- United Arab Emirates: don't want to live in the middle east, no thanks. I disagree with many of the laws there and have no close family or friends anywhere nearby.
- Bahamas: gotta buy land there or pay an annual fee. This is probably the most reasonable of all options, but my work precludes me from living there.
- Bermuda: One of the world's most expensive places to live. Possible if I could afford it (can't at the moment).
- Andorra: would be awesome. Not sure what the situation is with living there as a non-citizen (it takes 20 years to become one). Since one has to be a citizen of some country one wouldn't be able to renounce their US citizenship for 20 years (at least) and therefore would still have to pay income taxes to the United States.
- Monaco: "Getting a residence permit practically requires millionaire status."
While you can theoretically leave the U.S. whenever you want, you cannot stop paying taxes whenever you want.
You have to renounce citizenship, pay a fine for renouncing said citizenship to avoid paying taxes and possibly be audited. And you might argue that's fine, because they should be able to collect back taxes but you'll generally have to pay taxes for the next 10 years.
~~~~
10 years, 20 years, whatever.
None of this changes the fact that what is being done in the United States is theft, plain and simple. The government never came to me and asked if I agreed to any of these income taxes, they just say pay up or we'll ruin your life. No negotiation, no agreed upon exchange for goods or services, just extortion.
You listed several countries you could move to. The fact that you don't want to move to any of them, for whatever reason, does not turn US taxation into "theft".
And again, you agree to pay them by continuing to live here.
Just like, when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal, you're agreeing to pay for it without negotiation, without a specific contract outlining specifications for the food, etc. Don't like it? Go to another restaurant.
> Just like, when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal, you're agreeing to pay for it without negotiation, without a specific contract outlining specifications for the food, etc.
There is a verbal agreement (contract) outlining the specifications of the food. It says "pancakes" in the menu, it shows me the price, and I choose to order the pancakes for that stated price.
That is completely different from how taxes work in the United States. An appropriate analogy would be being born in a restaurant and being forced to pay money for what you have no idea and no say in. There is no menu. What's given to you is chosen by people you don't know and who you've never had a single conversation with. And btw, you can't just "get up and leave" the restaurant either.
When the analogy is this incompatible, you can compare anything to anything else and declare that bananas are just like soap.
If you can't see the difference, you are deluding yourself.
> As an adult, you can revoke your consent and leave.
To revoke consent I would have had to have been of a mind to have given it in the first place.
My parents payed taxes when I was a child. I did not. I then grew into a situation where I had to make money to stay off the streets and was forced to pay this government.
Maybe this isn't so black and white. I would be willing to agree that your point of view carries more weight the longer I stay here in a capacity where I am capable of moving to another country.
However, it starts out as theft and remains so until I have no excuse remaining for not leaving, and then it's only if there is a fair alternative available.
If there's some country out there that doesn't have an income tax but rapes its citizens 12 hours out of the day, that can't be counted as a fair alternative. It would still be extortion then ("pay us or get raped!").
The government provides you services, and you consent to paying for them by continuing to live here.
Before you were old enough to give consent, your parents made that decision for you. As an infant, you weren't capable of making such decisions, and as your guardians, your folks made it for you.
Now that you're (presumably) old enough to give consent, you are doing so by remaining here.
The government isn't forcing you to stay, even if you can't afford to leave right now. If your finances don't permit it, then I would suggest you save up until you can afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico, and then emigrate. Our government won't stop you at the border. (Canada or Mexico might, but that's them, not us.)
That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft. It means you're picky, or you don't want to compromise, or whatever.
It doesn't change the fact that, as long as you're here, you're obligated to pay for a small share of the government's cost of doing business.
You may not like that obligation--it's still not theft. You may disagree with how tax dollars are spent--it's still not theft. You may dislike how you never signed an "I agree to pay taxes" contract--it's still not theft.
You're just repeating yourself now. You are not making logical arguments or responding to arguments made before.
> That you don't like the other countries out there (they aren't "fair alternatives") does not mean that, suddenly, taxation here is actually theft.
Yes, it does. The word for it is extortion.
1. No consent existed to begin with and money was taken forcibly. Theft. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.
2. An alternative presents itself but the alternative is rape and so the choice is between theft or rape. This is called extortion. By definition. Go argue with a dictionary.
I'm repeating myself because taxation isn't theft, and you keep coming up with a variety of statements that don't actually support the false assertion that it is.
You also keep ignoring the facts that:
1) You consent to taxation by living here,
2) And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
You keep saying "no consent existed" but it has existed all your life, first by your legal guardians, and now by you.
Why this is wrong was addressed previously so not gonna repeat myself.
> And your parents consented for you when you were too young to do on your own.
Your parents cannot give this consent for you. Can they consent for you to be raped? Would their approval of you being raped suddenly make it not rape?
No. You're arguments are nonsensical. Go home. I'm done here.
I feel like the term "lease" isn't appropriate unless there is a viable way and underlying plan to eventually return it. When I lease I car, I have to return it. They don't sell me the car under the auspices of a lease, with no way to ever return it, and still restrict my rights on what I can do with it.
Given enough time, software eventually becomes unsupported, and then -- perhaps after more time, but perhaps not -- unusable. In effect, this is the return at the end of the auto lease. It's not a perfect analogy (really nothing ever is), but it's pretty good, especially I think for people not used to thinking about this issue with software and other digital goods.
You're describing the same thing as leasing a car. Eventually the car is out of warranty and then at some point wears out and becomes undriveable. People don't typically lease vehicles for the physical life of the hardware.
Love it or hate it, it's a huge factor in how people make decisions. If you want to shape their behavior, you have to consider how they think and what they care about.
They shouldn't do that. OTOH, anybody with a security clearance ought to be able to have the agency assign a disinterested person to do that ASAP. Without this, a foreign government can trivially send agents to date people who might know interesting secrets.
Then think of how terrified she must have felt when she was laughing and joking with a beer and surrounded by men playing Cards Against Humanity, with all those sexual and racial jokes. Poor "black, jewish" girl! Maybe we should expose the names of all those men in the photo and get them fired too ? I mean, She felt fear!!!
If people are committing crimes to support their drug habit, you can just convict them for those crimes, so that doesn't justify criminalizing the acquisition.
