Taxation on income is immoral and un-Constitutional, right?

[galtgulch]

Article 1 Section 9 forbid a direct tax or capitation tax, without apportionment.

The Sixteenth Amendment contradicted that prohibition.

The tax code is convoluted but there might be a way to interpret the IRS code to mean that only income from foreign sources is taxable.

Anyone care to see if this reasoning makes any sense?

http://www.taxhonesty.com/

Scroll down and watch the video about 861

Let me know what you think!

g

[georgedonnelly]

I looked into this awhile back. There is little if any practical legal basis for resisting the income and "wage" taxes.

immoral? I would just call it theft.

unconstitutional? probably not, unfortunately.

[howardahood]

I can make the case that the only kind of taxation that is not theft is that which produces income needed to protect individual rights and which is fairly allocated among the general population. (I put fees and taxes relating to roads and public utilities in a separate category.) Taxing people and sending some of it to foreign dictators is theft and cannot be justified. Giving away tax money rather than using it to pay the proper expenses of government is theft. Reasonable taxation to pay for police, the army, the courts, etc., is not theft in my opinion. (Example of "unreasonable" taxation: requiring that only people six feet and under have to pay taxes, while taller people are exempt.)

AR maintained that government was a necessity but seemed to oppose "coercive" methods of funding it. Although she was not really interested in giving detailed answers to questions about a hypothetical free political/legal system, she offered government lotteries and charges on contracts as examples of proper fund-raising. I think both of these examples are flawed and would not be sufficient to support modern government. In my view, without "coercive" taxation, no substantial government could exist and we would be left with anarchy. (A fee charged to make contracts legally enforceable might be called non-coercive taxation since you do not have to make contracts. AR seemed to believe that imposing fees for services properly rendered by the government would be consistent with individual rights.)

I think that gasoline and vehicle taxes are examples of proper taxes, if used to pay for roads, bridges, and enforcing traffic laws. The people who are using the roads, pay for them. Those who do not have cars and do not drive would not pay directly for roads and bridges. The cost of goods and services would include components relating to transportation costs, including taxes on fuel and vehicles. In contrast to Rand and the extreme libertarians, I do not oppose government ownership of streets, roads, bridges, water/sewer systems, and the like. But that is another question.

The idea that U.S. tax laws do not apply to domestic income is clearly without merit.

Howard Hood

I looked into this awhile back. There is little if any practical legal basis for resisting the income and "wage" taxes.

immoral? I would just call it theft.

unconstitutional? probably not, unfortunately.

[syrakusos]

Article 1 Section 9 forbid a direct tax or capitation tax, without apportionment.

The Sixteenth Amendment contradicted that prohibition.

The Sixteenth Amendment changed that. It was an amendment. That is what amendments do. They are hard to enact, but we have had almost 30 of them in the last 200 years. They usually come in small clusters to meet perceived changes.

Taxation is theft. The writers of the Constitution never questioned the need for it.

Taxation is immoral.

It is not unconstitutional.

My advice is to pay your taxes. I do.

In fact, when you look at the way things really work the ability to pay taxes is a sign of distinction.

The middle class pay very little. The poor pay nothing. That said, over on Rebirth of Reason, I gave citations of wealthy "not for profit" corporations. You have a right to iorganize your business in any lawful way.

If you don't like it here, go live in Syria, for instance. I worked with a guy who said he was going back there to go into business because taxes here are too high. Too high?? What are you talking about? "In Syria, the tax man comes with some papers from the government to show how much you owe. You give him half that much in cash and he goes away. You cannot do that here with your IRS. They are paid too well." ... yeah, well, that and they are actually loyal to the goverment and to the way of life it protects.

The wealthiest 10% of households pay 50% of all federal taxes and nearly 70% of all federal income taxes. The broad middle class, 60% of all households combined, pay less than one-third of all federal taxes and less than 20% of all federal income taxes. The richest 1% of all households – the apparent capitalist ruling class – pay over 20% of all federal taxes and over one-third of all federal income taxes.

"Shares of Federal Tax Liabilities, 2002 and 2003," Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7000/12...FedTaxRates.pdf

Edited April 8, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[howardahood]

I speculate that if government were cut down to size, i.e., if every improper program and expenditure were eliminated, taxes at all levels might be reduced by at least 75%. A large share of local taxes goes to pay for public schools, for example, so all of that could be refunded. Abolishing corporate welfare, such as price supports for sugar and milk, would reduce the cost of living for most people. If government were cut back to essentials, the tax burden would be relatively light for everyone and would not be much of a policy issue.

Howard Hood

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard,

I am really into checking premises.

Is taxations theft? I used to think so. That is the standard Objectivist and libertarian line. I know I don't like forking it over to the guv. But one day something happened and I lost that certainty.

Since when should method be more important than purpose? That's a hell of a thought to think when you are certain. You can't ignore it for long, either, no matter how hard you try (at least I can't). So I think it is extremely beneficial to look at the roots of both method and purpose.

You raise very good points to ponder. Pondered they will be, too. My opinion is that if an idea can stand up to the severest of scrutiny and premise-checking, it becomes cristalline truth. We can drink it safely always.

Human beings are complicated creatures. Put them in a group and the complication gets worse exponentially. Through that lens, taxation is more than confiscation. It is a form of dealing with this complication of human nature in order to get a practical result out of the chaos. I am not saying taxation is right or wrong, but if it is not seen in its entirety, objectivity will be lacking in the evaluation.

Oversimplification only convinces those who think like that. From what I observe, people in general actually do like to oversimplify short-term, but they usually change to a more precise view over time.

Michael

[howardahood]

Michael,

Discussion requires going from the simple to the more complex and detailed. Remember that Rand summarized her philosophy in four or five (?) statements.

On the validity of taxation, I would ask a few of questions:

1. If government requires taxation (I believe so), and you (generic you) oppose taxation, aren't you an unadmitted anarchist?

2. How can a resident of a country rationally object to paying for having his rights protected? Is there a right to have others pay for the protection of your life and property? Someone has to pay for government; if you are not helping support the government financially, but there is a government which is protecting you, aren't you a parasite getting something for nothing? If you own property, or may own property in the future, if you are alive, you need government protection and have an obligation to pay for it if you can. Government protection of rights is fundamental to all aspects of life. I therefore do not think my contentions can be refuted for being an invalid "free rider" argument.

Rand offered government lotteries as a possible way of paying for government in a free society. But should the government be running a gambling business? Should government be encouraging this kind of irrational behavior? Should government have a monopoly on lotteries? If anyone could run lotteries legally, how much money would the government get from a state-run lottery? We already have government lotteries in many states and they do not come close to meeting general funding needs. In my opinion, this Rand proposal cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Rand also suggested a tax on contracts to make them enforceable by the government. I suppose the charge would be proportional to the value of the contract and so most of the money would come from big transactions. But is it fair to make businesses and the wealthy pay the lion's share of funding, for example, the army and the police? The fees imposed on enforceable contracts would have to be high enough to pay for the court system but also high enough to pay for everything else. Can you fund the costs of a modern political system by imposing fees on contracts?

The contract tax could also be imposed on small transactions, such as leases on apartments and purchases over the Internet. Would the cost of insuring ten dollar purchases be disproportional to the benefit to the parties? What if someone failed to pay the contract tax, would he then have no rights in our legal system?

I do not think Rand thought through the idea of financing government with a contract tax and was wrong in thinking that government could be totally financed with such fees. More importantly, I think Rand was wrong in implying that any kind of "coercive" tax or compulsory payment to the government would violate individual rights.

Howard Hood

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Howard,

From a common sense viewpoint, I agree with everything you said.

I have been having some serious doubts about how human nature has been defined in Objectivism. Before this sets off alarm bells, I do not think the definition is totally wrong, but it is limited in scope. If you take it as is and add what is missing, I think this will work as a premise to cover all kinds of common-sense issues like what you raised.

The missing part always concerns the "animal" in "rational animal." All of the principles we see constantly debated (especially the hot button issues), going all the way down to "taxation is theft," are predicated on individual values not including anthing smacking of the individual belonging to a group, not even a biological species. The only group value that is recognized is according to the trader principle.

