Wesley Snipes Presents: Is tax theft or is all property theft?

Skarjo wrote:Choosing to carry on earning DOES constitute consent. I have to pay my Credit Card bill because I understood when I took one out that there were consequences and liabilities.

Because you signed a contract with the credit card company where you gave your consent for this.

I have to pay my restaurant bill because I knew when I ate my food that there'd be a bill.

Because you made a verbal contract with the restaurant, and you made the decision to go in to the restaurant to eat.

I have to pay my taxes because I know that earning money in the UK comes with a tax bill.

Because you were already part of the system which you had no choice to enter in the first place. You can leave, but only after you've earned enough money to be able to move - during which time you pay taxes, whether you want to or not. Or you can just simply not earn, in which case you will die of starvation. And other people are still subject to this without their consent. And they can not earn. And then we all die of starvation.

Let me make this clear for you; if you earn in the UK, your earnings are subject to tax. Those are the terms and conditions of earning in the UK. If you choose to earn in the UK, you consent to those taxes. If you do not consent to those taxes, you are not allowed to earn in the UK, and by earning in the UK, you consent to this system.

Again, show me when this was explicitly agreed to by anyone in the country, and I'll agree. Implicit consent is a very dodgy argument.

VAT is nothing more than getting back on the roundabout about the firefighters.

That product is on that shelf because (lets pretend it's a UK made product) it's the product of UK raised people (with an educational and NHS based founding), shipped on UK roads, not stolen by UK based criminals because of UK based police, from a warehouse protected by UK based firefighters in the country that hasn't been levelled to a car park because of the UK military.

Yes, even the stuff on the shelf is only there because of the taxes everyone else pays.

This isn't even an argument. The implication here is that the VAT comes about from being the product of UK raised people - so then, what is corporation tax? What is income tax? Shipped on UK roads - isn't that what Road Tax is for? As for the police - isn't that what we pay council tax for? Same with firefighters? And our defence costs are paid for by our income tax. So where is the extra payment for VAT justified?

When I started this thread I thought it wouldn't get to a page in length. What have I done?

I don't really want to come continue in this debate but I think the main issue is that Reg doesn't really appreciate quite how much the government does to keep society functioning. Although this doesn't mean that if you removed government you'd end up with in a state of total chaos. To be honest if we did get rid of government people would just recreate it and we'd be in the same situation.

Also if you want to stop paying taxes their are options. Their are a number of communes you can join for example. You could just go and find some uninhabited part of the UK and try and live off the land. The problem is this options come with serious downsides.

lex-man wrote:When I started this thread I thought it wouldn't get to a page in length. What have I done?

I don't really want to come continue in this debate but I think the main issue is that Reg doesn't really appreciate quite how much the government does to keep society functioning. Although this doesn't mean that if you removed government you'd end up with in a state of total chaos. To be honest if we did get rid of government people would just recreate it and we'd be in the same situation.

Also if you want to stop paying taxes their are options. Their are a number of communes you can join for example. You could just go and find some uninhabited part of the UK and try and live off the land. The problem is this options come with serious downsides.

No, I appreciate it, as I made clear in the first few pages. From a practical point of view, I think the state is absolutely necessary.

This still doesn't change my view that consent was never given. Choice and consent are not interchangeable.

Regginator3 wrote:

lex-man wrote:When I started this thread I thought it wouldn't get to a page in length. What have I done?

I don't really want to come continue in this debate but I think the main issue is that Reg doesn't really appreciate quite how much the government does to keep society functioning. Although this doesn't mean that if you removed government you'd end up with in a state of total chaos. To be honest if we did get rid of government people would just recreate it and we'd be in the same situation.

Also if you want to stop paying taxes their are options. Their are a number of communes you can join for example. You could just go and find some uninhabited part of the UK and try and live off the land. The problem is this options come with serious downsides.

