Most of the comments on this post do not seem to question the validity of personal income tax, and assume it is absolutely necessary, while arguing it's "unfairness" in certain areas. Mr. Jefferson is correct.

This reminds me of a thought that pops up once in a while. What if most people just decided, "You know what? I'm just not going to comply. Oh sure, I'll got to work and play with my kids and take walks with the wife. But, I'm going to silently stop taking part in as much of this as I can avoid..."

I'm sure these thoughts may not be foreign to you, either...

"Government is not in the business of identifying good and evil."

Government may only justly do that which is delegated to it by the people it represents and which those people have the inherent right to pursue. The entire act of pursuing one's own good is to choose what is "good" and what is "evil" - defined as "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. And when people group together to define commonly what is good and what is evil they form governments to pursue that end. Is part of one's "good" the protection of rights? Absolutely. But one recognizes that possessing and being able to express those rights is a good one should be able to pursue. Rights exist. Expression of rights however is the formation of morality. Morality is all about action: what one chooses to do and why. A moral code is not a code solely of rights, but of expression and action to pursue one's own good. Rights are boundaries that pronounce certain actions of pursuit off limits because they recognize that another is similarly entitled to pursue his/her own good. Rights protect one's pursuit of good but they do not define good per se.

"Proper governments are formed to implement the moral code of individual rights..."

Again, morality first acknowledges that good and evil exist - that there exist at least two courses of action (necessary for choice to exist) but that the repercussions of those choices are different and lead to consequences of greater or lesser value. Thomas Jefferson argues precisely the same points, as do Otis and Locke. Rand does not deny this either. Government rightly derives its powers from the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence). As soon as it steps beyond these bounds it becomes tyranny (also Jefferson).

In a Republic, the governed consent to representative government. They expect not only for those Representatives to uphold their individual rights, but to seek their Good - the common but individual Good of all so governed. Can we delegate to others to have them pursue our individual good and coincidentally the good of other individuals? Absolutely. Does that mean that we have surrendered any right to pursue our own good individually? Of course not. And this is why governments are formed: to pursue the goals of a collection of like-minded individuals who share a common moral vision: a common vision of what is good and what is bad.

I don't particularly care for this quote from Rand because she attributes decision-making to some amorphous "collective" will which is utterly a straw man construct. Can there be conspiracies of individuals who seek to usurp power and disregard the boundaries (called rights) they were entrusted to protect? Absolutely. But "collectivism" is a misnomer. What is collectivism in reality? It is the deception that some promote that is echoed in the timeless line from Animal Farm: that there were some "more equal than others". It is individualism without the restraint or consideration of rights.

Re: “government absolutely is in the business of identifying which activities are desirable ("good") and which are undesirable ("bad") and either encouraging or discouraging as appropriate.” Government is not in the business of identifying good and evil. Under Objectivist principles, government is in the business of protecting individual rights. That is its only function. Proper governments are formed to implement the moral code of individual rights, not to decide the goodness or badness of an activity such as smoking. You cite “society” as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. If this is true, the connection between government and individual rights is tenuous at best.

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?

"Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

"Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes." –Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Column

If you believe there were portions of your argument which I did not address, please cite them and I will endeavor to be more complete in addressing them.

"Governments should not be able to pick and choose which activities are desirable and should therefore be taxed at a lower rate."

Such an argument is to assert a complete equivalency of moral principles and is wholly false. Firstly, morality is all about determining what is good and what is bad - a differentiation in value between two things. Government is properly the tool of the individual to encourage and pursue that deemed to be good and conversely discouraging that which is bad. Therefore government absolutely is in the business of identifying which activities are desirable ("good") and which are undesirable ("bad") and either encouraging or discouraging as appropriate.

Secondly, there are degrees of "good" and "bad". It is generally accepted that murder is "bad" and is wrong to such a degree that we punish a murderer by incarceration and sometimes even reciprocal death. It is also generally accepted that smoking is "bad", but instead of incarcerating smokers we subject them to a fine or tax for their behavior. Murder is a "capital" evil justifying a capital punishment while smoking is a negligible evil justifying a negligible punishment and there are all kinds of behaviors in between. Does society - and by extension society's government - discriminate between these behaviors? Absolutely. Does society attempt to measure its punishment of "bad" behaviors commensurate with their evaluated negatives? Yes. Are these going to be subjective to at least some degree? Yes. They are going to be based on what society perceives as in its own interests (good) or contrary to its own interests (bad) and to what degree. Therefore just as we as individuals discriminate between good and bad and degrees of good and bad, governments (deriving their powers from the people) must do likewise.

"And police protection is not merely insurance – if it were, there would be no need for local government, private insurance companies could fill the void. (Fire protection, like education, is not a proper government function at all.)"

I agree with you that police/fire protection is more than insurance in its function and purpose. My primary focus was on its funding nature in that no one thinks about it until one needs it. There is no immediate grant of product or service for payment. One gives no thought to the police until there has been a crime any more than one gives thought to the fire department until there is a fire.

Could the fire department be a private organization? Sure. There might be some complexities involved, but it is not without mention that most fire departments started out as volunteer/private developments that were then incorporated as public services once a community had reached a critical mass.

Could the police department be a private organization? I'm not sure how that would work, given that the enforcement authority inherent in the executive is by nature a public endowment rather than a private one.

Please address my arguments and not what you incorrectly believe to be my “bad assumptions.” I don’t think any tax is “fair”, but there are degrees of unfairness. Governments should not be able to pick and choose which activities are desirable and should therefore be taxed at a lower rate. And police protection is not merely insurance – if it were, there would be no need for local government, private insurance companies could fill the void. (Fire protection, like education, is not a proper government function at all.)

