Splitting the cost of a meal

@fast,

fast;166916 wrote:

Not every instance of taking money from you against your will is theft, even if the emotions for why you say it drives you to say it. Taxation isn't theft. Theft is illegal. Taxation isn't.

ETA: just like capital punishment isn't murder.

Stealing is stealing. Killing is killing. Those are the words I wish to use if you have a problem with theft or murder.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166911 wrote:

No because you don't pay your phone bill against your will. You entered into a voluntary agreement to pay the phone company. If you don't, according to the terms of the agreement, the phone company will discontinue your service and turn the remaining debt over to a collection agency.

Oh, believe me, I do. You don't think I want to pay my phone bill, do you? That I am forced to pay it by the threats you list shows that I am doing it against my will. Why else would I be forced to do it?

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;166917]Stealing is stealing. Killing is killing. Those are the words I wish to use if you have a problem with theft or murder.[/QUOTE]

If someone takes my money against my will, then someone has stolen my money, but if the government takes my money against my will, then the government has not stolen my money. Yes, they have both taken it either way, but while in the former case, my money was stolen from me, the latter case is not an example of money that has been stolen from me.

The government doesn't steal my money. They do it lawfully.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;166923 wrote:

If someone takes my money against my will, then someone has stolen my money,

The government doesn't steal my money. They do it lawfully.

Exactly, so it is false that, if someone takes my money against my will, then someone has stolen my money, just as it is false that the telephone company has stolen my money although I was not willing for them to have it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;166924]Exactly, so it is false that, if someone takes my money against my will, then someone has stolen my money, just as it is false that the telephone company has stolen my money although I was not willing for them to have it.[/QUOTE]

I surely don't want to confuse the costs with the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis we do, and I do cringe at the notion of saying I want to pay my phone bill, and though I don't want to pay it, I would find it a bit odd to say that I am paying it against my will since I voluntarily signed up for the service knowing full well that there would be associated costs for the benefits I would receive.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;166930 wrote:

I surely don't want to confuse the costs with the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis we do, and I do cringe at the notion of saying I want to pay my phone bill, and though I don't want to pay it, I would find it a bit odd to say that I am paying it against my will since I voluntarily signed up for the service knowing full well that there would be associated costs for the benefits I would receive.

Why does the fact that you agreed to pay your bill mean that you paid it willingly? By living in this country, I agree to pay taxes, but I hope you are not under the impression that I do so with a smile on my face, and a song in my heart.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166936 wrote:

By living in this country, I agree to pay taxes

One agrees to things by giving consent not by living in a certain area.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:12 AM ----------

fast;166923 wrote:

The government doesn't steal my money. They do it lawfully.

They take my money. Call it whatever you like.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166943 wrote:

One agrees to things by giving consent not by living in a certain area.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:12 AM ----------

.

There is implicit consent, and constructive agreement. Consider common law marriage. Look it up in contract law.

In any case the nub is that it does not follow that because I consent to do something, that I do it willingly. That is just absurd.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166947 wrote:

There is implicit consent

No, there isn't.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------

kennethamy;166947 wrote:

In any case the nub is that it does not follow that because I consent to do something, that I do it willingly. That is just absurd.

No, it's not absurd at all.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166951 wrote:

No, there isn't.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------

No, it's not absurd at all.

So if I consent to pay my phone bill then I paid my phone bill willingly? But that is simply false. I did consent to pay my phone will, but I do not pay it willingly.Indeed, I do it unwillingly because I have to.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166956 wrote:

So if I consent to pay my phone bill then I paid my phone bill willingly? But that is simply false. I did consent to pay my phone will, but I do not pay it willingly.Indeed, I do it unwillingly because I have to.

That doesn't matter because the point of this thread is to highlight the difference between the three methods of splitting the cost of a meal, their perceived fairness and the parallel to taxes. Your interest in playing word games is irrelevant.

Even if I agree to pay taxes by living in this country do I agree to pay everything I own in taxes? Do I agree to pay more than others? That's the real issue here.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:36 AM ----------

Getting back on topic, someone said that the fair method is we each pay for what we consume but since the rich enjoy more benefits then they have to pay more taxes. The question now is, what are these benefits because I don't see them. Even if some rich people get marginally more benefits how does that justify the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars these people pay for in taxes?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;166936]Why does the fact that you agreed to pay your bill mean that you paid it willingly? By living in this country, I agree to pay taxes, but I hope you are not under the impression that I do so with a smile on my face, and a song in my heart.[/QUOTE]
Does this have to be a free will discussion?

Not wanting to pay your food and light bill (and there being consequences if you don't) is vastly different than not wanting to pay your taxes (and there being consequences if you don't).

I am actively participating in the agreement that accompanies the food and light bill, and never am I obligated to pay if I choose to not eat or have lights, but with taxes, it's a whole nother ballgame. Even if I did vote (and thus participate) there would never be an actual agreement. I can't say no and walk away as I can at a restaurant or say no and go buy a generator when it comes to the light bill.

With the government, it is not merely against my will but substantially so. Saying "yes I want that" and "no, I don't want to pay," and my paying being thus against my will is in stark contrast with the lack of free will associated with having to pay taxes when I don't want to.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;166968 wrote:

Does this have to be a free will discussion?

Not wanting to pay your food and light bill (and there being consequences if you don't) is vastly different than not wanting to pay your taxes (and there being consequences if you don't).

I am actively participating in the agreement that accompanies the food and light bill, and never am I obligated to pay if I choose to not eat or have lights, but with taxes, it's a whole nother ballgame. Even if I did vote (and thus participate) there would never be an actual agreement. I can't say no and walk away as I can at a restaurant or say no and go buy a generator when it comes to the light bill.

With the government, it is not merely against my will but substantially so. Saying "yes I want that" and "no, I don't want to pay," and my paying being thus against my will is in stark contrast with the lack of free will associated with having to pay taxes when I don't want to.

Again, I'm sorry I let this derail get as far as it has but this discussion already assumes that I'm going to pay some kind of tax. All three of the options I offered required paying something. There was not an option to pay nothing. My point was, why should someone that makes $300,000 pay $100,000 in taxes while someone that makes $30,000 pay $10,000 in taxes? Why does one person pay $90,000 more just because they have more money? That's like saying that we will split the cost of a meal by having whoever makes the most money pay for most of the meal, regardless of who ate what.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

[QUOTE=Night Ripper;166969]Again, I'm sorry I let this derail get as far as it has but this discussion already assumes that I'm going to pay some kind of tax. All three of the options I offered required paying something. There was not an option to pay nothing. My point was, why should someone that makes $300,000 pay $100,000 in taxes while someone that makes $30,000 pay $10,000 in taxes? Why does one person pay $90,000 more just because they have more money? That's like saying that we will split the cost of a meal by having whoever makes the most money pay for most of the meal, regardless of who ate what.[/QUOTE]

First, I just want to make sure you know that I do believe that a solution to the meal problem is a solution to the tax problem. Also, and in regards to the taxation issue, I'd like to point out that even if it's wrong for the rich to pay more, that's not to say it's not fair.

Besides, successful people ought to be punished. At least, I think that's what the message is.

0 Replies

Splitting the cost of a meal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know