The income tax is immoral on many levels.
- It permits the government nearly unlimited access to the people’s wealth.
- It opens the door to inquisitorial intrusion into their private affairs.
- And it introduces such complexity into the law that everyone is a potential criminal.
Three strikes—why isn’t it out?
Alas, something can be immoral and yet legal and constitutional. That’s the fix we’re in.”
The 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government the ability to steal your wealth which empowered the corruption in the US government.
Why do I say Theft and not “Contribution” to support the US government. Because most of the taxes are not spent on programs that benefit the taxpayer directly. Involuntary Confiscation of wealth without just compensation is theft. Involuntary taking of property is theft even with just compensation. Private companies can not take your property without your consent. There are cases where an entire skyscraper has been built around a small house because the owners could not be forced to sell.
What if you like your house but the government needs it for a public reason like a railroad? Is it just to force you out of your house even if they pay you market value? What if something the government does (such as building a railroad or nuclear power plant next door to your house) lowers your property value? Shouldn’t the government compensate you for damages? Even if the answer is yes, the government must steal from taxpayers (since taxation is involuntary and paying for the damages to your property value, is not just compensation for the people whose money is taken, especially if taken from people who get no benefit from the Railroad or power plant).
If the government used the proceeds from the tickets to the railroad or the charge for power generated from the Nuclear plant, then the people paying are getting just compensation.
But….What’s wrong with stealing?
Why is theft a crime?
Isn’t the robber just re-distributing wealth from the victim to himself and his family?
If that is too selfish to be a justification for theft, what if the theft benefits society?
What if the robber gives half the money, he stole, to charity?
What if theft gets his family off the welfare roles?
What if the robber steals from a thief?
Why is theft a crime?
Isn’t the robber just re-distributing wealth from the victim to himself and his family?
If that is too selfish to be a justification for theft, what if the theft benefits society?
What if the robber gives half the money, he stole, to charity?
What if theft gets his family off the welfare roles?
What if the robber steals from a thief?
These are rationalizations people may use to excuse theft. Involuntary taking of wealth/property is theft.
These reasons may only be valid to take into account when determining the sentence.
When a person steals food because they are hungry and have no other recourse, they are still stealing however Justice says that the punishment must be mitigated by mercy and compassion. In today’s society there are food banks and shelters, so even that excuse does not apply.
What if the government does the above?
What about conquest of other lands that benefit your society at the expense of lives and property of the other society?
What if the government takes your house without your permission but pays double the market value? (hint: it is still wrong)
It is certainly NOT OK, for a person or the government, to steal, to give charity or for any other reason.
In any case, no matter the supposed reason, Government stealing is motivated by buying votes.
If Foundational American Values are our standard, then forcible taking of wealth is wrong and a crime.
Most of us agree that an individual does not have the right to use force to steal your wallet to give to the poor. But what if the majority agrees that we can use collective force to take your wallet to give to the poor. (taxation for social services). Is the collective force of law acceptable when the use of force individually would be a crime?
Frederic Bastiat in “The Law.” answers, that law is the collective organization of the individual right to defense of his person, liberty, and property. If every individual has this right, then it follows that a group of individuals have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights.
This common force, is an agent of the individuals and acts as a substitute for the individuals. Therefore, if I can’t individually use force against your person, liberty or property, then neither can my agent, who acts as me.
What is Justice
Justice does not favor the poor or the rich.
Our judicial system prosecutes those who violate the law. The law is written according to the collective organization of our endowed rights and the Constitution which protects the rights of the people. Justice is guaranteeing the natural rights of the people and prosecuting those who violate them. When law and Constitution are out of sync, there is no justice. So called “Social Justice” is not Justice. Entitlements are not just. There is no natural right to wealth. No rights have been violated to justify the government stealing one person title to wealth to entitle another that has not earned it through trade. The taxpayer is not a criminal and the poor person not a victim of a crime that the taxpayer’s wealth should be removed by force and redistributed.
So, the Politicians of the US have created a victim culture – for the poor, and for blacks and minorities – and equated re-distribution (which is theft) of the imagined oppressor with compensation for damages to the victim class. It sounds like Communism, because it is. Communism and all collective philosophies divide the people into oppressor and oppressed and group people into classes.
The scam of stealing for “Social Justice” in a nutshell:
Social Justice, redistributing earned wealth to those who have not earned it, rewards sloth, laziness, incompetence and a victim culture, of entitlement without effort justified by jealousy and anger. It is patently unfair to the earner and is not justice.
LemonAid
I , Uncle Sam, stand on a corner and see a poor family asking for help.
I want to help them but I am a government. I have no money, of my own, and no way to earn any.
The money I do have is given to me by the people to protect them and get them their mail.
It’s up to the people, who have money, to help the poor.
But I want to buy votes to be benevolent. I see that not everyone who passed by give money. This is not fair, I say.
Everyone who has money should pay. So I , Uncle Sam, pick the pockets and steal the money from all the passers-by, to give to the homeless.
Even from the ones that are already giving money.
The Homeless are grateful to their kind Uncle Sam and will vote for me.
Now that I have taken so much of other people’s income, I am rich. As a rich country, I can claim that I have a duty to help the poor and take even more of the rich people’s money for “Social Justice”.
To do that, I have to keep a lot the money to run my vote buying Social justice operation.
To do that, I have to keep a lot the money to run my vote buying Social justice operation.
Soon, I notice that almost no one is helping the poor any more, now that they are being stolen from to buy votes give to the poor.
Less and less people are passing by my corner of the world to steal from so I hire thousands of IRS agents to find you and steal your wages even before you receive them.
At some point those stolen from realize they can do better as homeless recipients of my Social Justice and soon there aren’t enough earners left to steal from.
I could cut back on services but then the poor wouldn’t vote for me might riot and demand the services that they are now dependent on.
Instead, I borrow money from other countries’ thieves so I can continue social services in my country, with money they stole from the earners in their country.
I use the proceeds of my theft, from the small amount of earners I do have left, to try to pay the interest on the loans.
Soon I owe so much that they refuse to lend me more.
I can’t pay it back, so I go bankrupt, and everyone is homeless with no services.
Everyone riots until they kill enough people to start the whole Socialist thing over again.
I could cut back on services but then the poor wouldn’t vote for me might riot and demand the services that they are now dependent on.
Instead, I borrow money from other countries’ thieves so I can continue social services in my country, with money they stole from the earners in their country.
I use the proceeds of my theft, from the small amount of earners I do have left, to try to pay the interest on the loans.
Soon I owe so much that they refuse to lend me more.
I can’t pay it back, so I go bankrupt, and everyone is homeless with no services.
Everyone riots until they kill enough people to start the whole Socialist thing over again.
Better if I just stayed out of it in the first place and left the responsibility of charity and “Social Justice” to Individuals, Churches, Synagogues and Communities.
Another way to look at it:
Income tax is theft; the forcible taking of wealth.
Government has no wealth on its own. Government Treasuries are filled from individuals’ wealth.
Income tax is not a voluntary contribution or a legitimate payment for government services that have no direct compensatory value to the taxpayer and especially if the money buys votes. The Fairest and most equitable Tax is an equal rate retail consumption tax with no exemptions coupled with a, equal amount minimum income pre or re-bate check sent to everyone that would replace all the Social services bureaucracy.
Government has no wealth on its own. Government Treasuries are filled from individuals’ wealth.
Income tax is not a voluntary contribution or a legitimate payment for government services that have no direct compensatory value to the taxpayer and especially if the money buys votes. The Fairest and most equitable Tax is an equal rate retail consumption tax with no exemptions coupled with a, equal amount minimum income pre or re-bate check sent to everyone that would replace all the Social services bureaucracy.
Government “social services” are not explicitly listed in the Constitution. They are forced upon us and the wealth to fund them forcibly taken.
These services are not charity, given of our own free will or directly, to help others.
These services are not charity, given of our own free will or directly, to help others.
Income tax violates the self-evident truths of our Declaration of Independence – life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Government theft of wealth effectively steals the life and liberty that was spent in earning our wealth.
Nast Cartoon – Harper’s Weekly 1878 Income tax violates the spirit of our Constitution that forbids direct taxation and American Judeo-Christian morality that forbids theft. It robs us of the opportunity:
-
to give charity and help others directly,
-
to build character by helping each other,
-
to build community through dependence on our neighbors rather than the Federal or State government,
-
to build a business that improves our life and creates jobs.
-
to pursue happiness by using our life and liberty (wealth) as we desire.
The system of direct tax corrupts Congress from being our representatives and keeping government in check.
Instead of making our lives better, they pass bills designed to funnel money to pay off those that elected them.
They lie, they obfuscate and they are reduced to making deals, bartering favors and parroting “talking points” instead of intelligent debate over legislation.
Instead of making our lives better, they pass bills designed to funnel money to pay off those that elected them.
They lie, they obfuscate and they are reduced to making deals, bartering favors and parroting “talking points” instead of intelligent debate over legislation.
A tax on income is an immoral invasion of privacy that mandates revealing details of your life, business, accounts and income.
Where I grew up knowing another’s income is fodder for Jealousy and for gossip. If asked, the answer would be “I make a living”.
Where I grew up knowing another’s income is fodder for Jealousy and for gossip. If asked, the answer would be “I make a living”.
Harper’s Weekly Editor George William Curtis opined in 1878 that income tax is
“necessarily inquisitorial. It can be levied effectually only by invasions of private accounts and researches into the details of private business,
which are repugnant to the most precious traditions of the English-speaking people.”
“necessarily inquisitorial. It can be levied effectually only by invasions of private accounts and researches into the details of private business,
which are repugnant to the most precious traditions of the English-speaking people.”
Federal Income tax controls us and reduces us to beggars.
States beg Congress for a share of the wealth taken from that State’s residents (you). Communities beg the State and you beg for social welfare to relieve your burden.
If it’s so OK for the Federal Government to tax individuals directly why not globalize it and allow the United Nations to directly tax you?
Then Congress would be added to the line of those on their knees begging for a share of the pot that used to be yours in the first place.
States beg Congress for a share of the wealth taken from that State’s residents (you). Communities beg the State and you beg for social welfare to relieve your burden.
If it’s so OK for the Federal Government to tax individuals directly why not globalize it and allow the United Nations to directly tax you?
Then Congress would be added to the line of those on their knees begging for a share of the pot that used to be yours in the first place.
Progressive Income tax
robs us of the incentive to work, to create and to help. It requires a rationalization for theft that is foreign to American Judeo-Christian values.
robs us of the incentive to work, to create and to help. It requires a rationalization for theft that is foreign to American Judeo-Christian values.
It is a collectivist foreign value system (Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Fascism etc.) that says it’s OK to take people’s wealth since it belongs to society not the individual.
There is no right to property. Society’s needs supersede individual rights. All must pay their “fair” share.
Keeping too much wealth (profit) is theft from society. It is selfish not to give it away or pay more towards government than those that don’t have as much.
There is no right to property. Society’s needs supersede individual rights. All must pay their “fair” share.
Keeping too much wealth (profit) is theft from society. It is selfish not to give it away or pay more towards government than those that don’t have as much.
Collectivists believe progressive Income tax is justified because the worker is being cheated by a privileged class of the rich who deny access to Capital to the workers.
Since the owner is monopolizing the capital and business could not function without the workers the workers must be partners with the owners and are entitled to their fair share.
(As Obama restructured GM which is now owned by the workers Union and government) Fair of course is determined by force either by Unions or Government.
Since the owner is monopolizing the capital and business could not function without the workers the workers must be partners with the owners and are entitled to their fair share.
(As Obama restructured GM which is now owned by the workers Union and government) Fair of course is determined by force either by Unions or Government.
Collectivist philosophy disregards the life and liberty of the owners that went into earning the Capital and the risk to that life and liberty that the owners take which the workers do not.
The Rich States, businesses or individuals are forced to pay for the Poor States and individuals until they run out of wealth and all are poor and dependent.
The Rich States, businesses or individuals are forced to pay for the Poor States and individuals until they run out of wealth and all are poor and dependent.
Bottom line
Redistribution is a euphemism for theft. Socialism, or whatever name you call the system that justifies government redistribution, is theft of wealth and leads to evil.
Charity must come from the individual to the community and not from the state.
Government wealth redistribution is an inefficient, corrupt bureaucracy that absorbs most of the wealth it eats. Very little gets to the people who actually need help.
Redistribution is a euphemism for theft. Socialism, or whatever name you call the system that justifies government redistribution, is theft of wealth and leads to evil.
Charity must come from the individual to the community and not from the state.
Government wealth redistribution is an inefficient, corrupt bureaucracy that absorbs most of the wealth it eats. Very little gets to the people who actually need help.
Assuming no criminal activity or government collusion in your enterprise, profit is a measure of the success of your enterprise and of meeting people’s needs. There is no such thing in government. Government doesn’t earn, it spends. The more money it takes, the more corrupt the Politicians and the system of government gets, and the worse it is at meeting the people’s needs.
