I.R.S. loses court battle.

[ixidor89]

Pay "the illegals" the same as the citizens and there's no incentive for companies to hire them over citizens.

The problem is that hiring illegal immigrants is illegal. If a company is lawless in hiring illegal immigrants, then why would the company abide by the law and pay them minimum wage?

 

[Marril]

But there is more of an incentive for the illegals to be here. DUH

Would you go somewhere even if you couldn't get a job there because everyone was hiring citizens? No company is going to look at two applicants, one a citizen and the other an illegal immigrant, and say, "Well, legislation says I have to pay them both equally, so let's take the illegal immigrant for no reason."

 

[evil psyduck]

Wrong again. Most company's do not follow the laws now against hiring illegals so what makes you think the will follow a law about equal pay for them? Do you really think if the illegals are getting paid less they will complain about it? I doubt for the fact they would not want to take the chance of getting deported. And the company's know that.

 

[Marril]

Most company's do not follow the laws

So I've little incentive to believe they're ever going to do a better job of administering governmental services than the government, then, which was of course part of the main topic of this thread.

what makes you think the will follow a law about equal pay for them?

I dunno about you, but if the federal government was coming down hard on my company for breaking the law, I wouldn't keep doing it.

Do you really think if the illegals are getting paid less they will complain about it?

No. In fact, any intelligent one would brag about it. They'd know that it means they're getting hired and citizens aren't.

 

[ninetales1234]

Remember the topic of this thread. It’s about the income tax.

It seems that no one wants to debate me on this. I have asserted that, it doesn’t matter whether the income tax is legal- the income tax is immoral. And upon hearing this, the response I seem to be getting is “Government is good. Government provides services.” I don’t care. Taking someone’s money without their consent is usually seen as bad. How can you rationalize stealing?

Since when was it okay for someone to take money from you and give you “services” without your permission? Unfortunately, most debate about the income tax (or any tax) is not being put in the proper context; If you don’t hand your property over to the IRS, a bunch of armed thugs in blue uniforms are going to break into your house, handcuff you, and put you behind bars.
Doesn't sound very friendly to me. Doesn't sound like someone who has your best interests in mind

The problem is that hiring illegal immigrants is illegal. If a company is lawless in hiring illegal immigrants, then why would the company abide by the law and pay them minimum wage?

I think she means that if they were discovered, the penalties would be even greater, because they didn't pay them minimum wage.

I did mean "everything." If the government maintains your roads, then you do not use their roads. If the government maintains your parks, then you stay out of their parks. And so on.

I don't want government roads. I do drive on them, because that's the only thing that's available right now. I would like police departments to stay, but I don't like that they are not funded peacefully.

Vanderbilt hit it, he's probably said more truth than anyone else in this thread. What is it with you people and thinking the only way something works is by throwing everything to the private sector or everything to the government. They both work pretty well at different things.

The "private sector" doesn't have to steal to do what it does.

I don't like the fact that I have to wait an extra 6 months for my passport now that the job got passed to a private company that was completely unprepared for the new laws, maybe the private sector doesn't always get it right either.

The problem is the laws.

1. The government bureaucracy wastes money ... but it does so in pretty much the same ways that large businesses do

But are large businesses wasting stolen money? It's their own money they're wasting.
The government officials who spend our money are not careful and don't have to be.
There is no accountability in government, as there is in the private sector (businesses that mess up, usually have to face negative consequences).
Private businesses do not have a virtually unlimited supply of money (as our government does) because they are not funded by force.
The government officials don't have to raise any of the wealth themselves. As a wise Congressperson once said, "It's a lot easier to spend someone else's money".

Don't tell us that governments and businesses waste in the same ways. When the military dumps its own equipment into the ocean, so that the equipment will be missing, so the department can be given a bigger budget, there's no comparison. Businesses don't intentionally destroy their own equipment. When we are told that there's a "lock box" (money that can only be spent on Social Security) and it gets spent on other things, there's no comparison. If a private business tells people that there's a "lock box" but instead defrauds them the way the government does, you can bet there are going to consequences for the people responsible!

have any of you guys ever seen what perks the people at the top of the corporate ladder get?

I've heard the stories, and maybe it's too much sometimes. However, private businesses are not really comparable to government waste, because governments are funded by force, businesses are not.

If you don't like the policies of a business, you can choose not to involve yourself with it. Boycott. The government, however, is the government, and you have no choice as to whether you "do business" with them.

I fully agree with arguments that there is government waste and it makes me mad ... but I also get angry that some of the same folks blatantly overlook the fact that corporate waste/fraud/corruption exists as well and that it is just as bad if not worse for our country.

It's not a bad as government waste, because they're wasting their own money. Businesses that do more than just waste, and commit an act of aggression against people, such as fraud, are punished. When politicians commit fraud, they get reelected.

just arguing that government is bad is pretty much arguing that America itself is bad.

Oh no! I don't like the government! That means I don't like the people living under that government! Oh, I feel so bad...:tongue:

UPS is fast, cost efficient, and focused on customer service ... but they simply don’t have offices everywhere.

They may have more offices if the government gets out of the way.

4. Overregulation of private business is bad ... but underregulation can be too. Take child labor as an example. Employing children to do dangerous jobs for a pittance was a great way for corporations to save money ... but very bad for society as a whole.

I don't really know what you're saying. I assume you're saying, if not for government the world would still be the same, in that aspect. Well, regardless, of whether that's true, the child labor laws are wrong.
Children chose to take those jobs. The child labor laws are bad because they intefere with a voluntary transaction. Regulation wasn't necessary, because there wasn't a problem. Though I do agree that it's stupid to work all day and not get an education- but I don't claim to be all-knowing and wise enough to make that decision for everybody else...

On the other hand overregulation is really hard on many industries and leads to pointless costs and wastes of time. I’m thinking of the Electricity Industry as an example of the latter. The trick of course if finding a good balance point

Here's my balance point. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my my own property; let me participate in whatever voluntary actions I want to participate in. Leave peaceful individuals alone.

Being a future accountant, all I can say is that the tax laws are complex and something I'd rather not specialize in, lol.

If you're going to benefit from the government being big and complicated (that fact gives you more work to do), don't let it cloud your judgment. Good luck to you.

It's comprised of and chosen by the citizens.

Assuming the elections are fair.

They're sort of like union leaders, if you would. And just like unions charging union dues, the government taxes its people to remain effective.

People choose to be in unions. We don't choose the government. If the government does something you don't like, you can't just dissassociate yourself with it.

But take heart, you're doing better than ninetales1234, who starts with the object of his proof as one of his first assumptions, written in a nice, friendly boldface, and only gets worse from there.

 

[Marril]

It seems that no one wants to debate me on this.

It's because you started with a nice "Income tax is wrong" in boldface and aren't going to accept anything else as a possibility.

I do drive on them, because that's the only thing that's available right now.

Excuses.

Assuming the elections are fair.

In theory they are. In practice, well, the election scandals and inherent unfairness of the electoral college are subjects for a whole other debate.

People choose to be in unions.

Not necessarily. Some workplaces force you to be in the union just by working there, as otherwise you're getting the benefits of the union's collective bargaining without giving any support (financial or otherwise) to the union, which would be completely unfair. It's analogous to someone who doesn't pay taxes yet still receives government benefits.

You started off your entire argument with, "Tax is wrong. Whether it's legal or illegal doesn't matter. It's wrong and they waste the money and the government has no place giving us services. The private sector is flat-up better." (Paraphrased, of course). There's really no point to debating something like that, as you've shut yourself off from being able to have a rational argument.

 

[ninetales1234]

It's because you started with a nice "Income tax is wrong" in boldface and aren't going to accept anything else as a possibility... You started off your entire argument with, "Tax is wrong. Whether it's legal or illegal doesn't matter. It's wrong and they waste the money and the government has no place giving us services. The private sector is flat-up better." (Paraphrased, of course). There's really no point to debating something like that, as you've shut yourself off from being able to have a rational argument.

I like to start debates with thinking about the possibility that I'm wrong.

If I were to say what I believe, while sticking my fingers in my ears saying "la la la, I'm not listening!" that would be kind of stupid. If I came off as that kind of person, that was certainly not intentional.

If you think my opinion is as hard as rock, I'd say you're right, but there's no such thing as an immovable object.:smile:

There's no reason to not want to hear the other side of a debate. If somebody tells you something that allows you to see things in a different way and you change your opinion after hearing the other side, you're in a better place than you were before. Blocking out someone else's opinion doesn't help anyone.

Some workplaces force you to be in the union just by working there

Yes, some do require it. But, if you don't want to be in the union, you have the choice to work somewhere else.

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

Ninetales I’ve simply got to assume that you’ve never worked for a large corporation or for an unethical small business owner.

Businesses can and do lie, cheat, and steal ... and they do it all the time. I have seen businesses that I’ve worked for pretty much dump money & equipment right out the window so that they will have more the next year. It’s stupid but it happens every single business cycle. Businesses do steal, sometimes indirectly by inflating the cost of the service or product they provide, and other times more directly in some very creative ways. Businesses use misdirection all the time too. Like I said, I do hate government waste ... but corporate waste is just as bad if not worse in some respects.

Your post actually reminds me of the way I felt when I was 15 or so (not trying to imply anything about your age – simply noting that I would have agreed with what you posted when I was younger). That if *I* did the right things and everyone else did too then why should we even bother with all the regulations and such in life? The flaw in that line of thinking is twofold. First there are a great many unethical people out there so you really can’t count on people just being good. Secondly we are part of a larger society and our actions have many impacts on people ... many of whom we may never even meet.

Those property taxes that I hate paying go towards building the schools that one of my neighbor’s kids will end up going to. The woman I cut off while speeding gets angry and snaps at her boyfriend running his day. The homeless shelter I volunteer at ends up helping turn someone’s life around and for all I know one of their children will change the world.

Our government is merely a kind of formality. It’s a way of regulating our interactions and dealings with one another on a large scale. You can’t separate the “people living under” a government and the intuitions themselves when you are talking about a country that’s built the way the US is. Our forefathers made these institutions for us and we’ve refined them over the years since. Ones that haven’t worked we’ve gotten rid of or merged into others that were working. It’s usually not a smooth process but it works over the long haul.

If you don’t like the way things are run now I strongly encourage you to attempt to change them. Both our government and the bureaucratic intuitions that are a part of it are subject to change.

Do you know why we don’t have debtor’s prison today? People got fed up with it. Juries simply stopped finding debtors guilty no matter what the evidence was because they found the institution repugnant. Eventually the laws were changed and the way we deal with debt did as well. The trick with changing things though is that you usually just can’t get rid of them ... you have to find a way to replace them with something else. If you think that our taxes are immoral then find a moral way for the government to get money to do the things it needs to do, find a way to make it work, and then do your best to spread the word and convince others. It can be done. That’s how you “choose” your government.

 

[ixidor89]

Remember the topic of this thread. It’s about the income tax.

It seems that no one wants to debate me on this. I have asserted that, it doesn’t matter whether the income tax is legal- the income tax is immoral. And upon hearing this, the response I seem to be getting is “Government is good. Government provides services.” I don’t care. Taking someone’s money without their consent is usually seen as bad. How can you rationalize stealing?

money".

Don't tell us that governments and businesses waste in the same ways. WhSince when was it okay for someone to take money from you and give you “services” without your permission? Unfortunately, most debate about the income tax (or any tax) is not being put in the proper context; If you don’t hand your property over to the IRS, a bunch of armed thugs in blue uniforms are going to break into your house, handcuff you, and put you behind bars.
Doesn't sound very friendly to me. Doesn't sound like someone who has your best interests in mind

In the constitution, Congress is given the power to create levy taxes. The sixteenth amendment extended this to allow the legal creation of an income tax. The IRS was created to oversee that these levied taxes were collected. This is all legal.

This is also moral. As a citizen of the United States of America, you agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America set in place by your elected officials. In return, you receive benefits, such as military protection and the order maintained by a police force. However, these benefits require money to maintain, so the representatives that you elect see to it that taxes are gathered, usually from the citizen. This implementation of taxation also has the force of law. If you do not like the fact that you are being taxed, or that your tax money is being spent poorly, you have several options:

1.) Vote the people that levied the taxes out for people that will repeal the taxes or put the money taken from them to better use.

2.) Provided that the tax does not apply to what the government is trying to collect from you, challenge it in court.

3.) Inform your public servants of your opinion!

4.) Leave the country.

You are not being stolen from; you agreed to the tax! Effectively, you also have the power to disagree.

 

[Marril]

I like to start debates with thinking about the possibility that I'm wrong.

This is of course why you opened with something to the effect of, "I don't care if it's legal or not, it is wrong"?

 

[ryanvergel]

Think of how long the USPS has existed and the kind of financial backing they've gotten compared to UPS.

Like I said, once UPS has the means to compete with first-class, they will be able to set up stores in those rural areas and compete once and for all with USPS.

It will take a while. As USPS continues to lose money for shipping any parcel, they continue to drive up prices for stamps and such- while UPS gets cheaper and cheaper, and eventually the two prices will meet and the better service (UPS) will triumph.


---

Ixidor: Too many people believe in the idea tacit consent- an idea that is heavily outdated. To believe that by simply existing in the US provides tacit consent to relinquish authority is an old belief that is very much full of holes. Many people do not have the MEANS to "move"-option 4 in your list. They are forced to provide tacit consent- which is hardly consent at all.

Now, since tacit consent is hardly ever given, expressed consent is the only real means for people to give up authority to the gov't- but how often does that occur? I never voted for many of the laws and agencies formed today. My being a citizen should not inadvertently give the gov't the rights it has over me. I never expressed consent via voting, signing, etc.

I think the government has improper authority in many realms, and a simple look at who the founding fathers learned from would lead one to see that the ideas that once formed this country have gone to shambles.

The two forms of consent to give power to government are expressed and tacit. Since I do not have the means to move (option 4), and by following the other three would make me hypocritical, and because I do not express consent I find myself in a conundrum. Either I appeal to the government in the only method I can: the hyper-bureaucratic way which will never be heard in such a constricting society, or I move. Alas, being 19 means I can't move effectively since I have zero financial backing and have no money saved up.

I'm stuck in a spot where my only option to change the government which I dislike is to enter (and thus express consent) into the governmental realm. But if I enter the realm of policy, then I expressly consent the government's actions- which I do not want! Catch-22. Obviously, the system is flawed if I'm at a catch-22.

--
Honestly, I just feel the government has too much power right now. Their hands are into too many things. I think this causes inefficiency and a general distrust for the government. With so much government, making an impact is more difficult. I remember taking government and learning about the departmental bureaucracy in place. So many federal agencies have heads of department and upper-level members who literally CANNOT be removed because of how much red tape there is. They are stagnant because they can rise no higher, cannot get any lower, and get amazing benefits. This is not like a corporation where someone is immune from all attempts at removal. Business is about efficiency. How to best provide for the customer so as to make the most for the company. The government SHOULD be run like a business: their product is keeping things in check, their payment is our allegiance and our relinquished authority. However, this business is turning into a monopoly. There is no chance for competition- which has lead to stagnation and poor product. Competition is my rough analogy for ability to choose other options (which is what competition comes down to: getting a customer to choose you over a competitor). There is no other option with the government. We can barely express concerns without large sums of money, we cannot get better services in the area of posting, etc. This gigantic government also has so many people and so much power that it has teamed up with corporations to further control things! With so much governmental power, big businesses have no fear of competition because laws can be passed to help these conglomerates.

Big government is hurting us- not helping us. The government is so big it has even affected the economy and all facets of life and spread its inefficient nature into every branch of life. From war, to economy, to welfare.

When I order government I don't want mine value sized. People should have an option.

 

[ixidor89]

Ixidor: Too many people believe in the idea tacit consent- an idea that is heavily outdated. To believe that by simply existing in the US provides tacit consent to relinquish authority is an old belief that is very much full of holes. Many people do not have the MEANS to "move"-option 4 in your list. They are forced to provide tacit consent- which is hardly consent at all.

Then they can vote the people imposing these taxes on them out. I'm sure that the people that dislike taxes aren't in the minority - the issue has been a large political playing point for decades.

 

[ryanvergel]

Then they can vote the people imposing these taxes on them out. I'm sure that the people that dislike taxes aren't in the minority - the issue has been a large political playing point for decades.

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post?

If they attempted to vote people out, they would be providing expressed consent- which then gives the government the authority to do the things they have. Right now the government shouldn't take my money because I haven't given them the authority to do so- but the moment I vote I am giving them the authority to do so. Do you understand?

 

[Marril]

So you'd rather just whine on message boards than do anything that might possibly help to change things in your favour? How the heck immature is that? Your line of thinking is precisely the reason you're stuck complaining instead of doing anything—you're too caught up in " the moment I vote I am giving them the authority to do so" to ever see effectual changes. You have absolutely no right to whine if you don't vote. If you won't vote, then sit back, shut up, and hope that someone else changes things for your better.

Whatever became of, "Don't blame me; I voted for the other guy"?

 

[ixidor89]

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post?

If they attempted to vote people out, they would be providing expressed consent- which then gives the government the authority to do the things they have. Right now the government shouldn't take my money because I haven't given them the authority to do so- but the moment I vote I am giving them the authority to do so. Do you understand?

If the republicans take control of congress in 2008 because people are fed up with taxes, the elected republican congressmen would be taking huge risks by not lowering or raising taxes. The only expressed authority there is the authority to lower taxes and create smaller government.

 

[Articjedi]

So you'd rather just whine on message boards than do anything that might possibly help to change things in your favour? How the heck immature is that? Your line of thinking is precisely the reason you're stuck complaining instead of doing anything—you're too caught up in " the moment I vote I am giving them the authority to do so" to ever see effectual changes. You have absolutely no right to whine if you don't vote. If you won't vote, then sit back, shut up, and hope that someone else changes things for your better.

There's more to doing stuff for your country other than voting, write a couple congressman, work on a campaign for or donate money to someone who supports your ideals. Although I love this argument that you shouldn't be complaining unless you're doing something about it, I wonder if Marill is only using this part to win the argument rather than prove a point.

 

[ryanvergel]

So you'd rather just whine on message boards than do anything that might possibly help to change things in your favour? How the heck immature is that? Your line of thinking is precisely the reason you're stuck complaining instead of doing anything—you're too caught up in " the moment I vote I am giving them the authority to do so" to ever see effectual changes. You have absolutely no right to whine if you don't vote. If you won't vote, then sit back, shut up, and hope that someone else changes things for your better.

Whatever became of, "Don't blame me; I voted for the other guy"?

Or pursue a law degree.

And using that retort didn't win her the argument. There still isn't an explanation as to how the situation I'm in isn't a catch-22. Sorry if I get caught up in the idea of this conundrum- but until I feel it's rational to vote, I simply won't.

 

[Articjedi]

So you're going to let the government do whatever it wants to you without you having some type of say in the matter. I'd still say voting is better than nothing.

 

[Marril]

There's more to doing stuff for your country other than voting, write a couple congressman, work on a campaign for or donate money to someone who supports your ideals.

But if you can't even bring yourself to mark a little box on a ballot, you don't have much hope of doing any of that other stuff.

There still isn't an explanation as to how the situation I'm in isn't a catch-22.

It's only a catch-22 as long as your definition of voting for any side as giving the government your "go ahead, tax me" permission holds true. Since that definition of yours is clearly a load of (very lazy, whiny, and ineffectual) bollocks, it's not a catch-22.

If you vote Democrat, you're not freaking telling the Republicans "go ahead, run the country." If you don't vote at all, you're basically saying, "The issues aren't important to me, and I really don't care what's going on; whatever one of you parties that wins can run the country as you like, it's fine with me." Why should it be any different for candidates who support taxes and those who don't?

 

[ninetales1234]

In the constitution, Congress is given the power to create levy taxes.

Yes, but what is it given the power to create taxes for? For the Constitutional functions of government. Currently, the income tax is being used to pay for things that are not authorized by the Constitution.

This is also moral.

How can you, a Bible-believing Christian give the stamp of approval to government stealing? (eighth commandment)

As a citizen of the United States of America

Depends on what you mean by "citizen". I have not sworn loyalty to the US and I am not subject to government's protection (there is a Supreme Court ruling on this, I would link to it, but I don't remember its name).

you agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America set in place by your elected officials.

Agree? I didn't agree to anything. Do you have any proof?

In return, you receive benefits, such as military protection and the order maintained by a police force. However, these benefits require money to maintain, so the representatives that you elect see to it that taxes are gathered, usually from the citizen.

Lots of thngs require money to maintain, but why do they insist on taking the money by force? Tons of other organizations out there exist (many of which have been around for decades) that are able to provide services without doing so, but the government doesn't want to. If these government people really were competent to give us services, why don't they do it on a voluntary basis? If these services are so good, wouldn't they get the funds for them peacefully?

This implementation of taxation also has the force of law. If you do not like the fact that you are being taxed, or that your tax money is being spent poorly, you have several options:

1.) Vote the people that levied the taxes out for people that will repeal the taxes or put the money taken from them to better use.

We shouldn't have to vote to do this. People are trying to take your money away from you. Does it matter whether 30% of voters agree on this? The government is taking away something from you that you earned. It's your money! You shouldn't have to vote to protect your own property.

If you are walking down the road, and a pickpocket is tapping at the side of your pants are you going to say, "I disaprove of what you're doing. I'm going to get a bunch of people together to form a consensus to see if you should leave me alone."? No. You give him the finger and you tell him to go away! You don't need permission from a majority to keep your own property safe.

4.) Leave the country.

I don't want to. I get this response sometimes when I criticize the government. My response to this is usually- Where would I go? The United States is the freest place in the world. I don't want to be pushed around by this government and then leave, only to be pushed around by some other government.

If you are making an income that's your property. You should never have to move in order to aboid being stolen from. No one should be expected to quit his job, pick up his things, sell his house, buy a new house, find a new job, and go live somewhere else for rest of his life just because people a thousand kilometers away in ties and suits think they're entitled to 30% of his income.

You are not being stolen from; you agreed to the tax!

How did I agree? When did I agree?
I didn't consent to anything. Look at the Constitution, the federal statues, the tax code. Where in there do you see my signature?
Some people just love to hold on this idea of "social contract". But it doesn't mean anything. I didn't sign any stinkin' contract. How does the government have any legitimate taxing authority? What more is the law than just a bunch of text on paper written by a group of old people in suits and ties?

Does living in the United States mean that I agree to the tax? That's just silly. I have to live somewhere. So anywhere I live, I'm agreeing to that government's tax? I didn't consent to the government. There are no documents you can find to prove otherwise.

And besides, I was born here! (Can you think of a better defense than that?) Even if I wasn't, I'm still not agreeing to anything. But I was born here! And so were you. I find it very sad to think that from the moment we were born within the borders of the United States that we were obligated to lose 30% or so of our wealth to someone else, for no reason at all.

You may have consented, and I certainly don't object to that. But I really have trouble understanding what you're saying. Where's the contract? When did ryanvergel, Robert ex, moza, Spotter, Prime, Patriarch, evil psyduck, etc., or I agree to this? What consent is there, that you can prove, that makes the income tax (or any tax for that matter...) not theft?

I think the idea that taxes are okay (or a "necessary evil" as they say) comes from the feeling that people have of not being able to imagine a world without taxes. People don't want to get rid of them, so they try to justify it with things like "consent by being a resident". I think it's sad that people have to come up with abstract legal theories (such as this false consent ixidor speaks of) just to find a way to morally justify taxes.:frown: People are just so used to taxes that it's hard to imagine the US (or any country) any other way.

But I ask you: Do you want police deparments (or whatever government services)? Assuming these things are important, you should have no trouble rasing the funds for these voluntarily. It's really simple.

I challenge any of you pro-tax people to explain to me how the income tax is acceptable, now that it's been laid out that the tax is theft and it doesn't matter whether it's legal.

This is of course why you opened with something to the effect of, "I don't care if it's legal or not, it is wrong"?

Come on Marril, lighten up...

I never voted for many of the laws and agencies formed today.

Neither have I.

I'm stuck in a spot where my only option to change the government which I dislike is to enter (and thus express consent) into the governmental realm. But if I enter the realm of policy, then I expressly consent the government's actions- which I do not want! Catch-22. Obviously, the system is flawed if I'm at a catch-22.

I wouldn't worry about it. I'd go ahead and vote anyway. I know an anarchist (a person who wants no government at all) who votes. He sees it as a way of diminishing the pain and using the government's own tools against it.