No, I appreciate it, as I made clear in the first few pages. From a practical point of view, I think the state is absolutely necessary.

This still doesn't change my view that consent was never given. Choice and consent are not interchangeable.

Would you agree though that the concept of ownership at some level is immoral because at some point somebody just came along and said well this is mine and no one else can use it.

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Choosing to carry on earning DOES constitute consent. I have to pay my Credit Card bill because I understood when I took one out that there were consequences and liabilities.

Because you signed a contract with the credit card company where you gave your consent for this.

I have to pay my restaurant bill because I knew when I ate my food that there'd be a bill.

Because you made a verbal contract with the restaurant, and you made the decision to go in to the restaurant to eat.

I have to pay my taxes because I know that earning money in the UK comes with a tax bill.

Because you were already part of the system which you had no choice to enter in the first place. You can leave, but only after you've earned enough money to be able to move - during which time you pay taxes, whether you want to or not. Or you can just simply not earn, in which case you will die of starvation. And other people are still subject to this without their consent. And they can not earn. And then we all die of starvation.

So you agree that consent comes in all sorts of forms. In fact, consent is better referred to as an understanding of the consequences.

I consented to the Credit Card (I even signed to confirm as such). I consented to the restaurant (not even verbally - she was Philippino and I'm scouse so there was a mutual misunderstanding, but I agree that I consented because I've been in at least 3 restaurants before and know how they work). I also consented to taxation because I know how that system works.

Being informed of the outcome of your actions, then carrying out those actions = consent.

Let me make this clear for you; if you earn in the UK, your earnings are subject to tax. Those are the terms and conditions of earning in the UK. If you choose to earn in the UK, you consent to those taxes. If you do not consent to those taxes, you are not allowed to earn in the UK, and by earning in the UK, you consent to this system.

Again, show me when this was explicitly agreed to by anyone in the country, and I'll agree. Implicit consent is a very dodgy argument.

No it isn't.

If you think that sitting down at a restaurant then acting surprised at the bill is dodgy then I'd agree, but we're both grown ups and recognise that actions have consequences.

VAT is nothing more than getting back on the roundabout about the firefighters.

That product is on that shelf because (lets pretend it's a UK made product) it's the product of UK raised people (with an educational and NHS based founding), shipped on UK roads, not stolen by UK based criminals because of UK based police, from a warehouse protected by UK based firefighters in the country that hasn't been levelled to a car park because of the UK military.

Yes, even the stuff on the shelf is only there because of the taxes everyone else pays.

This isn't even an argument. The implication here is that the VAT comes about from being the product of UK raised people - so then, what is corporation tax? What is income tax? Shipped on UK roads - isn't that what Road Tax is for? As for the police - isn't that what we pay council tax for? Same with firefighters? And our defence costs are paid for by our income tax. So where is the extra payment for VAT justified?

You oppose tax full stop no? Why are you now concerned with the exact apportioning of each individual tax?

Does this mean you now support income tax because you recognise that being safe from invasion by Argentina is a good thing?

lex-man wrote:Would you agree though that the concept of ownership at some level is immoral because at some point somebody just came along and said well this is mine and no one else can use it.

Like the state and our taxes?

Just kidding. I do get the argument here I guess. Don't agree with it but that would be an even more intense argument which would last about 50 pages and honestly I'm too tired to continue at this point

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:To be honest, I'm not interested in discussing this in moral terms because I don't think we've set out the terms properly.

I don't think it's theft and no ones really been able to tell me why it is.

As such, morality is beside the question for me. Demonstrate why it really is theft and I'll tell you if I consider it immoral.

I'm defining theft as "taking something from someone without consent". The threat of violence is used as enforcement, but it's the taking without consent that I consider an immoral action.

If you don't agree with that as a definition of theft that's fine, the word theft isn't important. Just replace it with the longform.

And I believe you consent to tax when you consent to earnings.

