Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You agree to pay taxes by continuing to live here.

If we were free to move to a country where we agreed with the laws you might be right. That's not reality though.

We are not (currently) free to choose how we pay taxes in any country and our freedom to move from one country to another is restricted.

So, sorry, I never agreed to pay these taxes, I have little say in how they're used, and I have no alternatives except to go to prison. That's not freedom. That's simply coercion and theft.



You are free to move to another country. The fact that no other country meets your very specific requirements doesn't mean that you are not obligated to pay for living in this one.

If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want, that does not grant you the right to take a car without paying for it.

So, yes, you do agree to pay these taxes by continuing to live here.


> You are free to move to another country.

Please explain how I can do that. I would actually like to move to Switzerland, could you explain how I can freely do that as everything I've researched indicates it's neither free nor possible in any reasonable amount of time. If not Switzerland I'll settle for some other country where I can live freely and be safe from coercion.

> If no automobile maker will sell you the exact car you want...

Nobody is forcing me to buy the car with the threat of prison if I don't, and I do not need a car to survive. I do need to live someplace however.


If you live someplace and don't pay rent at the end of the month, the landlord will bill you, even if you're desperately searching for somewhere else.

For some reason, most anti-taxers consider this not to be "coercion" but to be an efficient way of allocating resources and will defend to the death the landlord's right to demand that I compensate him for occupying a particular location he has a prior claim over. The rationale behind treating private territorial claims on my wealth more favourably than public ones continues to elude me...


One involves non-coercive mutual consent (a signed agreement), the other doesn't.


I never signed a contract with my landlord.

Someone born in a particular house with a third party claiming ownership rights faces exactly the same keep paying up or vacate dilemma as someone born in a particular country. In both cases, they might find it difficult to find a piece of territory that is both appealing to live and doesn't involve paying someone else for their right to occupy it.


This is not at all the same situation.

The relationship governments have with their citizens is unique.

It goes like this: give us a chunk of your entire income forever or else we'll throw you in prison. Don't like it? Say good-bye to all your friends and family and enjoy surviving in a country where you don't understand anything anyone is saying, which will probably just give you the same ultimatum.

That's simply mafia-style protection-money robbery.

There is another option: voluntary association and voluntary taxation. This is just one possible form it can take: http://groupcurrency.org


I can assure you both that my landlord will be equally keen to exercise the full force of the law if I don't continue to pay him the rate he asks for each month, and that I'd have to move quite a long way from my friends and family to find somewhere I can live rent free. If he puts the rent up too much then my flatmates and I don't have any hope of voting him out either!

Finding a jurisdiction in which English is widely spoken and there's no income tax is actually surprisingly easy...


You do give consent by continuing to live here past the age of maturity.

When you're a child, and your parents have custody of you, they make that choice for you--you're a citizen here, here's where you'll live, be politically involved, and pay taxes.

When you're old enough to make that choice for yourself, that's when you can stay--with all that entails--or go.


There are several reasons why this argument does not work. The most important is that US law says that US citizens must pay taxes, even those who live in other countries. The only way to avoid it is to give up US citizenship. That can only be done outside of the US, and by an adult.

It's therefore impossible for any US citizen to legally avoid paying tax at least once, assuming sufficient income to have to pay tax in the first place.

Do note that this law also applies to foreign born US citizens, who are citizens by blood but who have never even visited the US. For obvious reasons, many of these citizens either don't know about their obligations under US law, or deliberately ignore it.


Of course you can avoid paying tax at least once: on the day of your 18th birthday, weigh the options about leaving, leave, and renounce your citizenship.

Or, don't work until you decide to leave, and then leave.

That it requires very quick timing or unusual planning to end your obligation does not mean that you don't need to pay it when you are obliged to.


Well in that case, there's no reason to pay taxes at all - simply don't every earn enough to pay taxes. But that's an absurd solution. Otherwise you would have said "You do give consent by continuing to live here past the age of maturity and making enough money to be taxed". (I assume that the major issue is income tax, not sales tax.)

In any case, the current cost to renounce your citizenship is $2,350. You might say it's a "fee" and not a "tax". That label is irrelevant in the overarching context of financial obligations imposed upon a person. Otherwise the US should just charge everyone a fee for having US citizenship and forget about the whole "tax" issue.


Assuming you can afford to move, renounce citizenship, etc.

