I've been whining about taxes all freakin' day. I prepared my 2003 return last night and I'm pretty pissed right now. The amount of money that I give to the government is staggering, given my income. Honestly, I can't think of many government services that I actually use. Most of those I pay for in other ways (license fees, etc.). I understand that much of the government moeny goes to those less fortunate than me, but damn!

The worst part of our current taxation system is that it is becomming a disincentive to work. I had to sum three W-2 forms this year: my full-time job and two part-time teaching jobs. I have a significant chunk of money taken out of each of these checks already. Combine them and I go up in tax bracket. I ended up owing more than I already paid! The only thing that saved me (though not completely) is that I bought a house two years ago. Most of what I pay in my mortgage goes to interest and property taxes. I was able to deduct those and so I'm not as bad off as I could be. Of course, I am philisophically opposed to the deduction for home interest (my choice to buy a house) and the other tax deduxtion is due to taxes, so the whole thing stinks. Honestly, I have spent most of the day wondering if I should keep teaching because the pay, after the additional taxes are applied, makes the take-home pay so little that it may not be cost effective - and I teach at universities!

The whole thing stinks.

Man, that's painful as hell.

The simple truth is that the tax code is unfair, unreasonable, and predatory. Whenever I hear one of my more liberal friends complain about my take on taxes, I labor to educate them on just how much of our money really goes to the government. I've never known one who could really defend it when they stop and think about how much money is taken from even those of us with relatively modest incomes.

Final thought: Bush called for making the tax cuts permanent which gave rist to much Democrat grumbling and moaning. I compared my statement last year with this year's return and the difference in pay was negligible. The difference in taxes owed was almost four hundred dollars. For many people that may not seem like much, but for me it was a very positive change.

I wonder what your tax burden would be if a Democrat succeeds in rolling back the Bush tax cuts?

I haven't compared this year's to last year's, but the amount that I was short this year was 33% higher before I factored in my house then the amount I owed last year. After factoring in my house I owed 50% less. Here are some facts:
1) I changed my deductions last June so that more money was being taken out each paycheck.
2) I bought my house late in the year so I had only a fraction of the deduction for it last year than I did this year.
3) My last income tax statement covered the period when I was unemployed. I took a 10% pay cut when I found work.
4) My net income for 2003 was only slightly higher (within a couple of thousand dollars) than 2002.

Tax cut? What effing tax cut?

If I got hit this hard after the tax cut, why the Hell would I consider voting for someone who wants to repeal it?

This is one of the best posts on taxation and the complexity of the issue that I've seen. Better than I could have done, certainly.

The only thing I'd add, though, is that too many voters in the US are not willing to have their services/benefits reduced. Too many voters cast their ballot for the people who promise them the most. Thus, anyone (conservative Republican or otherwise) who tries to campaign on the idea of cutting govt spending will automatically lose any chance to win the vote of huge swaths of population that demand more govt aid...which would mean they would need to win 100% of the Republican-leaning vote to even have a chance, which isn't likely.

Thus, the reality is that you must promise people free ice cream, and deliver it. But I really think that President Bush's plan is to allow spending increases to get the political capital to get the tax cuts, setting up the circumstances for a temporary deficit in order to force deep spending cuts as a necessity (because increasing taxes is just as much of a voting-booth loser as cutting spending).
The "spending freeze" he proposed would do a great deal to cut the deficit, if it is actually enacted. A mere three years of only allowing increases for military, SS, and Medicare (the big three that can't really be frozen) would give us the largest surplus ever, because our GDP does grow that fast. The size of our economy is truly staggering...

Yes, all good things to add to the conversation--especially the unfortunate need to promise and deliver "free ice cream." And that's why we keep getting the government that we deserve.

Our saving grace really is the size of our economy and perpetually impressive productivity. I just hope that you are right about Bush because, at a certain point, bad fiscal policy will still damn an economy that would otherwise be strong.

The problem isn't just people voting for the candidiate who promises to give them the most "free ice cream," it is the "do-godders" who vote for the candidate who gives the most to their favorite disadvantaged class. Take welfare for instance. The number of people on welfare is statistically very small. If only welfare recipients voted for pols who supported welfare then there would be no more welfare. It's suburban middle class whites who scream the loudest when you talk about cutting back welfare, and most of them have never been on welfare. Medicare only exists because people are concerned about "grandma and grandpa" and their well-being, not realizing that "grandma and grandpa" are the wealthiest dempgraphic in the country.

