"those who irresponsibly give birth to children they cannot support should not be given aid."

How would you measure that compassionately?

What about poor or unemployed women who are raped? Are they victims who should and can be supported, or are they simply women with irresponsible pregnancies?

If there aren't enough jobs in the economy, is that the fault of the unemployed people, or because there's so much wealth in our countries, should we not consider it a duty of care to support people while they look for new work? Especially if there will always be a job deficit in capitalist economies, as industries constantly boom and bust and get replaced as new technology comes in? Surplus labour force theory and all that.

I think you should consider long and hard about how compassionately you would want to be treated when you are in a difficult situation, before judging and condemning others.

It's fine to take a harsh line when you're on dry land, but the wind can easily and quickly change. And you may need a helping hand.

Besides, if you concede that schoolchildren require funding for education to "gain an even footing", you are already admitting that capitalist society is found on integral unevenness.

Capitalist society is founded on integral unevenness.

leon, I asked what was *uniquely* nonconsensual about the income tax. I don't need you to tell me that a tax is where government takes money from people, that's pretty well established. I also don't give a shit about where the money's going right now, because that's not what leads you to advocate for repealing the 17th Amendment. What is it about the income tax *in particular* that you dislike?

"couldn't have cost too much [less] than maintaining some roads."
You've never lived in Oklahoma before, have you? Building them is a one off gig. Maintenance is constant and so inherently costs considerably more. In places like Oklahoma where they don't want to put much into maintenance, they end needing to spend more on maintenance because the roads keep going to shit.

Also, you're fantasizing about an age which could uphold itself on revenue from tariffs. As the global market has made dependence on revenue from tariffs less viable, income taxes have become the most viable option for government revenue worldwide.

"It's ridiculous that up to 40% of a person's income could be taken away from him or her."
Considering this only applies to the top tax bracket, this leaves such individuals still with a higher income after taxes than my household's income before taxes, i.e., not as big a deal as you think it is.

It use to be a much higher percentage, up in the 90% range, for those who weren't able to higher tax accountants that could reduce it the taxable income to near zero. By deferring income and other tax strategies, the rich pay less than us "poor" people.

From released presidential candidate income tax forms:

Cruz pays about 1% of income in charitable donations.
Trump hasn't released the over one foot stack of forms that he pledged to do.

wjessop, rape accounts for a very, very small percent of children on child support. Moreover, victims are free to have abortions. What I worry about are people like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

If there aren't enough jobs, then there need to be fewer people. That's what I said in my original post. In fact, communism is probably more suited for fewer people. The increase in population in the 19th century forced people off of farms and into cities, causing industrialization and the growth of big business to occur.

If I face hardship in the future, I would not see is as the obligation of others to help me. I would appreciate it, but it should be no one's obligation.

Education gives children the chance to improve their situation. Those who don't take advantage of it will become the minimum wage workers that you seek to help. My mother was studying and doing homework when others were outside playing. She was able to make enough money to retire at 40, while those who had their fill of fun during childhood must continue to work until old age.

Lethologica, what do you think is similar to the income tax. The only thing I can think of is Robin Hood, the story of whom I likewise dislike.

TrPrado, international trade is greater than ever. I see no reason why tariffs would not work today.

The rich person earned every cent he/she made. If I earn $400,000 a year and set a goal of retiring when I had made, say, $4,000,000, I would be able to retire in 10 years. With the income tax, I would have to work 4 more years to feed people I have never seen.

Randomizer, I believe that the income tax should not exist at all.

"If there aren't enough jobs, there need to be fewer people."

That's truly sickening.

You'd be piling up the bodies in the death camps without a second thought.

I feel sick to continue talking to you right now, so I'm removing myself and will let others continue.

I feel sad for you, Leon. You are brainwashed to think the world is cruel, when it it's simply the people with your mindset that make it cruel.

"Lethologica, what do you think is similar to the income tax."

Oh, come off it. How about every other tax the government levies, for starters? (And skip the Robin Hood contrarianism, that's irrelevant soapboxing.)

