But if this isn't robbery, then what is it? If the state's would-be victims resist being plundered, the state will retaliate by confiscating even more of their property and/or incarcerating them. The democratic process rests on force and the implied threat of force every step of the way.I would be all in favor of getting rid of the income tax, and instead imposing a national sales tax at the retail level on every item bought or sold. Of course, the Left points out that such a system would hit the poor (and throw in women and minorities for good measure) the hardest. But, on the other hand, everyone would have to participate, and with some skin in the game, would actively try to keep taxes to the minimum. As it stands, 49% of Americans are constantly agitating for more, more, more at the expense of the "rich," who politicians assure us, are an endless pool of funds that we can take from whenever we identify another want. Incidentally, we can not allow a national sales tax to be hidden, but must make it visible for all to see. At the same time, we must also make visible the taxes imposed on gasoline, liquor, and everything else that gets taxed. Until we do this, I suspect we will not be able to get spending under control. If we can get out in the open just what it is costing Americans for their government, more folks will question just what they are getting for their money.
We don't bat an eye anymore when someone glibly proposes "spreading the wealth." In fact, many Americans enjoy spreading the wealth, as long as it isn't their own. In a recent survey, three out of four Americans agreed that Obama and Congress should raises taxes on that minority of Americans with annual incomes above $200,000. Apparently, most Americans believe that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their minions have more of a right to spend those dollars than the citizens who earned them.
If you think this line of thought is crazy, then let me ask you a question: What percentage of a person's honest income should he or she be allowed to keep? The only guidelines I am aware of are "all of it" (the original American way, since income taxes were unconstitutional until 1913) or nothing beyond what anybody else (except the governing elite) can keep, according to the communist principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Between those two polar extremes, any percentage one chooses would be arbitrary. In practice, the degree to which property is redistributed depends on whatever shifting political coalition has enough votes -- enough power -- at any given moment. Stripped of grandiose pretenses and specious idealism, contemporary political life has descended into a constant, contentious squabble to see who gets what at the expense of whom.
Another way to look at it comes from Eternity Road's estimable Curmudgeon Emeritus take on the issue here. However, while the Curmudgeon comes at it from a different perspective, in the end it is the same: theft. In this case, the Government is stealing from one who pays taxes to fund another whose lifestyle the person paying does not approve. The end result is not only injury but insult.