You confuse understanding with assent. I understand what your argument is, I simply choose to take into account the items you would prefer to overlook - the things you "don't care about". I don't believe, however, that one can make an honest and reasoned assessment without taking into account all factors - even those that don't necessarily fit one's viewpoint.

"My point is that no preferential treatment should be given to some property taxpayers over others."

Your first bad assumption is that any tax can be "fair". We differentiate and discriminate between circumstances all the time: some businesses face higher tax rates than others because of the type of business they do (cigarettes, "sin" taxes, etc.). Some businesses get preferential treatment (lower tax rates) as an inducement to have them build offices in certain cities. Some businesses face higher taxes simply for being in a given area. Some face impact zone fees, etc. Some businesses are prohibited from operating in certain areas. There is nothing fair about taxation. It is nothing more than the proverbial necessary evil. The question of taxation is ultimately how the necessary functions of government can be funded at a minimum disruption to the taxed populace.

A second bad assumption is that there is the same risk or need for these services from a for-profit business as with a non-profit. Fire and police services are essentially insurance policies, are they not? Therefore, what we have to do is get into the risk associated with a particular kind of business or institution. And the facts are that businesses are at a far higher risk for robbery and theft than non-profits.

The building I work in also hosts an FBI office - should my building get a discount on its taxes because of its proximity to these individuals? So now what we're ultimately getting into here is the personal morality of the people who predominantly use the building and acknowledging that some moralities are better than others. Which circles right back into the argument about preferential tax treatment for non-profits...

You evidently don’t understand what my argument is. I am not equating every entity with a corporation or business. I don’t care where their funding comes from, whether they make a profit, what they produce (if anything), what their goals are, or how much they benefit the “community”. My point is that no preferential treatment should be given to some property taxpayers over others. Period.

I understand what your argument is. You want to treat every entity as a corporation or business. Corporations' primary goals are to turn a profit. A non-profit by its very definition is not a corporation, however. Their funding does not (generally speaking) come from products or goods that they produce, however, but by voluntary donations. And their goals are not to make money, but to fulfill some other humanitarian purpose. To treat them as corporations is wholly inaccurate.

The counter-argument is that churches and non-profits directly benefit the community in the course of their primary role, in effect off-setting those tax assessments they would otherwise bear. I agree with the notion of value-for-value exchange, but I would think that any objective evaluation of the benefits received by each party (non-profit and community) must include those observations.

Again, I understand what your argument is. I just think it a mistake to intentionally categorize both types of entities under the same heading given the relevant disparities.

My point is that churches and other non-profits should not be given preferential treatment over ordinary taxpayers and landowners. The entire "non-profit" sector is a government-created absurdity. As a legal concept, that category should not even exist.

But then again you get into dangerous grounds in that those taxes can also constitute an impingement upon free speech because of how those taxes get set. I know in my area, my property taxes are completely arbitrary: being set based on how much the tax commission thinks my land is worth and regardless of how much I actually paid for it. There are severe problems with this mentality.

As to the amount of subsidization for police and fire protection, those are generally minor amounts. The bulk of property taxes goes toward the public education system. I'm sure most non-profits would be more than happy to pay the minor $100/month for police and fire if that was all they had to pay. It is all the other assessments (many for items which may conflict with "deeply held beliefs") which cause the resulting legal entanglements. And so generally it becomes much simpler all around to grant a broad exemption.

True. I was thinking more of property tax exemptions that many jurisdictions provide for religious institutions. This means that other property taxpayers are forced to subsidize their police and fire protection, among other things, leaving them with more money to propagate their beliefs, which these other taxpayers may or may not agree with.

None of us should have to pay personal income taxes - religious or not. The power to tax is a dangerous power and is the power to control.

Hopefully most of them get English before they get to sex education in middle school. It seems like some of us missed it.

Agreed! It is, quite broadly.

However, taken to the extreme, the military and paper clips for the POTUS can be argued away. What is the limit?

It started before the Signing. The only way you stop it is to make every individual responsible for his personal liberty and freedom.

State law, iirc, so maybe CA will do it first. Wouldn't want federal meddling in state taxes but I do get your point.

And remove their property tax exemptions also.

Life liberty And property are all primary as I see it and could be considered in this example the same thing. The basic unit of which is the person him/her/it self.
It's pretty clear that at a certain stage the fetus is a person, an individual, a life to be protected.
To end this life is murder and murder is against the law set fourth for Human beings.

There should, however, be enough protections for the mother of that life in regards to her immediate physical life and whether this new life was created willfully and not; by force or incest; and those determinations can be made very early on in the case of rape or incest.

And of course, we assume theoretically, that the latter determinations are honest and truthful.

Right. Repeal the 16th amendment.

An excellent reason why religious institutions should not receive special exemptions from the taxes the rest of us have to pay.

Overpopulation is also a form of death-wish. The locusts ravage the land and move on. The lemmings periodically thin their population. Humans use knowledge and science to improve food supplies to feed expanding numbers and reduce reproduction rates.

It's interesting that you put all the onus on women as though men's lust had nothing to do with impregnation. Why don't all the males come forward and offer to lend their time and energy to tending all the lives they have created? Their irresponsibility is directly proportional to the need for abortions. If the government wants to forbid women to control their reproduction, it essentially is making them slaves and baby factories. That is against the principle of self-ownership that is the foundation for individual freedom and thus a free society.

The life of a clump of cells in development and full-born personhood are not the same thing.

Kind of confirms a woman's pregnancy is no one's business but her's.......

[sarc]Nonsense. It’s the first part of the immensely successful “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. Lord 0bama spake, and the patients were protected. Both the Senate and House passed all that wisdom unanimously, except for the NO votes from all Republicans and some Democrats.[/sarc]