Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2014, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 04:33 PM by frankksj.)
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Can any liberals answer the following question directly, using logic and reason, without excuses like 'it depends' or 'its subjective'? I'm asking people's opinion, so naturally it's subjective.

Scenario #1: My neighbor had a heart attack and can't maintain his beloved yard anymore, so I offer to mow his lawn until he gets better.

Q: Does a 3rd party have a right to demand that I report this activity to them? If so, why is it not a private matter between my neighbor and myself?

Q: Should my neighbor or I have to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of helping a neighbor in need?

Scenario #2: After a few weeks my neighbor feels bad that I'm always helping him and he does nothing in return, so he offers to tutor my son while I'm doing his yard.

Q: Now that 2 neighbors are in need and doing good deeds for each other as a barter does that change whether or not we have to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of helping each other?

Q: What if the 3rd party who is demanding we pay him for the privilege of doing favors for each other is more than 1 person? What if it's 10 people? Or 10 million people? At what point does the 3rd party have the right to demand my neighbor and I pay him for the privilege of doing good deeds for each other?

Q: What if this arrangement with my neighbor and I helping each other works out so well that we start inviting other neighbors to join and we start all doing good deeds for each other as a barter, like a barter club? At what point does the 3rd party have the right to demand we pay for the privilege of doing good things for each other? Is it ok if it's just 1 or 2 doing occasional and random good deeds, but it becomes a legal matter if more people organize to do lots of good deeds for each other in a more systematic way? Why would that change anything?

Q: Why is it good for society to discourage these kinds of actions of kindness? I may very well be inclined to help my neighbor out of the kindness of my heart, but if I have to pay a 3rd party every time I do it and risk going to jail if I don't properly document it, forget it, I'll just stay home and play Nintendo. If we're not willing to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of mowing my neighbor's lawn and tutoring my son, then our only options are (a) do nothing and watch my neighbor suffer, or (b) break the law and risk going to jail. Why is that better for society, and how did society benefit by putting up a barrier that resulted in my neighbor having an overgrown yard and my son flunking school?

Scenario #3: After a few more weeks my neighbor's health deteriorates further and he no longer has the energy to tutor my son. So, instead of tutoring my son directly, he gives me something of value that I can give to another tutor.

Q: Why is this fundamentally different than scenario #2? Does it make a difference if that thing of value is, say, a piece of art vs. a $20 bill?

Scenario #4: Same as #3, my neighbor gives me something of value (a $20 bill) each time I mow his lawn, but instead of immediately giving it to a tutor, I stuff it away in a mattress until there's enough to send my son to boarding school.

Q: Why does this become such a more serious offense than #3?

Scenario #5: Instead of storing it in a mattress for safekeeping, I store it in a Swiss bank vault for safekeeping.

Q: What is it about #5 that is so much worse than #4 that it is this treated as one of the most heinous crimes that can result in more extreme punishment and jail time even than rape?

Q: In which of those scenarios does a 3rd party have a right to be informed of the transaction and be able to stipulate what we will have to pay if we engage in this activity?
Q: If the justification is that this is for the greater good and benefits “society”, since society is merely a group of individuals, and my neighbor and I are also a group of individuals, why should one group of individuals have the right to force another group to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of the former?

Before liberals say that I'm anti-government and want to starve the government of tax revenue, stop right there. I've already said that I'd be happier to MORE taxes than I do now if they were property taxes instead of income taxes. It's not about the role of government, but rather the moral justification for why, if a and b do something mutually beneficial for each other, c has the right to haul them off gunpoint if a and b don't report it and pay c for the privilege.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
18-05-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can any liberals answer the following question directly, using logic and reason, without excuses like 'it depends' or 'its subjective'? I'm asking people's opinion, so naturally it's subjective.

The US Government's attempt to extract taxes from barters and trades is futile and foolish. If there ain't no currency involved it ain't none of their fucking business,

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-05-2014, 05:32 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(18-05-2014 05:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The US Government's attempt to extract taxes from barters and trades is futile and foolish. If there ain't no currency involved it ain't none of their fucking business,

I agree, and I'm surprised so does Revenant. But if the income tax only applied to currency transactions, would you object if everybody started bartering with bitcoins since it'd save them 1/3 on every transaction? Besides, it's a question of morality. If a 3rd party doesn't have the right to inject themselves in private, voluntary interactions between you and me, what difference does it make if our interaction involves giving each other pats on the back, or food, or knowledge, or bitcoins, or gold coins, or $1 coins? Why does what we use as a medium of exchange affect the morality of the transaction?

In other words, if you want to learn more about software engineering, and I want to learn more about economics, and we agree to teach each other, is that anybody else's business? Do you and I have a duty to report our exchange of knowledge to some 3rd party? If not, how is it any different if you're unable to give me the knowledge I need, but still want my knowledge, so you give me something in exchange that I can give to someone else who has that knowledge (like a $100 bill)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
You do appreciate that my medium of exchange is big ass bear hugs, right?

[Image: Bear_Hug_by_CommodoreElfman.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 12:16 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
I'm still looking for a statist who can use reason and logic to justify any sort of theft, er... taxation.

Smile

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 12:16 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm still looking for a statist who can use reason and logic to justify any sort of theft, er... taxation.

Smile

Keep waiting. They actually could use reason and logic to answer the question.

Q: If a and b do good things for each other in a private act, why do they have a duty to report this to c and pay c for the privilege?

A: Because c has a gun and he wants it and will shoot a and b if they don't comply

That _IS_ the justification liberals and statists use. But they just won't say it out loud. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:17 AM
Re: RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 07:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 12:16 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I'm still looking for a statist who can use reason and logic to justify any sort of theft, er... taxation.

Smile

Keep waiting. They actually could use reason and logic to answer the question.

Q: If a and b do good things for each other in a private act, why do they have a duty to report this to c and pay c for the privilege?

A: Because c has a gun and he wants it and will shoot a and b if they don't comply

That _IS_ the justification liberals and statists use. But they just won't say it out loud. Smile

Location and service. Is A and B doing this act in areaa or though infrastructure C established/maintained? Then there's reason for compensation to continue the pathway.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 08:17 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 07:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Keep waiting. They actually could use reason and logic to answer the question.

Q: If a and b do good things for each other in a private act, why do they have a duty to report this to c and pay c for the privilege?

A: Because c has a gun and he wants it and will shoot a and b if they don't comply

That _IS_ the justification liberals and statists use. But they just won't say it out loud. Smile

Location and service. Is A and B doing this act in areaa or though infrastructure C established/maintained? Then there's reason for compensation to continue the pathway.

Indeed one could flip the question and ask how Libertarians/Anarchists can justify stealing from the public by using public services (Roads bridges schools etc) while wishing to not pay for their upkeep. But of course then you get the song and dance.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
The argument for anarchism is not one rooted in a desire to be a free rider. It is rooted in a desire to have the option to use (and thus pay) for services voluntarily rather than being forced to pay for services one may not use at the point of a gun.

In simple terms, you're burning strawmen.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Who the hell would report this? I've never heard of someone going to jail for helping their dying neighbor and not reporting a bartering transaction that later happened.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: