Portland's Inequality Tax

[thunderbolt23]

It’s in the same contract that shows I implied my consent to be taxed.

I’m not following this. The implied consent “contract” has to do with being willing to follow laws you don’t agree with but we’re passed through a lawful process. The duty to take care of a kid is, as you even describe it, a duty outside of any law passed by a legislature, an intrinsic obligation. Very different.

[quote]Again, I’ve never once seen a libertarian argue that a willful pregnancy, choosing to bring a child into the world, doesn’t obligate one to take care of their child. Of course it does.

Not sure why you feel the need to construct this strawman here. [/quote]

It doesn’t matter if a libertarian has argued this or not - it’s an inevitable logical conclusion whether a libertarian has said it is or not.

It isn’t a straw man - I am not saying libertarians are taking this position. I’m showing where the premise of “I have no obligation to anyone other than to whom I consent to have an obligation” leads in real life.

And importantly, under this libertarian premise, there is no obligation to a child absent consent. Now, if you want to say there is a duty independent of consent, that’s fine, but with the door flung open, and the inflexible libertarian premise now broken, let’s discuss what other duties you have independent of your consent. (There are lots.)

And - and I say this gently - I doubt many libertarians have thought far enough in advance to consider how this affects a parent’s obligation to his child. Not saying you’re in this category, but many libertarians get hold of a simple philosophy they get convinced solved All of the Problems and never take their understanding any further.

I’m not arguing need here. Need isn’t even within the scope of the conversation. The issue is whether or not taxation is theft of one’s earned property. Because if I break into my neighbor’s house and steal all their property to pay for the local school’s budget shortage, I’m still stealing, it’s still wrong, even though we all needed that money.

I’m not arguing need as a defense to theft either - but I am saying that once a need is identified, a government lawfully taking money to pay for said need through lawful procedure is not theft. And it never has been.

If I don’t pay my taxes, I go to prison. That is taking my property by threat of force, or actual force if I push my hand.

Yes, because you broke the law you consented to follow.

[quote] think you’re confusing ancaps and strict volunteerists here with the larger pot of “libertarian”. While I’m none of the three in reality, I’d rather deal with an ancap on issues than a Contemporary American Liberal…
[/quote]

I would ordinarily agree with this - there are libertarians, and there are libertarians. But you’ve taken basically an AnCap position with this “taxation is theft” approach, so I’ve attacked the philosophy on which it is based, which is the extreme version of libertarianism.

I know plenty of libertarians - socially liberal, fiscally conservative - who don’t go to such a philosophical extreme as “taxation is theft.”

[anon71262119]

@thunderbolt23

I know plenty of libertarians - socially liberal, fiscally conservative - who don’t go to such a philosophical extreme as “taxation is theft.”

I would put myself in this category, since I lean libertarian but am not against taxation or any social programs.

This is addressed to any of you, not just thunderbolt. Just thinking this through.

Is there a point when seizing property crosses a line, or is it always fine if 51% of the people are ok with it? I haven’t been keeping up with this entire thread, so I apologize if you’ve covered this. I’m asking because it’s been on my mind as a result of talking Atlas Shrugged and Rand with @EyeDentist and @BrickHead in the Self-Image thread. It’s getting pretty far off of that topic, and fits better here.

Related, and maybe addressing some of the things @treco said about lack of compassion or lack of humanity. I often see compassionate Christians justify social programs as a Christian obligation to care for the poor. Jesus said to the rich young ruler, “give all that you have and follow me.” My problem with this rational is that he did not force or take to save him. As I said in that thread, Jesus didn’t tie him up and fleece his pockets to save him. He wanted him to make that choice. For me that choice means everything. Nothing in my morality says that I’m justified in NOT paying my lowest employee well.

It seems that many progressive Christians think that legal taxation is never force, but here our choice really is jail or leave, right? Is that force? And if not, when does it become force? Is it ethical so long as it is legal? This could lead to tyranny by the masses for anyone who rises, right?

I’m assuming that nobody would argue that Robin Hood is morally equivalent to Christ. The ends justify the means, so it’s ok to take from the rich if your motives are to give to the poor. I guess in the case of this Portland situation, the thinking is that if the rich person decides not to go through Sherwood Forrest, then they are immoral. Does that make sense? Just thinking out loud.

