In light of recent events, specifically the man in Texas crashing his plane into IRS offices and his "manifesto", I ask, what is the moral justification for federal income taxes? I know that a very strong legal argument can made for federal income tax, but that's not my question.

Is tax slavery? If a portion of someones product of their labor is taken, by force, or threat of force, what else can we call it? An individual is forced to give up almost one third of their income to the federal government or potentially face jail time or worse. If we were required to give up 100% of our labor product it would undoubtedly be called slavery. But since it's less than that people seem to go along with it. The fact is most of the income tax revenue goes to pay off debt incurred by the government (which of course was built up mostly thanks to corruption and lying and other sorts of thievery and scams) and debt to the federal reserve bank. So we do not get much in return for what is taken (not given, taken). The money is used to conquer other regions, to pay way over priced contracts to friends, to give to failed corrupt banks and businesses (who also happen to be friends with politician, or, in many cases, themselves politicians with interest in those businesses and banks).

We are being robbed blind under the auspices of contributing to the greater good only to enrich an already super wealthy class of people. We are slaves unaware of our enslavement, with illusions of freedom and equality. What's to be done? I don't think violence against the slave masters is the answer, if only because it simply won't work, so while I technically agree with Mr Texas' manifesto, I disagree with his tactics (and, in either case, the poor workers at the IRS office are also slaves, even if they live in the house.

Thoughts?

I knew no one could come up with a moral justification.

It's at least theft. Every opressor is a gangster and terrorist.

Only one third of te income?

What about all the ohter taxes one is paying indirectly?
Closer to 100% than closer to 33%...

Yes, it does come out to more than one third overall, but some taxes I think can be justified. I'm talking about federal income tax. For instance, local property tax, while usually way overinflated, I think can be theoretically justified because it goes to pay for community public works, such as schools, roads, sanitation, etc. Everyone uses those, so everyone should pay for them.

You pay less taxes and enjoy a higher standard of living in America than you would in most of the rest of the world. There are significant problems with lobbyists and crooked politicians, but by and large you want to promote democracy as a check on capitalism.

We need a more progressive tax system that redistributes wealth downwards while still encouraging innovation. A socialist state like you'd find in Scandanavia would be ideal.

So you are saying a government has the right to take a portion of your labor by force? For the record I do not support capitalism.

A chilling manifesto...
We will be seeing more of this type of behavior.

good shout, researcher. We need more people like you to blow the trumpet. A government should be supported by the people of their own choice not because they run the legal system, own the houses we live in, are in bed with the banks and appointed themselves rights to suck the people dry.
... but thats the problem, government is essentially put in place by those with power to rule over those without, therefor it will always be a dis-service!

I don't really care though, As long as the system is in place then there will be people trying to make it better, I trust in that.

What does a government actually do? only 1% of my hard earned money actually went to maintaining the city. Seems nuts to me?

And neither do I for that matter, Its a horrible profit-oriented approach which is based in greed, undercutting your neighbour, fuck the planet - give me whats mine, survival of the fattest, blah blah blah. but on the flipside, it ensures the cheapest goods.

I'm just wondering how Perry is gonna spin this; he's up for re-election.
being how he's a fellow bitch-boy of Bush (both are neo-cons), they're quick to play the 'terrorist' card against anyone who dissents against authoritarianism.

In an ideal world, we'd be able to say "to hell with this" and head into the wilderness or whatever to live without any government interference. However, things being as they are the government absolutely has the right to collect taxes. I certainly derive more value from having government roads, schools, fire departments, etc then I've paid in taxes, and even if I was one of the wealthy then it's absolutely moral to support wealth being transferred from the top to support social welfare programs, health care, education, etc.

There are definitely flaws. The health care debate has really showcased how a group with lots of money (insurance providers) can set the tone of the debate. As long as there are people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Joe Lieberman around, this will be problematic. The answer is not to be anti-government but rather anti-corruption. The corporations that are causing your problems want you to reduce government involvement so they can run amok, when the solution is really tighter regulation on industry.