You're aware that earning in the uk results in tax liability. To pretend that the taxes resulting from earning in the UK are theft is no better than running out on a bar bill because you didn't realise that drinking margaritas might result in a bill.

I don't think anyone is arguing that ALL taxes are bad. I mean, you can consent to some taxes because you think they provide a better world/forest/whatever. But, I think the uses that some of that tax goes to is dubious at best (West Ham football ground anyone?). And, of course, we have very little choice in that.

And how come the little forest girl is forced to hand over her berries and the big corporate forest commission pays a paltry percentage of ENORMOUS profits? Corruption. Where do I vote to stop that?

Skarjo wrote:Being informed of the outcome of your actions, then carrying out those actions = consent.

I really hate this definition of consent. It's quite often used to justify people being sexually harrassed/assaulted because of the clothes they wear. "You knew if you wore that clothing we'd act like this!!". I'm not saying these actions are quite comparable to the state, which is a lot more civilised, but the definition of consent here is what troubles me.

No it isn't.

If you think that sitting down at a restaurant then acting surprised at the bill is dodgy then I'd agree, but we're both grown ups and recognise that actions have consequences.

Actions have consequences, yes, but all I'm saying here is that that's a different thing to consent.

You oppose tax full stop no? Why are now concerned with the exact apportioning of each individual tax?

Does this mean you now support income tax because you recognise that being safe from invasion by Argentina is a good thing?

I don't oppose tax. Not full stop, not half stop. Think I've said this about 10 times in this thread already. But the reason I don't oppose it is for practical reasons, such as yes - not getting invaded. Having roads. Having functioning public services. ETC.

pjbetman wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:To be honest, I'm not interested in discussing this in moral terms because I don't think we've set out the terms properly.

I don't think it's theft and no ones really been able to tell me why it is.

As such, morality is beside the question for me. Demonstrate why it really is theft and I'll tell you if I consider it immoral.

I'm defining theft as "taking something from someone without consent". The threat of violence is used as enforcement, but it's the taking without consent that I consider an immoral action.

If you don't agree with that as a definition of theft that's fine, the word theft isn't important. Just replace it with the longform.

And I believe you consent to tax when you consent to earnings.

You're aware that earning in the uk results in tax liability. To pretend that the taxes resulting from earning in the UK are theft is no better than running out on a bar bill because you didn't realise that drinking margaritas might result in a bill.

I don't think anyone is arguing that ALL taxes are bad. I mean, you can consent to some taxes because you think they provide a better world/forest/whatever. But, I think the uses that some of that tax goes to is dubious at best (West Ham football ground anyone?). And, of course, we have very little choice in that.

And how come the little forest girl is forced to hand over her berries and the big corporate forest commission pays a paltry percentage of ENORMOUS profits? Corruption. Where do I vote to stop that?

No one's discussing what taxes are spent on.

I'm being told that taxation is immoral theft.

We vote for the people who spend our taxes every few years, and disagreement as to how they do it is the reason for 'Politics' being a thing.

Doesn't affect whether taxes themselves are theft.

Skarjo wrote:No one's discussing what taxes are spent on.

I'm being told that taxation is immoral theft.

This is strange. I thought you were just arguing against the entire idea that taxation is theft not immoral theft?

Okay, let's say I concede on the argument that taxes are "morally wrong". I think a while back I just said this is pedantic definition on moral values based on Kantian principles which don't really matter in the long run. Let's say because of the good that comes out of taxes, taxes are "morally okay". Let's just say "strawberry float the morality of it all". However I still call them theft because consent isn't given- just a morally justifiable theft.

Then what?

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Being informed of the outcome of your actions, then carrying out those actions = consent.

I really don't like this definition of consent. It's quite often used to justify people being sexually harrassed/assaulted because of the clothes they wear. "You knew if you wore that clothing we'd act like this!!". I'm not saying these actions are quite comparable to the state, which is a lot more civilised, but the definition of consent here is what troubles me.

Then you've got it back to front. The argument there is the disagreement whether wearing those clothes is at all relevant to the idea of consent (which it, of course, is not).

But that is entirely beside the point.

Your definition of consent is stunted. If you understand the consequences of your actions and then undertake those actions you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't consent.

Your rape/assault analogies fall flat because in those scenarios, the discussion is whether clothes/actions/amount drunk etc constitute consent to the actions of cockheads which, of course, they never do.

But we're not discussing sexual assault, we're discussing whether being fully informed of the consequences of an action means that you're accountable to those consequences which, having been fully informed that earning in the UK means you have a tax liability, means that you're accountable for your taxes.

No it isn't.

If you think that sitting down at a restaurant then acting surprised at the bill is dodgy then I'd agree, but we're both grown ups and recognise that actions have consequences.

Actions have consequences, yes, but all I'm saying here is that that's a different thing to consent.

You oppose tax full stop no? Why are now concerned with the exact apportioning of each individual tax?

Does this mean you now support income tax because you recognise that being safe from invasion by Argentina is a good thing?

I don't oppose tax. Not full stop, not half stop. Think I've said this about 10 times in this thread already. But the reason I don't oppose it is for practical reasons, such as yes - not getting invaded. Having roads. Having functioning public services. ETC.

No, what you've said is that you don't know of a better model, and that you don't know how to better fund public services.

That's fine, you support tax as the best model you can think of.

You've also said tax is immoral thievery, particularly because you can't avoid VAT.

I'm telling you that, yes, you can't avoid VAT because that product being on that shelf is because of a multitude of taxes paid by other people and if you want to benefit from that then you pay in to system that made it possible.

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:No one's discussing what taxes are spent on.

I'm being told that taxation is immoral theft.

This is strange. I thought you were just arguing against the entire idea that taxation is theft not immoral theft?

Okay, let's say I concede on the argument that taxes are "morally wrong". I think a while back I just said this is pedantic definition on moral values based on Kantian principles which don't really matter in the long run. Let's say because of the good that comes out of taxes, taxes are "morally okay". Let's just say "strawberry float the morality of it all". However I still call them theft because consent isn't given- just a morally justifiable theft.

Then what?

No I'm saying taxes aren't theft.

Regginator3 wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:But you do have a choice. Leaving is the choice. By continuing to exist in this society, you are giving consent.

A woman and man are alone in a room. The man owns the place. The woman doesn't. The man says "if you want to stay in this room, you have to have sex with me". The woman chooses not to leave, but says that she doesn't give consent to have sex with him either.

If she doesn't leave, is she consenting to sex if he forces himself on her because she didn't choose to leave?

Obviously it is wrong of her not to leave, since it is his room and he is allowed to choose who is/is not allowed in the room. However, is the follow up not still rape?

The qualification for "consent" here in both of your arguments troubles me.

stop using analogies to avoid arguing around the premises of your argument

<]:^D wrote:stop using analogies to avoid arguing around the premises of your argument

The premise of my argument is that theft is "taking something from someone without my consent". The analogy was to point out what consent can be considered to be. This is something that is fundamentally at the premise of the argument.

Skarjo wrote:No I'm saying taxes aren't theft.

Cool - because I'm aware that I will be taxed, and being aware of theft makes it not theft because I implicitly consented to them by earning, right?

Skarjo wrote:Then you've got it back to front. The argument there is the disagreement whether wearing those clothes is at all relevant to the idea of consent (which it, of course, is not). But that is entirely beside the point. Your definition of consent is stunted. If you understand the consequences of your actions and then undertake those actions you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't consent. Your rape/assault analogies fall flat because in those scenarios, the discussion is whether clothes/actions/amount drunk etc constitute consent to the actions of cockheads which, of course, they never do. But we're not discussing sexual assault, we're discussing whether being fully informed of the consequences of an action means that you're accountable to those consequences which, having been fully informed that earning in the UK means you have a tax liability, means that you're accountable for your taxes.

Exactly, they don't amount to consent. Which is why I think you've missed the point when I brought that up. It is a (horrible) fact that if women do wear clothing that men might see as "slutty", they will be subject to sexual harassment. Obviously this is not right, and this needs to change, but that's how the world is right now unfortunately. Women know this, and yet do it anyway (go them, in my opinion - they should be able to wear whatever they want). Does that mean they consent to the inevitable harassment, because they know the world is like this and did it anyway? In my opinion - absolutely not. There was no consent given to being sexually harassed. Yet they knew it would happen. Which is why I dispute the idea that consent to a consequence is given by acting in a certain way when you know the consequences.

No, what you've said is that you don't know of a better model, and that you don't know how to better fund public services.

That's fine, you support tax as the best model you can think of.

I don't know of a better model. If there was one I would suggest it. And, no, I did actually say that I support taxes and the state system we have now right here.

You've also said tax is immoral thievery, particularly because you can't avoid VAT.

I'm telling you that, yes, you can't avoid VAT because that product being on that shelf is because of a multitude of taxes paid by other people and if you want to benefit from that then you pay in to system that made it possible.

VAT was an example of an unjustified tax. My point regarding tax is that I already pay into the system that made it possible with my income tax, council tax, road tax... you get it? What service was provided which I didn't already pay tax for which VAT covers?

no its not; youve already had it pointed out by Karl that your last analogy was poor as it brought baggage into the argument that distorted things.
theft is also not just "taking something without consent", it has to be partnered with the intent to deprive that person of it permamently. thats why accidentally taking someones hat without meaning to is not theft and wont end up with you in court.

<]:^D wrote:no its not; youve already had it pointed out by Karl that your last analogy was poor as it brought baggage into the argument that distorted things.

Which I already responded to.

Skarjo wrote:

pjbetman wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:To be honest, I'm not interested in discussing this in moral terms because I don't think we've set out the terms properly.

I don't think it's theft and no ones really been able to tell me why it is.

As such, morality is beside the question for me. Demonstrate why it really is theft and I'll tell you if I consider it immoral.

I'm defining theft as "taking something from someone without consent". The threat of violence is used as enforcement, but it's the taking without consent that I consider an immoral action.

If you don't agree with that as a definition of theft that's fine, the word theft isn't important. Just replace it with the longform.

And I believe you consent to tax when you consent to earnings.

You're aware that earning in the uk results in tax liability. To pretend that the taxes resulting from earning in the UK are theft is no better than running out on a bar bill because you didn't realise that drinking margaritas might result in a bill.

I don't think anyone is arguing that ALL taxes are bad. I mean, you can consent to some taxes because you think they provide a better world/forest/whatever. But, I think the uses that some of that tax goes to is dubious at best (West Ham football ground anyone?). And, of course, we have very little choice in that.

And how come the little forest girl is forced to hand over her berries and the big corporate forest commission pays a paltry percentage of ENORMOUS profits? Corruption. Where do I vote to stop that?

No one's discussing what taxes are spent on.

I'm being told that taxation is immoral theft.

We vote for the people who spend our taxes every few years, and disagreement as to how they do it is the reason for 'Politics' being a thing.

Doesn't affect whether taxes themselves are theft.

Yes, I'm not sure that taxation is theft exactly. I think it's more of a control measure than anything else - keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer, basically. The real issue here is that we have people with so much money that they don't know what to do with it (gold plated cars, football teams etc), and we have billions of people who struggle day-to-day.

My point was that although we agree to some things that taxes are spent on, we don't have a REAL choice on what those taxes are spent on, therefore we haven't consented to it. We don't even get to choose that everyone pays their full taxes, particularly large corporations and many celebrities. So, how come we HAVE to pay our taxes (under threat of prison/fines etc) but others get away with it? How come THEY get to opt out of it, and we don't?

And trying to pretend that voting in different political parties makes the slightest bit of difference is disingenuous - they all drum to the same beat. Obviously, radical change is very difficult, so why not just keep the status quo, because 'we're all right, Jack'?

I'm not trying to argue, I'm hoping to develop the debate.

pjbetman wrote:And trying to pretend that voting in different political parties makes the slightest bit of difference is disingenuous - they all drum to the same beat. Obviously, radical change is very difficult, so why not just keep the status quo, because 'we're all right, Jack'?

Because it would require revolution which would be cracked down upon by the police force that we're forced to pay for as 'terrorism' with the intent to topple the state.

<]:^D wrote:theft is also not just "taking something without consent", it has to be partnered with the intent to deprive that person of it permamently. thats why accidentally taking someones hat without meaning to is not theft and wont end up with you in court.

Didn't see this last bit. So I am not deprived of my pre-tax income permanently then? Cool! When do I get my refund?

Regginator3 wrote:

<]:^D wrote:stop using analogies to avoid arguing around the premises of your argument

The premise of my argument is that theft is "taking something from someone without my consent". The analogy was to point out what consent can be considered to be. This is something that is fundamentally at the premise of the argument.

Yes it is, and you're failing to demonstrate why, understanding that UK earnings are subject to UK tax, earning in the UK makes you subject to UK tax is immoral thievery.

Skarjo wrote:No I'm saying taxes aren't theft.

Cool - because I'm aware that I will be taxed, and being aware of theft makes it not theft because I implicitly consented to them by earning, right?

It's not theft. Please demonstrate why it's theft.

Skarjo wrote:Then you've got it back to front. The argument there is the disagreement whether wearing those clothes is at all relevant to the idea of consent (which it, of course, is not). But that is entirely beside the point. Your definition of consent is stunted. If you understand the consequences of your actions and then undertake those actions you cannot reasonably argue that you didn't consent. Your rape/assault analogies fall flat because in those scenarios, the discussion is whether clothes/actions/amount drunk etc constitute consent to the actions of cockheads which, of course, they never do. But we're not discussing sexual assault, we're discussing whether being fully informed of the consequences of an action means that you're accountable to those consequences which, having been fully informed that earning in the UK means you have a tax liability, means that you're accountable for your taxes.

Exactly, they don't amount to consent. Which is why I think you've missed the point when I brought that up. It is a (horrible) fact that if women do wear clothing that men might see as "slutty", they will be subject to sexual harassment. Obviously this is not right, and this needs to change, but that's how the world is right now unfortunately. Women know this, and yet do it anyway (go them, in my opinion - they should be able to wear whatever they want). Does that mean they consent to the inevitable harassment, because they know the world is like this and did it anyway? In my opinion - absolutely not. There was no consent given to being sexually harassed. Yet they knew it would happen.

Whoo boy.

Those men are wrong.

It is not consent, and the women are in no way accountable for the misunderstanding of the concept of consent held by those idiot men.

No, what you've said is that you don't know of a better model, and that you don't know how to better fund public services.

That's fine, you support tax as the best model you can think of.

I don't know of a better model. If there was one I would suggest it. And, no, I did actually say that I support taxes and the state system we have now right here.

Literally what I said.

You've also said tax is immoral thievery, particularly because you can't avoid VAT.

I'm telling you that, yes, you can't avoid VAT because that product being on that shelf is because of a multitude of taxes paid by other people and if you want to benefit from that then you pay in to system that made it possible.

VAT was an example of an unjustified tax. My point regarding tax is that I already pay into the system that made it possible with my income tax, council tax, road tax... you get it? What service was provided which I didn't already pay tax for which VAT covers?

It was a wrong example.

So do you therefore agree with road tax because you use roads? And you know that the products you buy got there via roads?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of which taxes you oppose. I thought it was a thing of principle about theft or something?