Is Taxation Slavery?

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
I go by the man that sees them every day.

And you just do that.

The_Patriot said:
I, actually, said in the first post "I would have to say yes since the Congressional Budget Office" which is federal.

Which had nothing at all to do with my later post. :roll:

The_Patriot said:
How cynical you are.

You should know pretty darn well by now. :2razz:

The_Patriot said:
I'm glad to know that you believe that the government can tax you for up to 100% and it still not be slavery.

Why do you continue to put words in peoples mouths?

Please point out where I said or even implied such stupidity? So far you have not even put forth a single statement by me backing any of your accusations and out right lies about my own statements.

Again taxation in and of itself is not and never has been slavery. Can it be abused to a point that it could become slavery? Certainly, but that is not what you asked or implied.

The_Patriot said:
Failure to pay taxes does result in the seizure of property and mandatory prison time. How is that not controlling?

It is controlling. If that is your criteria for what is slavery, then being arrested for murder is slavery.

Lets face it we are if nothing else a nation of laws. Taxes are part of those laws and expected as your duty as a member of this society. You can choose not to do it if you wish and move some place like Somalia. I here they have no taxes there, a real libertarian utopia.

The_Patriot said:
I give you this table compliments of Historic Tax Rates in the US.

# 1954-1963: 91%
# 1952-1953: 92%
# 1951: 91%
# 1950: 84.36%
# 1948-1949: 82.13%
# 1946-1947: 86.45%
# 1944-1945: 94%
# 1942-1943: 88%
# 1941: 81%
# 1940: 81.1%
# 1936-1939: 79%
# 1932-1935: 63%

I ask again where was the civil unrest and job loss for when the tax level was at 91% for top earners? You made the statement that there would be job loss and civil unrest when the level reached that high. I asked for you to back up your statement.

Most of those were during time of war or great wealth in the country. If you look at times of economic hardship they drop greatly.

After Vietnam you see a steady drop and very little climb.

The_Patriot said:
Are you denying that the government cannot take away your life, liberty, or finance when you fail to pay income taxes? The current tax laws state that the government can seize your property and make you serve mandatory prison terms for failing to pay. This goes for all types of taxes.

They can do the same if I get caught with certain drugs or drive while drunk. It is irrelevant as those are not slavery either.

The_Patriot said:
I'm glad to know that you do trust yourself.

Not like I can trust anyone else with my own thoughts.:lol:

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Sure, I can back it up. Here's a source for you.

The kind of police Americans knew in the early nineteenth century was descended from the medieval police of England--a constable and watch system composed of a volunteer night watch, who patrolled the city, and a daytime constable, who supervised the watch and charged fees for his services. Most night watchmen, however, were actually paid substitutes for volunteers and traditionally were drawn from society's unemployables. When Dogberry in Shakespeare's Much Ado about Nothing selects a night constable from among the watchmen, he picks "the most senseless and fit man," whom he orders, "You shall comprehend all vagrom men." As for sleeping on the job, Dogberry offers that he "cannot see how sleeping should offend; only, have a care that your bills [weapons] be not stolen." In this scene, Shakespeare ridiculed the notorious failings of the watch, which persisted through the nineteenth century: they drank, slept, and ran from any sign of danger. And constables were venal, illiterate Dogberries, intervening in crimes only when there was the promise of a good fee. In the United States, similar complaints were voiced about the watch and constables, but cities managed to survive under this loose system until they were quite large. New York had over a half million people before it got a permanent police in 1853, Boston about 175,000 (1859), and Philadelphia about 250,000 (1856).

It was such a great success it was replaced! :lol:

Again it cannot work today.

The_Patriot said:
Citing the Continental Congress is about as valid as citing the English court when talking about the Congress of the United States. Two different governments there bud since the Continental Congress was a UN style of organization that had little authority. It met only for two years before being dissolved upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and the appointment of the Congress of the Confederation. The Congress of the Confederation was dissolved after the Constitution of the United States was ratified and the Congress of the United States was elected. Try using the current government and not one that was dissolved by an act of the states.

It does not matter, it was our fledgling government whether you like it or not.

You are still wrong.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 12, 2010

Taxes=slavery... =appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said or even implied such stupidity? So far you have not even put forth a single statement by me backing any of your accusations and out right lies about my own statements.

