Quote from: NotLambchop on January 08, 2015, 01:41:23 PM

No. France has never agreed to you your living there without paying taxes.

The point is that if you live on taxpayer's money, you don't ACTUALLY pay taxes. Of course I do file my tax declaration, and of course I "pay taxes". But this is just taxpayer's money that was given to me and of which I return a part. I just got less taxpayer's money than is noted on my salary. Nevertheless, I get NET money FROM taxpayers. That the state gives me some more, and then I have to return a part, is not really "paying taxes". It is receiving less tax money.

If I give you $1000,- and I ask you back $200,-, I still gave you $800,-, right ? You can't really say that you GAVE me $200,-, right ?

However, if you earn ON YOUR OWN by producing useful stuff for others, $1000,-, and then I ask you $200,-, then you REALLY gave me $200,-. Of your hard-earned $1000,-, I took away $200,- from you.

See the difference ?

If there are 10 times more people producing stuff on their own, then I (as the state) will get 10 times more out of you. However, if there are 10 times more dudes like me living off the state, and they pay each of them $1000,- to get back $200,-, this will COST the state 10 times more !

Quote

If you were born at my house, would you feel entitled to live at my house for the rest of your life? Do you feel that you have a right to live in the maternity ward of the hospital where you were born for free? How is that different from living in France without paying for it?

That's infrastructure, right ?

Quote

Then owning a piece of land is a crime against nature. It is as repugnant as owning the air above that land. In short, GET OFF MY LAWN, capitalist imperialist running dog pig Angry

Indeed, owning land is an aberration. It is as ridiculous as owning sea. When USING natural resources, whether it is land, or minerals or whatever, ideally, this should be lend to the highest bidder for a certain lapse of time, and the bid should be the replacement for compulsory taxation: you BORROW land from the state at the bid you are willing to offer, on terms you agreed to. In return for that, you get protection of your right to use that land exclusively for the time agreed upon.
Land that is not borrowed, can then be used by anybody, but no enforcement of any "property" can be asked from the state. So you can build a house there, but someone else can then decide to live there. If you don't want that, and you want to have exclusivity to access to land, you have to bid for it, and become the highest bidder, for the period you want to have your exclusive access to that land. During that time, you can build a house there, and ask the state to have your exclusivity of access enforced. After the end of that period, the land becomes public again, and your house that you put on it, too. Until you, or someone else, makes a highest bid on it again.
The state should be financed exclusively with the income from those bids.
Because natural resources belong to everybody and to nobody, and wanting their exclusivity must be paid for whatever you are willing to put on the table for it.
On the other hand, produced goods are property of individuals.

This makes that the state gets an income based upon the bids for natural resources, and no taxation is necessary. The state has to handle its stuff with its income.