Replies

Your arguments appears to have more to do with disagreeing with the level of taxation and with how the tax burden is distributed upon the citizens, rather that if taxes are real debts that are owed.

I'm a believer in small government, however even a small government needs to be able to fund it's limited functions. It needs to be able to levy some form of tax and it needs to be able to collect those taxes.

I will agree with you that burdening citizens with a large and wasteful government is unfair, and that our tax system is unfair in many ways. However, people's opinions on what government services are necessary and how the burden of paying for them should be distributed varies greatly. You cannot allow individuals to pick and choose what taxes they will pay, and if someone doesn't pay their share, the burden to pay that share falls to the rest.

Liens on property are better alternative.

I don't think you understand what a lien is. Not only from this statement, but from this comment in your previous reply.

If we contract for work and services and you don't pay, I can put a lien on your property but I cannot take your property. Why should the county or state confiscate property when individuals cannot?

A lien is a formal way of saying that the debt is secured by that property. It is a claim of rights to that property or to a portion of the proceeds from the sale of that property.

Property tax assessments are a lien on the property.

If you default on the debt, the lien holder can assert their rights to collect that debt by forcing foreclosure on that property.

You're comment that a private lien holder cannot force the foreclosure of a property to collect a debt is simply wrong.

If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank can and will take your house. You may be able to seek some level of protection through bankruptcy court to get more time or to get a portion of your debt canceled, but your assertion that only the government can force the forfeiture of your property to pay your debts is incorrect.

I get the feeling you've been fortunate enough to have never gotten yourself in a really bad financial situation or know someone well who has.

And if refusal of payment become extensive, then the government has lost the support and consent of the populace to be governed.

So if individuals don't pay their taxes, it's the fault of the government? I suppose it's fair that the rest of the taxpayers will get stuck with paying that person's share as well as their own?

So I suppose that if someone loses their job and isn't able to pay their mortgage, that's the fault of the lender and they shouldn't be able to collect on their debt?

If that's the case, the people aren't criminals but the government has become illegitimate.

That could be the case. However, we live under a democratically elected representative form of government. So rather than not paying their taxes, why don't they work to change their government? Why don't they push for smaller government and elect representatives that will cut back on spending and reduce the burden the government places on it's people?

The reason is because there are too many people who want their government to provide all those services, but they what other people to pay for them. They look at the government as owing them something but they don't accept their responsibilities as part of that society.

One of the most fundamental issues that democracy faces is that it must be coupled with accountability and personal responsibility to be effective.

Let's say there is a fictitious government that is illegitimate and doesn't represent the interests of it's people. The people justifiably revolt and successfully overthrow that government.

Now what would you have them do? Do they form a new government? If they do, should that government be able to collect taxes or are they supposed to provide what limited services they can based on donations from the people?

What do you do with people who don't contribute? Do you cut them off from services provided by the government? How do you keep them from taking advantage of publicly paid for resources like roads and emergency services?

What about defense of the community? What is their obligation there? What do you do if they don't live up to that obligation?

People need to be given a chance to pay their debts. People need an opportunity to live up to their responsibilities. Due to human nature, it's better to give people several chances if possible. However, after the opportunities have been made available and the warnings have been made, people need to live up to their responsibilities and be held accountable.

My wife has only been back to work for less than a month after being laid off and our of work for 18 months.

We've kept from living beyond our means for a long time, and saved up, and purchased a larger new home six months before she was laid off. The mortgage is twice what we had at our previous little starter home, but it was still well within our means with both of us working. However, that 18 months ate through most of our savings and built up a lot of debt. We were getting very close to having to sell our dream home because we simply couldn't afford it on my income alone.

Now she has a new job that pays considerably less, but we will be able to pay the bills and pay down the debt as long as we spend responsibly. Finances were starting to look better.

However, on Friday the company I work for laid off over 10% of it's people. I still have my job, but I've got a lot less faith that I'll have it three months from now.

My point is that I'm not talking about things that only effect other people, but not me. There's a good chance that I'm going to have to sell my house to pay my debts. However, they are my debts and my responsibility. If I can't afford this home, I'll sell it and adjust my standard of living to what I can afford.

I definitely don't want to pay higher taxes and higher interest rates to pay for the results of other people who don't want to take responsibility for their debts.