Related, we were talking about weather Rand using government programs to receive cancer treatment was hypocrisy. Or if someone who does not agree with social security, but collects is is a hypocrite. I don’t think so. Rand may not have believed in big government, but it certainly believed in her. I don’t know anything about her finances, but she paid into a system. I would say there was some force in that. As I said, personally I’m not opposed to taxation on principle so I don’t have issues with it at some level, but I wonder where that line is. The sales taxes on her books alone might have paid for a lot of cancer treatment, for herself and others so I don’t see how she is a “moocher.” In this scenario, she’s taking back something that was taken from her, maybe against her will. Reparation vs. redistribution?

Of course, SS was sold as a retirement program, and it’s really just another tax so maybe we can’t say that applying for it is “taking something back” since it’s not exactly money sitting in some imaginary retirement account with my name on it. It’s being used for so many other things. At least that’s how I see that. Where is my logic off? Seriously.

[anon71262119]

Ok, Just one more thought and then I need to bake some cookies.

Lets say that Puff has a little side job that gives her $50 per week. The Puffs use that money to go out to dinner at a little neighborhood family-owned restaurant every Saturday. That money helps to support their friends who own the restaurant, and down the line it helps support the dishwasher. Lets say we like to tip the wait staff really well because they always remember our names, and what we drink. The Puff’s don’t need to go out every weekend. They could take that money and just give it to the dishwasher. Or, the government could take this excess money in the form of taxation, and so the $50 gets run though the government and maybe some of it comes back to the dishwasher in the form of an increased Earned Income Tax Credit. I think this might be better than raising her wage, since it’s less likely to eliminate her job.

I think the problem with some of the thinking by the Portlandites, is that they do not think that the Puff’s are capable of changing their behavior. If I no longer get to go to dinner, is it immoral for me to stop with the side job? Maybe everybody does that and the restaurant goes under. I don’t think people consider the domino effects of economic choices, or they think that they can somehow expect people to not change their behavior. Maybe they assume that the results or principles are really different if it’s only people who have $5000, or people who have $50,000 to spend who must hand that to the government. By MUST I’m saying, if a majority of people decide that it’s the law, then I must comply, move, or go to jail.

edited

[countingbeans]

@thunderbolt23

I’m not following this. The implied consent “contract” has to do with being willing to follow laws you don’t agree with but we’re passed through a lawful process. The duty to take care of a kid is, as you even describe it, a duty

Yes. And the point is, under every and any libertarian philosophy that exists, not the one you’re creating here, but ones that exist in reality, one is, without question, consenting to the responsibility to raise a child by choosing to bring on into the world.

Just like in the same libertarian philosophy that says you are consenting to taking care of your property when you take possession of it.

@thunderbolt23

It doesn’t matter if a libertarian has argued this or not - it’s an inevitable logical conclusion whether a libertarian has said it is or not.

Lol, so we’re just completely making stuff up to fit our arguments now?

@thunderbolt23

I am not saying libertarians are taking this position. I’m showing where the premise of “I have no obligation to anyone other than to whom I consent to have an obligation” leads in real life.

Fine, but again, by choosing to have a child you are expressly consenting to their care. Why are you ignoring this?

@thunderbolt23

And importantly, under this libertarian premise, there is no obligation to a child absent consent.

That isn’t a libertarian premise. That is a thunderbolt premise. That isn’t an argument anyone has made but you. That is a strawman.

@thunderbolt23

I doubt many libertarians have thought far enough in advance to consider how this affects a parent’s obligation to his child.

I’m going to go ahead and agree with you, because to a man, they all are well aware that if you bring a child into this world it is your responsibility to raise it.

@thunderbolt23

but I am saying that once a need is identified, a government lawfully taking money to pay for said need through lawful procedure is not theft. And it never has been.

So slavery wasn’t a theft of people’s freedom then?

There was a need identified, a government lawfully taking possession of their freedom to fill said need through lawful procedure.

@thunderbolt23

Yes, because you broke the law you consented to follow.

And I would have been arrested for helping runaway slaves… Your point?

Something being illegal or legal doesn’t determine the philosophical premise of said thing.

@thunderbolt23

But you’ve taken basically an AnCap position with this “taxation is theft” approach,

@thunderbolt23

who don’t go to such a philosophical extreme as “taxation is theft.”

So, in your mind the American Revolution was what then? An illegal act that the instigators should have just found a different course of action to convince the crown to leave them alone?

Or are the people of North Korea just supposed to sit back and let the awful dictators destroy them because they “implied” consent to be ruled by being born in that country?

The point of (correctly) pointing out taxation is theft is multi layered:

1. It rustles the jimmys of people who’ve replaced religion with the state. (Not saying you.)

2. It’s funny to watch people try and fall back on the “social contract” when any elementary review of human history will show you a plethora of situations were society was damn well doing evil shit, and saying ti was wrong, in hindsight, was the correct action.