I think if living in group is an essential part of human nature which we verify by observation (and I agree there are exceptions, like there are with any observed living phenomena), then the existence of a group is a perfectly valid value for all the members of it, or ones who choose to continue in it after they acquire a functioning volitional faculty. In any society, I believe a person should have the inalienable right to leave it if he so desires and when he desires without any strings attached. This is rarely brought up, but it is one of the few social issues where I am solidly defined.

There is usually all or nothing thinking on this. Communists believed that the collective was all and the individual was nothing of moral value. Anarchists believe that the individual is all and groups are nothing of moral value. Objectivism has an uncomfortable position somewhere in the middle which is explained by the trader principle for morality. But the trader principle doesn't work for everything.

You get into trouble when you say an infant can't trade, for example, and that doesn't work. This constantly causes discomfort.

When I think about these issues, the word "balance" keeps coming to mind. Why can't both individual and group values be a part of human nature? If a good proportion and categories could be identified and defined based on metaphysics and not simply political philosophy, I see this providing a sound rational premise to develop all the rest. Including taxation.

Michael

[syrakusos]

Anthony Giddens is a British sociologist who sat in on the Blair-Clinton summits. Perhaps the theoretician of "New Labor" i.e., not your father's fabians, Giddens early in his career took on Talcott Parsons who was then at the end of his career and the end of his life. Parsons had translated Max Weber into English, for instance. According to Parsons's commentaries and other publications, sociologists of the generation 1890-1920 (the liberal Weber and the conservative Durkheim as well as Whyte and other Americans of The Chicago School), wrestled with "the problem of order." Where does social order come from? Why do we have societies? These questions go back to Hobbes and Locke.

Giddens said (in essence), "Baloney. There is no 'problem of order.' " Not only did those earlier sociologists not actually worry that problem, more to the point: there is no problem. To be human is to be in a society. There are humans who are hermits, to be sure. They, too, are sociologically interesting as anomolies. For 99.9999% of us, society is our natural environment.

Now, to me, the curious paradox is that in an urban environment, you are (or can be) anonymous. For the solitary person in a big city, the mental modes that bring success are those of the isolated hunter (or gatherer). The salesman, the dentist, the clerk is really just following tracks, setting traps, lying in wait, gathering edibles. That is the assumption of the Trader Principle.

From another perspective the Trader Principle stems from ritual exchange. At some point in an earlier time, people learned to avoid conflict with strangers by exchanging objects. That necessitates a recognition of the essential humanity of the other party. (We do not exchange with bears, for instance.)

From the viewpoint of strict and narrow individualism, there is no such thing as "society." It is true in some sense. Yet, societies exist. I am a member of the American SOCIETY for Industrial Security and also of the Michigan State Numismatic SOCIETY. Those, however, are better defined than the reified "society" to which convicted felons pay their "debt" (or to which the unselfish rich "give back.")

Edited April 9, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[georgedonnelly]

Is taxations theft? I used to think so. That is the standard Objectivist and libertarian line. I know I don't like forking it over to the guv. But one day something happened and I lost that certainty.

Since when should method be more important than purpose?

"Since when should the means be more important than the end?"

This debate is all about the means and the end.

HH thinks if he defines the end to be the protection of individual rights then it's ok to steal.

What?!

That's like saying that I have to kill you in order to protect life.

The means are always more important than the end and the method is always more important than the purpose.

Edited April 13, 2008 by George Donnelly

[georgedonnelly]

1. If government requires taxation (I believe so), and you (generic you) oppose taxation, aren't you an unadmitted anarchist?

If the government requires your death and you oppose your own death, aren't you an unadmitted anarchist?

What a load of cr*p!

2. How can a resident of a country rationally object to paying for having his rights protected?

This is a loaded question. Government must have a monopoly on the initiation of force but not on the protection of individual rights. This is no different than saying:

How can a resident of a country rationally object to paying for health insurance? (assuming the health care industry is nationalized).

IOW you advocate the nationalization of the rights protection industry. Shame on you.

