Taxation Is Theft

Tyler Durden's picture

It’s a double-whammy for the U.S. taxpayer. Bloomberg notes that not only are many Americans writing yet another check to Uncle Sam this tax season, they’re also paying more to have someone handle their returns. The Labor Department’s consumer-price index for tax return preparation rose 2.4 percent, the third-biggest monthly gain ever, to a record in March.

Such trends show why firms like Intuit Inc., the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block Inc., have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to limit efforts to simplify the tax-filing process.

But it gets worse, as Andrew Napolitano writes via The Mises Institute; with a tax code that exceeds 72,000 pages in length and consumes more than six billion person hours per year to determine taxpayers’ taxable income, with an IRS that has become a feared law unto itself, and with a government that continues to extract more wealth from every taxpaying American every year, is it any wonder that April 15th is a day of dread in America?

Social Security taxes and income taxes have dogged us all since their institution during the last century, and few politicians have been willing to address these ploys for what they are: theft.

During the 2012 election, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry caused a firestorm among big-government types during the Republican presidential primaries last year when he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He was right. It’s been a scam from its inception, and it’s still a scam today.

When Social Security was established in 1935, it was intended to provide minimal financial assistance to those too old to work. It was also intended to cause voters to become dependent on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Democrats. FDR copied the idea from a system established in Italy by Mussolini. The plan was to have certain workers and their employers make small contributions to a fund that would be held in trust for the workers by the government. At the time, the average life expectancy of Americans was 61 years of age, but Social Security didn’t kick in until age 65. Thus, the system was geared to take money from the average American worker that he would never see returned.

Over time, life expectancy grew and surpassed 65, the so-called trust fund was raided and spent, and the system was paying out more money than it was taking in – just like a Ponzi scheme. FDR called Social Security an insurance policy. In reality, it has become forced savings. However, the custodian of the funds – Congress – has stolen the savings and spent it. And the value of the savings has been diminished by inflation.

Today, the best one can hope to receive from Social Security is dollars with the buying power of 75 cents for every dollar contributed. That makes Social Security worse than a Ponzi scheme. You can get out of a Ponzi investment. You can’t get out of Social Security. Who would stay with a bank that returned only 75 percent of one’s savings?

The Constitution doesn’t permit the feds to steal your money. But steal, the feds do.

Also in 2012, during a Republican presidential debate, a young man asked the moderator to pose the following question to the candidates: “If I earn a dollar, how much of it am I entitled to keep?” The question was passed to one of the candidates, who punted, and then the moderator changed the topic. Only Congressman Ron Paul gave a serious post-debate answer to the young man’s question: “All of it.”

Every official foundational government document – from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution to the oaths that everyone who works for the government takes – indicates that the government exists to work for us. The Declaration even proclaims that the government receives all of its powers from the consent of the governed. If you believe all this, as I do, then just as we don’t have the power to take our neighbor’s property and distribute it against his will, we lack the ability to give that power to the government. Stated differently, just as you lack the moral and legal ability to take my property, you cannot authorize the government to do so.

Here’s an example you’ve heard before. You’re sitting at home at night, and there’s a knock at the door. You open the door, and a guy with a gun pointed at you says: “Give me your money. I want to give it away to the less fortunate.” You think he’s dangerous and crazy, so you call the police. Then you find out he is the police, there to collect your taxes.

The framers of the Constitution understood this. For 150 years, the federal government was run by user fees and sales of government land and assessments to the states for services rendered. It rejected the Hamiltonian view that the feds could take whatever they wanted, and it followed the Jeffersonian first principle that the only moral commercial exchanges are those that are fully voluntary.

This worked well until the progressives took over the government in the first decade of the 20th century. They persuaded enough Americans to cause their state legislatures to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, which was designed to tax the rich and redistribute wealth. They promised the American public that the income tax would never exceed 3 percent of income and would only apply to the top 3 percent of earners. How wrong – or deceptive – they were.

Yet, the imposition of a federal income tax is more than just taking from those who work and earn and giving to those who don’t. And it is more than just a spigot to fill the federal trough. At its base, it is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we don’t really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and use whatever it needs us to have so we won’t riot in the streets. And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away with. Do you believe this?

There are only three ways to acquire wealth in a free society. The inheritance model occurs when someone gives you wealth. The economic model occurs when you trade a skill, a talent, an asset, knowledge, sweat, energy or creativity to a willing buyer. And the mafia model occurs when a guy with a gun says: “Give me your money or else.”

Which model does the government use? Why do we put up with this?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GadExp's picture

 

 

LOSTHORIZONS.COM

 

Stop paying income taxes that you don't owe!!!

 

Stop funding Trump's war machine!!!

