Why do YOU pay taxes?

[HavocXphere]

To finance the [-]circus[/-] Gov/ANC.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Because not to do so would brand one a criminal, and then the government would simply come and steal the rest of the fruits of your hard earned labour.

Taxation serves only one purpose, regardless of what arguments are used to justify taxation. That purpose is to forcibly transfer wealth from one group of people to another. All kinds of arguments might be offered to defend taxation, but those arguments cannot change the ultimate purpose of taxation. Taxation is a method of coercively sustaining energy flows without providing direct labor.

Taxation is not voluntary, it is forced coercion of money, by veiled threats of negative repercussions for non compliance.
The simple test question - "Would you pay tax if you didnt have to?
If you answered no , then you are not participating voluntarily in the taxation process, and therefore you are paying taxation against your free will.
Simply put, you pay or pay the price.

Governments levy tax..... Levy \Lev"y\, v. i. To seize property, real or personal

The words define taxation

words for "levy"............ annex, attach, attachment, blackmail, burden with, collectivization, commandeer, communize, confiscate, confiscation, demand, draft, drain, duty, exact, expropriate, extort, extortion, extortionate demand, impose, impose on, impose upon, imposition, impost, impound, inflict on, inflict upon, insistent demand, issue an ultimatum, make a demand, make dutiable,nonnegotiable demand, order, requirement, requisition, saddle with, screw, sequester, sequestrate, sequestration, stick for, subject to, taxation, taxing, ultimatum, weight down with, wrest, wring.

words for "seize"........... abduct, afflict, annex, apprehend, appropriate, arrest, bind, capture, carry off, clutch, commandeer, confiscate, encroach, expropriate, fasten, get hold of, grab, grasp, hold, impound, infringe, kidnap, latch, net, nick, pinch, play God, possess, pounce upon, secure, sequester, snatch, spring upon, swoop down upon, take, take advantage of, take away, take hold of, take over, take possession of,throttle, trespass.

 

[flarkit]

I have zero issues paying taxes, since they should improving life for everyone, if properly allocated. But I despise the way the govt blows millions on lining their pockets and taking joyrides. I also disagree with uneducated masses who don't pay any taxes, yet are allowed to vote and then destroy public property when the corrupt, greedy scum that THEY voted into power, are enriching themselves instead of delivering on their promises. This is just despicable! If the govt were to educate those poor, struggling people, they'd have a skilled, tax-paying workforce, who would probably realise they've chosen the wrong leadership!

See the greedy scum's logic behind NOT improving the quality our education?

 

[Claymore]

I'd actually like to see what private companies can do. Private companies will always run more efficiently since they need to in order to make a profit.

That's a very optimistic point of view. Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, BP, Enron, Royal Bank of Scotland, etc. - they're all efficient, aren't they?

 

[Claymore]

I pay taxes because I know there are facilities that require pooled resources - huge infrastructure projects (dams, roads, power), as well as shared things like fire department, policing, military, the Reserve Bank, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Like anyone else, I'd like to pay less taxes, and I don't believe government uses taxes efficiently (though that's the case with *any* government), but I am impressed with the sort of services government does offer considering the relatively low tax rates we have. I understand why high-earners pay more taxes, and I'd be perfectly happy to pay more taxes because of that.

 

[davemc]

What voicy said.

 

[Johand]

Most self centered, selfish bastards will always make up an excuse for not contributing their share to society. So I have long given up on arguing with tax evaders! But I know what goes around, comes around and SARS is not getting any worse at finding tax evaders In fact ...

 

[davemc]

Most self centered, selfish bastards will always make up an excuse for not contribution their share to society. So I have long given up on arguing with tax evaders! But I know what goes around, comes around and SARS is not getting any worse at finding tax evaders In fact ...

I have never evaded tax in my life.
I am now claiming more VAT than I spend and I absolutely refuse to run at a profit.
I have seen many a fat man parade around in a luxury vehicle spending all my money on frivolities and whores with an attitude that bleeds god status, claiming to be king of something or other whilst stepping on the fingers of the poor and destitute, and he is using MY money to do that with.
Pffft.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Most self centered, selfish bastards will always make up an excuse for not contributing their share to society.

An individuals contributing responsibilty to society is simple.
a) Do no direct physical harm to fellow citizens, such as murder, rape molestation etc, and wherever possible assist fellow citizens from falling victim to such acts.
b) Do not deprive fellow citizens of their property or the fruits of their labour, and wherever possible prevent such acts from taking place.

A contribution of wealth is neither a duty nor an obligation in an individuals responsibilty to society.

 

[Frankie]

I pay taxes because I know there are facilities that require pooled resources - huge infrastructure projects (dams, roads, power), as well as shared things like fire department, policing, military, the Reserve Bank, healthcare, the environment, etc.

Correct, but you left out the perfect example, being Eskum, and just like the roads, the money is not being spent on these things, but rather going towards the ANC scumbags bling cars and swelling their back pockets.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

Got no problems paying tax as I never see that money anyway as its deducted before it goes into my bank account.

I've always seen my salary as a take-home offer vs a CTC / net-income one. When I once jumped a tax bracket I had a mega raise to compensate that, else I would have not seen anything more on my salary.

 

[TMoose]

I pay tax because I'm forced to choose between paying tax and being considered a criminal. If I had any other option, I would not pay. I don't care about anyone starving to death; it's not my problem.

I see no fundamental reason why roads, railroads, aeroplanes and airports, healthcare, etc. can't be privately owned and the user pays for the service based on usage.

The amount of tax you pay is based on the magnitude of your income. What is the justification for that?

immoral core of it all. Need. Humans do not need anything, because you don’t need to live.

Are you a robot... from TEH FUTURZ?!1

 

[Claymore]

Correct, but you left out the perfect example, being Eskum, and just like the roads, the money is not being spent on these things, but rather going towards the ANC scumbags bling cars and swelling their back pockets.

Eskom is a complicated one, because power issues also have a lot to do with government not approving infrastructure projects.

I certainly don't agree with profligate government spending (especially on bling cars and suchlike), but that doesn't alter the principle of the matter.

 

[Johand]

An individuals contributing responsibilty to society is simple.
a) Do no direct physical harm to fellow citizens, such as murder, rape molestation etc, and wherever possible assist fellow citizens from falling victim to such acts.
b) Do not deprive fellow citizens of their property or the fruits of their labour, and wherever possible prevent such acts from taking place.

A contribution of wealth is neither a duty nor an obligation in an individuals responsibilty to society.

Holy cow - you believe that society is formed from passive obedience only? Scary. So if everybody just do their own thing and leave each other pretty well alone things will work? Second law of thermodynamics... might give you a hint. To organize (e.g. decrease entropy) you must expend energy (and in human social systems it is paid for by money). The objective of society is to form a system which is greater than the sum of its parts.

But really - I am all for choice. The people of South Africa have democratically elected a government that imposes tax on the individuals in the country. In the next election you might want to vote for a party that does not believe in taxes (funny I don't think there is a major party that has the objective of no taxes). The other option is that if it is so hard obeying the rules of the country you live in, I suggest you emigrate. So if you do like to live in a society where there is no central government, and no taxes, I can suggest a nice country for you -- it is called Somalia.


I totally agree that our taxes can be spent better and more efficiently - but another person's failings is no excuse.

 

[Nanfeishen]

I am all for choice. The people of South Africa have democratically elected a government that imposes tax on the individuals in the country.

Yes, they have ..........

With most issues voting is not consent but mob rule. Unless 100 percent of all people participate and 100 percent of all people agree on a particular issue, then consent is not being provided by some individuals. Within political systems often those individuals who have not provided consent through voting schemes are being forced and coerced into forfeiting property; or are being forced to participate in the vote merely as a survival tool. Either way such people are being forced to do something they do not want to do. By definition, and by nature, such schemes cannot be by consent. If there is no meeting of the minds, then there is no agreement.

Consider a community of 100 people. Fifty-one people vote to approve a property tax and forty-nine people vote against. By modern observations, many individuals would consider the vote “legal,” but 49 people are being coerced into doing something they do not want. Voluntary cooperation no longer is being practiced, but instead force and coercion. Consent has been violated. Furthermore, if the specific issue is about property rights, then 51 people have “sanctioned” themselves to steal from the other 49. Such is the problem with politicized democracy.

Consent is not necessarily provide by representation. Representation is merely one step removed from direct voting. Consider the same community of 100 people, this time “represented” by 5 individuals. Each representative represents 20 people. Three representatives vote for an issue and two representatives do not. Therefore, 40 people are being coerced.

What if, of any 20 people being represented, 15 supported an issue but 5 do not? Regardless of how the representative votes, consent will not be honored for the group of people drawing the short straw.

Further insulting is the idea that a “representative” votes “on behalf” of an individual who did not vote for the representative. What if, of the 100 people being “represented,” 65 individuals did not vote or voted for individuals who were not elected? Again, those individuals will be coerced into doing something they did not want, through an individual who cannot be said to represent the affected people.

Lastly, what if all 100 people vote, but later one individual changes his or her mind? Arguably, that one individual is “bound” during the period of the vote, but that one individual is now doing something without consent. Voting with one’s feet usually is not an option because of contrived artificial political boundaries.

Voting based upon a presumption of force and coercion never changes the underlying presumption. Voting in such an environment merely changes who becomes the majority and who gets to plunder under the color of law.

People improve their standard of living and sustain energy flows through one of two methods. People can produce and cooperatively exchange goods and services, or they can steal. Stealing can be performed directly or indirectly. Using the color of law and hiding behind the cloak of statism greatly enables legal plunder and allows theft indirectly.

Legal plunder provides no practical escape except to suffer or join the circus. Legal plunder is a proverbial snowball. Non-productive individuals use more and more force and coercion to extract from productive people. That effort promotes a desire for more political power or to be aligned with those who possess political power. Property rights become meaningless.

In short, legal plunder increases social disorder, rather than secure social order. Legal plunder encourages the abuse often found in political system management and the collection and spending of revenues.

http://www.simpleliberty.org/taota/legal_plunder.htm

 

[Thugscub]

Oi Voicy, kick em all inna panty!!!

 

[Mila]

Cause I have no choice.

 

[Johand]

With most issues voting is not consent but mob rule. Unless 100 percent of all people participate and 100 percent of all people agree on a particular issue, then consent is not being provided by some individuals. Within political systems often those individuals who have not provided consent through voting schemes are being forced and coerced into forfeiting property; or are being forced to participate in the vote merely as a survival tool. Either way such people are being forced to do something they do not want to do. By definition, and by nature, such schemes cannot be by consent. If there is no meeting of the minds, then there is no agreement.

Consider a community of 100 people. Fifty-one people vote to approve a property tax and forty-nine people vote against. By modern observations, many individuals would consider the vote “legal,” but 49 people are being coerced into doing something they do not want. Voluntary cooperation no longer is being practiced, but instead force and coercion. Consent has been violated. Furthermore, if the specific issue is about property rights, then 51 people have “sanctioned” themselves to steal from the other 49. Such is the problem with politicized democracy.

Oh ok - didn't realize you are also against democracy. But that really makes your options pretty easy:
1) Lead a revolution - which can see you imprisoned or killed for your beliefs. I must say that I will probably assist any legitimately democratic elected government against a violent uprising by a minor militant group. I am sorry - I do not personally wish you harm, but if you follow this route I might have to shoot you. And I am sure that except for the tax issue, you are probably a nice guy and I wouldn't really want to discharge a weapon bought with your tax money in your direction.
2) Emigrate to a country which doesn't have democracy or a functioning government and therefore no taxes (or no mechanism to collect the taxes) - e.g. Somalia.
3) Challenge the constitutionality of the tax system in court.

If you are not willing to do any of the above - well, you need shut up and pay your taxes.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Oh ok - didn't realize you are also against democracy.

Finally got the picture .

[/QUOTE]If you are not willing to do any of the above - well, you need shut up and pay your taxes.[/QUOTE]

The op was "Why do you pay taxes?" , the answer ,....... because I have to.
The rest was pointing out that taxation is a con.

Politics, taxation, government etc etc , its all really meaningless anyway, lifes too short to get hung-up on junk like this