If you own property, or may own property in the future, if you are alive, you need government protection and have an obligation to pay for it if you can.

You need to substantiate your claim that I need government protection. You sound like a mobster running a protection racket.

And now this is means-based? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", eh?

More importantly, I think Rand was wrong in implying that any kind of "coercive" tax or compulsory payment to the government would violate individual rights.

By definition, any initiation of coercion (force) is a violation of individual rights.

Edited April 14, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am sitting here wondering.

Hmmmmmm...

Howard made a grand total of 12 posts on this forum. He was polite to everybody. He declared a few days ago that he was not posting anymore and he stopped.

There was some real personal nastiness aimed at him without provocation right from the get-go and it is still going on.

This ain't normal. Not even a place like SOLOP, which relishes such behavior, does it like that.

I wonder what's really going on that I don't know about. Anybody feel like sharing?

Michael

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

unconstitutional? probably not, unfortunately.

It's not, there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax. The sixteenth ammendment.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Is it morally wrong? Maybe... First we have to assume men are entitled to the full wages.

Let's say you hire me to protect your property. (I'm a security guard)

The government has decided that they want a cut of my money, I don't know, ten percent, whatever.

There's really only thee possibilities.

#1: They're like the mafia. They expect payment for "protection". When really it's for protection against them. Cause if I don't pay, they're going to make my ass a living hell with the IRS and shit. (The reality of the matter this is very VERY true..)

#2: That they are a nesscaray force. That taxation is needed because inorder to stabalize a society as large as our's, we need more then consentual funding for services. Not that I fully believe that as I'm sure people would pay for roads, police officers, etc. However, I think free trade would be difficult without an "offical" government. As without an "offical" government, we cannot produce money, therefore we have to rely on gold, silver, and other tangible tender..

#3: Income tax is not only not wrong, but good. Because there is so much corruption and venom in "the free market". That "the free market" is based on biggotry, deceit, and exploitation. And that government sticking it to the rich is somehow good. Despite how government shows signs of all the things we want to condemn capitalism of, and in the short term, ruining capitalism causes job loss, loss of choice, and the centralization of power..

So at best, the income tax is "maybe". We can't get a definite yes, and that "maybe" is only "if there's no other way to get enough money". So even at it's best, it's a last ditch effort. I feel the income tax is alright under our current circumstances. We're in great debt, and therefore we need to tax incomes to accumulate more wealth to pay off our nation's debt. And though I have no direct moral repugnancy with the rich as most leftminded people do. I do feel they are easier targets for income tax. I mean duh, they make more money, so they can give more money. It's not rocket science..

Rich people are no better or worse then anybody else. This isn't about punishing them, it's about taking so we don't all suffer more later... Ofcourse, after our debt is payed I'd abolish the income tax..

Please demonstrate your power, by abolishing it now. Later, you can fix other things up by further expressions of your power.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Article 1 Section 9 forbid a direct tax or capitation tax, without apportionment.

The Sixteenth Amendment contradicted that prohibition.

The tax code is convoluted but there might be a way to interpret the IRS code to mean that only income from foreign sources is taxable.

Anyone care to see if this reasoning makes any sense?

http://www.taxhonesty.com/

Scroll down and watch the video about 861

Let me know what you think!

g

I is called repeal. One constitutional amendment contradicted another on the matter of prohibition.

You are straw clutching again. The courts hold that taxation of income is legal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

Article 1 Section 9 forbid a direct tax or capitation tax, without apportionment.

The Sixteenth Amendment contradicted that prohibition.

The tax code is convoluted but there might be a way to interpret the IRS code to mean that only income from foreign sources is taxable.

Anyone care to see if this reasoning makes any sense?

http://www.taxhonesty.com/

Scroll down and watch the video about 861

Let me know what you think!

g

I is called repeal. One constitutional amendment contradicted another on the matter of prohibition.