Manthong's picture

I am sick to F’n death of the bloated government stealing my life (my time, money and independence) giving it away, for the benefit of corporations and institutions who do not care about me, giving it to people who do not deserve even charity and killing people who are no threat to me or the country.

 

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

The current tax code is nothing more than a vote buying scheme, brought to you by the parties who reside on "opposite" sides of the same coin.  When you are paying 50-60-70% of your income in taxes--income(federal state local), sales, property, gas taxes, and the myriad of hidden taxes(on your utility bills) and fees, EVERYONE who works is paying WELL OVER 50% of their income to taxes.  Those in the higher tax brackets are paying north of 70%.  For every 10 days you work, 5-7 of those days go to someone else.  Thats called SLAVERY!!  Maybe the "good" slaves got to keep more than the "bad" slaves back in the day.  Thats what todays "working class" are.  The "good" slaves.  They get to keep just a little more bread than the rest do, so they won't rebel.

swamp's picture

First 150 years O TAXES on income.

In the Federalist papers,
our founding fathers believed the gov did not
have a right to know how much we earned.

Then came the fed in 1913 and their henchmen the IRS in 1915

Economy-X's picture

It was once said that taxes are the price of civilisation. Some taxes are surely theft. Here I'm thinking of taxes for neocon wars, for corporate welfare, for all the deductions the millionaires and billionaires of this world can make including such things as the cost of silk toilet roll (a necessity for delicate assholes that the rich invariably have, genetically of course) to corporate welfare (see Trump Carrier deal folks) and of course my favorite, bank bailouts.

However taxes used for things we all use, including roads, hospitals, schools, fire services, politice services, electricity grids, railways, street lights public libraries, infrastructure in general; and things we benefit from like the maintenance of law and order, development of science, regulations that prevent scamming and dangerous products being sold and so on.

You cannot have a modern society without taxes, its impossible, since which individual is going to pay for the above? Further to that, how can any individual also be an "American" without contributing to the public goods required for a nation to exist. Just go and google a few countries where tax collection is dysfunctional or non-existent, like Liberia, Eritrea, Mali and so on. See if you think you would like to live in these failed states and pay no taxes.

 

The problem is not taxes, the problem is what taxes are spent on. Norwegians and Danes are very happy to pay their taxes, since they have the best public infrastructure in the world. Americans should be enraged by the plunder of their country by the Neocon war machine and corporate communists who act in the name of the people when they tell us how great they are at producing stuff, but keep all the people's wealth who actually procued that stuff and also steal their tax dollars and live untouched by market forces! Just like Soviet Communists as I recall

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

"which individual is going to pay for the above?"

That's called the "public goods" problem:  since the benefits of a true public good (like [real] national DEFENSE) cannot be captured by the provider because it's impossible to exclude non payers, the good will be "under" provided.  Such goods are necessarily a small fraction of the goods in any civilized society.

Even today, public goods constitute a very small share (way less than a trillion dollars) of the federal government's budget.  The lion's share of government spending in all semi-collectivist countries like the US is spent on transfers--robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Out of roughly $3.5 trillion in spending, more than 2/3s of the US budget goes to beneficiary payments for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare (for both poor and rich) and other similar transfer programs. 

Public goods provision could be easily financed w/o resort to an income tax.  The real reason for the income tax, in my view, was to provide a built-in mechanism to fund federal debt payments of principal and interest.  In 1913, there was less than a billion in federal debt.  By the end of the Great War five years later, there would be 25 times more USG debt.  No revenue mechanism, short of an income tax, can generate the cash required to fund such a monster. 

Lastly, to float that much debt in such a compressed time requires assistance.  It is no coincidence therefore that the Fed emerges shortly after the (alleged) passage of the Income Tax Amendment. 

WorkingFool's picture

Wrong - Who built the common subway systems in NYC?  Private companies - until they raised their price to 5 cents and the corrupt government, you know the guys with the guns, stole it and gave it to their buddies - Edison . . and then raised the price to 10 cents.  Common good?  Who speaks for the common?  It's like the tree that claims he knows best for the forest.  Stop the lies.  Stop the hate.  And get that fucking gun of govenrment out of my face.  It might already be too late.

Economy-X's picture

You gotta be kidding me. You actually have no idea how costly it is to build a subway do you mate! If private companies built subways the prices would have to be so high to return a profit in any time span less than a hundred thousand years that nobody would be able to afford it. And in that case it would still not return a profit.

You cannot build massive national infrastructure privately and turn a profit on it. Simple as. Just read the following if your open to facts and new knowledge:

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-infrastructure-tolls-elaine-chao-3c6370a...

 

Economy-X's picture

This claim that public goods constitue such share of the Federal Budget is the reason why American society is starting to fall apart along with its infrastructure. If private companies rebuil the crumbling road network for example, then to make a a profit on the investment they would need to toll every single road in the country. Just see how long economic activity can go on in that situation.

Second public goods are a far greater proportion of the budget, but they are regularly stolen/given to the private sector for free. For example Apple did not create the smart phone, or even its version of it the iPhone. The military designed all the major components and software of the smart phone using public grants, and then gave all this for free to US corporations, as outlline in The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato

John Law Lives's picture

"Norwegians and Danes are very happy to pay their taxes, since they have the best public infrastructure in the world." - Economy-X 

According to whom?

http://www.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-in-the-world-with-the-best-...

Economy-X's picture

The link you posted shows America in the top 15 despite the AMerican Society of Engineers in 2017 giving American infrastructure a flunk grade of D+ so to be honest I'm not sure where business insider gets its stats.

 

Anyway as noted, the Danes in 2016 were the happiest nation in the world https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-...

While their average personal income tax rate is 55% http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rate

 

Government not taxes is the problem and solution

WorkingFool's picture

"You cannot have a modern society without taxes, its impossible, since which individual is going to pay for the above?" You couldn't be more wrong. To answer your question, any or all of the things he sees value in.  Groups HAVE naturally and freely formed to solve all of those concerns and more with superior results to the government fraud, corruption and incompentency path you are suggesting - in every case.  The nortic country examples you and the Marxists love to cite was created in the early part of the century and has now been squandered by the Marxists.  Stop the lies, stop the hate.  And take that fucking gun out of my face before it's too late.  

Economy-X's picture

Exactly, the word "group" is crucial here and supports my point. A group is simple a mirror of what a government is. Every government started off as a small group. A minimum level of collective sharing and pooling of resources is the prerequisite of all human life. Individualists live in an illusion of their self-attained adequacy simply because they can rely on economic support of strangers connected through global markets.

Global markets only work because governments (groups) all over the world ensure minimum regulations for honest trade are followed, and provide the systems needed to manage the entire thing. So thanks for supporting my point using different terminology.

swamp's picture

First 150 years O TAXES on income.

In the Federalist papers,
our founding fathers believed the gov did not
have a right to know how much we earned.

Then came the fed in 1913 and their henchmen the IRS in 1915

Common_Law's picture

It's not theft if you give your consent. Which you do every time you sign a government form (contract). It involves a legal tactic the tech sector has made great use of, "default opt-in". That's not it's legal name, but it conveys the idea. Legally their just contracts, think "terms and conditions". But, just like with "shrink wrap contracts" and "click wrap contracts" in the tech world where presumptions are made under the law, presumptions are also made about your citizenship. Most people are completely unaware that there is both federal citizenship and state citizenship.

"There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States  and  citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter." [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823] [(1949)]

And as some are aware congress has unlimited authority to legislate within Federal jurisdiction, but must abide by the Constitution in the 50 states.

Explore here for more info: (pdf) http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipDiagrams.pdf

Snípéir_Ag_Obair's picture

consent can be vitiated by duress/coercion.

not sure what you mean by consent by signing as its overbroad to the point of vagueness.

Congress has to abide by the Constitution.

It absolutely does NOT have 'unlimited authority' anywhere. Its powers are those Enumerated by the Constituion and 'necessary and proper' laws in support. Courts have stretched that leash - but the notion of unlimited power of fedgov is flat wrong.

They may have the **police power** that states do on federal land (no one ever mentions the Enclave Clause because to do so makes those millions of acres of 'federal' land look, well... unconstitutional) but that is not unlimited.

Like they states they Are limited by the fed Con.

But federal 'rights' arent the same as rights as a State citizen... dual sovereign system. But states cant violate federal rights due to Supremacy Clause, not because you have those rights/immunities as a state citizen, and states DO NOT NEED ENUMERATED POWERS because they have a general police power.

Congress and the Federal government has only the powers granted to it by Constitution- which provides for limited, particularized police power in DC say... still can not violate federal rights though.

Police Power -= I can do anything, minus Constitutional exceptions
Constitutional Federal power = I cant do anything, absent Constitutional additions.

States have a general police power limited by Supremacy Clause.

Feds do not (except in DC, military based, post offices, airports, not sure about national parks but probably same) and can only do those things Constition grants (as wildly expanded by activist courts since Wickard v Filburn and really, long before that.

Common_Law's picture

I suggest you explore that site with an open mind. There is a great deal of important obscure (new and old) information there. Starting with that link. It's a 25 page summation of a 1000+ page book on the topic. All available for free on their site.

I mean man's right to contract can legally forfeit any right granted by the Constitution. 

Legally the Constitution is just a treaty between 51 nations.

I don't know it all, but the more of the law I read I see how little I know. 

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

"It's not theft if you give your consent. "

So, the mugger says, "your money or your life."  I "consent" and he relieves me of my money.  

No crime?  Good luck w/that.

Economy-X's picture

Fair enough. But I'm even sicker of capital stealing the fruits of my labour and giving it to squirrel little CEO's who make 1000s of times more than their employees for doing hardly anything much more, and often nothing more. Dito for people who inherited capital and have never worked a day in their snowflake lives.

This theft is far more monumental than anything tax-related!!!

gn28's picture

The thesis is wrong.

There's no problem with paying the taxes as long as you're allowed to pay them the same way the money was made and transferred: digitally. Just send a digital message with 1'000'000'000'000$.

That's how they made it: a digital value in a database. So, that's how it should be paid. Almost zero effort and zero damage caused in the process.

All you have to do is stop thinking of money as something you have to earn in order to pay their taxes. They made it up so all that is needed is for you to pay back another made up transaction. There will be no forceful taking beyond wasting 1 minute to send the digital message.

Wake up!

Is this name taken's picture

that was ditto to GadExp - losthorizons.com.

Sam Clemons's picture

My wife had an unpaid student loan debt.  We had our best tax return in years coming.  They took it all to pay for the student loan.  Didn't even know that was possible.  Not sure how they expected someone making $20K a year working with special needs kids to ever pay off debt.

Seasmoke's picture

If most of the tax return was yours , file an INJURED SPOUSE form pronto and get your money you deserve back !!!!

Sam Clemons's picture

What would that do?  She wasn't injured.  She just made shit for money.

Seasmoke's picture

No she is injuring you !! Who is doing your taxes ??? Mark Twain ????

swamp's picture

And knew in advance the cost of her loans and salary of that shit pay job

Sam Clemons's picture

Not entirely.  Most people aren't educated how credit or debt works in public or private schools.  Most parents don't teach it either because they don't know.  The system is set up by government, banks, and lawyers to put people in debt servitude because it's profitable. Ironically, it's in a "Christian" country where Usury probably shouldn't be allowed.

Her services render $80 an hour from insurance and government.  Her boss takes $62, she takes $18.  

francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

I might also suggest "withholding" less in taxes so that you are never owed a return.  Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not generous enough to lend the gov't my money in the hopes that they'll give some of it back after April 15th sans interest.

Disclaimer: The above should not be construed as tax or legal advice, and the fact that people actually have to write disclaimers like this should pi$$ us off.

Seasmoke's picture

I never care about Red arrows. But why would anyone fucking DOWN arrow this post ??? This place is an insane asylum. 

Sam Clemons's picture

The asshole blaming the peasant refusing to admit our country is a corpocracy.

SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

"Why do we put up with this?"

ONLY, because they will jail us peons and serfs and seize our assets if we don't...while the corporations and one percenters, loophole their way out of paying any.
Time to roll the guillotines.

Is this name taken's picture

Taxation is not theft when the sheep agree to pay it.

LN's picture

"Try not agreeing."...

And you'll pay much more.  Great gig if you can get it.

LN

WorkingFool's picture

Sheep only get fleeced and fucked.  Enjoy

DarthVader101's picture

The only thing the sheep agree to is that it's an offer from Don Corleone that they can't refuse.

LN's picture

April 15th, the day of the final milking of the cows, welcome to the farm.

LN

Mr. Universe's picture

Where some animals are more equal than others.

LN's picture

Yes, how does one get on that list?

LN

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Tax Freedom Day falls well after April 15th.  Its more like the end of May or into June.  And I bet they don't count taxes on your phone bill, your your car license plate fees, or your gas taxes or property taxes when they talk about "tax freedom day".  Add those in and you are working into September before you get to keep your own labor.

LN's picture

"...or property taxes..."

Yes, it's a damn shame we never get to own anything.  What other group of people are not allowed to own anything?

LN

LN's picture

Hate to break it to you, but,...

"Stop funding Trump's war machine!!!"

This machine predates the Trumpster.

LN

Omega_Man's picture

merica taxes the very fake bullshit ponzi money they create out of nothing that doesn't even exist in real currency... what a fucked up country 

 

it's just to starve you and keep you in check..... slaves....and you fall for it! 

steve2241's picture

#4) Join the F.S.A.

canisdirus's picture

I have pointed out before that we have taxation without representation every day. I pay taxes that were voted for by people that died before I was born, taxes that were voted for by people that died before my grandparents are born, and voted for by people in places well before I moved to them.

You move and have to deal with whatever mafia owns the territory, paying whichever taxes happen to be in place from decades and centuries in the past.

It IS theft.