3. It rips a hole in those who look to the state as the be all end all of life in the States or elsewhere. Discontent and distrust in government, and the system is good. The government is just a group of people, skepticism of those people is a good check. Understanding that one can desire to not have their wages taken from the government, is good. Knowing the punishment for doing so is paramount to remaining alive and out of prison however…

Government, ideas so good they have to be forced by gunpoint. The Social Contract, a thing so good you have to “sign” it, just because you were born here, and the punishment of it is having half your earnings taken from you.

[countingbeans]

@anon71262119

I’m assuming that nobody would argue that Robin Hood is morally equivalent to Christ. The ends justify the means, so it’s ok to take from the rich if your motives are to give to the poor.

Robin Hood took back form the GOVERNMENT what they stole from the citizens through excessive taxation. He didn’t “rob from the rich”, he took back from the King what was the “poor’s” in the first place.

@anon71262119

Or if someone who does not agree with social security, but collects is is a hypocrite. I don’t think so. Rand may not have believed in big government, but it certainly believed in her.

Agreed. If you paid into a system, especially via force, you damn well better get it back.

@anon71262119

As I said, personally I’m not opposed to taxation on principle

Neither am I. I don’t mind paying reasonable levels of taxation. We don’t have that currently for people who make what I do and more, because we have a bloated welfare state that subsidies the entire globe, but that is a different thread.

It also doesn’t mean I can’t see how the taxes taken from me, that I feel are in excess, aren’t being taken against my will, therefore theft.

@anon71262119

Of course, SS was sold as a retirement program, and it’s really just another tax so maybe we can’t say that applying for it is “taking something back” since it’s not exactly money sitting in some imaginary retirement account with my name on it

SS is a Ponzi Scheme by definition. (I’m sure someone will launch into me for mentioning that truth too.)

So no, the money you put in today isn’t just sitting there, and the money you get back out will exceed what you put in (inflation).

I don’t actually have a problem saving, and at my current pace I likely wouldn’t need my SS to survive in old age. If I could opt out, I would consider it.

[NickViar]

@countingbeans

So slavery wasn’t a theft of people’s freedom then?

Doesn’t matter, because slavery was #daracist while taxation is not. It’s not the lack of freedom that made slavery bad; it was daracism. Daracism is evil; dataxes is not. Mah learnt dat in duh third grade.

[EyeDentist]

@countingbeans

I don’t mind paying reasonable levels of taxation.

So, you don’t mind getting robbed, as long as the thief doesn’t take too much? I ask because if ‘taxation = theft,’ that’s exactly what you’re saying.

To quote Ayn Rand: Check your premises.

[treco]

@countingbeans

spread between wealthy and poor in today’s America isn’t as large as it was 100

Really? You must think I dream this stuff up rather than study the empirical to inform my thoughts

@countingbeans

the Marxist “social contract”

I don’t really get your conclusion that I tread toward Marxism by saying: ALL able bodied should work to support themselves, our society will take care of those who truly can’t, and saying that government needs to prevent the mathematical certainty that all of the $ end up in one hand (French kings, Czars, Chinese Emperors, Pharaohs, Cecil Rhodes, etc).

It certainly isn’t a histrionic call to burn the palace. You are being a drama queen yourself

[EyeDentist]

@anon71262119, it seems you have successfully drawn me into PWI. I don’t know how I’ll avenge your treachery, but I’ll figure out something.

[countingbeans]

@EyeDentist

So, you don’t mind getting robbed, as long as the thief doesn’t take too much? I ask because if ‘taxation = theft,’ that’s exactly what you’re saying.

Maybe “don’t mind” is a poor choice of words. But no, I don’t mind being robbed by the entity with all the guns, unlimited monetary resources for legal expenses and the power to execute me.

But then again I live in the real world, so I do actually consent to some taxes. I consent to R/E taxes and gas taxes, expressly by purchasing the things the tax is attached to, and because I directly enjoy the services those taxes facilitate.

If I was a full blown AnCap I would move to a town that had a system set up where everyone volunteered to pay in for facilitation of those same services.

But I also understand that principle and real life don’t always line up. (Hence me dying over TB trying to tie “implied consent” and other social contract nonsense while ignoring that the very same government allowed slavery.) So while in principle every dollar I don’t consent to give to the State for their tithe is actually stolen from me, I know there isn’t jack shit I can do about it, so I become “okay with it” as I can’t change it. Doesn’t change the premise that I accept the wrongs in the world exist, and I’m forced to participate.

[MoreMuscle]

@treco

Really? You must think I dream this stuff up rather than study the empirical to inform my thoughts

When the lower/middle class believes home ownership is the means to wealth, and then the housing bubble pops I’d think this is the result.
Combine that with wage stagnation/compression.

Corporate welfare also didn’t stop during the recession. The bailouts would be considered corporate welfare right? Not sure.

I suspect whenever the Higher Ed bubble pops it will hurt us (middle class folks) lot more as well.

[countingbeans]

@treco

Really? You must think I dream this stuff up rather than study the empirical to inform my thoughts

You’re attacking a strawman. Go back and read what I said after your selective quote.

Your chart doesn’t address, at all, for one instant, what I said.

@treco

I don’t really get your conclusion that I tread toward Marxism

That this needs to be explained to you, after your posts in this thread, is rather disappointing.

@treco

and saying that government needs to prevent the mathematical certainty that all of the $ end up in one hand

^ histrionics.

Jesus man. You’re smarter than this.

[countingbeans]

@MoreMuscle

Corporate welfare also didn’t stop during the recession.

Not that I disagree with the premise, but please give examples so I know you’re not just using talking points, and therefore I can take you serious.

@MoreMuscle

Combine that with wage stagnation/compression.

This needs to be proven, still. Which includes the increases in non-cash salary, and overhead that go along with hiring.

So before you guys post another chart, be sure it adjusts for increased health coverage, 401k matches, more PTO etc.

@MoreMuscle

The bailouts would be considered corporate welfare right? Not sure.

Yes and no. While I think they are utter horseshit on principle, and blatant cronyism, I do see WHY they were issued, and I believe it’s all (I think) been paid back now.

Worse is quantitative easing that has been going on the last 8 years.

@MoreMuscle

I suspect whenever the Higher Ed bubble pops it will hurt us (middle class folks) lot more as well

The utility bubble of a BS has popped. The loan issue won’t be near as bad, as it’s government taking the biggest hit.

At least we’ll be bailing out citizens instead of bloated firms.

[EyeDentist]

@countingbeans

I don’t mind being robbed by the entity with all the guns, unlimited monetary resources for legal expenses and the power to execute me.

That is a puzzling statement. I could see why you would elect not to resist such an all-powerful crime syndicate, but to ‘not mind’ being robbed by them?

[countingbeans]

@EyeDentist

That is a puzzling statement. I could see why you would elect not to resist such an all-powerful crime syndicate, but to ‘not mind’ being robbed by them?

No, I “don’t really mind” is the truth.

I have a whole bunch of shit to worry about in my life. That percentage of the amount I’m taxed I’m NOT okay with and would prefer wasn’t stolen from me, is low on my list of priorities because I can’t do shit about it.

Neither party will stop spending, so we need to tax this much, and (again) I would volunteer to pay into a small local government to facilitate things like trash pickup, leaf collection, plowing, etc.

For me to mind beyond speaking about it on social media… Would require actions, those of which I can’t take right now… So I don’t mind it.

Sort of like abortion. I know it’s wrong, evil, and in 100 years our grandkids will look back on today’s democrats like they do slave owners today. But I can’t do shit about it, and dont’ think making it illegal solves the larger issue in the first place, so I “don’t mind” it’s legal. At least we’re open out being awful.

Also comparable to open racists. I don’t want to hang out with them, or support them in anyway. So I don’t mind open racists, as it allows me to filter them and that toxic attitude from my life. Same with third wave feminists. No need for that toxic belief system in my life. Same with SJW’s. I don’t mind them, because it allows me to avoid them.

You’re putting too much emphasis on “don’t mind” in order to try to what? Catch me being inconsistent?

Again, knowing taxation is theft and still paying them, or accepting you’re are going to get robbed and moving on with your life aren’t mutually exclusive things. Just like understanding that I do consent to some taxation, but not all, doesn’t negate the ones I don’t consent to are in fact, by definition stolen from me.

[thunderbolt23]

Yes. And the point is, under every and any libertarian philosophy that exists, not the one you’re creating here, but ones that exist in reality, one is, without question, consenting to the responsibility to raise a child by choosing to bring on into the world.

And that’s my point - you have to be logically consistent, and you’re not. If libertarians want to function from a Premise of “I have no obligation to anyone except by my consent”, you have to see where that leads, and address inconsistencies. That’s what I’m doing.

All you’ve said is “hey, taking care of your kid is an exception that Premise because, well, libertarians say it’s an exception” - well, no, it doesn’t matter what libertarians are saying if they are making a logical error in what they are saying.

A person of their own free will could say “I want to have sex, but I don’t want a child, and if a child comes into this world I do not consent to take care of it” - and that’s ok in accordance with the Premise.