You are straw clutching again. The courts hold that taxation of income is legal.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Trading your work for pay does not generate income and should not be taxed. Somewhere in the statutes income is defined as capital gain which your work does not generate. makes sense to me but I am sufficiently intimidated to use an expensive, reputable accounting company to "do" my taxes.

gulch 102525

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al,

Trading your work for pay does not generate income and should not be taxed. Somewhere in the statutes income is defined as capital gain which your work does not generate. makes sense to me but I am sufficiently intimidated to use an expensive, reputable accounting company to "do" my taxes.

gulch 102525

That is the same Talmudic Argument that Howard Schiff, the well known tax opponent used. He spent several years behind bars. The Courts have upheld the 16-th. Get used to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

Call taxation 'theft' if you like, but I have no desire to live in a society where the courts, roads, military, police, etc. are all funded privately.

Some things should be left to the private sector, and some things should be left to the public sector.

Why, then, should we not have some socially arranged method of ensuring that these things are funded, like taxation?

Do you really want private citizens making power grabs for control of the courts and legislature?

[Selene]

"Do you really want private citizens making power grabs for control of the courts and legislature?"

Absolutely not, I want it to be like it is right now where private citizens are making power grabs for control of the courts and legislature!

:whistle:

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Welcome to reality, Michelle. I agree with you that a minimal government is a necessity, and that if we don't have some free way to pay for it, then reasonable minimal taxation to pay for it is acceptible. I don't expect anyone to work for me for free, least of all the police and the military.

But, you will find that about fifty percent of so-called "Objectivists" and sympathizers are actually anarchists. Faced with a choice between a minarchist state with minimal taxes and no state at all, they will say they support the latter. That's a very easy position to hold when you live in a free society and can call the police when your neighbor threatens you. There are no fair weather anarchists in Somalia.

[Michelle]

Current tax laws are overtly complicated and ridiculous. The IRS IS nothing but a mafia. Still, I believe it is detrimental to liberty for no government and taxation to exist. Government and taxation are fine... when they're restrained. Currently they aren't.

In terms of the state, the ideal is not so much a small government as a limited one -- let it be large to the degree that it is serving its proper functions, but it should not step outside of its proper functions, which it has done for some time now.

An anarchist is just as much a danger to liberty as a statist.

And, for those Objectivists who wish to maintain a government without taxation, let me ask you: who's wallet will be used to fund this government? Yours? Or will you leave that to the altruism of your fellow man?

And don't say lotteries.

[Michelle]

Welcome to reality, Michelle. I agree with you that a minimal government is a necessity, and that if we don't have some free way to pay for it, then reasonable minimal taxation to pay for it is acceptible. I don't expect anyone to work for me for free, least of all the police and the military.

But, you will find that about fifty percent of so-called "Objectivists" and sympathizers are actually anarchists. Faced with a choice between a minarchist state with minimal taxes and no state at all, they will say they support the latter. That's a very easy position to hold when you live in a free society and can call the police when your neighbor threatens you. There are no fair weather anarchists in Somalia.

What is your opinion of the FairTax proposal?

[kiaer.ts]

Welcome to reality, Michelle. I agree with you that a minimal government is a necessity, and that if we don't have some free way to pay for it, then reasonable minimal taxation to pay for it is acceptible. I don't expect anyone to work for me for free, least of all the police and the military.

But, you will find that about fifty percent of so-called "Objectivists" and sympathizers are actually anarchists. Faced with a choice between a minarchist state with minimal taxes and no state at all, they will say they support the latter. That's a very easy position to hold when you live in a free society and can call the police when your neighbor threatens you. There are no fair weather anarchists in Somalia.

What is your opinion of the FairTax proposal?

I haven't looked at it. I assume you mean a national sales tax? If all other taxes were repealed, (and I doubt this would happen) this would be a better system than what we have now. We'd have to repeal the income tax amendment. Of course, it would make it all to easy then to continue to support a bloated bureaucratic welfare state. So it is better and worse since it is more efficient.

[kiaer.ts]

Welcome to reality, Michelle. I agree with you that a minimal government is a necessity, and that if we don't have some free way to pay for it, then reasonable minimal taxation to pay for it is acceptible. I don't expect anyone to work for me for free, least of all the police and the military.

