Ransacking and rummaging rogue - is he evil?

[PeterDonis]

I beg to differ. Excessive taxation is theft. Now where you lay the line on "excessive" may vary.

"The Founding Fathers were angry at England because they were forced to 'pay taxes for which their consent had not been asked.' Today we pay taxes but our consent has been asked, and we have told the governments to go ahead and tax us all they want to. We like it."

Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody

 

[Sejs]

Are you saying that there is no such taxation in government? History seems to indicate otherwise.

Oh no I'm not saying that at all - history does have examples of taxation without recompense. It tended to lead to things like tea parties. When people caught on to the fact that they were paying taxes and not getting anything in return for it, they tended to stop paying and tell the tax-charger to go squat on a halberd, with the normal reactions following.

For that matter... I can easily look in my own city, which has the ability to annex any unincorporated area without it's consent, and without granting any services. It recently did so with a wealthy area who complained a LOT. It still did. Now those people are paying city taxes for all sorts of things, and they aren't getting any city services.

That's because unless the land in question is actually incorporated by a seperate entity, then the land to be annexed doesn't actually belong to someone else. The government can annex it because it's their land, they just let other people build stuff on it in exchange for property taxes and the like. Give us X dollars per year and we'll let you build and maintain stuff on our land.

And as for the wealthy individuals, of course they complained - wealthy people do that, particularly when they don't get treated to the deference they think their money entitles them to. To the point that sometimes they forget that no matter how much money they have, the government has more. So yeah, the govt annexes some land, and they still have to pay taxes on all manner of things - but they don't have to pay taxes for the land the govt annexed, because they (they wealthy folks) are no longer responsible for it. But yes, they do still have to pay taxes on other, unrelated issues. If the tax no longer applies, you no longer have to pay it, but you still do have to pay the taxes that continue to apply to you.

All in all it's just what justification you use. Someone who wanted to badly enough could come up with a justification of what service he's providing his victims.

True enough, though it comes down to validity of claim. A mugger could claim that he was charging his victim a "Not Getting Stabbed" tax, rather than just robbing him. The claim is false, though - the victim had all the Not Getting Stabbed he needed before the mugger came along; if the mugger never came along, there would be no danger of stabbing to speak of anyway. It's like a protection racket - give me money to keep your business safe from mishap. Particularly the mishap that I, myself, will inflict upon your business if you don't pay me. Not a valid justification.

 

[ARandomGod]

"The Founding Fathers were angry at England because they were forced to 'pay taxes for which their consent had not been asked.' Today we pay taxes but our consent has been asked, and we have told the governments to go ahead and tax us all they want to. We like it."

Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody

I notice you saying "we" alot. Implying my inclusion. Whereas you obviously are referring to you, and not me.

Oh no I'm not saying that at all - history does have examples of taxation without recompense. It tended to lead to things like tea parties. When people caught on to the fact that they were paying taxes and not getting anything in return for it, they tended to stop paying and tell the tax-charger to go squat on a halberd, with the normal reactions following.

Sure it does. One of the things that followed is that the government in question fought to try to force this payment... to collect their "protection money". When someone big enough attempts to collect protention money it's government, when it's a smaller group it's thuggery. When it's two groups... well, the two groups of thugs, or the two governments, fight it out.

That's because unless the land in question is actually incorporated by a seperate entity, then the land to be annexed doesn't actually belong to someone else. The government can annex it because it's their land, they just let other people build stuff on it in exchange for property taxes and the like. Give us X dollars per year and we'll let you build and maintain stuff on our land.

This isn't always the case. Sure, it's owned by the county, but in general most cities cannot do this. At least most in Texas can't do it.
In this case in particular that I am referring to, there was alread a full proto city there, and they had already applied, which application was held up and held up, until the larger city ate them. The "government" didn't own it. At least, the city didn't. The county did. The city decided that it was going to own it, and tax it. They claimed it was their land *afterwards*. If it were owned beforehand that would be a different story altogether.

And as for the wealthy individuals, of course they complained - wealthy people do that, particularly when they don't get treated to the deference they think their money entitles them to. To the point that sometimes they forget that no matter how much money they have, the government has more. So yeah, the govt annexes some land, and they still have to pay taxes on all manner of things - but they don't have to pay taxes for the land the govt annexed, because they (they wealthy folks) are no longer responsible for it. But yes, they do still have to pay taxes on other, unrelated issues. If the tax no longer applies, you no longer have to pay it, but you still do have to pay the taxes that continue to apply to you.

The wealthy people being referenced were indeed the entire populace of the annexed area. They weren't the uber rich. You're right. The uber rich in THAT legal battle was the city.
They were indeed already paying community taxes to maintain their community. And they still are paying those same taxes. And they are still responsible for it, or at least they're still being held responsible for those taxes. Yet they are paying additional city taxes to support the city structures that duplicate but do not service their area. As well as taxes on other issues that apply to the city as a whole and not them at all. That second type can't really be complained about... but the first type? The city is charging them water taxes, for instance, and they are also paying a seperate tax to maintain their own water. In fact, all such infrastructure tax is being duplicated there, where they must maintain their own, the city has refused to take over responsibility for it, and yet they have to pay to maintain that infrastructure for the city... which they are not being allowed to use.


So I agree... it makes sense that if the tax doesn't apply to you you shouldn't have to pay it. It makes sense that they shouldn't be responsible for maintaining a seperate infrastructure while simulataniouly being responsible for the main infrastructure... etc. But then again, this is just them being more obviously stolen from.

Which bring me to my next point...

True enough, though it comes down to validity of claim. A mugger could claim that he was charging his victim a "Not Getting Stabbed" tax, rather than just robbing him. The claim is false, though - the victim had all the Not Getting Stabbed he needed before the mugger came along; if the mugger never came along, there would be no danger of stabbing to speak of anyway. It's like a protection racket - give me money to keep your business safe from mishap. Particularly the mishap that I, myself, will inflict upon your business if you don't pay me. Not a valid justification.

But that area had all the city infrastructure IT needed before being involuntarily annexed. And it's still having to maintain it's own infrastructure, while paying now to maintain everyone elses *in addition*. Let me repeate, they are not recieving ANY support from the city to maintain this infrastructure, yet they are being charged for it.

It seems identical to me. I'm not sure what difference you're claiming.

 

[fredramsey]

What the thief did is the personification of Chaotic Neutral. What I find amusing is some of the interpretations here are of the "What is not Good is Evil" variety. No shades of gray in their universes.

Also, in Eberron, alignment is not only fluid, but mostly unimportant.