NH man pays tax in Fives - Keene, New Hampshire 2/2

[basspig]

As I sit here, unable to buy heating oil because I'm putting ALL of my savings toward a December installment on property tax wondering just what the FUCK I'm going to do for heat next month when no one is hiring my services and the taxes are past-due.

People need more backbone, like that New Haven lady who ran over the tax collector when he tried to steal her car to impound it for back taxes.

[basspig]

Property taxes are the most immoral kind of taxation in existence. They don't take into consideration the citizen's ability to pay. They cause homelessness among those of modest income.

Property taxes underscore the fact that property ownership in the US is a lie. We are only custodians, renting the land from the government.

[dbi1036]

YES, YES, YES, this is true. This is bull, we are the new SLAVES

[mostradicalmanever]

Sam should have gotten really angry? The nerve of them being quiet and polite while Sam is around! LOL

[wewd]

I would prefer to pay my taxes in twos than fives, in honor of Thomas Jefferson.

[2DogsPhucking]

wow he really showed them

[p00lman]

You're being sarcastic, right?

[803honda]

pay em in nickles.

[Anothercoilgun]

Next time find out ALL the minimums and maximums. Minimum amount of cloths required to enter building. The lowest denomination required to pay. The maximum amount of time it can be paid including number of days, say pay 1/10 amount each day for 10 days. Find this mins and max and make sure the numbers are clearly stated as a law or a statute and demand it be publicly displayed.

[billburns2]

....and that's going to achieve what exactly? (apart from making you look like an idiot)?

[p00lman]

I love how this liar claimed to be "homeless" just a few months ago, and now he's paying property taxes. What an asshole.

[davyjames]

voted down but is kinda weird

[p00lman]

Huh?

[davyjames]

People are voting down your comment even though it makes a fair point. The way you phrased your point though does make you seem like an asshole

[p00lman]

Free staters only believe what they want to believe, and any facts to the contrary scare them shitless.

[mrethrift]

That is a description of you, foolboy. You believe what you want to believe and you're scared of your opposition. You're biggest concern is to fight against freedom.

[billburns2]

Why are we seeing more of this fool? Is this Ridley Redux?

And just so we're clear - he's making his tenants bear the cost of his property tax !!!

[p00lman]

Maybe Ridley feels sorry for him for being so anorexic.

[mrethrift]

Anorexic? LIke you?

[ninjabunnyman]

Of course he is. That's what happens in all business. The costs of doing business get passed on to the consumer, including taxes. Where do you think it comes from, the magic money tree?

[billburns2]

Well Ian Bernard seems to operate under dual standards in this respect - he's happy to pass on his own costs to others but he's unhappy about having the State of NH pass their costs on to him. If Bernard or his tenants find the price too high they have the option of moving somewhere cheaper, right?

I'd like to see his tenants pay their rent in pennies whist videoing themselves reciting speeches about him.

Ian Bernard is a dick. End of story.

[HiFiSmith]

@billburns2: You seem to miss the point of renting vs owning. Ian was providing a service to a family. The state imposed a tax to build revenue for its welfarism without the voluntary agreement of Ian.

[billburns2]

...and New Hampshire is providing multiple services to Ian Bernard - the highways he drives on, the Police and Fire Depts to name a few.

Both Ian and his tenants have the same option - if they feel they are paying too much then they can move to somewhere cheaper.

Didn't Ian Bernard claim he was homeless? He's the first homeless guy I know who has paying tenants.

[HiFiSmith]

@billburns2: your reply was so predictable and misinformed that I don't have time to continue this conversation. I suggest some mises . org or Murray Rothbard for some insight on natural rights.

[billburns2]

sure - it's annoying when people don't subscribe to your ideology ain't it?

All these pesky "serfs" insisting on using common sense can be a real drag if you don't have the time to put them straight.

Thanks for reading list but the theories of armchair economists are as appealing to me as Karl Marx is to you.

[MadSmokerBBQ]

The premise of your point seems to assume that NH gov't isn't corrupt, bloated, and inefficient, and that there is some virtue in paying insanely high taxes to a multi-layered bureaucracy that doesn't care about its subjects. I have to side with you "armchair economists" on this one.

[p00lman]

How exactly would you prefer the government "care about its subjects"? Schools aren't good enough? Police, fire departments, paved roads, communication, running water isn't good enough? The right to vote isn't good enough?

Oh wait, you can't smoke pot. Poor fucking baby.

[mrethrift]

Those things aren't good enough.

[billburns2]

any evidence on the bloated, corrupt ineffiiency you mention? I mean hard facts and not just a vague niggle that you don't like paying tax (who does?) As of 2008, only four States had tax rates lower than New Hampshire. 7.6% doesn't sound insanely high to me.

[basspig]

If the People really wanted these "services" don't you think they would BUY them voluntarily? How would you feel if I held a gun to your head and demanded payment for my services?

The government builds roads so you can go to work and PAY INCOME TAXES. No taxes, no need for roads. Less pollution, less oil burned. Cleaner air. I'd rather live an agrarian life, than be hauled out of my home at 6am because I was unable to afford rising property taxes.

[billburns2]

There is a very simple way whereby you can avoid all taxation - by moving out of the country and therefore demonstrating that you have no need for any public service, you will be liable for zero tax.

Happy?

[basspig]

How about we make all the Socialist and Communists move to a Socialist or Communist country that's already established its ideals for that kind of living.

America was founded as a FREE nation. Get the FUCK out of my country, Communist pigs!!!!!!!!!!

[ninjabunnyman]

My land is mine, mr. tyrant, neither you nor the government owns the country, and you have no right to kick me off it because I do not submit to your extortion.

[billburns2]

"my land is mine"

says who?

What if I turn up with a bunch of tough guys and kick you out?

Your property is only your property because the society you live in sets and enforces the laws that make it so.

The same society that you feel no obligation towards.

Fucking freeloader

[ninjabunnyman]

I own myself, and the fruit of my labor is mine. The fact that a bunch of thugs may steal from me, enslave me, or kill me, does not mean I don't have a right to property, liberty, and life. It only makes them thieves, slaveholders, and murderers.

Even the Declaration of Independence recognizes this in its preamble: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ..."

[billburns2]

There is no such thing as a "right" to property, liberty or life. That only works of you're willing to contribute to the society that has set those laws to protect YOU. The same society that you claim to despise but still remain a part of. Can't be that bad then, can it?

If all the murder, torture, corruption and general un-freedom-ness just gets too much for you then you are free to leave whenever you choose.

[ninjabunnyman]

The idea that rights are created by government, which is only a group of men, is absurd -- and in direct opposition to even the beliefs of the founders. Have you read the declaration of independence, or the constitution? They recognized rights, they did not create them.

What, it is your opinion that theft, murder, and slavery would all be a-ok if the government had not prohibited them? You crawl to mommy government for your very definition of moral behavior itself?

[billburns2]

"The idea that rights are created by government, which is only a group of men, is absurd"

Without the support of a government there is no such thing as property rights. Tell me the last time you saw two dogs go to dog court over a bone posession or yard trespass dispute.

Without the support of a government you have no rights at all. Have you heard of the holocaust? Google it son.

[ninjabunnyman]

And again, instead of addressing my points, or responding to my questions, you blindly re-assert your position.

We are not dogs without your government gang, we are men. And yes, I am aware of the holocaust, along with the other 174 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. What, are you going to say that the holocaust was moral, because the German government had not granted the Jews the right to live?

Or, do they have inherent rights as humans after all?

[billburns2]

You are both stupid and stubborn - that's a winning combination.

Do a bit more research on these people killed by their governments - which, as you have pointed out, is only a group of men.

Find out what a REALLY oppressive regime looks like, where people REALLY come after you with guns. Then take a look at your own pampered, spoiled life and put some things into perspective before you start up your Libertarian whining again.

[ninjabunnyman]

So, your logic is, because other regimes are even more aggressively violent, the aggressive violence of your favored group of men is ok. By that brilliant logic, Guido from the Bronx who breaks fingers is ok, because he's not Al Capone.

Why don't you answer my questions? Was Harriett Tubman wrong to help escaped slaves? Why or why not? Was the holocaust immoral? Why or why not? That is, do people have an inherent right to life and liberty, or only if a "government" gives it to them?

[billburns2]

Morality changes with time and according to society. What is abhorrent to one society is perfectly acceptable to another. This is where your Libertarian bullshit falls flat.

There is no "natural law" without a society to enforce those laws. Geddit Einstein?

[ninjabunnyman]

Different people have different views as to what is moral, that is true. I am asking about your view of morality. Again, was Harriett Tubman right to help escaped slaves or not? What the holocaust immoral or not? The fact that you have difficulty answering these questions should be quite disturbing to anyone with a conscience. Theft is wrong, slavery is wrong, murder is wrong. The fact that you can't make these simple moral statements is quite sick -- talk about blackness of souls.

[billburns2]

I have no difficulty in answering at all - I'm just forcing you to stay on-topic without being allowed to resort to the usual Apples and Oranges debate that Libertarians like to call "logic".

Consider this - would slavery in the USA ever have been abolished without the government enforcing it? I'm talking about REAL slavery, not the crap that Libertarians like to label as slavery because it sounds good.

[ninjabunnyman]

Slavery was created in the first place by government. If it were not for government enforcement, slavery would have ended a long time before.

My questions were on topic. You asserted that rights only exist if they are granted by a government. I was asking, therefore, if you believed Harriett Tubman to be right when she broke the law to help escaped slaves, or if you believed the holocaust to be immoral -- since the government had not granted rights in these cases.

