Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

Disclaimer: While I present this information in good faith, I wish to disclaim all legal liability. Consult with a tax lawyer and accountant before. You can check the sources and make decisions yourself. Donation Tax credits beyond the first 200$ donated always equal or exceed the taxation rate at every income level you can be. This is at the federal level. This means you can divert every single income tax dollar from the state to a charity of your (limited) choice, and this completely legally. This is at the cost of donating most if not all of the income you would have kept had you just paid taxes. However, you can keep a decent amount of income from any other deductions, including the basic amount. Caveate: You are limited to registered charities, approved by the CRA. Examples with just employment income (It's even much better with dividends and capital gains instead of it) Example: Earning 46,605 it leaves you with $28,517.06 with $18,087.93 in donations. Instead of: 41359.50$ with 5245.50 in taxes. Example: at the federal level only. Provincial is likely similar (but wide deviation is possible, check your province). Earning 144,489 With just the basic federal amount. it leaves you with $47481.50 with $97007.5 in donations. Instead of : $116,356.825 with 28132.175 in taxes Add say 10000 in deductions to taxable income, and 3000 in other tax credits and it leaves you with : $66,791.85 with $77,697 in donations (the tax credit rate difference for the first 200$ was left out) instead of 121,956.825 with 22,532.175 in taxes. I'm tired so I might of made a mistake. More example: you can make your own, see with capital gains and eligible dividends instead of employment income, it can be much better. https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/canada.htm https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/claiming-charitable-tax-credits/amended-legislation-charitable-donation-tax-credit.html Some tools (see if marginal tax rate exceeds the combined rate of the province and federal donation tax credits) : http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/svngs/clmng1b2-eng.html https://simpletax.ca/calculator Here are the tax credit rates at the provincial level: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/claiming-charitable-tax-credits/charitable-donation-tax-credit-rates.html#calcex http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/svngs/clmng1b2-eng.html My understanding is that you get tax credits to apply at both levels. Quebec for example https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/qc.htm The above is also true for Quebec all the way to 200,000 in net (meaning after deductions) taxable income. Above 200,000, it's only 1.5% below the tax rate.

I could use a good argument against the above. The only thing that comes to my mind is the argument against "social contract" which we never signed. I'd love to hear your take on this.

Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?

It is my intention to make the “taxation is theft” argument completely watertight, even from a legal perspective. That is, I want to beat statists at their own damn game. I, and I think everyone here, understand the philosophical meaning of land ownership, homesteading, etc. But I need to make sure I understand the legal side of property ownership. I need some people who have a good legal understanding (and/or philosophical) to make sure everything I’m saying is correct. So please, shoot holes in my arguments and tell me where I’m wrong. Be brutal! First though, we should make some definitions clear. Ownership of property means that it is YOURS, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you are not aggressing against others or violating some other contract that you agreed to (example: I own my windows and I can paint them pink UNLESS I have agreed with my homeowner’s association not to make my house look ridiculous). Also, you do NOT have the right to enter onto someone else’s land (or house, etc.) without their permission, much less demand payment from them without their agreement. To do so would be known as armed robbery. When you are on someone else’s land (or using their property) you must abide by their rules. The rightful owner does not have the right to aggress against you or use any more force against you than is necessary to remove you from their property (should they chose), but you still must abide by their rules, otherwise you are aggressing against them. I cannot walk onto your lawn and set up a lemonade stand unless you agree to this. You cannot use my weed-whipper unless I allow you. This is all basic voluntarism, non-aggression principle stuff. Hopefully this is all obvious. Now, onto the legalese; suspend reality with me for a little bit while we dive into the world of government insanity: 1. “A land patent is an exclusive land grant made by a sovereign entity with respect to a particular tract of land.” A land patent gives you alloidal ownership over land. Allodial — Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal. In other words, completely, unconditionally, and privately yours; The intuitive and commonly understood definition of "property". The US government did and does hand out “land patents” to supposedly grant you complete, thorough, and permanent ownership. In other words, IT'S YOURS. So LEGALLY (according to the gub’ment), one does not actually own their land unless they have a land patent in their name. So that means even if you own a house and have paid your mortgage, you don’t legally OWN your land in the traditional, obvious sense of private ownership. Hopefully some red flags are already popping up in your head. For the government to be able to grant you ownership of something, they have to actually have ownership of it before they give it to you, otherwise they have no authority over said thing. So, for the moment, let’s pretend that the government actually DID have ownership over a certain piece of land (it does not, but I’ll get into that in a minute). Say it gave a land patent for that piece of land to “Bob”. So now, Bob completely and privately owns this piece of land. Yet legally, if Bob sells this piece of land to Mary, she does not actually privately own this land like Bob did, until she pays the government to get the land patent updated in her name. Legally, is this true? If so, clearly this makes no sense, for if Bob wanted to sell HIS land to Mary, it automatically now belongs completely to Mary. If it reverts back into the hands of the government, then it never really belonged to Bob in the first place, but instead to the government. Once you voluntarily give some property (land or otherwise) to someone through selling it or by giving it freely, you have voluntarily given up all right to that property. That’s what PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is all about. If you want to retain any kind of authority over that property, then that needs to be spelled out in a contract, and there is NOT unconditional, free-and-clear ownership of said property. Yet, the wording in land patents would suggest that they DO grant you free-and-clear, private ownership of land; The government claims that about 60% of land in the US is privately owned. They either do not truly mean privately owned, or they are clearly violating the rights of private land owners. Clearly, the way the government handles this makes no sense, and for them to claim the right to tax you or take your land through eminent domain implies that either they own your land or that you agreed to said taxes/eminent domain previously, which of course you never did. This is why the concept of taxes (property taxes in particular) make no sense, for if you actually OWN your land, nobody has the right to come onto your property and demand continued payment for it- that is no different from renting property. Is it feasible that you could only own your property conditionally, on the agreement that you are subject to the government’s laws on your land? If so, this is not spelled out anywhere (correct me if I’m wrong). Moreover, the government cannot simply impose laws on private owned landowners who occupied their land before the government tried to establish authority over their land. Now, back to the concept of government ownership (this is very important!): Does the government actually own anything? I would say “no”. Why? Firstly, when governments form, they steal money (and land) from people who rightfully owned their land and money before the government encroached on their territory. Again, this is nothing more than armed robbery with a badge. So right from the beginning, the government is an illegitimate, criminal organization because it operated using stolen money. As a consequence of this, government doesn’t actually rightfully own anything, and thus have no moral legitimacy to establish new taxes, laws, etc. over private property. I believe it’s really as simple as that. Am I missing anything important?

So recently I got into a debate with a family member over taxation & welfare. I told him that taxation is theft & presented him with a comparison of a thief & government. He then kept saying that there is a difference between the two to which I replied no there isn't & he kept saying yes. While that family member has shown their highly irrational thought process what are some other approaches I could take in regards to convincing someone that taxation is theft.

Russell Brand attacked parliamentary democracy on Newsnight recently and told Jeremy Paxman why he doesn't vote. Brands criticisms of the establishment have caused a stir because they are true. The days of party politics enjoying popular support are gone. But what is to be done? Brand advocates windfall taxes on corporations and an "egalitarian socialist" system but admits he has no idea how that might come about. He seems to think that other people know how to do it. I'm cynical about this. The left have played all their cards and can only mouth empty rhetoric. Brand is no stranger to profiting from mega corporations either. In this review I take a deeper look at these issues and Russell Brand.