Moving just within the United States can end up being an expensive endeavor as is. Moving out of it isn't any more affordable, meaning that your argument basically amounts to "tough luck, poor people".

Not that I believe taxes are inherently bad, but the implication that "you can always leave if you don't like it" is misleading at best (and realistically outright false for a rather large segment of the American population).


Whether you can afford to leave--and free yourself from the obligation of paying taxes here--does not change your basic obligation to paying a share of the government of the land you inhabit.


Which I'm fine with, because that's understandable. My point was solely in response to the assertion of "you can leave if you don't like it", since the action of "leaving" is prohibitively expensive for a lot of people.


You can leave the U.S. whenever you want. The U.S. isn't restricting your ability to leave.

If the country of your choice doesn't permit you to emigrate, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly free from your obligations to whatever country will host you.

Wouldn't that be convenient? "Sir, I don't have to pay taxes. I want to move to Switzerland, but they're full right now, so I can't."

(And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole out of the antitax crowd--for nearly all cases, they'll simply garnish your wages, or something equally non-freedom-constraining.)


And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole out of the antitax crowd--for nearly all cases, they'll simply garnish your wages, or something equally non-freedom-constraining.

Oh they regularly send people to prison for failing to pay taxes. Does the name Wesley Snipes ring a bell? They sent him to prison for three years on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns, even after he brought a check to court for the outstanding balance.

On a basic level, that's what all laws are. They are a series of escalating punishments and threats that end soon after "then, we'll send guys with guns to take you to prison".


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.

So, putting aside the immigration issues, and assuming you could move to wherever you wanted it's still not possible.


It doesn't help if all other countries both severely restrict entry and/or force a tax upon you. I'd just end up in the same exact situation.

> And the "threat of prison" is some of the dumbest hyperbole...

It's not hyperbole. If you willfully fail to file that's grounds for imprisonment:

http://www.businessinsider.com/terrible-things-that-could-ha...

You're probably thinking of cases when people "forget" or make "mistakes" in their filing.

> ...out of the antitax crowd

I mentioned this already, I am not anti-tax. Please cut it with the labeling. It's late. We're going in circles. Have a good night, I won't be replying to whatever you post next.


Fine, you're not antitax. You're just engaging in a lengthy thread debate using their common arguments. I stand by my statement w.r.t. the antitax crowd.

And again, whether all other countries do not meet your preference or requirement does not free you from your obligations to this one, as long as you live here.

Whether other countries don't allow you in, don't allow you to stay, don't govern the way you like, or whatever other complaint you may have about other countries, that does not change your present-day relationship to this one: that you live here, and as such are obligated to pay taxes as long as you do.

And of course there are, right now, many other countries that you could emigrate to if you liked. Even if your A-list countries aren't open, you still have lots of options.


My hat is off to Frondo and notahacker. I've occasionally (regrettably, foolishly) tried to argue it out with the "taxation is theft" folks, and this is the first time I've seen one of them actually give up from exhaustion. I'm sure he'll recharge and come back tomorrow once he looks up the next argument in his playbook, but even temporary victories must be savored.

Sorry, itistoday2, I'm sure you're a nice person in person, but the argument you're making is obnoxious. Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!


> Have you noticed how people get really annoyed when you make it? It's not because it's a good argument!

People also used to get annoyed when people said the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.


They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, and they laughed at Bozo the Clown.


a quick google search shows you several countries that have no income tax. So sorry, you never researched your own argument.


http://nomadcapitalist.com/2013/11/24/top-5-livable-countrie...

Of the most "livable" countries:

- 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."

I think ebrenes framed the situation well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9540888

Copied here:

~~~~

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.


It is not theft.

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.


Again, your parents made the decision for your citizenship when you were a child and they had custody of you.

As an adult, you can revoke your consent and leave.

You keep telling me how:

1) Other countries don't offer what you want, 2) It's expensive to move to another country, 3) Many countries won't grant you citizenship,

And so on.

None of those mean that you can't leave and go somewhere else. They just mean that wherever you go, you'll have to make a compromise.

Being forced to make a compromise elsewhere does not mean that taxation here is theft.

None of your claims support the false assertion that "taxation is theft".

I really don't understand what part of this you're missing. I really don't get what part of this plain language is in dispute.


> 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!").


No, taxation does not start out as theft.

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.


> You consent to taxation by living here

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.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: