You agree to pay taxes by continuing to live here.
Taxes aren't theft any more than the check at the end of a restaurant meal is theft.
In both cases, you agree to pay something in exchange for something (a meal, a functioning government, etc).
Taxes aren't theft any more than the check at the end of a restaurant meal is theft.
In both cases, you agree to pay something in exchange for something (a meal, a functioning government, etc).
Does one agree to civil forfeiture by continuing to live where it is legal?
If we were free to move to a country where we agreed with the laws you might be right. That's not reality though.
We are not (currently) free to choose how we pay taxes in any country and our freedom to move from one country to another is restricted.
So, sorry, I never agreed to pay these taxes, I have little say in how they're used, and I have no alternatives except to go to prison. That's not freedom. That's simply coercion and theft.
If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want, that does not grant you the right to take a car without paying for it.
So, yes, you do agree to pay these taxes by continuing to live here.
Please explain how I can do that. I would actually like to move to Switzerland, could you explain how I can freely do that as everything I've researched indicates it's neither free nor possible in any reasonable amount of time. If not Switzerland I'll settle for some other country where I can live freely and be safe from coercion.
> If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want...
Nobody is forcing me to buy the car with the threat of prison if I don't, and I do not need a car to survive. I do need to live someplace however.
If the country of your choice doesn't permit you to emigrate, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly free from your obligations to whatever country will host you.
Wouldn't that be convenient? "Sir, I don't have to pay taxes. I want to move to Switzerland, but they're full right now, so I can't."
(And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole out of the antitax crowd--for nearly all cases, they'll simply garnish your wages, or something equally non-freedom-constraining.)
> And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole...
It's not hyperbole. If you willfully fail to file that's grounds for imprisonment:
http://www.businessinsider.com/terrible-things-that-could-ha...
You're probably thinking of cases when people "forget" or make "mistakes" in their filing.
> ...out of the antitax crowd
I mentioned this already, I am not anti-tax. Please cut it with the labeling. It's late. We're going in circles. Have a good night, I won't be replying to whatever you post next.
And again, whether all other countries do not meet your preference or requirement does not free you from your obligations to this one, as long as you live here.
Whether other countries don't allow you in, don't allow you to stay, don't govern the way you like, or whatever other complaint you may have about other countries, that does not change your present-day relationship to this one: that you live here, and as such are obligated to pay taxes as long as you do.
And of course there are, right now, many other countries that you could emigrate to if you liked. Even if your A-list countries aren't open, you still have lots of options.
Sorry, itistoday2, I'm sure you're a nice person in person, but the argument you're making is obnoxious. Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!
People also used to get annoyed when people said the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.
Oh they regularly send people to prison for failing to pay taxes. Does the name Wesley Snipes ring a bell? They sent him to prison for three years on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns, even after he brought a check to court for the outstanding balance.
On a basic level, that's what all laws are. They are a series of escalating punishments and threats that end soon after "then, we'll send guys with guns to take you to prison".
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.
So, putting aside the immigration issues, and assuming you could move to wherever you wanted it's still not possible.
For some reason, most anti-taxers consider this not to be "coercion" but to be an efficient way of allocating resources and will defend to the death the landlord's right to demand that I compensate him for occupying a particular location he has a prior claim over. The rationale behind treating private territorial claims on my wealth more favourably than public ones continues to elude me...
When you're a child, and your parents have custody of you, they make that choice for you--you're a citizen here, here's where you'll live, be politically involved, and pay taxes.
When you're old enough to make that choice for yourself, that's when you can stay--with all that entails--or go.
It's therefore impossible for any US citizen to legally avoid paying tax at least once, assuming sufficient income to have to pay tax in the first place.
Do note that this law also applies to foreign born US citizens, who are citizens by blood but who have never even visited the US. For obvious reasons, many of these citizens either don't know about their obligations under US law, or deliberately ignore it.
Or, don't work until you decide to leave, and then leave.
That it requires very quick timing or unusual planning to end your obligation does not mean that you don't need to pay it when you are obliged to.
In any case, the current cost to renounce your citizenship is $2,350. You might say it's a "fee" and not a "tax". That label is irrelevant in the overarching context of financial obligations imposed upon a person. Otherwise the US should just charge everyone a fee for having US citizenship and forget about the whole "tax" issue.
Moving just within the United States can end up being an expensive endeavor as is. Moving out of it isn't any more affordable, meaning that your argument basically amounts to "tough luck, poor people".
Not that I believe taxes are inherently bad, but the implication that "you can always leave if you don't like it" is misleading at best (and realistically outright false for a rather large segment of the American population).
Someone born in a particular house with a third party claiming ownership rights faces exactly the same keep paying up or vacate dilemma as someone born in a particular country. In both cases, they might find it difficult to find a piece of territory that is both appealing to live and doesn't involve paying someone else for their right to occupy it.
The relationship governments have with their citizens is unique.
It goes like this: give us a chunk of your entire income forever or else we'll throw you in prison. Don't like it? Say good-bye to all your friends and family and enjoy surviving in a country where you don't understand anything anyone is saying, which will probably just give you the same ultimatum.
That's simply mafia-style protection-money robbery.
There is another option: voluntary association and voluntary taxation. This is just one possible form it can take: http://groupcurrency.org
Finding a jurisdiction in which English is widely spoken and there's no income tax is actually surprisingly easy...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!").
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.
> 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.
You also keep ignoring the facts that: 1) You consent to taxation by living here, 2) And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
You keep saying "no consent existed" but it has existed all your life, first by your legal guardians, and now by you.
Why this is wrong was addressed previously so not gonna repeat myself.
> And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
Your parents cannot give this consent for you. Can they consent for you to be raped? Would their approval of you being raped suddenly make it not rape?
No. You're arguments are nonsensical. Go home. I'm done here.