Go to first unread
Back
to top
Is taxation theft?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#41
(Original post by Waldorf67)
And moreover, from the day you are born you reap the benefits of taxation.
Every day of our lives we experience the results of public service spending. It’s impossible not to.
We are paying for a service which is provided.
OP, if you don’t pay taxes and still reap the benefits of public spending, you are reaping the benefits of tax payers money without contributing yourself. How is that not a form of theft? Especially when you consider that that is illegal, whilst paying taxes is not.
It’s impossible not to benefit from public spending, in terms of using our road systems with traffic control measures, using our surfaces roads and pavements, using waste bins etc. You can’t avoid it and still be a member of society.
And moreover, from the day you are born you reap the benefits of taxation.
Every day of our lives we experience the results of public service spending. It’s impossible not to.
We are paying for a service which is provided.
OP, if you don’t pay taxes and still reap the benefits of public spending, you are reaping the benefits of tax payers money without contributing yourself. How is that not a form of theft? Especially when you consider that that is illegal, whilst paying taxes is not.
It’s impossible not to benefit from public spending, in terms of using our road systems with traffic control measures, using our surfaces roads and pavements, using waste bins etc. You can’t avoid it and still be a member of society.
1
Report
#42
(Original post by Mefan Stolyneux)
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
0
Report
#43
I will sum up the opinions of pretty much anyone who is actually an anarcho capitalist or any other meme ideology.
MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME. Not even worth debating such a joke of an ideolgy, I take communists more seriously than you
MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME. Not even worth debating such a joke of an ideolgy, I take communists more seriously than you
0
Report
#44
This is too broad a philosophical question to answer in any meaningful way - all you can do is provide argument.
Personally, I think all you can do is argue at what point taxation becomes legitimate. The state is going to exist - that's a given. The state is always going to provide certain minimums -that's also a given. Everything else is an argument as to what those minimums are, and what the state should provide beyond that. Any other argument on taxation is an extension of those.
If you ask me, the issue at hand is the debate over whether citizens should expect high taxation or low taxation as a norm. Should the state be trying to maximise services or minimise taxation?
Personally, I think all you can do is argue at what point taxation becomes legitimate. The state is going to exist - that's a given. The state is always going to provide certain minimums -that's also a given. Everything else is an argument as to what those minimums are, and what the state should provide beyond that. Any other argument on taxation is an extension of those.
If you ask me, the issue at hand is the debate over whether citizens should expect high taxation or low taxation as a norm. Should the state be trying to maximise services or minimise taxation?
0
Report
#45
(Original post by Trinculo)
This is too broad a philosophical question to answer in any meaningful way - all you can do is provide argument.
Personally, I think all you can do is argue at what point taxation becomes legitimate. The state is going to exist - that's a given. The state is always going to provide certain minimums -that's also a given. Everything else is an argument as to what those minimums are, and what the state should provide beyond that. Any other argument on taxation is an extension of those.
If you ask me, the issue at hand is the debate over whether citizens should expect high taxation or low taxation as a norm. Should the state be trying to maximise services or minimise taxation?
This is too broad a philosophical question to answer in any meaningful way - all you can do is provide argument.
Personally, I think all you can do is argue at what point taxation becomes legitimate. The state is going to exist - that's a given. The state is always going to provide certain minimums -that's also a given. Everything else is an argument as to what those minimums are, and what the state should provide beyond that. Any other argument on taxation is an extension of those.
If you ask me, the issue at hand is the debate over whether citizens should expect high taxation or low taxation as a norm. Should the state be trying to maximise services or minimise taxation?
Some sense into the debate.
Arguing about whether taxation is theft or not is rather redundant given that, as you say virtually everyone agrees with some level of tax to provide law and order, at least.
0
Report
#46
(Original post by Rinsed)
Erm, if someone is extracting labour by force then that is slavery, not employment, which is a voluntary contract.
I suggest you have not quite understood the issue.
Erm, if someone is extracting labour by force then that is slavery, not employment, which is a voluntary contract.
I suggest you have not quite understood the issue.
I suggest you examine things more closely, you might learn something.
0
Report
#47
For me it's not about whether or not it's theft. I think you could make a reasonable case it is. It's a question of whether or not it's justified; I think theft can be justified (for instance, stealing food from a shop because otherwise you'll starve). If it's taxation for the ends of healthcare, education, housing, etc then I think that's a justified theft because it improves and even saves lives. It's why I support taxing the rich more than the poor; taxing people who have little to give is unjustified because it could potentially ruin them, but taxing people with a surplus of money (more than is needed to live a decent quality-of-life) is not immoral because you're not going to kill them or ruin their life by taking money unless you take so much that you make them poor (then it becomes unjustified)
It's a pretty basic utilitarian argument
It's a pretty basic utilitarian argument
0
Report
#48
(Original post by Zufolo)
For me it's not about whether or not it's theft. I think you could make a reasonable case it is. It's a question of whether or not it's justified; I think theft can be justified (for instance, stealing food from a shop because otherwise you'll starve). If it's taxation for the ends of healthcare, education, housing, etc then I think that's a justified theft because it improves and even saves lives. It's why I support taxing the rich more than the poor; taxing people who have little to give is unjustified because it could potentially ruin them, but taxing people with a surplus of money (more than is needed to live a decent quality-of-life) is not immoral because you're not going to kill them or ruin their life by taking money unless you take so much that you make them poor (then it becomes unjustified)
It's a pretty basic utilitarian argument
For me it's not about whether or not it's theft. I think you could make a reasonable case it is. It's a question of whether or not it's justified; I think theft can be justified (for instance, stealing food from a shop because otherwise you'll starve). If it's taxation for the ends of healthcare, education, housing, etc then I think that's a justified theft because it improves and even saves lives. It's why I support taxing the rich more than the poor; taxing people who have little to give is unjustified because it could potentially ruin them, but taxing people with a surplus of money (more than is needed to live a decent quality-of-life) is not immoral because you're not going to kill them or ruin their life by taking money unless you take so much that you make them poor (then it becomes unjustified)
It's a pretty basic utilitarian argument
Utilitarians should have no problem with this. At the expense of an individual, I'm helping many. Tax is the same. The government points a gun/prison at many individuals and demands money, funnelling it into stuff that is 'good' like healthcare and education.
If you think scenario 1 and 2 are both unjust - congrats, you're a libertarian (/s)
If you think 1 of those is justified, and the other isn't - congrats, you're a hypocrite. (/s) But seriously, why? What is the difference?
0
Report
#49
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
So it's ok for me to point a gun at a wealthy man, demand some of his money, and donate it to charity.
Utilitarians should have no problem with this. At the expense of an individual, I'm helping many. Tax is the same. The government points a gun/prison at many individuals and demands money, funnelling it into stuff that is 'good' like healthcare and education.
If you think scenario 1 and 2 are both unjust - congrats, you're a libertarian (/s)
If you think 1 of those is justified, and the other isn't - congrats, you're a hypocrite. (/s) But seriously, why? What is the difference?
So it's ok for me to point a gun at a wealthy man, demand some of his money, and donate it to charity.
Utilitarians should have no problem with this. At the expense of an individual, I'm helping many. Tax is the same. The government points a gun/prison at many individuals and demands money, funnelling it into stuff that is 'good' like healthcare and education.
If you think scenario 1 and 2 are both unjust - congrats, you're a libertarian (/s)
If you think 1 of those is justified, and the other isn't - congrats, you're a hypocrite. (/s) But seriously, why? What is the difference?
0
Report
#50
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
It's a rather pointless debate because apart from a few people at the extreme, we all agree that you need some level of taxation for public service provision in order to have a civilised society.
It's a rather pointless debate because apart from a few people at the extreme, we all agree that you need some level of taxation for public service provision in order to have a civilised society.
The debate is on whether taxation is theft or not, and so far, nobody has actually been able to prove that it's not.
You can claim it's needed all you want, I agree it is, but it needs reforming certainly. Once the notion that tax is theft is established, we can go about reforming to tax to incorporate this view.
0
Report
#51
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
Doesn't matter if the debate seems to be pointless or not, its interesting.
The debate is on whether taxation is theft or not, and so far, nobody has actually been able to prove that it's not.
You can claim it's needed all you want, I agree it is, but it needs reforming certainly. Once the notion that tax is theft is established, we can go about reforming to tax to incorporate this view.
Doesn't matter if the debate seems to be pointless or not, its interesting.
The debate is on whether taxation is theft or not, and so far, nobody has actually been able to prove that it's not.
You can claim it's needed all you want, I agree it is, but it needs reforming certainly. Once the notion that tax is theft is established, we can go about reforming to tax to incorporate this view.
It's an overly philosophical approach to what is a very practical issue. We all believe in some level of taxation, the question is whether we believe the state should provide a greater or more basic standard of public services.
If you want a reason for why it's not theft though, I'd argue that theft is a legal term not a philosophical one. If something is legal, it isn't theft.
0
Report
#52
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
It is pointless though because there's always going to be tax. We may as well debate if the moon is a good thing, it doesn't get you anywhere. You can't prove it either way because it's a totally philosophical issue with no clear answer either way.
It's an overly philosophical approach to what is a very practical issue. We all believe in some level of taxation, the question is whether we believe the state should provide a greater or more basic standard of public services.
It is pointless though because there's always going to be tax. We may as well debate if the moon is a good thing, it doesn't get you anywhere. You can't prove it either way because it's a totally philosophical issue with no clear answer either way.
It's an overly philosophical approach to what is a very practical issue. We all believe in some level of taxation, the question is whether we believe the state should provide a greater or more basic standard of public services.