In my original post I stated the tax rate would be at about 90% and you did not dispute it. In fact, you came down on the side of saying that it was not slavery for that amount of income to be paid as taxes.

Blackdog said:
Again taxation in and of itself is not and never has been slavery. Can it be abused to a point that it could become slavery? Certainly, but that is not what you asked or implied.

I did state it in my first post with the citation of 90% in taxes on income. You stated that it wasn't slavery for that level.

Blackdog said:
It is controlling. If that is your criteria for what is slavery, then being arrested for murder is slavery.

Yes, because we all know that tax evasion is a criminal offense in the same category as murder.

Blackdog said:
Lets face it we are if nothing else a nation of laws. Taxes are part of those laws and expected as your duty as a member of this society. You can choose not to do it if you wish and move some place like Somalia. I here they have no taxes there, a real libertarian utopia.

Wow, you sounded just like Gus there. :shock: In the United States all laws must be just to be valid. Any law that is unjust is invalid from the moment of its passage. That's what the Supreme Court handed down in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and is a part of case law that has yet to be overturned. So yes, we may be a country of laws, but are those laws just? The rest of your statement is a red herring since I'm talking about 90%+ taxation.

Blackdog said:
Most of those were during time of war or great wealth in the country. If you look at times of economic hardship they drop greatly.

Most of the time it was in times of economic hardship. Are you saying that it's okay for the government to take all of your money when the times are tough for it?

Blackdog said:
After Vietnam you see a steady drop and very little climb.

Yes, because people got tired of paying almost all of their money to the government.

Blackdog said:
They can do the same if I get caught with certain drugs or drive while drunk. It is irrelevant as those are not slavery either.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges since we all know that depriving the government of the fruits of your labor is the same as possessing drugs or driving while drunk.

Blackdog said:
Not like I can trust anyone else with my own thoughts.:lol:

:lol:

Blackdog said:
It was such a great success it was replaced! :lol:

Again it cannot work today.

Actually, it hasn't been replaced as there are many places with private security and it works just fine.

Blackdog said:
It does not matter, it was our fledgling government whether you like it or not.

You are still wrong.

Yes, because we all know that it was the exact same government under the same Constitution and all that. :roll: Can we pull in English and French Parliments plus all of the other European governments since they're all part of our fledgling government? Saying I'm wrong and proving it are two different things. I have proven you wrong that they are two completely different governments operating under two different legal systems.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Taxes=slavery... =appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

90%+ taxes=slavery...=valid argument

Claiming appeal to emotion without following all of the facts=logical fallacy

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
90%+ taxes=slavery...=valid argument

Claiming appeal to emotion without following all of the facts=logical fallacy

Not in the least. Your terminology is an appeal to emotion. You are mis-using the word "slavery" to draw emotion to your position. Perfect example of the fallacy.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in the least. Your terminology is an appeal to emotion. You are mis-using the word "slavery" to draw emotion to your position. Perfect example of the fallacy.

I already gave the definition of slavery I was using compliments of Collins English Dictionary-Complete and Unabridged, but I'll cite it again.

1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

Therefore, under said definition I am not misusing the terminology which also means it's not an appeal to emotion.

the makeout hobo · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
This is based off what someone said in another thread. Since the 14th Amendment prohibits slavery of any kind does income, consumption based, and sale taxes a form of slavery that economically ties a person to the government and by default the poor?

I would have to say yes since the Congressional Budget Office has stated many times that the route the country is going that many people working in 2020 and beyond will have to pay roughly 90% of their income in taxes to keep up the rate of services the government provides. This, to me, is economic slavery to the government and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Under a democratic form of government where the public freely elects their leaders, slavery is not a form of taxation. We all as a group choose our leaders, and they pass the laws they see fit. We have the option of changing our leaders if we want to change their laws. Since no person has "absolute power" or "controls his life, liberty, or fortune", it is not slavery.

the makeout hobo · Jul 12, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
Private police and fire departments and road builders. Rather than being compelled by the state to finance these operations the individual would engage in voluntary contractual agreements for these services.

And if I am too poor, I have no one to defend my property from thieves or fire, and I can't drive on roads. I don't think I like this system.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
I already gave the definition of slavery I was using compliments of Collins English Dictionary-Complete and Unabridged, but I'll cite it again.

