Socialist Gov. Murphy turns NJ citizens into tax slaves to benefit illegal entrants

Samson_Corwell · May 23, 2018, 5:14pm

johnwk2:

Samson_Corwell:

No, my annoyingly verbose acquaintance. I DO think it is defined by a non-zero number of characteristics. Everyone does! I am saying that taxation can never, ever be slavery because it does not have this characteristic: being forced to work.

Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery

Mankind, by his very nature, is forced to work to meet essential economic needs. So, if the product of a person’s labor is taken by government, force does become a factor in two obvious ways.

Aside from that, and with regard to taxation, there are two essential ways to tax.

One is by indirect taxation, which are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Under this form of taxation, and generally speaking, individuals are not forced into paying such taxes, and slavery is not an issue. An exception would be taxing the essentials of life.

The second form of taxation are those which are direct. Direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government. Under this form of taxation force is one of its characteristics

Our founders understood the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, and that is one of the reasons they demanded in our Constitution that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

One of the benefits of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is, that if such a tax is levied directly upon the people, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax and the pain is suffered equally by all!

As to indirect taxes and it benefits and protections against abuses by government, see Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

The bottom line is, direct taxes do have one of the characteristics of slavery attached to them, and you identified it ___ “FORCE” ___, while indirect taxation is generally far removed from that characteristic.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Thank you, John. I will get to this post in full when I am at a desktop.

Samson_Corwell · May 23, 2018, 5:19pm

It simply isn’t one of slavery’s characteristics.

mobulis · May 23, 2018, 6:48pm

So patents and copyrights are slavery.

Samm · May 23, 2018, 11:30pm

Don’t you mean lack of thought experiments? Your strict adherence of the conventional definition of slavery shows a distinct lack of independent thought.

Samm · May 23, 2018, 11:35pm

That assessment is illogical. You have consistently rejected any challenge to your conventional thinking, without offering anything other than conventional thought in rebuttal. Such a circular argument is not logical.

Michael_Griffith · May 23, 2018, 11:37pm

Well, the people of NJ are getting what they voted for. Too bad for them.

Samm · May 23, 2018, 11:38pm

By the conventional “plantation” definition of slavery, you are right.

Get out of your box.

Samm · May 23, 2018, 11:41pm

Nope. They are protection of intellectual property.

I would ask you to explain how you arrived at that response to my post, but we all know it would be a waste of time.

mobulis · May 24, 2018, 12:09am

So being forced to pay to use patented and/or copyrighted things is not slavery but paying taxes for govt services is, got it.

Samson_Corwell · May 24, 2018, 12:58am

Samm:

Samson_Corwell:

Samm:

Samson_Corwell:

Let’s imagine a world where no one owns anything, either individually or jointly. You make something from wood, but it remains unowned. Are you a slave? If not, then there is no reason to think taxation is slavery. If you say you are a slave in my scenario, then your capacity for reasoning is broken.

If you are being forced by an entity that holds power over you, to share the fruits of your labor with them against your will, you are enslaved to them. That is perfectly logical.

By the way, “what if” arguments are pretty lame.

These are thought experiments and in this thought experiment the only rule is that you can’t attack someone. No force is used to make you “share”.

Don’t you mean lack of thought experiments? Your strict adherence of the conventional definition of slavery shows a distinct lack of independent thought.

I am sure that the feminists that believe all sex is violence and/or rape have said something like that: “Your strict adherence to the traditional definition of rape shows a distinct lack of indepedent thought unhindered by the blinders of patriarchy.”.

What I am lacking is your creative thinking.

Samson_Corwell · May 24, 2018, 1:00am

Holy ■■■■■ Mobulis actually made a knockdown argument.

Samm · May 24, 2018, 9:15pm

No more than having to pay for rent or groceries is slavery. The people who hold the patents/copyrights created and own the products that you are buying.

Samm · May 24, 2018, 9:17pm

I’m glad that you finally understand your limitations.

Samm · May 24, 2018, 9:20pm

So you think patents and copyrights are slavery are the equivalent to involuntary (coerced by intimidation of power) taxation? I would have never guessed that your thinking would ever be on par with Mob’s.

johnwk2 · May 24, 2018, 9:50pm

Samson_Corwell:

johnwk2:

Samson_Corwell:

No, my annoyingly verbose acquaintance. I DO think it is defined by a non-zero number of characteristics. Everyone does! I am saying that taxation can never, ever be slavery because it does not have this characteristic: being forced to work.

Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery

Mankind, by his very nature, is forced to work to meet essential economic needs. So, if the product of a person’s labor is taken by government, force does become a factor in two obvious ways.

Aside from that, and with regard to taxation, there are two essential ways to tax.

One is by indirect taxation, which are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Under this form of taxation, and generally speaking, individuals are not forced into paying such taxes, and slavery is not an issue. An exception would be taxing the essentials of life.

The second form of taxation are those which are direct. Direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government. Under this form of taxation force is one of its characteristics

Our founders understood the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, and that is one of the reasons they demanded in our Constitution that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

One of the benefits of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is, that if such a tax is levied directly upon the people, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax and the pain is suffered equally by all!

As to indirect taxes and it benefits and protections against abuses by government, see Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

The bottom line is, direct taxes do have one of the characteristics of slavery attached to them, and you identified it ___ “FORCE” ___, while indirect taxation is generally far removed from that characteristic.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Thank you, John. I will get to this post in full when I am at a desktop.

RE: Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery

It’s been two days now. Have you forgotten or still have not been able to get to a desktop?

JWK

mobulis · May 24, 2018, 10:07pm

I’m glad you agree that paying for govt services ie taxes is not slavery.

Samm · May 24, 2018, 10:33pm

Government does not own what they are selling us.

Samson_Corwell · May 24, 2018, 10:37pm

johnwk2:

Samson_Corwell:

johnwk2:

Samson_Corwell:

No, my annoyingly verbose acquaintance. I DO think it is defined by a non-zero number of characteristics. Everyone does! I am saying that taxation can never, ever be slavery because it does not have this characteristic: being forced to work.

Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery

Mankind, by his very nature, is forced to work to meet essential economic needs. So, if the product of a person’s labor is taken by government, force does become a factor in two obvious ways.

Aside from that, and with regard to taxation, there are two essential ways to tax.

One is by indirect taxation, which are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. Under this form of taxation, and generally speaking, individuals are not forced into paying such taxes, and slavery is not an issue. An exception would be taxing the essentials of life.

The second form of taxation are those which are direct. Direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government. Under this form of taxation force is one of its characteristics

Our founders understood the distinction between direct and indirect taxes, and that is one of the reasons they demanded in our Constitution that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

One of the benefits of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned is, that if such a tax is levied directly upon the people, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax and the pain is suffered equally by all!

As to indirect taxes and it benefits and protections against abuses by government, see Hamilton in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .’’ If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”

The bottom line is, direct taxes do have one of the characteristics of slavery attached to them, and you identified it ___ “FORCE” ___, while indirect taxation is generally far removed from that characteristic.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

Thank you, John. I will get to this post in full when I am at a desktop.

RE: Direct vs indirect taxation and slavery

It’s been two days now. Have you forgotten or still have not been able to get to a desktop?

JWK

No desktop yet.

elcee · May 24, 2018, 10:52pm

And to boot, if you are a legal immigrant you don’t qualify for in state Tution or financial aide. Can someone please explain the rational for that? He’s an idiot and I have no idea why he was elected. He also is giving illegal immigrants drives liscences . If he likes California so much he should move there instead of trying to make NJ into a little CA.

SixFoot · May 24, 2018, 10:55pm