Any facts behind this post or did you just make up those numbers ?

The rich are the corporate elite. A corporation is a legal fiction created by the state. Without the state there would be no corporations, and no corporate elite. The rich have no force to use against us, no police, no courts, no prisons, no military. In fact they are almost just like us, except that the STATE grants them certain privileges protections, by law. Attacking the rich is like attacking the caterers at a mafia wedding! Hay if you don't like the unjust privileges, don't attack the recipients of privileges, attack the unjust; the provider of the privileges. Attack the violent mafia, attack the STATE.

I can see what you are saying, but the State is controlled and run by the rich. They are one and the same, so it does make sense to attack both.

The State pays the benefits so need to keep an element of it to tax the rich.
I think there is nothing wrong with the State fundamentally, just needs improving.
it is obviously required

If you agree that the rich are only rich because of state privileges, and no other reason, you are saying that you want to keep the rich, rich just so you can tax them. You want to use them as tax cows, just so you can stay poor on benefits ?


The state is a monopoly of the initiation of force or violence. I believe that monopolies are unfair privileges and detrimental to our freedom and well being. I also believe that violence or the initiation of use of force is fundamentally wrong. You should have learned at primary school that you don't use force to get what you want. You ask, you negotiate, but you don't push, kick, punch, or employ police officers to take toys of other children.

So the state is fundamentally evil. The state is the sole problem of all economic social ills, because it controls the whole economy with violence. To try to fix any problem caused by a monopoly on violence with a monopoly on violence will fail. It's like a drunk saying "I JUST NEED ONE MORE DRINK TO SOBER ME UP!"

Instead of using the estimate for the "tax avoidance" of the rich you should have used the estimate for their "tax dodging". AFAIK just about everybody avoids paying out more in tax than they are required to. Benefit fraud is something else, not according to law, so the proper equivalent is tax dodging, not paying what the tax laws require you to pay. Don't worry, althouhg FAR less than the amount of tax they avoid, the tax dodging of the rich will still be far in excess of the benefit fraud of the poor.

Of course, the laws are written to the benefit of those with the social power to control the society. Notice I did not say "the rich" because it isn't clear which comes first, chicken or the egg. In other words, WHY are the rich rich? Why do we (the rest of us) believe that this wealth is theirs? Let's not be so quick to unquestionably accept the material deterministic theories applying to things that aren't really material like social relations and belief systems.

Hint -- try reading the arguments of the "individualist anarchists" for analysis of property, what is it and where does it come from. You don't have to accept their extreme anti-collectivism (just a personal preference) to benefit form their analysis.

Tax is unlawful because it is taken by force. If it was voluntary it would be called a "subscription to public services" and not "tax", and you would have the option to not subscribe to those services, but still have your natural rights to breath fresh air, travel freely and interact and trade freely with others.

I should like to subscribe to dustbin services but not to bombing the middle east. I'd like to subscribe to health care but not to nuclear bombs. If we don't abolish tax altogether, no one will ever have that choice.

Rather than contribute to murder in Afghanistan I'd rather never receive any health care ever again. I'd prefer to die the first time I get ill, rather than contribute to killing others. And I'm not a pacifist, I believe in self defence.

The only chance that we will ever have is to stop using force and allow individual free choice in stead. And that means "free market".

That doesn't mean no communism, but it dose mean that every individual must have the free choice to opt in to, or opt out off an commune by mutuel consent of all concerned. A free market in communism.

We will never be able to stop societies going to war, until we stop finding excuses to to "legitimise" violence ourselves, including force taxation, when whenever we deem it to be for social good. Wrong is wrong, even if it is for the right reasons.

This obsession with eating the rich is eating us away and destroying us! It's stoping us looking a fundamental morality.

>> Tax is unlawful because it is taken by force.
Errrr.... - it is lawful! There are no laws to state that tax is unlawful.
By "unlawful" you probably mean "something i don't agree with"


If it was voluntary it would be called a "subscription to public services" and not "tax", and you would have the option to not subscribe to those services, but still have your natural rights to breath fresh air, travel freely and interact and trade freely with others.

Rather than contribute to murder in Afghanistan I'd rather never receive any health care ever again. I'd prefer to die the first time I get ill, rather than contribute to killing others. And I'm not a pacifist, I believe in self defence.


>> I should like to subscribe to dustbin services but not to bombing the middle east. I'd like to subscribe to health care but not to nuclear bombs. If we don't abolish tax altogether, no one will ever have that choice.
Fair enough. But it would be very, very easy to dodge many taxes. Eg. I could not subscribe to street lighting, but it would be impossible for me to not use it. Furthermore, who would police 60+ million people to ensure that they are only using the services they are paying for. Eg. dustbin collection.... it would be awful beaurocratic. Another one is national defence costs, people could not contribute to this, but still enjoy the benefits. Others are law and order -> people don't rob your property because of the law (chance of getting caught and punishment). Without contributing tax to a 'not being robbed' scheme, but you would still be enjoying those benefits.

> The only chance that we will ever have is to stop using force and allow individual free choice in stead. And that means "free market". That doesn't mean no communism, but it dose mean that every individual must have the free choice to opt in to, or opt out off an commune by mutuel consent of all concerned. A free market in communism.

Unfortunately, a lot of people will completely opt out and piss all their money up the wall at the pub. Then they will "oh...... its winter, i need food." and hold their hand out (or rob someone)


We will never be able to stop societies going to war, until we stop finding excuses to to "legitimise" violence ourselves, including force taxation, when whenever we deem it to be for social good. Wrong is wrong, even if it is for the right reasons.

This obsession with eating the rich is eating us away and destroying us! It's stoping us looking a fundamental morality.

The first reason we don't heart people is because we have empathy with them.
The second reason is because if we break the law of our community we could be ostracised.
Like who gives a fuck about being prosecuted if your friends are behind you?

These kind of comments themselves are what detracts from the movement.

"The law" and policing of the law is for the most part a modern invention of the power elite.

For the vast bulk of our history, community self policing has been the natural order. Over the bulk of the country it still is. If you live outside the cities you will understand just what little influence and power the elite actually possess. In the UK and most of the rest of the world, it is the city-dwellers who provide the fuel for elitism.

Endlessly tormenting debate about the politics of the elite and their bigoted 'law giving' just legitimises them and invites its clowns to defend them.

These comments so far are very disempowering if engaged with.