If you perform work, and the government takes away all of your income, you work for the government; you do not have the option to not work for the government regardless of who is listed as your employer on your tax documents.
Yes, you do. Namely by not working. As no one would work if 100% of his earnings were to be confiscated. Couldn't figure that out, eh? Never heard of the name Arthur Laffer? I assume even he is outside your lolbertarian echo chamber.
In a 100% income tax (or any crushingly burdensome tax rate) scenario, it is impossible to sustain yourself except by the government's benevolence.
That is not the same as working for the government, nor the same as slavery.
They will be the ones to feed/clothe/house you or mandate that your overseers provide for you. By extension, this means it has power over these privileges.
I'm pretty sure you're just moving the goalposts and that this is not what you initially meant when you screamed 'swavewy' and 'sociawism'. Not to mention that it makes a further assumption, that the governemnt is feeding you, which is not a given. Even were that to be granted, then the government feeding you would be what you call slavery, not the income tax per se. And this also means that people who get food stamps are enslaved. Quite dumb all around, but I don't expect anything else from lolbertarians.
You are de facto owned by the government, even if not explicitly stated de jure.
Are you getting whipped, beaten or killed if you don't work? No. Can the government decide that you're not allowed to marry? No. Can you be sold to another, even worse master? No.
Ergo, you are not enslaved, dummy.
That you couldn't puzzle that out yourself is a testament to how much of a retard you are, you fucking socialist mong.
is entirely irrelevant in this scenario, as I'm sure the prisoners in a gulag would tell you.
Nope, as the gulag was about actual forced labor, not just confiscating your earnings, genius. Laffer pointed out that a 100% tax would result in 0 receipts, for obvious reasons that you clearly have not considered - or even been able to consider.
You would be jailed, deprived of necessities, or face execution (see: punishment for desertion) if the government so desires.
This is a good deal more than just a "100% tax rate", which you claim is the same as 'swavewy'. You did not make the additional claim that if you don't work, you are executed.
If the entirety of your efforts go to benefit someone that isn't you and you have no choice in the matter, you are a slave.
No, as you can simply choose not to work.
Wrong. See: gay marriage.
Pff... lolbertarian overload here. That's not "not being allowed to marry", that's just maintaining marriage as it has always been.
You can be transferred to another master. What do you think conscription is (since you brought that up too)? This is a transfer within the government itself, shifting from the civilian bureaucracy to the military bureaucracy.
You think conscription's slavery as well. Interesting. So if there is a national emergency, and your country will be overrun if people do not defend it (and interestingly, perhaps actually become slaves), then it's still bad to instiutte conscription.
If you have no income, someone has to provide for you. In such a system where the government takes 100% of earnings, it will be the government that does so, either directly or through its actors.
You are positing additional assumptions here, which are not present in your original hypothesis of "100% taxation". Of course, it's an impossibility, so reasoning logically from it makes no sense. The only question is whether that thing itself is slavery, which it is not.
This is such a dumb fucking take. Being on food stamps does not make you a slave if the possibility of get off the food stamps exists.
So the government 'feeding you' at any given time does not make you a slave. Then that applies equally to your hypothesis of that happening if taxes were 100%. You can get off government dependence if the tax rates are altered, which is also a possibility.
It if walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and is mentally deficient like a duck, it's a duck. Eat shit, faggot. I'm done with your sub-80 IQ takes.
And that's exactly the kind of imbecility that one can expect from a lolbertarian.
Yes, you do. Namely by not working. As no one would work if 100% of his earnings were to be confiscated. Couldn't figure that out, eh? Never heard of the name Arthur Laffer? I assume even he is outside your lolbertarian echo chamber.
That is not the same as working for the government, nor the same as slavery.
I'm pretty sure you're just moving the goalposts and that this is not what you initially meant when you screamed 'swavewy' and 'sociawism'. Not to mention that it makes a further assumption, that the governemnt is feeding you, which is not a given. Even were that to be granted, then the government feeding you would be what you call slavery, not the income tax per se. And this also means that people who get food stamps are enslaved. Quite dumb all around, but I don't expect anything else from lolbertarians.
Are you getting whipped, beaten or killed if you don't work? No. Can the government decide that you're not allowed to marry? No. Can you be sold to another, even worse master? No.
Ergo, you are not enslaved, dummy.
Do you even know what a socialist is? Dimwit.
Nope, as the gulag was about actual forced labor, not just confiscating your earnings, genius. Laffer pointed out that a 100% tax would result in 0 receipts, for obvious reasons that you clearly have not considered - or even been able to consider.
This is a good deal more than just a "100% tax rate", which you claim is the same as 'swavewy'. You did not make the additional claim that if you don't work, you are executed.
No, as you can simply choose not to work.
Pff... lolbertarian overload here. That's not "not being allowed to marry", that's just maintaining marriage as it has always been.
You think conscription's slavery as well. Interesting. So if there is a national emergency, and your country will be overrun if people do not defend it (and interestingly, perhaps actually become slaves), then it's still bad to instiutte conscription.
You are positing additional assumptions here, which are not present in your original hypothesis of "100% taxation". Of course, it's an impossibility, so reasoning logically from it makes no sense. The only question is whether that thing itself is slavery, which it is not.
So the government 'feeding you' at any given time does not make you a slave. Then that applies equally to your hypothesis of that happening if taxes were 100%. You can get off government dependence if the tax rates are altered, which is also a possibility.
And that's exactly the kind of imbecility that one can expect from a lolbertarian.