pass on the taking of one form of property and time (money) and not another form of property and time (a kidney)? What sort of convoluted logical argument have made that delineates between the two forms of private property? OH, you HAVEN'T!!! You just blow in here rant, kick and scream like a baby and leave in a huff. MAKE THE ARGUMENT PJ. Then I'll listen and we can discuss. Linking a definition for TAX doesn't make the case for why INCOME tax (the taking of private property BY the State through force) is or is not moral. OH, and I'm not an anything. Labeling someone a "Libertarian" is also not a rational argument and is really just a logical fallacy of attacking the person and not the question (although I'd take it as a complement nonethesame). Also, this thread was about the difference in the words "money" -vs- "Currency" it has been derailed a number of times because of the different way in which people use various terms. I suggested Commodity Money and Paper Money
I did. unlike you I don't consider informal definitions from a country no taking part in the discussion is valed. but since your creaming yourself you clearly do. yes. again these are your definitions not those of the dictionary and most people. well if you want to I suggest studying legal theory. but as something as basic as honest consistent defining of words escapes you some how I feel trying to understands years worth of legal argument is going to beyond you. funny coming from the guy who is redefining words and concepts left and right to make the their points. and I didn't leave in a huff. I'm sorry if you dislike people getting upset by your dishonesty but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to be upset with you about it. no but showing by definition a tax is not theft does. and since any tax isn't theft therefore an income tax is not theft. and also if your going along the way of taking excess income is wrong any tax is taking income away from anyone so therefore using your definition rather than normal people all taxes would be theft of private property. yes you are. whether or not you wish to admit you are what you are. admiting being something and being something aren't the same thing. you be right if I was trying to refute your argument by doing that I'm not. I'm just calling out for being an arrogant prick and acting as if only you understand the world. which whether you admit it or not is exactly how you act.
So, back to The Island we go. Why? Because it allows us to think about ideas without superficial notions of "I'm American" "USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!" "Hey! You use the roads!" "I hope you're happy NOW Steve Jobs! YOU HAVE HIS KIDNEY!!!" 1) A group of 5 people take a vote on a proposed Sex Tax. The single woman on the island votes NO while the 4 men vote YES. Sex Tax now becomes legal. She is raped. Is rape now moral because you've called it a tax? Answer: No. Rape may now Defined as a "Sex Tax" and it may be Legal, but it is and always will be immoral. But, why? Why is a "Sex Tax" immoral? I mean, most of the people support it? And SHE uses the ROADS for Christ's Sake!!! Conclusion: The initiation of force is immoral and therefor a Sex Tax is immoal. Defining Rape as a "Sex Tax" levied on the public .... doesn't make it anything other than what it is: Rape. You'd be surprised at how long forced sex was considered moral - even the norm. Still is in some countries. Pretty backwards huh? Why do they think it's normal while we know it's not moral? Because we understand Ethics and through the study of morals we can come to understand initiation of force is immoral. You can dress a Pig up with Lipstick, it's still a PIG. IOWs, Nationalism, Democracy, Patriotism, Religion, Culture, etc... these do not supersede Ethics. Taxing a WORKER for their LABOR, something they own!?!? HOW can you tax a person for something they already OWN? What next, your going to cut their kidney out "For the Glory of GOD and the Good of the Nation!" I mean: They use the roads!!! AND you people THINK you're "Liberals"... The "Workers Party" and have the gall to snidely refer to me as a "Libertarian" .... Ever read 1984? You may want to.
Yawn. your focus on income taxes alone just shows how dishonest you actually are. and your shpiel on morality is really a very poorly veiled whine about how you don't think those dirty poor people should get your money because god damit you may or may not have worked a little but to get that money. and before you bitch I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your not idiot. first point we pay taxes on things we own all the fucking time. property taxes. hell when you go to get the tags renewned on your car the sheet of paper notes the taxable worth of car. so focusing on income as being taxed on something we own when in fact technically we don't actually own are labor just the possibility of our labor while ignoring the actual taxes on things people own is kind of silly. secondly the whole issue of morality here is bullshit. there is nothing amoral about a government funding itself. the whole initiation of force bs in the context of nation states against citizens is at the end of the day bs. it pretends that a that interactional level of private entities between each other, public entities between each other, and a private entities interacting with public entities is all the same its not. not to mention that if you get down to the nitty gritty if you accept the idea that "initiation of force" is bad that any and all governmental attempts to enforce the rule of law is amoral. thirdly. really is there any reason why your analogies are always shit? its own thing to use private entity actions to make analogies to public entity actions when they are similiar in context. but to contextualize the rather routine and normal collecting of income tax something that has happened for basicly all of human history to the hypothetical legalization of rape is a gross disortion of the actions being taken. your clearly doing it for shock value which when done as often as you use such poor analogies is normally a sign of a weak argument or an unintelligent mind. and lets not forget that such a screwed up analogy is insulting to all the victims of sex crimes doublely so in those areas where it hard to get it prosecuted.
Ah, no, it shows I'm talking about a particular type of tax. If you think Income Tax is going to the "poor" you're smoking crack - try the Military Industrial Complex. AS for the <11% pittance passed onto the poor, 80% of that is gobbled up in administrating the money. Welfare is primarily spent on fat white middle class bureaucrat administrators. Eliminating the "poor" is the LAST thing from their mind. It'd put them out of a job! Poverty was reducing at about 1% per year up until the "Great Society" since then the poor has INCREASED!!! You DO understand that don't you? Poverty has increased NOT decreased - increased, since the government go involved. AND it will continue to increase. The more the government says it's going to work to help the poor, the poorer those folk will become. What's your point? Yeah, we pay a lot of needless wasteful taxes. I'm referring to the immorality of income tax. No, I'm referring to initiation of force against an innocent person. Yes, we live in such an immoral society you've pretty much just accepted that immorality as "normal" and therefor you mistakenly think it's therefor "moral". Ah, no. Slavery was the norm, but it was also immoral. The analogy is there to prove you with a reason why your thinking is incorrect. In the example of Sex Tax we see that calling Rape "Sex Tax" doesn't make it moral. Legalizing rape as "Sex Tax" doesn't make it moral. What we learn is that litigation doesn't equate to morality. It used to be legal to kill your Slave. So what? It was still immoral. Why? Because it involves initiation of force against an innocent person. Do you think it's moral for the government to tax a kidney from you? Why not? Suppose someone needed that kidney. You drive on the roads! What? You're going to just stand there and let a person DIE?! You stingy f*ck. Because of people like you, who don't give up your Kidney, we have all the problems in society. Therefor it's OK for us to take yours from you. See, you say the same thing about people's money. It's equally as asinine.
Think of these two phrases: Political Currency Political Money They conjure up very different meanings doing that? But why? If currency and money are the same, why do we used the words to have very different meanings?
To carry on where I left off.... Political currency is something "built up" (like favors) and then "spent" as in "calling in those favors" quid pro quo. Political money is actual "money" and when it's spent it's actual money being spent.