That is not what I was suggesting. I am merely saying that we should reproduce less (an extreme form of this could be found here: http://www.vhemt.org/) and lower immigration.

If you can't say what you mean you should take more care before you speak.

"If there aren't enough jobs, there need to be fewer people".

I have no doubt you'd be at the gates at Auschwitz, wrenching gold teeth out of Jewish children. This is what you sound like. Truly, you are terrifying.

Dickens. Are there no workhouses? Are the prisons full?

Lethologica, I merely focused on the income tax because it was the most obvious and the greatest injustice. I oppose other taxes as well.

I never said people should be sent to death camps. It is you who misunderstood, not I who misspoke.

Workhouses and prisons are for those who commit crime.

Poverty is their crime.

But you miss the reference, this quote is from Dickens, said by Scrooge, when charity collectors call for alms for the poor.

Poverty is no justification to steal or rob.

Oh, yes, I seem to recall that line now. In fact, there are those who would rather stay in prison than to work.

Ah. So *all* taxation is theft. If all taxation is the point, then it becomes relevant to talk about spending as well.

First: is this a moral matter, or based on some coherent analysis of the impact of taxation and government spending on people's lives?

Some further questions. What role do you expect government to play; how do you expect them to fund it; and what happens to all the things you can't fund?

Oh, let's do another one, since I'm here. It's all very well to imagine a utopian end state. How do you propose to get there?

Lethologica, it is a moral matter. It is fundamentally unfair to take fairly earned money.

Role of government:
Assuming this graph is correct: http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-federal-government-spending-by-category-program-2011.jpg

Vastly reduce military defense (and consequently veterans' benefits), eliminate agricultural spending, eliminate health, reduce medicare, and eliminate income security. That should reduce spending by a bit less than 40%. We should be able to fund what remains with tariffs, with international commerce so vibrant.

We get there by stopping the liberal indoctrination.

Taxation is no more theft than a landlord charging rent. The very concept of ownership is established and maintained through exactly the same conventions that legitimize taxation.

That's a completely false comparison. A democratically elected government does not own the country. The country is owned by we the people. They are merely chosen to run the country. It is merely another occupation just like accountant.

Taxation exists because we wish for government to provide us with certain services. In ancient times, this might be things such as armies, roads, bath-houses, coliseums, and so on. As society progressed, the things that government could plausibly provide has expanded in scope due to better bureaucracy, and it has come to pass today that most people expect government to provide not only physical security, but also economic and health security, as well as promote societal wellbeing. Exactly how much it should provide is a matter of citizens to decide (in theory), but to suggest that taxes are a form of stealing is inane. You might not agree with what the government is choosing to provide, but that doesn't mean you got stolen from.

All right, leon. So your objection to taxation is purely one of abstract fairness, then? Nothing about concrete impacts? Just want to be sure I'm understanding your position here.

Let's keep going. What steps are you planning to take to make sure that your cutting of government programs isn't leaving people who currently rely on those government programs out in the cold? Which is, at last reckoning, well over a hundred million Americans. It is a moral matter, is it not, to account for them in some way? Is your position that the free market will provide?

As for tariffs, that will be quite the reversal of US free trade policy. What do you think the impact will be on that vibrant international commerce you were talking about? What's your plan for the ensuing tariff wars? Not to mention those drastic military cutbacks you mentioned--I assume that includes the navy, right? Which patrols international shipping lanes and is probably the single biggest contributor to the free flow of goods across the globe. That can't continue, surely. Yet if you're planning on funding government through tariffs, that makes government dependent on encouraging Americans to buy now-expensive foreign products through now-unreliable channels. Is this a healthy incentive?

By the way--how would you characterize the impact of all this on our allies, trade partners, and neutral third parties, and the people in those countries (i.e. most of the globe)? What will be the impact on our relationships with those countries? How do you plan to address these issues of international relations?

I'm sure there are many other questions worth asking about your policy initiative, but I'll give you a chance to work on some of these.