What you’re saying is that lack of consent is overridden by a duty independent of consent, saying “parent, you have to do this whether you want to or not”, which is fine, but that isn’t consistent with the Premise that people shouldn’t be forced to do anything without consenting to it.

Libertarians cannot square this contradiction.

ol, so we’re just completely making stuff up to fit our arguments now?

No, I am taking your idea and showing you where it has logical holes.

Fine, but again, by choosing to have a child you are expressly consenting to their care. Why are you ignoring this?

I’m not ignoring it - how many people have sex with no desire to procreate, but sometimes they learn a bun is in the oven?

But even for those who intentionally bring a child into the world, under the Premise, they could walk away when the decide they no longer consent. Otherwise, they would be in a position to be forced to do something against their free will. And libertarians say that’s bad in all circumstances.

That isn’t a libertarian premise. That is a thunderbolt premise. That isn’t an argument anyone has made but you. That is a strawman.

No, it’s a libertarian one, by virtue of applying their logic to real world situations.

And if libertarians admit there is a logical flaw, then it’s time to adjust the Premise.

So, in your mind the American Revolution was what then? An illegal act that the instigators should have just found a different course of action to convince the crown to leave them alone?

Is this a serious question? The American Revolution was a revolt based on the denial of natural rights, chiefly lack of representation when their rights (basic sense) and duties were being determined without them. “Taxation without representation,” " long train of abuses", etc. - you will recall all that.

[quote]The point of (correctly) pointing out taxation is theft is multi layered:

1. It rustles the jimmys of people who’ve replaced religion with the state. (Not saying you.)

2. It’s funny to watch people try and fall back on the “social contract” when any elementary review of human history will show you a plethora of situations were society was damn well doing evil shit, and saying ti was wrong, in hindsight, was the correct action.

3. It rips a hole in those who look to the state as the be all end all of life in the States or elsewhere. Discontent and distrust in government, and the system is good. The government is just a group of people, skepticism of those people is a good check. Understanding that one can desire to not have their wages taken from the government, is good. Knowing the punishment for doing so is paramount to remaining alive and out of prison however…

Government, ideas so good they have to be forced by gunpoint. The Social Contract, a thing so good you have to “sign” it, just because you were born here, and the punishment of it is having half your earnings taken from you.
[/quote]

No offense, but this is just anti-authoritarian ranting, and it doesn’t prove or disprove that taxation is theft.

One of the most basic functions of government is to collect money to pay for the things it does. It can’t do anything without collecting money from the people it serves.

People can complain that the government does too much, takes too much money, etc., and all that is fine - that doesn’t translate into taxation being theft. It means People disagree on where the lines should be drawn, sometimes vehemently, but all sane people agree it isn’t stealing from you.

Because if it is, the government can only fund its services through voluntary payments, and that’d mean the end of stable government.

C’mon. This is a fun lark, but you said yourself you’re not one of the AnCap types, so you can’t be serious with this “taxation is theft” stuff.

[thunderbolt23]

@countingbeans

(Hence me dying over TB trying to tie “implied consent” and other social contract nonsense while ignoring that the very same government allowed slavery.)

This is a different issue, and it confuses things, so I haven’t spent time in it - slavery is an outright denial of natural rights, and so revolt is justified. It’s not comparable to the other things we’re taking about.

[thunderbolt23]

@NickViar

@countingbeans

So slavery wasn’t a theft of people’s freedom then?

Doesn’t matter, because slavery was #daracist while taxation is not. It’s not the lack of freedom that made slavery bad; it was daracism. Daracism is evil; dataxes is not. Mah learnt dat in duh third grade.

Per the usual, your addition was a net subtraction to the thread.

[EyeDentist]

@countingbeans

You’re putting too much emphasis on “don’t mind” in order to try to what? Catch me being inconsistent?

All I’m trying to do is to demonstrate that you don’t really think taxation is theft. This statement (‘taxation = theft’) is a rhetorical flourish intended to make your argument more appealing, not a statement of actual belief. It is the equivalent of ‘Abortion is murder’–another statement many people make, but few actually seem to believe. (Hey, you opened that can o’ worms, not me.)

In short, the cognitive dissonance created by the simultaneous assertions ‘I believe taxation is theft’ and “I don’t mind paying reasonable levels of taxation” cannot stand.

[NickViar]

I apologize for denying you the opportunity to point that out first, Sir; you totally deserved the opportunity to explain to countingbeans what I did.

Countingbeans, please disregard my explanation and await same from thunderbolt23.