Let's say tax is established as theft. There are usually 3 ways to go about incorporating this information In tax policy.
1. The hardcore Libertarian approach.
Libertarians believe in the NAP in which consent is a cornerstone. What makes consensual sex not rape? Consent. What makes a transaction not robbery? Consent. What makes a job nor slavery? Consent. What makes tax not theft - uhh...Consent!
Some believe the government is a service, and should ask you if you want to be taxed. If you don't, you can leave the country. I personally don't agree with this approach as it's simply too outlandish, requires increased bureaucracy and is generally a bit far fetched.
2. The consumption tax:
The fairest way about taxing people. Taxing their consumption, not their income. Charging them for what they use, not what they have
I disagree with this model as it's not really feasible, but it could work with a very limited government. This can also work with the consent model.
3. A flat tax:
This is one I support.
I believe tax is theft, so it's myself belief that everyone should be charged at the same rate. Why should the rich pay 60% of their income and the poor pay 25%. This utilitarian perspective makes no sense whatsoever to me. So a flat tax seems more feasible, fair and sustainable.
It can also be incorporation with a consent model.
_____
So, it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because people believe tax is theft, doesn't mean they want to get rid of tax altogether.
0
Report
#53
(Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
It's not black and white. Just because tax is theft does not mean I, or anybody else who believes so wants to get rid of it entirely.
Let's say tax is established as theft. There are usually 3 ways to go about incorporating this information In tax policy.
1. The hardcore Libertarian approach.
Libertarians believe in the NAP in which consent is a cornerstone. What makes consensual sex not rape? Consent. What makes a transaction not robbery? Consent. What makes a job nor slavery? Consent. What makes tax not theft - uhh...Consent!
Some believe the government is a service, and should ask you if you want to be taxed. If you don't, you can leave the country. I personally don't agree with this approach as it's simply too outlandish, requires increased bureaucracy and is generally a bit far fetched.
2. The consumption tax:
The fairest way about taxing people. Taxing their consumption, not their income. Charging them for what they use, not what they have
I disagree with this model as it's not really feasible, but it could work with a very limited government. This can also work with the consent model.
3. A flat tax:
This is one I support.
I believe tax is theft, so it's myself belief that everyone should be charged at the same rate. Why should the rich pay 60% of their income and the poor pay 25%. This utilitarian perspective makes no sense whatsoever to me. So a flat tax seems more feasible, fair and sustainable.
It can also be incorporation with a consent model.
_____
So, it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because people believe tax is theft, doesn't mean they want to get rid of tax altogether.
It's not black and white. Just because tax is theft does not mean I, or anybody else who believes so wants to get rid of it entirely.
Let's say tax is established as theft. There are usually 3 ways to go about incorporating this information In tax policy.
1. The hardcore Libertarian approach.
Libertarians believe in the NAP in which consent is a cornerstone. What makes consensual sex not rape? Consent. What makes a transaction not robbery? Consent. What makes a job nor slavery? Consent. What makes tax not theft - uhh...Consent!
Some believe the government is a service, and should ask you if you want to be taxed. If you don't, you can leave the country. I personally don't agree with this approach as it's simply too outlandish, requires increased bureaucracy and is generally a bit far fetched.
2. The consumption tax:
The fairest way about taxing people. Taxing their consumption, not their income. Charging them for what they use, not what they have
I disagree with this model as it's not really feasible, but it could work with a very limited government. This can also work with the consent model.
3. A flat tax:
This is one I support.
I believe tax is theft, so it's myself belief that everyone should be charged at the same rate. Why should the rich pay 60% of their income and the poor pay 25%. This utilitarian perspective makes no sense whatsoever to me. So a flat tax seems more feasible, fair and sustainable.
It can also be incorporation with a consent model.
_____
So, it certainly isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Just because people believe tax is theft, doesn't mean they want to get rid of tax altogether.
If you want to argue that people should pay less tax and keep more of their own money then fine, argue on those grounds. But taking the debate to a philosophical level to the point you are accusing those who disagree of supporting a criminal offence, doesn't really get us anywhere
0
Report
#54
(Original post by Mefan Stolyneux)
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
0
Report
#55
(Original post by Mefan Stolyneux)
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
I'm an advocate of an anarcho-capitalist country, and I've never heard an argument to prove that taxation ISN'T theft. Please provide your responses below
0
Report
#56
(Original post by Mefan Stolyneux)
Hello friends, I have considered your arguments for over two years and have finally come to a conclusion: I am now an anarcho-communist.
Hello friends, I have considered your arguments for over two years and have finally come to a conclusion: I am now an anarcho-communist.
0
Report
#57
What is theft is me being taxed a bigger proportion of my income the more money I earn. I fully back a flat tax as the fairest way to tax in society. Why should I have to pay a bigger percentage of my income when I'm likely to use less of the services?
0
X
new posts
