Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    The right is very confusing on this issue.

    Tax is theft because it extracts value from a person by force and that is bad. However extracting force by way of employment in order to make a profit for your spec, that is a good thing.

    Complaining about the government stealing your economic output is a nonsense when, for most, your employer will take a much, much bigger proportion of that output without question.



    'Anarcho-capitalist country'.

    Proof, if you needed anymore, that AnCaps are not to be taken seriously.
    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 surfaced roads and pavements, using waste bins etc. You can’t avoid it and still be a member of society.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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 that doesn't even take into account that the rich, especially those that own the means of production, gain significantly more from the presence of the State than the poorest do.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (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 don't know whether you're trolling or not. LOL
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Thank you!
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    The right is very confusing on this issue.

    Tax is theft because it extracts value from a person by force and that is bad. However extracting force by way of employment in order to make a profit for your spec, that is a good thing.

    Complaining about the government stealing your economic output is a nonsense when, for most, your employer will take a much, much bigger proportion of that output without question.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    It's not a voluntary contract because the employee is coerced into signing by a) societal pressure to be employed and b) because his way of life is wholly dependent on income from his employer.

    I suggest you examine things more closely, you might learn something.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    It's not a voluntary contract because the employee is coerced into signing by a) societal pressure to be employed and b) because his way of life is wholly dependent on income from his employer.

    I suggest you examine things more closely, you might learn something.
    But it's not your employer forcing you to work is it? If you don't turn up to work they will not come round your house and throw you back into the office in chains.

    What is forcing you to work is reality. The fact that, in the real world, you need some method of providing food/shelter/and so on. And OK, the real world is **** sometimes, but that isn't your employer's fault. They offer a job, you have reason to take it. You are a grown up with agency and freedom, no one is forcing you to do anything, but most people decide working is better than not.

    By contrast, taxation actually is taken on the threat the government will send heavies round to grab you and throw you into a prison cell.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.

    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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'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.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Sorry but there's an ideological inconsistency in saying tax is theft but you consent to it. Even if you argued tax is theft, which I disagree with, it stops becoming theft at the point you would agree to pay it.

    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
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    It's not theft on the basis of you essentially agreeing to pay tax to live in the country - if you don't want to pay tax, then live somewhere else. Theft is stealing someone's money without permission. I'm pretty sure everyone allows it if they want to live here/not go to jail.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Why do you want to live in a Mad Max style of 'society'?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,920

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.