[billburns2]

Slavery and the holocaust are both instances where the mores of a society allows something to happen which in our 21st Century view is clearly wrong. However your whole argument rests on the idea that "rights" are a fixed ideal that never varies. That's not how the world is.

Government and society fucks it up sometimes - no arguments there, but they fix more things than they break. That's why they continue and evolve - it's the will of the people (that last bit really grates on you don't it)

[ninjabunnyman]

Changing moral consensus over time is not the issue at all. My moral stance is that theft, murder, and slavery are wrong, by anyone. You apparently have no moral convictions whatsoever. Morality, to you, is apparently whatever the government tells you to do.

Suppose tomorrow you were transported to Nazi Germany, and were employed as a prison guard. Would you murder Jews, or refuse? Suppose tomorrow government re-instituted slavery - would you assist a modern day Hariett Tubman, or report her?

[billburns2]

moral consensus is EXACTLY the issue - you just don't like it cos it knocks a hole in your little fantasy.

Without the protection of a society, you will be the victim. Your "rights" are just empty words without a state to enforce them on your behalf.

Imagine yourself transported back in time - try whining about your "rights" to the camp guard or the slave overseer.

My new year resolution is not to debate with fools anymore, so I'll be signing off.

Hopefully you've learned something.

[ninjabunnyman]

Of course force is often needed to protect rights. That was never the question. I was asking very basic questions about YOUR moral beliefs, which you STILL cannot answer.

All I wanted you to say is this: "No, I would not murder jews, or help capture slaves, just because the government told me to, because I believe murder and slavery are wrong."

Instead, you've shown yourself to be a disgusting, spineless, sniveling government bootlicker, with no moral decency whatsoever. No surprise.

[ninjabunnyman]

Oh, and by the way, nice try intentionally conflating society with your government gang. The support of society is usually needed to protect rights. Your thieving gang is not, scumbag.

[ninjabunnyman]

Even if slavery had existed, by the way, I support the forceful prevention of slavery. That doesn't mean that you can steal people's money to finance it, however. What's more, a focus on actually rescuing slaves would have been far preferable to the catastrophe of the civil war -- and Lincoln was far more intent on forcing the southern states to stay in the union, than he was on ending slavery -- he said as much.

[ninjabunnyman]

And, I agree that society should enforce these laws. I especially think society should enforce the "no stealing" law against your gang of politicians, bureaucrats, and government favored corporations, which have been getting away with it for far too long.

[billburns2]

Paying people who have been elected by majority for services that are provided to everyone is not stealing.

Why don't you get your nose out of your books for a minute and take a look at the infrastructure and public services that you take for granted.

[ninjabunnyman]

Yes, it is, because a person has a right to decide whether they want those services or not. Just because the majority in an area want to hand their money over to banks, or invade another country, or pay for the imprisonment of undocumented orchid importers, does not mean they have a right to extort money from the minority to pay for these things.

If the services are so great, they will be funded voluntarily by people who want them. Otherwise, they will be done cheaper or better by a competitor.

[billburns2]

You HAVE the choice not to use those services. What you don't have is the choice to continue using them but not pay for them.

Leave the country and you can retain your citizenship and be liable for no tax at all.

[ninjabunnyman]

And yet again, I own my property, neither you, nor the government do. You have no right to force me to leave my land if I don't want your B.S. "services".

[ninjabunnyman]

Also, you should know that even if the "will of the majority" made theft moral, which it certainly does not, that will is lost, especially at the national level. Calls against the bailouts were 20-1 against, yet it happened anyway. No referendum on imprisoning elderly people for importing orchids without begging permission from a bureaucrat would pass. And, we'd have been out of Iraq long ago.

The bureaucrats stay, regime to regime, and the politicians are only superficially different.

[ninjabunnyman]

Oh, and I'm curious, which services do you mean? Perhaps the DMV, which does such an efficient job and has such great customer services. Perhaps you mean the public schools, which take upwards of $10,000 per student per year and turn out illiterates. Perhaps you mean FEMA, whose efficiency and effectiveness in responding to Katrina are legendary. Or, maybe you mean the military industrial complex, which has been invading countries and stirring up anti-American sentiment for decades.

[ninjabunnyman]

Perhaps you mean the police/"justice" system, which imprisons hundreds of thousands of people each year for victimless "crimes", and which kills innocent people on a daily basis in no-knock military style raids. You know, the one that rules torture by the favored government class is ok, but drinking unpasteurized milk is an imprisonable offense when committed by one of us peons.

[ninjabunnyman]

Perhaps you mean the Federal Reserve, which creates money out of thin air, and hands it to banks at 0.25% or less, to be loaned to us at 6% or more (I don't know about you, but I could make money loaning out free cash at interest), who created the credit bubble that plunged us into the greatest recession since the Great depression -- which it, by the way, also admits having caused, and does such a great job of maintaining the value of money that the dollar is now worth 3% of what it was in 1913.