1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

Therefore, under said definition I am not misusing the terminology which also means it's not an appeal to emotion.

Of course you are misusing the terminology. One who is taxed does not have their life absolutely controlled. Your definition does not apply to taxation. It is an appeal to emotion, to gain points by saying something dramatic.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
Under a democratic form of government where the public freely elects their leaders, slavery is not a form of taxation. We all as a group choose our leaders, and they pass the laws they see fit. We have the option of changing our leaders if we want to change their laws. Since no person has "absolute power" or "controls his life, liberty, or fortune", it is not slavery.

The United States government is a corporation, which under corporate law does make it a person. Therefore, the government as a person does have absolute power and controls his life, liberty, or fortune. Thus, under said definition it is slavery.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course you are misusing the terminology. One who is taxed does not have their life absolutely controlled. Your definition does not apply to taxation. It is an appeal to emotion, to gain points by saying something dramatic.

Can you go from place to place whenever you so desire using your property, vehicle, to get there without license plates or a drivers license? No, you cannot. Can you start a business without having a Tax and Employer IDs? Nope, you cannot. Can you work without having to supply proof of identity required by federal law to use an I9 form? No, you cannot. Can you work and not pay taxes? No, you cannot. Can you go to jail, lose your property, and your money for failing to adhere to these laws? Yes, you can. Thus, the definition does apply to taxation since the government does control your life, liberty, or fortune absolutely.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

the makeout hobo said:
And if I am too poor, I have no one to defend my property from thieves or fire, and I can't drive on roads. I don't think I like this system.

You're in for a shock then because the courts have ruled that it is your responsibility to defend your property from thieves and fire. The government is under no obligation to defend those things. I'll cite South v. Maryland (1853) where the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have to protect you or your property because it is your responsibility.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
You're in for a shock then because the courts have ruled that it is your responsibility to defend your property from thieves and fire. The government is under no obligation to defend those things. I'll cite South v. Maryland (1853) where the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have to protect you or your property because it is your responsibility.

That's not what the ruling said. It stated that the police cannot be held liable for NOT defending your property. Very different than what you are communicating.

spud_meister · Jul 12, 2010

so, under this..meritocracy :roll:...does your average property magnate get one vote per property they own? are they allowed to disenfranchise 100's of people, simply by buying their houses, then renting them back out? does that mean, even if i receive no government handouts, i can't vote, simply 'cause i'm renting, and banks that own people houses, do they get a vote too?

LiberalAvenger · Jul 12, 2010

Labor should not be taxed. Money manipulation and money made from not doing labor should.

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
In my original post I stated the tax rate would be at about 90% and you did not dispute it. In fact, you came down on the side of saying that it was not slavery for that amount of income to be paid as taxes.

That is a lie.

Here is what I responded to…

The_Patriot said:
This is based off what someone said in another thread. Since the 14th Amendment prohibits slavery of any kind does income, consumption based, and sale taxes a form of slavery that economically ties a person to the government and by default the poor?

That is what I responded to. You then added YOUR opinion on it…

The_Patriot said:
I would have to say yes since the Congressional Budget Office has stated many times that the route the country is going that many people working in 2020 and beyond will have to pay roughly 90% of their income in taxes to keep up the rate of services the government provides. This, to me, is economic slavery to the government and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I responded with this to the original question you asked…

Blackdog said:
No. The government needs an income to support military, public works and roads etc. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes. It is when I see them throwing good money after bad on failed programs I have a problem. Otherwise no, it's not in any way slavery.

So you obviously have an issue of some kind as I said nothing even close to the bull**** you just spouted.

Notice where the question mark is. :roll:

The_Patriot said:
I did state it in my first post with the citation of 90% in taxes on income. You stated that it wasn't slavery for that level.

I stated taxation in and of itself is not slavery. Your initial question minus your opinion based off someone else’s statement had nothing to do with my statement at all. Do I need to state it a few more times just to make certain you understand? Or are you going to say I said something completely different again?

The_Patriot said:
Yes, because we all know that tax evasion is a criminal offense in the same category as murder.

Are you ever going to reply to what I said? Or are you just going to keep making up **** I said because you have no clue?