But welfare is only one of the "Free Ice Cream" programs, and they do tend to get lumped together. So you have people who want more funding for abortion, people who want amnesty and free programs for illegal immigrants, people who are on welfare or were on welfare or fear they may end up on welfare, people who have needed unemployment, people who want to see medicare expanded, people who like worker's comp, etc, etc, etc, (some of which are good things), all tending to vote more for someone who promises them protections, assurances, guarantees, safety nets....

But it isn't just people currently dependent on the govt voting for them, no, although I recognize that lazy thought/expression has led me to imply that...

Here's another way to think about it: If you took all our government spend divided it evenly among all families of four in America, each family would be more than $50,000 richer.

and then:
The question American taxpayers need to ask is this: Does my family really get anywhere near $50,000 worth of services every year from city hall, state government, and Uncle Sam, Inc.?

But my family didn't put in $50,000, so the question is entirely bogus. You'd have to give more money back to the richer folks and less back to schmoes like you and me.

"I understand that much of the government moeny goes to those less fortunate than me, but damn!"
-Stumpjumper

You might feel worse when I tell you that not much of your tax money goes to the poor. Even the money that goes to various social service programs gets paid in large part as salaries to the emplyees who run the programs.

Walter: "much" may have been an overstatement on my part. My girlfriend works for the government so I am well aware of how much money gets spent on (often inflated) salaries and support services for government services. The question posed by the quote was whether or not each person gets $50,000 worth of services from the government. This isn't an entirely valid question because people in higher income brackets need less from the government then those in lower brackets. I was trying to show that I recognized this. I still think that the point is correct - we don't get much out of what we pay for.

Bryan, I don't think the question is bogus--it isn't a question about the amount that you paid in directly (although what I wrote is more oriented toward that), but about the amount (including proposed deficit spending) that the government will spend for every man, woman, and child in the nation.

The question, to me, isn't how much to give back, but how much we allow them to take and spend. So, the question stands: wherever that money comes from, does your family get $50,000 worth of service from the government? He doesn't make a direct correlation between what was taken from each family in that comparison. Just a note of how much could be disbursed to every family of four.

Reasonable people can disagree on the issue, but I would say that the question is legitimate.

Sorry, Zomby, but I REALLY have to disagree about his question. But before I go further, let me put myself on record here as favoring a drastic overhaul of the tax codes as they stand, and lower taxes all around.

back to the question. The writer is clearly trying to tie together the $50,000 with individual families of four. But the problem is, most individual families aren't putting in $50,000. I didn't put in $50,000. Did you? I'd guess not. So it doesn't equate. I probably get far more than I put in, if you take into account roads, police protection, national security, drainage work, and all the myriad other services that are provided by government at all levels.

Further, there's a duality to the questions. In the first statement, the writer talks about "our government" as if it is the federal government alone (I'm taking this from the context of your pull quote, not the entire article), but in the second, he's asking about deliverables from all levels of government: federal, state and local. Apples and Oranges, my friend. Is $50,000 the total for all levels of government? If so, I have to say I still didn't put in that much. And as long as we're splitting hairs, how many families of four are there, anyway? What if you have a family of five or six or two? Do you get $50,000 as well? How about this, instead, spread the total amount of taxation across every individual in America and see how much that is. THEN, ask me the question again.

And finally, by asking the question, he's engaging in the same form of self-centeredness that you accuse other voters of engaging in. think about it: The question American taxpayers need to ask is this: Does my family really get anywhere near $50,000 worth of services every year from city hall, state government, and Uncle Sam, Inc.? is not much more than "what am I getting out of this?"

Taxation is not now, and never has been, a system whereby everybody gets back what they put in. To think that it ever will be is to deny reality.

I like Bryan's points.

I'll add: how much value do you, personally (or in your family of 4) get out of the new Stryker Brigade, or the fleet of F/A-22's? Meaning, there are some things the govt provides that defies description with a price tag...

Again, I reiterate, he's not asking how much you put in, but how much the government spends. That isn't a question of appropriate taxation, but appropriate spending. His point isn't that we should be demanding more from government, but to simply point out how large government in all its forms has grown.

That isn't self-centered--he's not demanding, and neither am I, that government give me more services. I'm demanding that government stop spending so much money. I'm demanding that the government exercise better judgement. I don't want more and better health care or more and better welfare or more and better social security. I want my money back because I make better choices with it than the government does, because the government is at its very basis wasteful and removed from the reality of the problems that it tries to solve. I would rather be putting my social security into my Simple IRA and into money markets and into bonds than knowing that my "contribution" is being thrown away and that my own collection on my socialized retirement account is anything but certain.

I'm not asking that government provide me something, I'm asking that they step away from my wallet. Is that a special interest talking or in the same league as welfare? I've never been a hard core anti-tax type. I believe, though, that my taxes should go to fund a much smaller set of services from the government than it currently does, and that better fiscal management would be far better for the economy.

You're focused on what everyone is putting in at an individual level whereas that article is focused on what the government spends in its totality. The question isn't whether you individually are getting more than you put in (because that would be selfish--that simply means that someone else is paying your and my ways), but whether government is providing us good value for that $50,000/family of four that it spends regardless of the source of that money (a more fair question, all around, than whether I am receiving more than my fair share of that payoff).

As I said, reasonable people can disagree on the answer to that question, but the question is absolutely valid. Does the government provide good value for the money that it spends, regardless of the source of that money? My answer is no, it most utterly does not. Nor do I think it fair that other people, companies, and future hedging (with deficits and the use of Social Security funds in the general tax revenue) fund that expenditure so deeply for me, a person who most certainly doesn't contribute fifty thousand a year as an individual. I do, however, contribute something on the order of 12-15,000 a year in total tax contributions if I were to include sales tax, gas tax, license fees, and other hidden fees (sin taxes on liquor, for example).

As for the family of four, it's a not-so arbitrary touchstone that's used in a lot of tax conversations since it's closer to the "average" for family households than any of the other situations described. As such, it is just as useful as other averages and statistics in communicating an idea.

Having, with a fresh dose of curiosity, just taken a peak at my tax returns and recent paystub, I realized that I misstated my tax expenditure above. Even including what I got back from both the federal and state this year, my tax balance from those sources, social security, and medicare was right around 15,000. I am single and I have no children.

Pile on top of that sales tax, sin tax, license fees, and such, and my tax burden probably noses closer to 20,000 a year. The taxes I pay on gas alone come close to $500/year.

I am by no means wealthy, and my tax burden is by no means unusual. But, yes, compared to that mythical family of four (and considering the difference when the deficit is factored in) I am most certainly paying in my share of that money that the author is discussing since there are more than likely two paychecks and more deductions in that family.

Oh.
Well, yeah. I'm pretty rabidly anti-tax, btw.

One of the things I like to point out: One of the reasons tax revenues increased under Reagan was because when he cut taxes, he also cut out the loopholes. Under Reagan's last few years, most people could file the 1040EZ in under 20 minutes, and the 1040 in less than an hour. Bush I added a little complexity, but under Clinton, the tax code mushroomed amazingly...mostly in raising taxes for rich and upper-middle class, but simultaneously adding all sorts of loopholes that allow the rich people to get out of paying much of their taxes. In short: under Republicans, rich paying 33% end up paying more money than under Democrats at the 85% rate, simply because of the tax loopholes Dems tend to put in. It's a wonderful shell game: they can say they are "soaking the rich" while still earning the gratitude of people like Soros and their other billionaire contributors.
On the other hand, I wonder if that same sort of shell game isn't played by Republican lawmakers with corporate taxation...?

Zomby said,
"I want my money back because I make better choices with it than the government does, because the government is at its very basis wasteful and removed from the reality of the problems that it tries to solve."

That's the pragmatic argument, and it's entirely correct. You could make an even stronger argument on the ethical basis that your money belongs to you, and if ownership means anything you should be able to decide where the money is spent.
As for the wastefulness and inefficiency of government, Ronald Coase won a Nobel Prize years ago for sponsoring research that showed all government programs had a negative cost-benefit ratio. I'll see if I can refresh my memory on that and post something later today.

Walter, let me know if you do. I'd love to read it. Excellent point.

Nathan, also a good point. I'm sure that the GOP does play that game to some extent--and corporate taxes as a percentage of all tax revenues has declined significantly over the years.

I'm going to step onto this again. You are seeing this man's $50,000 question through the eyes of one already convinced. But look at it again: "The question American taxpayers need to ask is this: Does my family really get anywhere near $50,000 worth of services every year from city hall, state government, and Uncle Sam, Inc.?"

So, I repeat. He refers to the family of four as "my family." Again, I repeat my question about single people, families with less than or more than 4 people in them. Does he include the aged, whose children have moved away, or the single mother of two. Do they get $50,000 too? The $50,000 is a bogus number. We have no idea how many families of four there are as a percentage of the total number of families. I am reminded of the comedian who made a joke about such lame "picture it this way" analogies: "Do you know that if you took all the veins, arteries and capillaries in your body and laid them end on end around the world ... you'd be dead."

The $50,000 figure fits the premise of the author. It's a straw man. Like I said, give me a figure dividing out the $50,000 for every man, woman and child in America and tell me what taxes you are counting and then we can have this discussion.

And just what is he talking about when he says "$50,000 worth of service"? To be honest, there are a lot of things that would count as "service" that we don't even think about - restaurant inspections, for instance, and places to house the criminally insane. Is there waste? Sure. But asking if we're getting "service" is insane, since most average folks wouldn't know what all the government does if it came and bit them on the behind.

Further, the contention that all government programs have a negative cost-benefit ratio is a "so what" proposition. For most people, having a police force, for example, seems like a negative cost-benefit. After all, I haven't seen any crooks around my house. But let's privatize the police force, or the military, and see how the cost-benefit analysis changes. Or, take roads. Let's privatize roads, and pay tolls every time we drive the road.

While I agree that we pay far too much in taxes, you are arguing against a decision that the people of the United States made some time ago that there would be a social safety net because not everyone is as smart as you are. That social safety net is not going to disappear, no matter how much you wish it would.

Further, I would suggest you compare our rate of taxation with the taxes levied in other industrial nations, like, say, Canada, where they do have socialized medicine or Britain, where they pay $180 per TV every year(!) just to fund the freakin' BBC.

In short, you're right that our taxation system is the worst in the world, except for all the others.

:-)

I found some relevant stuff about Coase and posted it. It's too long for a comment.

Dean Esmay finds *different* faults with this article as well:

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/006187.html#006187

Bryan: You said: "To be honest, there are a lot of things that would count as "service" that we don't even think about - restaurant inspections, for instance, and places to house the criminally insane."

Moore's whole point is that we need to start thinking about these things. Places to house the criminally insane are a service to me because they keep the criminally insane out of my house. Stating that people don't recognize this does not refute his point - it makes it. We pat taxes to the government with an expectation that they will provide services that benefit us either directly or indirectly. His entire premise is that we need to start looking at all of the services that are provided and the benefits of thise services and then ask if we are getting our money's worth. Obviously, you think that you are getting your money's worth and ZombyBoy thinks that he isn't getting his.

You are also completely missing the point of the $50,000. Those of us who pay taxes give money to the government. The amount that we give is proportional to our income. The more that you make, the more that you give. When the government provides us services in return they generally provide more services to those who give less. This is the whol purpose of the system. When most of us look at the amount that we pay in taxes we don' think of ourselves as being on the lower end of that scale. In truth, the entire systems is so skewed against the rich that most if us are at the lower end of the scale. Moore's $50,000 figure is just one way of illustrating that. His point is that corporations and rich people pay such massive sums in taxes that the middle class ends up receiving services worth more, as an average than we pay.

If I say that the average life expectancy is 72 years old are you going to say that my number is invalid because my father dies at 56? of course not, you understand that the 72 figure is an average. By understanding that average I can better evaluate my father's death. I can state with clarity that my father died "young." What you are doing with Moore's $50,000 figure is arguing that 72 incorrect as an average life expectancy because not everyone dies at 72 and then also arguing that I can't use the term "young" because it isn't clearly defined and most people don't think of 56 as young, anyway. You accuse Z of making a strawman argument when, in reality, it is you who are doing so.

Based on the information contained and referred to in Attachments 1-6, I believe the federal income tax to be fraudulent in its origin and illegal in its operation.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

SJ,

first, I'm not arguing that Zomby is making the straw man. I'm arguing that Moore is making the strawman argument. Average life expectancy is based on the total population. Moore singles out the family of four, which is not the average of the entire population.

I gave a very simple way for moore to shore up the argument: use a number that people can truly compare their lot to. It shouldn't be too hard to divide tax expenditures by 280 (or is it 300) million. Why doesn't he do so? Because it would deflate his $50,000 number. I'll ask again: How many families of four are there? we don't know because he doesn't tell us.

If he wants to make the argument that we're not getting what we pay for, then that's his prerogative. I can disagree (but I probably would agree overall) and be done with it. But the method he is using to make that argument is bogus.

Again, I think I have to stress that I'm FOR lower taxes and less government in general. what I'm not for is insipid analogies that play fast and loose with the statistics to make a point.

Not only do I find that unfair on a personal level, unreasonable on a fiscally conservative level, and reprehensible on a moral level, but those foreseeable tax increases are going to have some very unpleasant results.

Question - what is it about taxes that you find reprehensible on a moral level?

That taxes are extortion--for example, if I don't pay the fee for my license plate, I can't use my personal propery (car) for its intended purpose. If I don't pay property tax, no matter how long I've "owned" that property, the government can and will take it away from me. That is morally reprehensible.

There is a certain amount of taxation that I accept as being necessary for some functions of government. The fact that the government clears over one third of my paycheck, though, is not acceptable--it's robbery.

It seems to me that you have made two conflicting statements in your answer. First you say that taxes are immoral because they are extortion. Then you say that taxes are still necessary.

Does this mean that a certain amount of exortion is okay, as long as it's at the level you prefer?

Certainly, and I'm honest about it. Put it this way, even someone who feels that taxes could be raised from current levels would balk at 90% tax rates, wouldn't they? Why? Because a certain amount of contribution is acceptable, but stepping beyond that level is not.

What level of taxation do you find acceptable or unacceptable, and why?

The other part of the equation is that the tax code unfairly taxes those who are successful--the share of the burden that they pay is disproportionate to their income. Is it morally acceptable for me to ask someone else to pay more than their share and is it morally acceptable that I be asked to pay more than my share? I would say no.

When I buy a product, I decide whether I am willing to pay a certain cost. If I am not, I don't buy the product and I am not extorted into paying more. With taxes, there may be a cost that I'm willing to pay, but I never have the option of saying no without being forced through legal remedy to pay more.

There will never be a simple solution with taxes because there will never be complete agreement on what constitutes fair either in the sharing of the burden or in the overall tax rates. Does that make my statement contradictory? In a sense, absolutely. It also means that I've defined what I find acceptable and unacceptable and am communicating those ideas.

What level of extortion in taxes do you find acceptable? What do you not find acceptable? Would you find that to be contradictory in yourself? Do you accept that contradiction happily?

Morally, what defines extortion is consent, as you point out. Thus, extortion is based on an individual's preferences. We all have different preferences.

So no one level of taxation can be defined as the cutoff point for extortion. At every level of taxation, some people would pay voluntarily with consent, even if there was no threat of harm based on not paying. Others would not give their consent to pay.

You are saying that this level of taxation at which you would pay voluntarily, based on your preferences, is lower than the current rates.

However, I believe that even at those levels of taxation, I would not give my consent. Thus, at your preferred levels of taxation, I would still be extorted.

Thus, I don't think you can use a moral argument against taxation, unless you are for making taxes completely voluntary, at which point they would no longer be taxes, but rather user fees.

Hmmm...
My own take would be: the current system of income tax, property tax, and licensing (tax) is immoral and reprehensible, just as ZB described. Unfortunately, I see no recourse to fight it alone. That makes it extortion.
I recognize the govt needs funds to operate, and I do recognize the value of some govt functions. Thus, I will continue advocating for a more morally acceptable system of taxation (say, a flat tax or national sales tax?) while I continue to pay for the taxes the various govts have levied against me with my tacit consent. Tacit only in that I haven't yet pulled out rifles and started shooting govt functionaries yet. Because that would morally worse than the system of taxation under which we currently labor.

Thus, I will continue advocating for a more morally acceptable system of taxation (say, a flat tax or national sales tax?) while I continue to pay for the taxes the various govts have levied against me with my tacit consent.

Out of curiosity, what level of flat income tax or national sales tax would be morally acceptable to you?

Somewhere between 14 and 17%, why?

Because, at that level, I believe that level of taxation is "immoral and reprehensible" as you described above. Are you still willing to tax me? If so, how are you any different from someone willing to tax you 45%?

Is extortion, "immoral and reprehensible", only a matter of degree?

I don't have a simple answer for that.
The more complex answer is that what I find immoral and reprehensible is the progressive nature of income tax, the FICA and Medicare taxes that just go into the general fund rather than going to what they are supposedly taxed for, and the system of hidden taxes (gas taxes, license fees, speeding tickets and parking fines) that tax your basic activities over and above what you see on your W-2. Thus, a flat tax combined with a national sales tax on luxury items (a basic appliance wouldn't be taxed in my vision, but anything with extra options would be...) would not be immoral and reprehensible at pretty much any level our congress would set it...and then I would lobby for reducing it while reducing spending.
And yes, even if you find it immoral and reprehensible, you'd still have to pay it, just as we have to pay it now, but you'd have the right to call it immoral and reprehensible (just as we are now), and agitate for lowering it (just as we are now).
How's that?

I think you're being contradictory.

On the one hand you say that taxes are "immoral and reprehensible" because they happen "without your tacit consent".

Yet, you continue to advocate taxation.

Is a little bit of immorality okay, as long as you approve it?

My overall point is this -

There are many great arguments against taxation based on the effects of taxation - inefficiency of the public sector, stifling of enterprise, bureaucratic waste, etc.

However, if you make a moral argument against taxation, the only internally consistent argument is against all taxation. Morality is a categorical, not incremental, construct.

That simply isn't true. Morality can take into account situation and context. For example, sexual morality changes whether, if you are married, you are or aren't married to the person you are having sex with. Another example, killing someone in self defense is considerably different from killing someone for pleasure.

I've stated what I consider to be an immoral level of taxation. Use fees can't cover things like self-defense, so I consider taxation, as a cost of membership and protection in a group, to be moral. For the government to take too much, though, I consider to be immoral. In fact, I also consider it to be immoral to accept the protections and advantages of group membership and to refuse to pay for those protections and advantages.

Could most taxes be replaced with use fees? Sure. Not all of them, though. Morality does have some level of self-definition.

Morality is defined as to do with virtuous conduct or being in accord with "standards of good or right conduct." While there are many areas where we would probably agree on moral absolutes, this is obviously not one of them.

My argument is not morally opposed to all taxation--only certain levels of taxation. Your argument would be different, quite obviously. That moral judgement that you make, and the moral standard by which you make that judgement, are different as well.

This was your original statement:

That taxes are extortion--for example, if I don't pay the fee for my license plate, I can't use my personal propery (car) for its intended purpose. If I don't pay property tax, no matter how long I've "owned" that property, the government can and will take it away from me. That is morally reprehensible.

Nothing above takes into account quantity. Your argument was based on the the premise that what makes taxation extortion is that the govt can take away from you your property if you don't pay its taxes. That was a categorical argument. All such similar actions would fall into this category called "extortion".

Yet, now you are basically saying that a 'little bit' of extortion is okay. To me that is inconsistent. Is a little bit of theft okay? A little bit of extortion? A little bit of killing? A little bit of rape? A little bit of fraud?

All these things have one thing in common - the lack of consent by the victim. If you make a moral argument against "excessive immorality", you have to make the same argument against "a little bit of immorality" to be consistent within the framework of morality.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that I am a willing participant to a certain extent. My original argument (re-read the post) most certainly was based on quantity. It was based on the unacceptable aspect of increased government spending and foolish programs that will result in further taxation of citizens--further taxation that I called immoral and reprehensible.

I stand by that: the government takes in more than enough money every year to perform it's necessary functions. To run a deficit, promise new social programs, and cause that government almost no choice but to further raise taxes is not what I would consider responsible or acceptable.

That does not mean that I believe that all taxation is immoral and reprehensible. In that reply that you quoted above, I also said this:

There is a certain amount of taxation that I accept as being necessary for some functions of government. The fact that the government clears over one third of my paycheck, though, is not acceptable--it's robbery.

How can you say that I wasn't talking about quantity? I've addressed that from the beginning.

A little bit of killing in the name of self defense isn't immoral. A little bit of killing in the name of personal gratification is. A little bit of sex within the bounds of a relationship, inasmuch as it doesn't violate other trusts and relationships, isn't immoral. A little bit of sexual infidelity most certainly is. No, a "little bit of rape" is never right--but that doesn't mean that everything that we consider to be moral or not is absolute.

Is sex immoral in any situation? If the answer is that sex is immoral in certain situations, that does not mean that sex is immoral in every situation. Is tax immoral in certain situations? I believe that it is, but I don't believe that tax is immoral in every situation.

Since we obviously haven't communicated perfectly, let me be absolutely clear: too much tax is immoral. Some tax is not only acceptable, but necessary to the functioning of the government, even within the most strict bounds of interpreting the constitution. If you accept, as I do, that certain functions of government are necessary for the safety and continued well-being of the people, then you also accept that there is a cost involved. I gladly accept a certain level of cost which most certainly is not extortion.

I argue against the growth of government into areas where it is neither needed nor efficient.

Not all tax, to me, is extortion. That is your interpretation not mine.

Not all tax, to me, is extortion.

I submit that this statement is meaningless.

I realize that this thread has probably jumped the shark, but let me try to explain my position better.

If we talk about tax levels starting from 100% and work our way to 0% -

- at 'high' tax levels, you do not approve of the tax levels and do not, out of your own free will, pay your taxes, doing so only under the threat of harm. In other words, you would still pay your taxes, but only because the consequences involve jailtime. You call this state of affairs 'extortion'.

- as we decrease the tax level percent by percent, there will be a certain level reached (say 10%) at which even under the threat of no harm, you would pay your taxes. In other words, even there were no IRS agents around, you would pay that portion of your income to the US govt for what you call essential services. You call this state of affairs 'no extortion'.

A key point is that the cutoff level at which the nature of taxation changes for you from 'extortion' to 'no extortion' is an individual preference.

Yet, taxation is a collective undertaking.

By endorsing your particular preference for tax rates as the the level at which 'extortion' becomes 'non-extortion', you are forcibly imposing your views on everyone else. Because, my particular preference is that even at your cutoff point, I would not pay taxes voluntarily. I believe that 10% is still too high, and would only pay out of the threat posed by evading taxes. My consent would not be given, just as the victim of a common mugger does not give his consent even if he turns over his wallet.

At every level of individual preferences for taxation, there will always be individuals who do not pay voluntarily.

As an analogy, supposed the masochist claimed, "No I do not like to have my asscheeks flogged by a whip. That's disguisting. But, having it spanked by a paddle, now that's good stuff!" after which he says, "I would like to make it illegal to flog everyone's asscheeks with a whip, but make it legal to spank everyone's asscheeks with a paddle." Well, I for one, do not prefer either having my asscheeks flogged by a whip or spanked with a paddle. I do not give my consent. The masochist would be selfishly imposing his individual preferences on everyone else.

The key is consent.

The Founders were ahead of their time with their whole "consent of the governed" bit.

No, not all sex is immoral. But if one party to the sex does not give consent, it is always immoral. No, not all killing is immoral. But there is surely a difference between a murderer and one who kills in self-defence. No, not all exchanges of money are immoral. I buy a bagel every morning. But surely, all exchanges of money which the particular victim does not consent to are immoral. Not all labor is immoral. But surely, all labor compelled without the laborer's consent (slavery) is immoral.

Taxation does not fall into the same category as killing, sex, labor, and exchanges. Rather it falls under the same category of murder, rape, slavery, and fraud, because it happens without the consent of individuals being taxed.

Similarly, it is inconsistent to claim that at a certain level of taxation, there is no extortion. You may not feel extorted, but other individuals certainly do. By claiming that there is a single level of taxation at which taxation goes from 'extortion' to 'no extortion', you are making an assumption as one man of an irresponsible dominion over all other men. It is an arbitrary dictation by you over the liberty of all other men. It is imposing your own pleasure and interest upon all other men.

Taxation, by definition, occurs without consent of individuals. I submit, that when you say, "Not all tax, to me, is extortion", you are making a meaningless statement. Yeah, but what about the rest of us?

That isn't to say that taxation doesn't have a consequential premise. It is consistent to make the argument that high tax rates hurt the economy and stifle enterprise, and that lowering tax rates would have the opposte effect, and further that taxation is an unfortunate necessary evil that is necessary for society to function.

Although I do believe all taxation to be immoral, I do not claim to have all the answers. Rather, I must accept painful truths rather than believe in falsehoods that make me feel comfortable. The only moral argument against taxation is against all taxation.