Straight talking.....When Taxation is Not Theft...part 2

Part 2 of when taxation is not theft...

The 'faded out' excerpts are from @ ekklesiagora post - And his arguments on why taxation is not theft.
All credit goes to him for his post
https://steemit.com/taxation/@ekklesiagora/when-taxation-is-not-theft

The 'normal type' are my arguments and perspectives...

A slightly 'sarcastic look in part 2...

Simply because, the argument do not address the principles of tax being theft, but rather more attempts to justify the concept, and make it 'not theft' anymore by attemted intellctual trickery. - pesky commies!😂
😂

I'm a keeping this fish on the hook, so to speak...

These false arguments need to be brought to the light of day, and shown for what they are. And what better way than laughter...?

It seems, then, that dialectical libertarianism can provide a justification for geo-libertarianism and the ideas of Henry George. Geo-libertarians hold that the positive and negative externalities generated by property-ownership could be rectified with a system of land value tax or annual ground rent.
The land value tax is designed to reduce or eliminate the externalities that result form property.

The land tax is designed for the government to intervene in people lives, rather than letting the markets decide...

Since classical liberal (libertarian) property theory, as espoused by John Locke, states that a person is entitled to the entire product of their own labor, geo-libertarians hold that income tax is tantamount to theft and that it would be better to tax economic rent.

…because it is theft- if you adhere to the definitions generally accepted as what to constitutes theft.

Any tax is theft.
I really don't understand the mental block associated with this most clear term.

Unless to understand it, would in one sentence of comprehension, blow away pages pages of argument, trying to defend an indefensible position..

Land is a natural resource, which no man created through labor.

Oxygen is a natural resource, which no man created through labor, so we can tax for that too? Or water....

Thus, a tax on land does not necessarily constitute theft.

Yes it does in - the world of property rights.
Owner ship and coercion off assets from one party to another.

There is no moral argument for person coming to another and then saying, with a gun in hand - 'that's yours' – give me some of it, or I'll shoot you. Seriously...?

But since a person is entitled to anything that they produce themselves, any structures on the property that were either build by the owner or purchased with money acquired through labor would not be taxed.

...would not be further stolen from, you mean.

Thus, a land value tax is not a conventional property tax.

It is a tax arbitrarily decided by a third party.
To have third party to decide a value to someone else's property, and then proceed to commit theft, based on those value the third part has assigned to said property.

Sounds a lot like tax (theft) to me, in a clumsy attempt to hide it, for what it really is...

Under land value tax, positive externalities would be taxed away by an increase in tax, whereas victims of negative externalities would be subsidized by a decrease in tax.

So again, circumstances would be decided on - by a third party -what constituted good or bad for the property owner.
The percentage of theft would be decided on by the third party, before they steal your money.

Yeah, I'm still going with theft clumsily dressed up in intellectual BS in such a way as to circumnavigate very simple, very easy, basic principles.

Property rights, theft, and tax.

The land value tax proposal that I support is that of Thomas Paine, the American founding father, as espoused in his work Agrarian Justice. Two modern proponents of this proposal are Scott Santens and Martin Farley. Thomas Paine's proposal was to collect a land value tax and then use the revenue to fund a citizen's dividend. Thomas Paine preferred the term "ground-rent," but his proposal is essentially the same as Henry George's "land value tax." Another way of looking at land value tax is to say that it is not really a tax at all, but an annual ground rent.

Yes is it a tax, not a rent.

Trying to twist words _yet_again, is indicative of weakness of the premise...
The problem witht he premise, you cannot rent something oyu don not have propert right over.

Ergo, how can it be a rent by the government - who does not have property rights over your property?

In this way of thinking, all land is actually communally owned and the private owner pays an annual ground rent to the community for the privilege of monopolizing a piece of land. Whether you call it "land value tax" or "annual ground rent," the policy is identical.

This way of thinking is intellectually dishonest.
Attempting to move away from the basic principles, of what constitutes property.. ( a tax overton window).

However, when you conceive of it in this way—as ground-rent rather than tax—it makes sense to associate it with a citizen's dividend.

When you conceive of it this way, you are legitimizing theft.

The land would belong to the people, so the revenue from the land ought to belong to the people. The nation as a whole is the landlord and each citizen is entitled to an equal share of the rental payments. This model of a citizen's dividend funded by annual ground rent from publicly-owned land—which is basically equivalent to a universal basic income funded by land value tax—would help to eliminate externalities even more.

...And there we have it! twisted from property tax really being a rent not a tax (theft) - to full blow communism.

This proposal would also virtually eliminate poverty.

Yeah, the 100 million or so dead bodies in the old Soviet Russia and China might not agree with you.

Or the rat eaters in Venezuela right now.

Pesky facts...

Shoehorning communism in through a deception of stupid intellectualism.

Land value tax also has the benefit of preventing urban decay and solving the problem of gentrification.

Urban decay and gentrification are all parts of a dynamic econmy and the cycles each geographical region happens to be in - at any given moment in time.

It appears to me that a land value tax has certain benefits in itself.

It appears to you that theft has certain benefits in itself.

Not only is a land value tax better than income tax, it is actually better than no tax at all.

Theft from property rights is better than theft off income. Any theft is better than no theft at all.

Even if land value tax does not go to funding a citizen's dividend, it does lead to more affordable housing and benefit the poor.

Theft, helps the poor....?

Land value tax actually taxes away economic rent, making land speculation less profitable.

Theft from richer people prevents, people from getting ahead. Abundance is not good.

The positive effects of land value tax far outweigh any negatives, making land value tax good in itself. It's not just better than other forms of taxation, it's better than no taxes at all.

The positive effects of stealing, far outweigh the negtives of not stealing.

It is a better form of theft -and is better than no theft at all.

Differential Taxes
Such a tax would keep "too big to fail" organizations from coming into being. It would lead to an economy with many small businesses in place of large corporations.

It is governments and corruption that allow this to happen.

What is in the best interest of consumers is not free markets, but competitive markets.

One of the same.
(not in today's society, but that is merelya snapshot in time - culminating in over 200 years of government collusion and corruption - that have enabled these mega coronations),

A company can out-compete its rivals and put them all out of business, thereby establishing a monopoly.

Simplistic beyond any argument.
There are only ever 2 people in one market – very bizzare. I have never experience this in the 4 business I have run. There are always multitude of competitors..

Or, a few companies can put most of their competitors out of business.

Only with help from governments via regulation.

After establishing a monopoly or oligopoly, there is no longer sufficient competition to force down prices or to incentivize companies to provide the best possible service.

This comes from governments and corruption/collusion. Not an argument.

Large corporations have the ability to prevent small entrepreneurs from breaking into the market.

Only because lack of free market has allowed the massive corporations in the first place, and continuing government regulatory powers.

It's hard for anyone to create a local grocery store to compete with a large chain. This is why large chains dominate capitalist markets.

No its because of government intervention via regulations. It's the same dynamic, not matter how many times you argue it.

All the "mom and pop shops" have died.

See above..

A Possible More General Justification For Taxation

A possible more general justification for theft (because this two line argument has gone on for pages...keep trying...)

It could also be argued that no profits or wages whatsoever would be possible for anyone without the framework created by society and government.

It could be argued that the list of arguments still hold no validity, and just trying for anything now...

It's called bartering, gift exchange, and would still be a contract between tow parties. This has nothing to do with tax/theft.

Indeed, markets are generated by governments.

I wont even bother with that one. Seriously?

No market before governments?( and which planet are you referring to in this reality? btw)

Markets only come into being when governments issue currency and then demand for taxes to be paid in that currency.

WTF!!!
What started as at least some attempt to rationalize theft it had now degenerated into....
...er.....I'm not sure what to call this...

When ancient nations went to war,

Enabled by taxation/theft ...

the spoils went to the victors. When a nation was conquered, it's gold and silver would be taken by the conquering army. Nations started minting the loot into coins and issuing those coins to the soldiers.

Some thing never change. It is not good, it is the horror of war.
Taxation makes war much more possible.

To this day, government-issued money and taxation are essential to keep markets thriving.

(ahem crypto). I'll stop there. This is below any ones pay grade to argue, I would argue.

We are now entering the land of the ridiculous....

The existence of markets and money is the product of government.

_You have lost your sanity? _

No corporation would exist without the laws that create corporations.

Agreed. Corporations are a legal entity - ergo could not exist without law.....(fail to see your point though)

Given that the whole framework for monetary systems and markets is created by the government,

It's not a given....hello?

This dead horse ain't jumping, no matter how much you whip it...

it could be argued that all corporations and individuals who get significant amounts of wealth as a result of the system ought to be required to give something towards funding the maintenance of the system whereby they thrive.

Continue to pay corrupt government you mean?- its already happening...

It could also be argued that those who benefit from the system ought to be required to pay some share of their wealth in order to compensate those members of the community that are harmed by the system.

So if you benefit from buying a product, you should share your wealth to others, as a form guilt payment?... or something...?

Let's Abolish All Bad Taxes
I am in favor of abolishing income tax, which can arguably be regarded as theft. I am also in favor of abolishing all form of sales tax, including value added tax. All such taxes ought to be replaced by taxes that are good in themselves.

All theft ought to be replaced by another form of theft, that is good.

'can't ...stop...digging....hole....for....myself......must....keep.....digging...'..😂😂

---

Why not just this last paragraph? -instead of 700 pages? It's... all... very simple.