[billburns2]

Fortunately you will soon have a nationalized healthcare system and join the rest of the civilised world.

victimless crimes? No such thing.

without the US military you would now either be part of the 3rd Reich or the USSR.

The inefficiency of a bureacracy is a different argument as to how it's paid for. Stick to one topic at a time please.

[ninjabunnyman]

Yes, because all modern, civilized people like yourself, obtain funding by stealing it at gunpoint from their neighbors.

It's illegal to drink unpasteurized milk from your own cow. I'm dying to hear who's the victim of that.

Without the US military involvement in WW1 the Third Reich would never have happened, and without the military industrial complex, neither would have the cold war. Something closer to the constitutional approach, based on militias, would be far preferable.

[billburns2]

"stealing it at gunpoint from their neighbors"

taxation is not stealing. Nobody is taxed at gunpoint. Give up with the amateur dramatics.

"It's illegal to drink unpasteurized milk from your own cow" -er, no. It's illegal to distribute raw milk in certain States. Nobody has ever been imprisoned for that offence either.

Is that the best you can do?

Pick up the straw on your way out son,

[ninjabunnyman]

Taxation is, euphemism aside, the extortion of money from innocent people by threatening to take their home or put them in prison. If they don't willingly go to prison or leave their home, the guns come out. That is literally what taxation is. It would be theft if I, you, or any other group of people tried to do it, and it's theft when your precious gang does it too.

You just love your stolen loot too much to let yourself think honestly, or hold yourself to basic standards of decency.

[ninjabunnyman]

On the raw milk, you're right, I was thinking of a case in Canada. Selling it, however, is certainly a victimless crime -- if both parties agree, that's their business. So is drug use. So is putting juice in a milk container, which is illegal in New Hampshire. So is opening a business without a license. So is building on your own property without permission from your gang. So is importing orchids without permission, which recently landed an elderly couple in jail for life.

[ninjabunnyman]

Oh, and you're the one who wanted me to get my nose out of a book and examine all the great "services" your gang supposedly provides. I'm just noting they're mainly piles of inefficient, incompetent, corrupt, immoral, wasteful crap.

[ninjabunnyman]

Perhaps you mean the great government controlled health and health insurance industry, which has increased in cost astronomically since the days (c-50s) when it was free of mountains of regulation and control, when doctors worked at church clinics for a few bucks an hour, and hospital maternity services often totaled under $20.

Perhaps you mean welfare, which has been shown to keep poor people trapped in poverty, or medicare/medicad/social security, which are horribly wasteful, and broke.

[ninjabunnyman]

Why, you must believe Hariett Tubman was a horrible person. After all, in her day, government protected slaveholders -- therefore, according to your twisted worldview, the slaves had no right to be free -- the government had not created that right for them.

How dare she help slaves escape on the underground railroad -- didn't she know government, in their infinite power and wisdom, had declared slavery to be moral?

Grow a moral spine, sicko.

[ninjabunnyman]

Oh, and by the way, I actually care about this country, and the principles by which it gained its freedom, so I'll be sticking around and fighting your anti-freedom pseudo patriot ilk.

Once again, I am happy to contribute to society -- just not your gang. And, once again, neither you nor your gang owns the country, nor do you have a right to kick me out of it, or a right to demand I pay you in order to stay on my own property.

[ninjabunnyman]

You're a mobster with a protection racket and nerve. You not only demand money to "defend" my business -- meaning that your henchmen will steal it if I don't pay you off -- but you have the gall to suggest that without your protection racket I have no ownership at all.

As if your group of bureaucrats and politicians endows rights upon us mere mortals, and defines morality itself.

[ninjabunnyman]

Oh, and by the way, I do feel an obligation towards society, especially those less fortunate. That's why I donate a great deal of my money to charity.

I don't, however, feel an obligation towards your particular gang, which is engaged in murder of innocents, torture, theft of property and money, corruption, payouts and special privileges to favored corporations, finance of dictators abroad, and loads of pork, bureaucracy, and waste.

[ninjabunnyman]

Ian is not a tenant of Keene. The Keene government does own the land. Free individuals do. Nice try though.

[SSILENTNATION]

I thought Ian Bernard believed in a voluntary society? I can't believe he would actually charge people U.S. currency to make them live in his home (even though he is homeless). What a hypocrite.

[p00lman]

Shhh! Pay no attention to his contradictions!

[Budguy68]

Man I wish we had this type of people in my City (Laredo TX). Basically it seems that everyone here takes whatever is served on their plate. They're totally politically unaware.

[mrethrift]

I wish I had 'em in my city too. More so, in office. Tax time is nigh.