The_Patriot said:
Wow, you sounded just like Gus there. :shock: In the United States all laws must be just to be valid. Any law that is unjust is invalid from the moment of its passage. That's what the Supreme Court handed down in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and is a part of case law that has yet to be overturned. So yes, we may be a country of laws, but are those laws just? The rest of your statement is a red herring since I'm talking about 90%+ taxation.

No, you were talking about taxes. Someone else mentioned this to you. Do I need to post your initial statement yet again????

I don’t believe the number, I think it is ridicules. So why would I debate it? It is flawed and has no basis in reality. Do I need to repeat that a few more times as well???

The_Patriot said:
Most of the time it was in times of economic hardship. Are you saying that it's okay for the government to take all of your money when the times are tough for it?

Lets see…

Blackdog said:
Most of those were during time of war or great wealth in the country. If you look at times of economic hardship they drop greatly.

After Vietnam you see a steady drop and very little climb.

Yep that is exactly what I said. [/sarcasm]

The_Patriot said:
Yes, because people got tired of paying almost all of their money to the government.

Actually it was because Vietnam ended. Funny the draft ended around the same time. No need for more taxes when we were not at war.

The_Patriot said:
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges since we all know that depriving the government of the fruits of your labor is the same as possessing drugs or driving while drunk.

I guess that one flew completely over your head. No problem.

The_Patriot said:
Actually, it hasn't been replaced as there are many places with private security and it works just fine.

Actually they were replaced by city police according to your article. Do I need to point that out as well? Security is not the same as police. I think seeing the behavior of Blackwater in Iraq should be enough to show anyone what a bad idea it is to privatize police and all other municipal functions.

The_Patriot said:
Yes, because we all know that it was the exact same government under the same Constitution and all that. :roll:

Again, I never said that…

I said…

Blackdog said:
Wrong...

The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.

The_Patriot said:
Can we pull in English and French Parliments plus all of the other European governments since they're all part of our fledgling government?

No they were not after 1776. Fallacy argument by you at best.

The_Patriot said:
Saying I'm wrong and proving it are two different things. I have proven you wrong that they are two completely different governments operating under two different legal systems.

It was still our government, so yes I have proved it and you are still wrong.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
That's not what the ruling said. It stated that the police cannot be held liable for NOT defending your property. Very different than what you are communicating.

If it's not the government's job then whose job is it? Sheriff South was the government agent and Pottle suffered violence at the hands of the mob after Sheriff South refused to intervene to protect Pottle. This leaves only Pottle in this case to defend himself. The court was quite clear that Pottle should have defended himself instead of relying upon Sheriff South. This set the precendent that the police are under no obligation to protect you or your property since it is your responsibility. I can add in more current cases if you'd like that further reinforces my statements.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

spud_meister said:
so, under this..meritocracy :roll:...does your average property magnate get one vote per property they own? are they allowed to disenfranchise 100's of people, simply by buying their houses, then renting them back out? does that mean, even if i receive no government handouts, i can't vote, simply 'cause i'm renting, and banks that own people houses, do they get a vote too?

Under the historical republican system, you only got one vote regardless of how much property you own. Only if those 100s of people sell to the owner and decide to rent them out. Your entire statement is nothing more than hyperbole.

@Blackdog: I cited the percentage from the CBO on what it would take to keep the current level of services that the government provides. You go off on all sorts of tangents and spouting nonsense that has nothing to do with the percentage that is required by everyone to pay in taxes to keep going. Deal with the percentage as reported by the CBO and not any other percentage. You were proven wrong about the loss of jobs and civil unrest claims regarding the 90% income tax rate of top wage earners.

I think the behavior of the police and its brutality only reinforces my position that private security can do a better job. For example, Waco anyone?

No, the Continental Congress ceased to exist in 1776 and is a fallacy argument on your part. It is not still our government. In fact, the Continental Congress wasn't even a government. It was a body of delegates that were appointed by the states to see to it that the state governments communicated on matters pertaining to the war. Congress of the Confederation was a government since it was ratified by the states partaking in it.

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Under the historical republican system, you only got one vote regardless of how much property you own. Only if those 100s of people sell to the owner and decide to rent them out. Your entire statement is nothing more than hyperbole.

@Blackdog: I cited the percentage from the CBO on what it would take to keep the current level of services that the government provides. You go off on all sorts of tangents and spouting nonsense that has nothing to do with the percentage that is required by everyone to pay in taxes to keep going. Deal with the percentage as reported by the CBO and not any other percentage. You were proven wrong about the loss of jobs and civil unrest claims regarding the 90% income tax rate of top wage earners.

I think the behavior of the police and its brutality only reinforces my position that private security can do a better job. For example, Waco anyone?

No, the Continental Congress ceased to exist in 1776 and is a fallacy argument on your part. It is not still our government. In fact, the Continental Congress wasn't even a government. It was a body of delegates that were appointed by the states to see to it that the state governments communicated on matters pertaining to the war. Congress of the Confederation was a government since it was ratified by the states partaking in it.

You can blow hard all you like it does not change the facts as I have presented them.

You are still wrong and the poll pretty much bares this out.

Agent Ferris · Jul 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
People bitch about having to pay car insurance and you are telling me you honestly believe people would pay for fire departments and road service??? Please, that is just to unrealistic.

If people don't voluntary purchase it then they won't receive the service.

Lets not even get into the liability of your neighbors house burning because he did not pay and it ignites something else. That is just one example, their are far to many to list.

Yes they would have liability if he caused the fire then he would be responsible for any damages incurred on the property of others which could be settled through tort procedure in private arbitration.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
You can blow hard all you like it does not change the facts as I have presented them.

You are still wrong and the poll pretty much bares this out.

Appeal to emotion logical fallacy. You haven't presented any facts. You did present your rhetoric and opinion though. Saying I'm wrong and proving it are two different things.

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
If people don't voluntary purchase it then they won't receive the service.

That would work out real well in an area with a large urban population.

Agent Ferris said:
Yes they would have liability if he caused the fire then he would be responsible for any damages incurred on the property of others which could be settled through tort procedure in private arbitration.

What if the fire was accidental? What if a person did not have the money to pay for police or road use?

Dude, it can't work. This is not the 1800's anymore.

Black Dog · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
Appeal to emotion logical fallacy. You haven't presented any facts. You did present your rhetoric and opinion though. Saying I'm wrong and proving it are two different things.

An appeal to logic and rule of law.

Your argument is as weak as your "opinion."

But then again I knew when I put it all out at one time you could not even hope to reply.

It is a lose, lose situation for you.

CaptainCourtesy · Jul 12, 2010

The_Patriot said:
If it's not the government's job then whose job is it? Sheriff South was the government agent and Pottle suffered violence at the hands of the mob after Sheriff South refused to intervene to protect Pottle. This leaves only Pottle in this case to defend himself. The court was quite clear that Pottle should have defended himself instead of relying upon Sheriff South. This set the precendent that the police are under no obligation to protect you or your property since it is your responsibility. I can add in more current cases if you'd like that further reinforces my statements.

The only precedent that the case set was that the police cannot be held liable if they do not help in such a situation. I read the court case. Everything you are saying is nothing but implication.

Agent Ferris · Jul 12, 2010

Blackdog said:
That would work out real well in a area with a large urban population.

It would actually, entire communities would hire these private security firms just as many communities today hire private security for gated communities, the free rider problem would be worked out through dominant assurance contracts.

What if the fire was accidental?

He would still have liability the same as if your brakes fail and you accidently ram into the car in front of you you still assume liability.

What if a person did not have the money to pay for police

He would still be protected by the security firms which were hired through dominant assurance contracts to police the community. He would technically be a free rider but again the free rider problem would be solved through dominant assurance contracts.

or road use?

Then he'll have to find another means of transportation. FYI we already have toll roads in this country, except the money goes to the state and the citizenry still had to pay the taxes to build the road in the first place not to mention they are paying for roads that they have not and may never even use.

Dude, it can't work. This is not the 1800's anymore.

Actually we didn't have an advanced market economy in the 1800's so if anything it has a better chance of working.

The_Patriot · Jul 12, 2010

CaptainCourtesy said:
The only precedent that the case set was that the police cannot be held liable if they do not help in such a situation. I read the court case. Everything you are saying is nothing but implication.

Since you insist I give you the ruling from Warren v. District of Columbia, "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." An expansion of the original South v. Maryland case. Are you sure you really want to continue with this since my statement is true?

Is Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

Yes

No

Other (Explain)

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Rockin' In The Free World

Rockin' In The Free World

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo