Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Why should I move?
Lauryn Hill jailed for tax evasion
- Thread starter DanielMMS
- Start date
Because you are currently enjoying the benefits of modern society, and as such should do your part to pay for them. If you don't agree with that concept, and feel you should be entitled to all of the benefits without any of the negatives (i.e. complying with the law and making a financial contribution) then you're basically a freeloader and a thief.
You could try making a sovereign claim over your land, but since you don't have an army to defend it (paid for by taxes), or a foreign embassy to negotiate for it (paid for by taxes, although I guess you could try this on your own) you probably wont have much success. I suppose you could try bargaining with your land's natural resources, but since you still don't have that army to defend it, you don't have any real way to stop anyone coming and taking what they want.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Firstly it is not a contribution. Secondly i don't feel entitled to anything.
I just want to keep all the money that I earn, i don't see why I should be told to leave because I don't want to be robbed.
That would be like you coming on to my land and then i take half your money and i tell you that you wanted to walk on my drive way and enjoy the benefits of my property so i can rob you. Just not a logical argument for theft.
If you forced to use my services, say i am the only doctor in town, then I tell you that if you don't pay me money you are a thief, even if you don't use my services that you have no other option but to use. Just not a logical argument.
I just want to keep all the money that I earn, i don't see why I should be told to leave because I don't want to be robbed.
That would be like you coming on to my land and then i take half your money and i tell you that you wanted to walk on my drive way and enjoy the benefits of my property so i can rob you. Just not a logical argument for theft.
If you forced to use my services, say i am the only doctor in town, then I tell you that if you don't pay me money you are a thief, even if you don't use my services that you have no other option but to use. Just not a logical argument.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Oh that argument isn't new. All the money is the state's and they are kind enough to allow me to keep 50% of it. haha hilarious. This is the kind of twisted logic i expect from tax advocates.
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...
Well apparently you feel entitled to live on someone else's land without making any kind of contribution
The infrastructure that allows you to earn that money is paid for by taxes. The education you had which has given you the knowledge required is paid for at least in part by taxes. The bins which are emptied every week so that you don't have to live in a ****hole surrounded by rubbish are paid for by taxes. The police, fire and ambulance services which mean you can live your life in relative peace and safety are paid for by taxes.
You live in modern society and enjoy all the benefits it offers. In return, you're expected to pay a sum to maintain those benefits. Like I already suggested, nothing is stopping you walking out to the middle of nowhere, trying to build a house and becoming self sufficient.
What, you mean like if you owned a Theme Park, museum, cinema, nightclub, etc. and wanted to charge an entry fee?
That's not really theft is it.
You have the option not to use the doctor (who's education was subsidised for by taxes, in a school -> college -> university subsidised by taxes, not to mention his birth would have been attended by a midwife paid for by taxes, etc, etc.)
Not really sure how anyone can truly justify not paying taxes on the basis that they do not get anything of value back. This article is over a year old now but it illustrates the point of where your tax money goes, summarised below.
Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary
£2,080 Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits)
£1,094 on the NHS
£824 on Education
£339 on Defence
£160 on the Police
£44 on Prisons
£92 on Roads
£71 on Railways
Of these, you could choose private pension, private healthcare and private education, but that would probably work out more expensive than the state funded alternatives. Difficult to avoid defence, police, prisons, roads and railways if you want to live in a safe society and be able to get places.
Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary
£2,080 Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits)
£1,094 on the NHS
£824 on Education
£339 on Defence
£160 on the Police
£44 on Prisons
£92 on Roads
£71 on Railways
Of these, you could choose private pension, private healthcare and private education, but that would probably work out more expensive than the state funded alternatives. Difficult to avoid defence, police, prisons, roads and railways if you want to live in a safe society and be able to get places.
Hate to break it to you but ..Caesar died a long time ago mate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Well apparently you feel entitled to live on someone else's land without making any kind of contribution
The infrastructure that allows you to earn that money is paid for by taxes. The education you had which has given you the knowledge required is paid for at least in part by taxes. The bins which are emptied every week so that you don't have to live in a ****hole surrounded by rubbish are paid for by taxes. The police, fire and ambulance services which mean you can live your life in relative peace and safety are paid for by taxes.
You live in modern society and enjoy all the benefits it offers. In return, you're expected to pay a sum to maintain those benefits. Like I already suggested, nothing is stopping you walking out to the middle of nowhere, trying to build a house and becoming self sufficient.
What, you mean like if you owned a Theme Park, museum, cinema, nightclub, etc. and wanted to charge an entry fee?
That's not really theft is it.
You have the option not to use the doctor (who's education was subsidised for by taxes, in a school -> college -> university subsidised by taxes, not to mention his birth would have been attended by a midwife paid for by taxes, etc, etc.)
I pay my landlord rent and that is a voluntary arrangement. I don't live on anyone else's land.
That would be like trying to charge a producer of a car for tools that mined the materials that ended up being used in the production of the car. If I use a car to make money, say i drive a taxi, we don't then say the producers of the car are due money as a result of the money that was made by using the car, unless the voluntary contract stipulates that specifically.
I don't see why I should have to have half my money taken from me because other people feel entitled to receive services that are financed through the means of theft. If a group of people want to build a waterpark, they can't go around town and demand money from everyone to fund the water park, on the basis that they will potentially use it. That would be extortion or blackmail or theft. Just because other people feel entitled to a service or good does not justify taking money from other people to fund this service or good.
Who said his education was subsidized? Maybe the doctor went to private school and private hospital. Not everyone is a free loader receiving goods and services off the backs of other hard working individuals.
The land still belongs to the UK.
Well actually, you're wrong. Part of the cost of the materials for the car covers the cost of the tools to mine them. For the second example, if you buy the car outright, then it's yours to do with as you wish. It's also an example that bears absolutely no resemblance (or relevance) to paying taxes...
So you've never been to an NHS doctor or dentist, never used a road, pavement, public park, public toilet, had your bins emptied, needed the services of the police or fire service, used a train, and so on?
Correct. Those of us who pay taxes for example, aren't. It sounds like the only one advocating theft and freeloading in this instance is you.
I would very much like to hear your proposals for an alternative system?
Didnt you know? Self regulation works 100% of the time.
It comes down to government monopoly vs private competition, who is more efficient?
There are only 2 things where a government monopoly is more efficient: property rights and infrastructure. That's the scaffold that commerce needs to operate at maximum efficiently on - enforcement of property rights (which is what defense ultimately is) and infrastructure. If those were done by private companies then commerce would be less efficient because there would be a monopoly, for example they would have to build 4 or 5 highways parallel to each other to compete with each other. The government has to do those things.
Beyond that private competition is more efficient. Private schools, private healthcare, private everything. It's when the government starts interfering that those things get broken through crony capitalism.
So all the government should be concerned with is:
High quality infrastructure, I'd include FTTP in this. I might even include energy in this.
National defense (enforcement of national property rights, i.e. getting cheap oil)
Police and courts (enforcement of individual/corporate property rights and contracts)
That's it. If you want rubbish pick up you pay a private company. Fire fighters, you pay a subscription. Private schools. private healthcare. Private insurance. private pensions.
This system works the best because it functions like nature does, it's darwinian. Maximum efficiency.
There are only 2 things where a government monopoly is more efficient: property rights and infrastructure. That's the scaffold that commerce needs to operate at maximum efficiently on - enforcement of property rights (which is what defense ultimately is) and infrastructure. If those were done by private companies then commerce would be less efficient because there would be a monopoly, for example they would have to build 4 or 5 highways parallel to each other to compete with each other. The government has to do those things.
Beyond that private competition is more efficient. Private schools, private healthcare, private everything. It's when the government starts interfering that those things get broken through crony capitalism.
So all the government should be concerned with is:
High quality infrastructure, I'd include FTTP in this. I might even include energy in this.
National defense (enforcement of national property rights, i.e. getting cheap oil)
Police and courts (enforcement of individual/corporate property rights and contracts)
That's it. If you want rubbish pick up you pay a private company. Fire fighters, you pay a subscription. Private schools. private healthcare. Private insurance. private pensions.
This system works the best because it functions like nature does, it's darwinian. Maximum efficiency.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I would very much like to hear your proposals for an alternative system?
Do you realy want to hear it?
Would work really, really well. Say you live next door, terraced house.
I don't want to pay for my bins, yet you also suffer from the rats and smell.
I don't want to pay for fire services subscription, you end up paying to put my fire out.
You can't force me in to anything, what would the police do? It is niether property rights nor infrastructure.
Could you afford health insurance, rates will skyrocket without the NHS that the private health companies rely on. Not to mention the massive hike in staffing costs since not everyone is educated enough anymore. The schools have all colluded to price-fix a poor service at a high price.
My insurance would pay for a new house, whereas you would become homeless. I'd also sue you for any assets you had left. Anyway if my house was threatened with burning down the fire service would come and protect it, and allow yours to burn down. Or if they were forced to save your house to protect mine, I'd then sue you and have your wages garnished for the rest of your life. Or it could become my property. Lots of civil options.
I dont know about the UK but here bog standard surgeons and the like get paid about half a mil a year on average. You know why? because all the government programs will pay basically whatever they charge. Same reason college educations now cost $50k because of the government grant and loan money.
If there was competition without easy government money inflating everything prices would drop drastically. Then it's an individual choice if you want to get good insurance and a good doctor, or choose to instead spend your money on a big TV and fancy car and have to go to Mexico for discount surgery if you ever need it.
Last edited: