Govt fees

[Nice Guy Eddie 13706]

I had to take the car in today for inspection and then order the annual registration online.  Being in Harris county, I was all-in for about $104.  Like anyone, I don’t like paying $100 but I’m lucky/blessed/worked hard-smart in my life so it’s not a big deal.

imagine you make minimum wage.  That’s about 2 days worth of pre-tax wages just to have to right to drive your car in Texas. It made me think how much I would be paying if I dropped two days worth of pay on the inspection/registration and it was a stomach punch.  Divide your annual pay by 130 to see your two day total.

life ain’t free and the govt has to function but it doesn’t help any of us keeping poor people poor. I also bet that some skip the registration because of cost which can lead to an eventual ticket they can’t afford.  We give new car buyers the extra benefit of skipping registration/inspection after the first year but most poor people never see this as they can’t buy a brand new car.

i don’t have an answer just a rant. I’m not advocating we should give the poor a free ride or force higher income people to pay 10x.  It just seems ridiculous.

[workswithseed 2201]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I had to take the car in today for inspection and then order the annual registration online.  Being in Harris county, I was all-in for about $104.  Like anyone, I don’t like paying $100 but I’m lucky/blessed/worked hard-smart in my life so it’s not a big deal.

imagine you make minimum wage.  That’s about 2 days worth of pre-tax wages just to have to right to drive your car in Texas. It made me think how much I would be paying if I dropped two days worth of pay on the inspection/registration and it was a stomach punch.  Divide your annual pay by 130 to see your two day total.

life ain’t free and the govt has to function but it doesn’t help any of us keeping poor people poor. I also bet that some skip the registration because of cost which can lead to an eventual ticket they can’t afford.  We give new car buyers the extra benefit of skipping registration/inspection after the first year but most poor people never see this as they can’t buy a brand new car.

i don’t have an answer just a rant. I’m not advocating we should give the poor a free ride or force higher income people to pay 10x.  It just seems ridiculous.

Why not cut taxes for poorer people? 

[Message Board User 12405]

35 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I had to take the car in today for inspection and then order the annual registration online.  Being in Harris county, I was all-in for about $104.  Like anyone, I don’t like paying $100 but I’m lucky/blessed/worked hard-smart in my life so it’s not a big deal.

imagine you make minimum wage.  That’s about 2 days worth of pre-tax wages just to have to right to drive your car in Texas. It made me think how much I would be paying if I dropped two days worth of pay on the inspection/registration and it was a stomach punch.  Divide your annual pay by 130 to see your two day total.

life ain’t free and the govt has to function but it doesn’t help any of us keeping poor people poor. I also bet that some skip the registration because of cost which can lead to an eventual ticket they can’t afford.  We give new car buyers the extra benefit of skipping registration/inspection after the first year but most poor people never see this as they can’t buy a brand new car.

i don’t have an answer just a rant. I’m not advocating we should give the poor a free ride or force higher income people to pay 10x.  It just seems ridiculous.

Think it's expensive here?  Go look what annual vehicle registration costs in Seattle.

[RPM 26559]

27 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Why not cut taxes for poorer people? 

[workswithseed 2201]

1 minute ago, RPM said:

So, do you agree?

[hayden_horn 11401]

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I had to take the car in today for inspection and then order the annual registration online.  Being in Harris county, I was all-in for about $104.  Like anyone, I don’t like paying $100 but I’m lucky/blessed/worked hard-smart in my life so it’s not a big deal.

imagine you make minimum wage.  That’s about 2 days worth of pre-tax wages just to have to right to drive your car in Texas. It made me think how much I would be paying if I dropped two days worth of pay on the inspection/registration and it was a stomach punch.  Divide your annual pay by 130 to see your two day total.

life ain’t free and the govt has to function but it doesn’t help any of us keeping poor people poor. I also bet that some skip the registration because of cost which can lead to an eventual ticket they can’t afford.  We give new car buyers the extra benefit of skipping registration/inspection after the first year but most poor people never see this as they can’t buy a brand new car.

i don’t have an answer just a rant. I’m not advocating we should give the poor a free ride or force higher income people to pay 10x.  It just seems ridiculous.

this is a really good point, and a solid illustration about how our judicial system is slanted against poor folks. like you said, a ticket they cannot afford might lead to a missed court appearance. and that leads to further envelopment in the legal system. once the system gets its hooks into people, it isn't likely to let go.

[RPM 26559]

9 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So, do you agree?

Fuck yes we should lower taxes on the poor, but do you think the rich (that donate the majority of the money to politicians) are gonna go for that?

[workswithseed 2201]

18 minutes ago, RPM said:

Fuck yes we should lower taxes on the poor, but do you think the rich (that donate the majority of the money to politicians) are gonna go for that?

I mean I think taxes should be lowered for all, but a good start would be for the poorer class. instead of a handout we could make it less of a barrier to pull yourself out.

[RPM 26559]

Everybody should pay their fair share. The rich and corporations do not "trickle down" they "flow offshore".

[Texas Jeff 1998]

Just curious, what do the fees fund?  Do they fund the jobs of those who collect the fees or does the money go to roads & such?

I once spent a summer in Chicago while they were considering converting toll roads to automated toll booths.  One of the big arguments against was the unemployment of those who sat in the booths and collected the tolls.  Never mind the endless line of cars each trying to toss 40 cents into a bucket, creating a logjam on the Kennedy.

If they are going to charge fees for registration, perhaps they should give the poor some annual funds to cover this kind of expense.  Those who drive will use it on car registration, those who take the bus can use it for bus fare.  I think we used to do this with welfare and we do have food programs today to give people help, but I'm not sure how much of basic daily needs those programs cover.

[Js1 86927]

19 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Why not cut taxes for poorer people? 

Don’t y’all already bitch they don’t pay taxes, welfare queens, etc etc? 

[David Dennison 19440]

18 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I mean I think taxes should be lowered for all, but a good start would be for the poorer class. instead of a handout we could make it less of a barrier to pull yourself out.

Because being in the top quarter of earners and having to suffer the indignity of a 20% effective tax rate is just unbearable.

[Burt 4114]

21 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Why not cut taxes for poorer people? 

Trump just did that.  He tells me that often.

[DanRydell 799]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:03 PM, Message Board User said:

Think it's expensive here?  Go look what annual vehicle registration costs in Seattle.

For being a generally progressive state, Washington is the most regressive tax system in the country, even moreso than Texas.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13706]

19 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Just curious, what do the fees fund?  Do they fund the jobs of those who collect the fees or does the money go to roads & such?

I once spent a summer in Chicago while they were considering converting toll roads to automated toll booths.  One of the big arguments against was the unemployment of those who sat in the booths and collected the tolls.  Never mind the endless line of cars each trying to toss 40 cents into a bucket, creating a logjam on the Kennedy.

If they are going to charge fees for registration, perhaps they should give the poor some annual funds to cover this kind of expense.  Those who drive will use it on car registration, those who take the bus can use it for bus fare.  I think we used to do this with welfare and we do have food programs today to give people help, but I'm not sure how much of basic daily needs those programs cover.

While I’m sure the state has some staff to manage the registration process/tech, I believe that the counties do the majority of the work and get a cut of it. No idea if the funds are earmarked to anything but my assumption is that they hit a general fund.

and I give the state credit that the registration process is 10x better than it used to be.

However why does registration need to be revalidated every year? I suppose there is some argument that they don’t know if you left the start or not but do you need $75 fee to say you’re still here?   The inspection has some merits especially for pollution control and ensuring safety features are working but I wonder what the failure rate really is.  And forcing validation of insurance is also good but that appears to be automated how so the fee could be lowered to cover that activity.

[elfenix 34658]

Just curious, what do the fees fund?  Do they fund the jobs of those who collect the fees or does the money go to roads & such?

Money is fungible so it doesn't matter. It's like the lottery: that money "goes to Texas education." But what that actually means is that every dollar generated by the lottery sees a dollar reduction in funds from general revenue.

[American Swindle 102]

Taxation is theft.  Government regulations, taxation and sheer size make our dollar worth less.  Government's role should be to protect liberty and not interfere in the economic affairs of two consenting, voluntary parties.  It's telling that you need like 365+days of training to be a cosme-fucking-toligist, have to be 21 to smoke tobacco or drink, but only need to be 18 and less time to drop bombs on people in the middle east.  

Want to help the poor?  Abolish the minimum wage, get the government out of healthcare, education, and everything, and end the federal reserve.  They create the problems, For example the student debt crisis, then want to propose the solutions to their own problems (cancelling student loan debt.)

"But who would build the roads!"

As Eric July puts it: "Fuck them hoe ass roads."

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by American Swindle

[Huckleberry 34404]

We don't even need to get to the roads. How do you propose the government would "protect liberty" without taxation? Is there a large group of people who are yearning to work for the government for free?

[Foosters 18223]

Weird how when the government let the free-market run itself without regulation and oversight, we had a retail economy built on sweatshops and child labor, companies refusing to offer goods and services to people based on their skin color, and free-reign to pollute and destroy the environment (which they happily did because it was cheaper.)

Sound like a real bang-up model you got there chief!

[Foosters 18223]

16 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

We don't even need to get to the roads. How do you propose the government would "protect liberty" without taxation? Is there a large group of people who are yearning to work for the government for free?

Automated freedom compliance officers.

[David Dennison 19440]

36 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Taxation is theft.  Government regulations, taxation and sheer size make our dollar worth less.  Government's role should be to protect liberty and not interfere in the economic affairs of two consenting, voluntary parties.  It's telling that you need like 365+days of training to be a cosme-fucking-toligist, have to be 21 to smoke tobacco or drink, but only need to be 18 and less time to drop bombs on people in the middle east.  

Want to help the poor?  Abolish the minimum wage, get the government out of healthcare, education, and everything, and end the federal reserve.  They create the problems, For example the student debt crisis, then want to propose the solutions to their own problems (cancelling student loan debt.)

"But who would build the roads!"

As Eric July puts it: "Fuck them hoe ass roads."

 

 

Taxation in a democratic republic is not theft no matter how many times you say it.

Also, we've tried your way of "helping the poor" and it was a miserable failure. That's how we wound up with the New Deal.

Edited December 23, 2019 by David Dennison

[Continental Op 3934]

42 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

We don't even need to get to the roads. How do you propose the government would "protect liberty" without taxation? Is there a large group of people who are yearning to work for the government for free?

I'll protect freedom by building an F-35 with shit I find in dumpsters.  FREE MARKETS BABY!  

[Huckleberry 34404]

If there's one thing that the history of Neighborhood Watch volunteers has taught us it's that a large scale volunteer police department sounds like a fantastic fucking idea.

[Foosters 18223]

 

[Brisketexan 106615]

Liberty is kinda cool.

Libertarianism is batshit.

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Weird how when the government let the free-market run itself without regulation and oversight, we had a retail economy built on sweatshops and child labor, companies refusing to offer goods and services to people based on their skin color, and free-reign to pollute and destroy the environment (which they happily did because it was cheaper.)

Sound like a real bang-up model you got there chief!

Oh please tell me of this period of time when we had unfettered, free market capitalism, I'll wait.  And I do concur,  It's quite a bang up model.

You also act as though child labor is some abnormal thing given the history of the entire world.  Let's see, if your option is to starve to death in Bangladesh, or work in a textile manufacturing plant as a child, which option would you choose? 

Quote

As if the choice we’re talking about is between factory work and school! The actual choice faced by these families is between factory work and starvation.

The British charity Oxfam found that in Bangladesh, where the government caved in to Western demands to suppress child labor, the children — you’ll never guess — didn’t wind up in school! How about that.

Where did they wind up? In prostitution, or dead.

Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/sjws-insist-theyre-saving-kids-accidentally-starve-them/

The same logic is used against minimum wage laws.  History also shows that minimum wage laws were used by our statist overlords for arguably biased/racist reasons to prevent blacks from getting jobs, but I digress.  

Quote

https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

 

Quote

The earliest of such laws were regulations passed in regards to the railroad industry. At the end of the nineteenth century, as Dr. Walter Williams points out, "On some railroads — most notably in the South — blacks were 85–90 percent of the firemen, 27 percent of the brakemen, and 12 percent of the switchmen."1

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, unable to block railroad companies from hiring the non-unionized black workers, called for regulations preventing the employment of blacks. In 1909, a compromise was offered: a minimum wage, which was to be imposed equally on all races.

To the pro-minimum wage advocate, this may superficially seem like an anti-racist policy. During this time, with racism still rampant throughout the United States, blacks were only able to enjoy such high levels of employment by accepting lower wages than their white counterparts. These wage-gaps at the time genuinely were the product of racist sentiment.

But this new wage rule, of course, did not eliminate the racism of nineteenth-century employers. Instead, it displaced their racism at the expense of black workers. One white union member at the time celebrated the new rule for removing "the incentive for employing the Negro."2 This early minimum wage rule was explicitly put in place to prevent African-Americans from finding employment, and it was successful in this goal.

 

Property rights is rooted in the Libertarian philosophy.  If one is polluting the environment, then government would have a role in protecting the property rights of the property owner.   

 

Oh and the whole refusing goods and services based on skin color....hmm....???? You actually think a business this day and age would stay profitable if it were to discriminate based on skin color?  With today's wokescolding ass culture?  Here's a prime example of the free market effect when a business owner acts in such a deplorable and distasteful manner:

Quote

https://time.com/5335920/papa-johns-chairman-racism-controversy/

 

Merry Christmas.

[American Swindle 102]

53 minutes ago, Foosters said:

 

Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian. 

[DanRydell 799]

7 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Property rights is rooted in the Libertarian philosophy.  If one is polluting the environment, then government would have a role in protecting the property rights of the property owner. 

How exactly is government going to have a role in protecting property rights without taxation to fund said government?

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Taxation in a democratic republic is not theft no matter how many times you say it.

Also, we've tried your way of "helping the poor" and it was a miserable failure. That's how we wound up with the New Deal.

I'll grant you it's more like extortion, but really boiled down it's theft.  

Draft dodgers I suppose were ripping the government off by not following their orders and paying with their lives to go to war no?  I'm sure you'll concede that the government owns you.  What percentage of your time per year is the correct amount to fulfill your debt and taxation to the Fed?  I mean, we really have to make sure we have enough weapons, bombs and resources to secure the borders of Iraq and Syria.  

Or any of the below:

 

What is called when you are forced to pay for these things that do not protect our liberties?  Charity?  

[DanRydell 799]

I call it being a citizen of a constitutional republic, through which we have consented to sacrifice certain liberties. If you think too many of those liberties are being sacrified, there are mechanism by which to change that if you can convince a critical mass of fellow citizens to agree with you. Or you can always opt to try and live elsewhere if you can't reach such a consensus and you find the situation that abhorrent. 

[ndawg 1242]

Libertarians love to talk about government waste and how corporations are so much better at managing money but are oblivious to the fact that we grade their wastefulness completely differently.

A CEO makes 40x what the average employee makes? No problem, according to a libertarian. Big corporation wastes most of its revenue due to complete mismanagement, but spends enough on sales and marketing to undercut and squash competition? Business as usual. Multiple corporations spend money duplicating the same services as one another? That's how capitalism works, duh!

Nobody elsewhere on the political spectrum wastes as many neurons convincing themselves they're smarter than everyone else than libertarians. They're fake intellectuals.

[American Swindle 102]

How exactly is government going to have a role in protecting property rights without taxation to fund said government?

Taxes.

[Zavala 1384]

Just end the corruption.

How?

Brutal military service requirements to obtain citizenship - 6 years, minimum 3 years deployed. Only citizens can vote or run for political office.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Zavala

[American Swindle 102]

I call it being a citizen of a constitutional republic, through which we have consented to sacrifice certain liberties. If you think too many of those liberties are being sacrified, there are mechanism by which to change that if you can convince a critical mass of fellow citizens to agree with you. Or you can always opt to try and live elsewhere if you can't reach such a consensus and you find the situation that abhorrent. 

Like Somalia? Haha. Nah I agree with you for the most part, that constitutionalism and government minarchism is the pragmatic approach given our current system. That still doesn’t mean that taxation isn’t theft or extortion. As in, you can support the pragmatic approach to small government funding of enforcement for protection of property rights while also philosophically maintaining that taxation is theft or extortion .

And for those that are knocking the libertarian platform, rooted within in it is an adherence to the NAP, which is the non-aggression principle. This holds that one cannot use aggression against another person or their property. Does this sound like a horrible idea?

I mean, we literally live by this principle every working day, unless you hit others to get what you want or steal for a living, so why is it such a bad principle to incorporate politically?

[Zavala 1384]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Like Somalia? Haha. Nah I agree with you for the most part, that constitutionalism and government minarchism is the pragmatic approach given our current system. That still doesn’t mean that taxation isn’t theft or extortion. As in, you can support the pragmatic approach to small government funding of enforcement for protection of property rights while also philosophically maintaining that taxation is theft or extortion .

And for those that are knocking the libertarian platform, rooted within in it is an adherence to the NAP, which is the non-aggression principle. This holds that one cannot use aggression against another person or their property. Does this sound like a horrible idea?

I mean, we literally live by this principle every working day, unless you hit others to get what you want or steal for a living, so why is it such a bad principle to incorporate politically?


 

 

Because we live in a society

Where most people wouldn't give a dime to the chickenshit wasteful useless government unless the threat of aggression to themselves and property.

 

It's a necessary evil. One that should've never been allowed to grow to such an enormous wasteful bureaucracy. 

[Huckleberry 34404]

32 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Taxes.

 

Perhaps you didn't read the question.

But at least we've not wasted time with the pointless back and forth and we've arrived at the point already. You think taxation for things and services you want is okay, it's taxation for things you don't want that is theft.

[American Swindle 102]

Perhaps you didn't read the question.
But at least we've not wasted time with the pointless back and forth and we've arrived at the point already. You think taxation for things and services you want is okay, it's taxation for things you don't want that is theft.

Not necessarily what I want, but what the Constitution warrants as necessary to protect inalienable rights, property rights and economic liberty.

[American Swindle 102]

Because we live in a society

Where most people wouldn't give a dime to the chickenshit wasteful useless government unless the threat of aggression to themselves and property.
 
It's a necessary evil. One that should've never been allowed to grow to such an enormous wasteful bureaucracy. 

Agreed, the bigger it gets the more moral hazard is perpetuated by the corrupt actors within it. Thus, the only solution is to reduce it so much that the moral hazard has less effect imo.

[Huckleberry 34404]

8 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

Not necessarily what I want, but what the Constitution warrants as necessary to protect inalienable rights, property rights and economic liberty.
 

 

 

Well it says right there in the first sentence of your sacred Constitution that one of the purposes of the government formed thereby is to promote the general welfare. Perhaps you skipped that part just liked you skipped the other poster's question.

[American Swindle 102]

Libertarians love to talk about government waste and how corporations are so much better at managing money but are oblivious to the fact that we grade their wastefulness completely differently.
A CEO makes 40x what the average employee makes? No problem, according to a libertarian. Big corporation wastes most of its revenue due to complete mismanagement, but spends enough on sales and marketing to undercut and squash competition? Business as usual. Multiple corporations spend money duplicating the same services as one another? That's how capitalism works, duh!
Nobody elsewhere on the political spectrum wastes as many neurons convincing themselves they're smarter than everyone else than libertarians. They're fake intellectuals.

Yeah we’ll you’re argument is pretty weak. Mismanagement in the free market leads to loss of jobs and risks of loss for capital investors for corporations.

Multiple corporations doing the same thing? Pffft...you mean like businesses competing to meet the demands of a complex society of consumers to give them the most valuable product at the most competitive price?

Yeah sounds real shitty. The irony is you are the consumer and these competitors only exist to fill meet your demands. What other system other than free market capitalism would give us so many options at a low price?

[American Swindle 102]

Well it says right there in the first sentence of your sacred Constitution that one of the purposes of the government formed thereby is to promote the general welfare. Perhaps you skipped that part just liked you skipped the other poster's question.

Sure it does, but the argument has been made that we’ve went way beyond the founder’s original intent on this clause and it’s led to extremely wasteful programs that has led to unintended consequences at the detriment of those that said programs were intended to help.

Federal reserve act of 1913, the New Deal, minimum wage law, NDAA Patriot act, social security act (ponzi scheme,) war on drug policy. These are just off the top of my head

[ChiTownDoc 21323]

19 hours ago, DanRydell said:

For being a generally progressive state, Washington is the most regressive tax system in the country, even moreso than Texas.

Maybe so - but their vehicle registration fees being astronomical are by design...they're trying to get more pollution off the roads. 

[DanRydell 799]

19 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

Not necessarily what I want, but what the Constitution warrants as necessary to protect inalienable rights, property rights and economic liberty.
 

 

 

That's not at all what the Constitution says about why Congress has the power to levy taxes. Try again. Hint, check out Article I, Section 8.

And of course, you're for some reason only discussing federal taxation while there are other taxing entities that are not at all limited by Article I but for being prohibited from taxing imports or exports.

Edited December 24, 2019 by DanRydell

[Zavala 1384]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well it says right there in the first sentence of your sacred Constitution that one of the purposes of the government formed thereby is to promote the general welfare. Perhaps you skipped that part just liked you skipped the other poster's question.

When it stops serving that purpose it's the God given right of the people to overthrow and reorganize right?

[Zavala 1384]

14 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Maybe so - but their vehicle registration fees being astronomical are by design...they're trying to get more pollution off the roads. 

Lulz

[DanRydell 799]

When it stops serving that purpose it's the God given right of the people to overthrow and reorganize right?

There’s only a right to revolution if you win. Otherwise it’s just treason.

[TwiceHorn 31984]

1 hour ago, Zavala said:

Just end the corruption.

How?

Brutal military service requirements to obtain citizenship - 6 years, minimum 3 years deployed. Only citizens can vote or run for political office.

Would you like to know more?

Edited December 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[ndawg 1242]

52 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Yeah we’ll you’re argument is pretty weak. Mismanagement in the free market leads to loss of jobs and risks of loss for capital investors for corporations.

Multiple corporations doing the same thing? Pffft...you mean like businesses competing to meet the demands of a complex society of consumers to give them the most valuable product at the most competitive price?

Yeah sounds real shitty. The irony is you are the consumer and these competitors only exist to fill meet your demands. What other system other than free market capitalism would give us so many options at a low price?


 

I wasn't making an argument, I was making an observation. When discussing government spending, I've noticed that libertarians tend to really struggle with realizing that the degrees of waste that we deem outrageous versus acceptable differ when we're discussing private versus public spending. There are also who categories of waste that libertarians tend to ignore, as well. Even further still, there are societal objectives that private enterprise is simply never going to have any incentive to pursue. Do you think Elon Musk would ever try to shoot rockets into space if NASA didn't do it first?

I'm digressing, so I'll get back to the point. If you actually want to have an argument about waste, go study management. As it stands, from my vantage point, it seems like you're guessing at how the world works by framing it with an overly simplistic narrative. Of course, all libertarians think that way, it's y'alls major flaw.

EDIT: I should also admit that we've veered way off topic here. We'd probably actually agree that these govt fees that the OP brought up are bullshit.

Edited December 24, 2019 by ndawg

[Huckleberry 34404]

53 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Sure it does, but the argument has been made that we’ve went way beyond the founder’s original intent on this clause and it’s led to extremely wasteful programs that has led to unintended consequences at the detriment of those that said programs were intended to help.

Federal reserve act of 1913, the New Deal, minimum wage law, NDAA Patriot act, social security act (ponzi scheme,) war on drug policy. These are just off the top of my head
 

 

So essentially at this point you have admitted that calling taxation theft is dumb. So why did you make that hyperbolic and dumb argument?

You disagree with the current scope of government services. Why start the conversation with absurd histrionics? Just makes you seem silly.

[Zavala 1384]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

So essentially at this point you have admitted that calling taxation theft is dumb. So why did you make that hyperbolic and dumb argument?

You disagree with the current scope of government services. Why start the conversation with absurd histrionics? Just makes you seem silly.