But, you will find that about fifty percent of so-called "Objectivists" and sympathizers are actually anarchists. Faced with a choice between a minarchist state with minimal taxes and no state at all, they will say they support the latter. That's a very easy position to hold when you live in a free society and can call the police when your neighbor threatens you. There are no fair weather anarchists in Somalia.

What is your opinion of the FairTax proposal?

I haven't looked at it. I assume you mean a national sales tax? If all other taxes were repealed, (and I doubt this would happen) this would be a better system than what we have now. We'd have to repeal the income tax amendment. Of course, it would make it all to easy then to continue to support a bloated bureaucratic welfare state. So it is better and worse since it is more efficient.

Having read the wikipedia article, I oppose it as it stands. The proposal is a national slaes tax of 23% with a "rebate" to all households of the poverty level. The rate is too high, and the "rebate" is a disaster - a national dole for everyone up to the poverty level. We'd probably end up with a 40% unemployment rate. I could possibly support a 15% tax rate with no tax on, say, unprocessed food and the first $100,000 of a mortgage on a primary household. This would have to go hand in hand with the end of welfare and a mechanism to lower the tax rate over time unless a supermajority votes not to lower it. Ideally the rate should be no more than 5%. I could also support some sort of reasonable corporate tax which would be justified on the use of the courts by corporations, and taxes on real estate (with the same deduction of $100,000 for a primary household) and on the airwaves, on patents and on trademarks. I would also sell off most public land to pay off the debt.

[galtgulch]

Et al,

In as much as the Republican Party is in disarray while the Democratic Party so called but misnamed as it should be coming evident to the sheeple that they who voted naively for Barack Hussein Obama have elected a wolf in sheep clothing. That will be apparent when the consequences of his misguided policies manifest themselves in the coming months.

We are blessed that a rational understanding of philosophy and economics is at hand so we have the antidote at the ready for any who are willing to listen or read for themselves.

The error of the ideology of those now in power is there for all to see. The winner of the ideological struggle will depend on the efforts of those who are willing to give voice to the silent ideas which are in print or online.

One of the missions of the Campaign For Liberty is to enlighten the populace as Thomas Jefferson suggested.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."—Thomas Jefferson

Many of you here scoff at the notion that this grassroots movement might be capable of accomplishing the fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson's dictum. Of course in his day Objectivism did not yet exist. What could he have been referring to? Objectivism does provide the best philosophical basis for individual freedom as its tenets in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics do support free market capitalism. But capitalism did come into existence in reality in this country perhaps in less than perfect form when the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution despite its flaws at the time.

Now that we have witnessed and learned from subsequent events how those flaws have led to various imperfections in the system we can correct those things. But only if we can get enough fellow citizens to appreciate what we know.

The C4L people have certain things in common. They have an appreciation for the fact that the Constitution has not been adhered to and that the judiciary has been politicized. The Executive branch with its vast array of agencies whose bureacracies essentially legislate with all their regulations.

They appreciate that the Federal Reserve is destroying our currency as it creates paper which it gives to its friends in the banking and insurance and industrial establishment in our country and in foreign countries.

They have engaged pro freedom minded college and university students in over 142 campuses and this endeavor will surely stay alive and grow perhaps until it reaches into virtually every college and even into the high schools through the efforts of the sister organization www.YALiberty.com Young Americans for Liberty.

It would be foolish for Objectivists to ignore the existence of this pro freedom movement which advocates that its supporters and members read and learn about free market economics. I reiterate that Ron Paul even recommended in the bibliography of his best seller The Revolution: A Manifesto that his admirers read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Surely that opens the way for them to go on to read Rand's essays and journal.

I simply encourage each of us to participate in the C4L movement in our home states and congressional districts. The C4L appears to be intent on running candidates within both major parties in every congressional district in the country. I know some of us are doing so. There are now 155,000 C4L members and over 4000 of us here at OL. We know that ideas move the world. I am not telling anyone here what to do just that opportunities are close to home for us to help enlighten those who are willing to become active in the pro freedom C4L movement as they are open to new ideas such as Austrian economics and I dare say Objectivism.

www.campaignforliberty.com 30 May 6AM 155,005, 3PM 154,055

gulch

Edited May 30, 2009 by galtgulch