The Income Tax is Slavery

Follow the logic:

If the Government is allowed to tax your income at 5%,
then it is allowed to tax your income at 10%.

If the Government is allowed to tax your income at 10%,
then it is allowed to tax your income at 15%.

continued for several lines ...

If the Government is allowed to tax your income at 95%,
then it is allowed to tax your income at 100%.

The Government, currently, because of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, is allowed to tax your income at 100%. There is no disputing this fact. This does not just apply to INCOME. It is also allowed to tax PROPERTY that is already owned (it's called the Property Tax).

Another way of stating this simple fact? The Government has every authority and ability to take everything from you if it desires.

Another way of stating THAT fact? The Government owns all of your property, and allows you to keep some of it.

The Government owns your property. It owns your house, your car, your television, your means of earning.

The Government owns you.

All forms of property tax is modern day slavery. Your life, your property, your fortune, it all belongs to the system. The system allows you to keep some of it, only because it is good for the system if its members believe they have some form of freedom and ownership of themselves.

But I have proven that this belief is a mirage. It is an illusion.

We are all slaves to the system. To the Government.

 

A graduated tax is the obvious way to pay for necessary social needs. No-one should pay it who gets under the average income, and at four times the average income it should be 100%. That should easily cover everything, and punish a lot of crooks at the same time. Obvious really! Who needs four times what anyone else gets?

 

Finally, someone gets it.

Or to put it another way, every cent belongs to the government because if you earn, say $500 a week, and pay tax on it you are left for arguments sake with $400. You spend that $400 and the recipients pay tax on the proceeds - and so on.

 

All I hear you saying is "The system needs your property, so it has an entitlement over your life."

Yet the Government still has the authority, if it desires, to tax at 100% those who earn under-average income. It has the power. It owns their lives.

I do. I want to be the best I can be. I want to give to my family and loved ones the best, most secure life that I possibly can. What gives you the authority to take that right away from me?

 

See, it is slavery. If you work hard and are successful you're taxed 100%. If you work hard and are successful, you are considered a criminal. On the other hand, if you refuse to work and demand others support you, then you're a victim of people who work hard and are successful. So, enjoy the brave new world where no one produces.

 

Taxes are not slavery.

This is slavery:

 

Permitting something in part, regardless of reason(s), doesn't necessarily imply that it must be permitted in its entirety. Just because a merchant charges me a dollar and I agree to pay it doesn't imply that the merchant now owns my entire wealth, as if if there some hidden conditions to my agreement to the dollar cost.

 

That is a different, more direct form of Slavery. I see little difference, in principle, from a plantation owner and a Federal Senator. If you don't listen to the plantation owner, you are whipped. If you don't listen to the Senator, over a long period of time, you likely end up in jail. Force and aggression until you submit to the system. Same principle: force until you submit to the system. Different manifestation of force. We have "sophisticated" slavery today.

I didn't say taxes are slavery. I said Income taxes and Property taxes are slavery. There are local taxes that we obviously need to pay for roads, police departments, and fire-fighters. The Federal Government as defied the 10th Amendment time and time again.

 

There is a huge flaw in your logic. You FREELY decide to exchange a dollar for whatever it is you want from that merchant.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE when the Federal Government says you need to pay taxes. You are not free to keep your property, in this case.

 

Yes. It is different. That is slavery. What you are talking about is not.

What are you talking about? No senator has the legal ability to put you in jail because you don't listen to him or her.

Income taxes and property taxes are not slavery. They are taxes. While I appreciate the hyperbole and mis-labelling you are doing to try to make an argument, they are completely different.

Slavery is one person owning another. The owned person has no right to choose where to live, what work to do, who to marry, whether to procreate, how to raise their children etc.

Taxes do not impose any of these constraints on you. You can live where you want, work where you want, how much you want, marry who you wish, have children if you want, etc.

Implying they are equivalent by calling taxes "slavery" is beyond ludicrous.

 

Why do you suppose it is your property? Did you make it? How?

The government is the central committee of the boss class. If it taxes the poor it destroys those who do the work, create all the value and buy its rubbish, which would mean it collapsed. You understand that.

Common sense. Capitalism is built on boom-slump, and anyone who supports it is betraying his loved ones, obviously.

 

Sure you are. Make less. Or move to a different country.

You have neither option under slavery.

 

Prove it.

Well I guess you're right, the Senator doesn't show up to my house and arrest me. But the laws he/she creates then enables a law enforcement officer to come put me in jail. So you're wrong, they DO have the ability to put me in jail for not following their laws. They just exercise that ability through police

Still haven't proved it. Use logic please, not just statements of opinion.

We have some degree of freedom. Your mental model of slavery is very limited. What if the slave masters decide: "Our slaves will be much more productive if we let them chose where to live and who to work for"? Slaves can still have some freedoms and still be slaves. I'm no historian, but I'm sure that the slaves of the 1800s were allowed to talk to each other at night before they went to bed? By your 'logic', they, then, were not slaves, because they had a little bit of freedom.

No, today, in this day and age, we have more freedoms than the slaves of the 1800s had. But we still do not possess the fundamental freedom over our own lives which qualifies someone as a free-man.

And Slavery is not defined as 'one person owning another'. Slaves of the 1800s may have been owned collectively by a company or by the plantation. It doesn't require "one person owning another person". It could be a group of people owning another group of people.

Again, I will first summarize your logic, then use it to refute your argument.

"If we are allowed to work where we want and marry who we want,
then we are not slaves"

Using this logic:

"If we are allowed to talk to who we want at the end of the work day
then we are not slaves"

But, by your logic, the 1800s plantation workers were therefore not slaves, which is false. Your logic does not work.

You can define whatever rights you want as conditions of freedom, but the right to choose your place of work or who you marry does not mean you are not a slave.

 

I admit to the flawed analogy. I'm also no fan of the current income tax situation or especially its use a tool for redistributing wealth. I'm opposed to the Left's insidious notion that the society at large is the rightful owner of all property and its rightful administration is through government action. I was merely trying to point out that the willingness of the people to abide under a partial taxation of income does NOT imply such willingness in an ever increasing proportion, all the way to a situation where "the government owns the right to everything". There is a point beyond which there will be a refusal and rebellion on the part of the taxed. It is an implied limit and its precise break-over is unknown by either the taxpayers or those who would raise taxes. But both are aware of the limit's existence and therefore we can't necessarily use the logic that you employed as if it were the only dynamic in play.

 

I have already proven that making less does not disqualify you from serfdom. You are still a slave if you make the minimum wage. The Government does not take your money, but it has every ability and authority to.

And I would move to a different country, but I'm pretty sure every other nation has an income tax. And even if it didn't, I would rather FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF MY PEERS here in America than run away from this problem.

What if William Wallace just got up and left Scotland, thinking to himself: "They may take our freedom, but at least I can run away from bullies!"?

 

I have already.

Take a civics class. You're wrong.

A senator cannot create a law. A law can only be passed with a majority vote of the Senate, and a majority vote in the House, and signed by the President.

I did.

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

What you are talking about in now way fits the definition of slavery.

It's just hyperbole and mis-labelling by you to substitute for rational argument. Kind of like in the abortion debate claiming the single celled fertilized egg is a "child" to argue it is murder.

Still haven't proved it. Use logic please, not just statements of opinion.

Sure it is. The essence of slavery is one person owning another.

You are simply attempting to re-define the common meaning of the word to substitute for logical argument.

That is not my logic at all, and doesn't summarize my argument.

If you cannot accurately characterize my positions, please quote my statement you are referring to.

See above.

Those are certainly incidents of non-slavery, that slaves do not possess.

 

No, you are still not a slave because you are not owned by another.

OK. You are free to live in our society, and pay it's taxes. But, unlike a slave, you are doing so because of your choice, not because you are forced to.

What if?

 

Silence Dogood is saying that ANY taxes equals slavery. What SD thus concludes is that government cannot be justified because it is reliant on taxes and taxes are not justifiable. I know that government spends lots of taxes on things it probably shouldn't but I defy SD to say that all government spending is bad and that there are no essential things government provides (defence being the classic example, as are the police, emergency services, the road system and even garbage collection).

The fallacy of the argument is easily revealed. Time to rethink your political philosophy, SD!

 

No, you didn't read what I said. Some taxes are necessary and fair. Income/Property taxes are not.

 

False, I'm owned by the banks. So are you. I'm trying to help you understand that.

I know. I could live as a hermit in the mountains. I'd rather try to help make this system better.



What if?[/QUOTE]

 

I'm sorry to hear that.

But I'm not owned by the banks at all.

Sure. It's your choice.

Unlike a slave.

 

No, you havent.

You're splitting hairs. Obviously one Senator can't make a law, I'm not an idiot. Why are you getting hung up on this?

Because Wikipedia is always right

I did. I showed that Government owns 100% of your property, and your income. Just because it allows you to keep an arbitrary amount of it does not mean it is yours.

I'm trying to get people to think outside the box.

If plantation owners decided that "hey, the slaves will be much more productive if we let them choose between working the fields and working in the processing plants", then they would grant the slaves that freedom.

If they decided "hey, the slaves will be much more productive if we stop beating them, and allow them to keep some of their property", then they would do that. If they decided "

If they decided that "hey, the slaves will be more productive if we let them marry and have children", then they would do that.

But nothing has changed fundamentally. The Plantation Owners still own other human beings, because they own the slaves' property. They own the slaves' income. They can grant a little bit more freedom, and the only thing that has changed is that slavery has become a little less painful for the slaves.

Who owns your property? Who owns your income? Not you. The Government owns it all, and it lets you keep some of it because it is better for the system that they do. You do not own your property, and are therefore a slave.

No, I don't have the same definition of "Slavery" that Wikipedia does. It is defining Slavery in the historical sense.

But you do make a good point:
-- I can leave the system if I want. This is a distinct difference from the Slaves of the 1800s. I would have to live as a hermit in the mountains, but I could do it if I want. So I will concede this to you.

What I should have said was: If you live in society, you are a slave.

 

We The People...should be able to have check marks provided on ballots during election years to approve or disapprove where our tax dollars go. If I don't want to have any of my money go to the XYZ agency or whatever, I should have that choice. We should pay, but being as this country is supposed to be by the people and for the people, why don't the "people" get a say? I would go one step further...a check box to state if we want our congressman to get a "cost of living raise" or not and if not, he or she gets no increase...and the cost of living should be exactly hat others get, which is usually 3-5% depending on the year.

 

I disagree with your opinion.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand how laws are made. Why are you being inaccurate if you know better?

Not a all. But it was a good summary of the meaning of slavery.

You showed no such thing.

No, you are engaging in hyperbole, purposeful mis-use of words, erroneous application of fact, and fallacious argument in a (IMO) not very effective way to try to make a argument for your personal preference regarding taxes.

Maybe other are impressed.

So what?

So what?

So what?

Right. The slaves are still owned by another person who has ultimate control over their lives.

Under our system of economics and government, I owe my income and property, and pay a portion of it to the Govt as taxes.

But you are correct, the Govt has the power to take more of your income and property, and in some systems, the Govt takes it all.

I appreciate that. You are making up a definition because mis-using puts a bad sounding label on something you abhor.

But it is not, IMO, very effective argument.

Fair enough.

Not at all, and that is an inconsistent statement. Slaves do not have the choice of whether they want to live in this society or not, you do. Slaves are owned by another person. You are not. Slaves do not have the legal right to make choices on things I described above. You do.

The statement still fails.

 

Yes you are. See "The Creation of the Federal Reserve" threads.