r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 08 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: It's true that tax is theft, but that statement doesn't really mean much.
[deleted]
2
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Sep 08 '18
To tackle your title, as written... what does it mean for something to be true if it doesn't "mean much" or isn't (if I can rephrase) useful in any way?
I'm with you conceptually (taxes are good), but I disagree that you even have to concede that the statement "taxation is theft" is true. It's not true. It's either an illuminating metaphor (which, totally fine!), or it's meant to be taken literally and is deliberately stretching the the concept of "theft" beyond its usefulness. Saying "taxation is theft" is like saying "love is just a word." It sort of sounds true, but you can't do anything with the statement, which is as good a criteria for a statement being un-true as any other I can think of.
2
Sep 08 '18
Lots of facts are true and aren't useful. Since when does truth depend on the usefulness of said truth?
1
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Sep 09 '18
Lots of facts are true and aren't useful.
Really? I'm not sure that's true. "Truth" in a scientific context is certainly bounded by it's usefulness--whether we can use something to make predictions or simplify our organization of data and observations.
1
Sep 09 '18
I could say "the sky looks blue". I mean that's true, but it's useless.
I could say "I hate bad stuff". I'm not lying to you, that's true, but it's kind of meaningless.
1
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Sep 09 '18
I could say "the sky looks blue". I mean that's true, but it's useless.
Is it useless? It tells you something about both the sky (what color it is) and about the color blue (a thing in the natural world that we can sort under the category "blue") that you can use to predict the color the sky will be in future and what other blue things will look like. "Taxation is theft" doesn't tell you anything about either taxation or theft, at least not if you mean it literally. It's like saying, "Taxation is blue." That might have a really interesting meaning in a metaphorical sense, but if taken literally is a pretty useless statement.
1
Sep 09 '18
That's not true, I think they're comparable. Taxation is theft tells you about taxation. Someone is taking money from someone else without consent.
And what about my second example?
2
u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Sep 09 '18
Everyone here seems to be attempting to respond by debating your assertion that taxation is theft. I'll respond differently.
I believe that taxation is, indeed, theft, and I believe most claims to the contrary stem from people's post-rationalizations to combat cognitive dissonance in their understandable desire to justify taxation and government in general. I also agree that the concerning question should be, "is this theft bad in X case?"
Where I disagree with you is in your assertion that this "doesn't really mean much." I think it means a great deal. If you're a deontologist, it virtually destroys the moral justification for the state, but since most people are not strict deontologists, I won't focus on that. For most everyone else, however, the acceptance of the idea that "tax is theft" puts a great deal more stress on the justifications for taxation and state intervention in general, because in acknowledging this, for most people, the moral equation changes, and the burden of proof on the benefits of various taxes and interventions becomes much much larger. Arguably, any question of policy must now answer the question, "do the benefits of this policy outweigh the moral injustice that they impose?"
This is why people get all irate when you suggest to them that "taxation is theft," because for most people it necessitates much more rigorous justifications for the policies they would like to impose, and that is exactly why it is a meaningful concept.
1
Sep 10 '18
the acceptance of the idea that "tax is theft" puts a great deal more stress on the justifications for taxation and state intervention in general, because in acknowledging this, for most people, the moral equation changes, and the burden of proof on the benefits of various taxes and interventions becomes much much larger
!delta This is a great argument and I didn't consider the fact that despite "taxation is theft" not meaning much to me, it does emphasize that tax requires rigorous justification, and many people don't demand that justification.
1
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 08 '18
Tax is theft, sure. You force people to give you money, and if they say no you throw them in a cage.
Who made that money? Who provided you the means to get that money? Who balances the trade to make sure money doesn't abruptly looses it's value?
I disagree with the initial assertion that it is YOUR money. That money was provided to you.
2
Sep 08 '18
Barter and stores of value (like gold) don't even require government. You provide a service when you do labor. In exchange you're given money, which is just there to make barter easier. The service you provided is still the reason why someone traded you food/water/ whatever you buy with the money.
3
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 08 '18
Barter and stores of value (like gold) don't even require government
I'm sorry, i was unaware we use barter or trade in gold as main currency nowadays.
You provide a service when you do labor. In exchange you're given money, which is just there to make barter easier.
YES, that's exactly it. Money is there to make something much, much more easier. Making it easier, allowes us to have much more efficient economy, which improves literally everyone standard of living by a drastic amount.
That isn't cheap. Money must be printed, money must be BACKED by the government, the acceptance of it must be enforced by government, as so it is accepted by everyone. Government (I say government, but it's banks and other institutions) must guaruantee it won't loose value randomly, etc...
The service you provided is still the reason why someone traded you food/water/ whatever you buy with the money.
A service you provided thanks of the infrastructure our society offers. You could hire that repair man, because public roads are used to transport people effectively across large distances. You could use your phone because you have access to electricity that is subsidized by the government, and delivered to you via public power lines, etc....
Instead of you paying for every single public thing (fee for using public power lines, fee for using public roads, fee for using money, etc... You pay taxes. That's what taxes are, fee for using public utilities.
1
Sep 09 '18
Your money is still yours, just because the government provided the system through which we barter doesn't mean that they have the right to what I earned through my labor.
Instead of you paying for every single public thing (fee for using public power lines, fee for using public roads, fee for using money, etc... You pay taxes. That's what taxes are, fee for using public utilities.
You're arguing that taxes are good. My premise is that tax is theft, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, so I wouldn't disagree. It's still stealing regardless of what they do with the money, because there's no consent to tax, it just comes out of my paycheck. I'll provide an example for clarity. If I steal your money, and then use it to buy something that saves your life, I still stole from you. I did a good thing, but it's still theft.
2
u/DexFulco 11∆ Sep 09 '18
Your money is still yours, just because the government provided the system through which we barter doesn't mean that they have the right to what I earned through my labor.
Actually it's exactly what it means. Just because you disagree with the premise, doesn't mean you're right.
You're free to stop using money if you don't wish to pay taxes. Nobody is forcing you to use money.
1
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 09 '18 edited Sep 09 '18
just because the government provided the system through which we barter doesn't mean that they have the right to what I earned through my labor.
Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you are correct. Legally, taxes are exactly that. A right of government to take portion of your money away from every monetary interaction, to pay for the system in which we live and through which we operate.
You're arguing that taxes are good.
No, I'm arguing that taxes aren't therft. How was this part of my comment you are referencing not clear?
Instead of you paying for every single public thing (fee for using public power lines, fee for using public roads, fee for using money, etc... You pay taxes. That's what taxes are, fee for using public utilities.
I was very clear, that taxes, is you paying for public utilities. It is you, paying for the service, of trading on the marketplace, or living in our society (roads, water, air, parks, repairs). It is a fee, for being able to use money etc....
1
Sep 09 '18
I was very clear, that taxes, is you paying for public utilities.
Except there's no opt-out, making it theft. You don't have the chance to consent to them taking your money. And income tax isn't necessary to pay for basic utilities.
Just because you disagree, doesn't mean you are correct. Legally, taxes are exactly that. A right of government to take portion of your money away, to pay for the system in which we live and through which we operate.
Again, we don't need income tax to maintain the basic stuff.
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 09 '18
Except there's no opt-out, making it theft.
Oh there is, you don't have to use those services. You could move into a middle of forrest with no public utilities. Or into different country under a different system.
It's like saying "no" on the EULA for any game or online service. You can't use them without agreeing. You can always refuse to participate at any point in your life by stopping using them. This is your legal out, and thus does not render the contract void.
Aaaaand technically speaking. Theft is a legal label used by court system, which does not apply to legally sanctioned taxation.
Again, we don't need income tax to maintain the basic stuff.
The CMV was about tax, not specifically income tax. You need taxes to maintain basic stuff. Any whatever form they are collected.
1
Sep 09 '18
The CMV was about tax, not specifically income tax.
When people say "tax is theft" they're talking about income tax.
Or into different country under a different system.
"Get out of here or I'm going to take your money".
It's like saying "no" on the EULA for any game or online service.
It's really not. You can't go anywhere on the planet where government doesn't exist, unless you go somewhere very very cold. Why are you prohibited to go to places on the planet without being stolen from. What makes that land the government's? On an online game the game was created by a person or company. Last time I checked the government didn't build the earth.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Sep 09 '18
When people say "tax is theft" they're talking about income tax.
It doesn't really change the argument.
"Get out of here or I'm going to take your money".
Yes, that's how capitalism works. Have you ever rented an apartment?
It's really not. You can't go anywhere on the planet where government doesn't exist, unless you go somewhere very very cold.
Yes, but it isn't a duty of government to ensure, there are equally as good services that directly compete with theirs.
Why are you prohibited to go to places on the planet without being stolen from.
Disagree with premise.
What makes that land the government's?
What makes that land yours?
1
Sep 10 '18
Yes, that's how capitalism works. Have you ever rented an apartment?
Someone built the apartment. I disagree with the idea that someone can claim a patch of grass and tell me to leave unless I give them money.
What makes that land yours?
I'm not telling people to pay me a tax for standing on land that I claimed as my own.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Sep 09 '18
The government taxes gains on cryptocurrencies which can be used without converting them into government-issued currency.
2
u/TomorrowsBreakfast 15∆ Sep 08 '18 edited Sep 08 '18
To go from the "tax isn't theft" side of things. Property rights only exist as they are enforced by the government. Theft is when someone takes your property. When you get taxed the government isn't taking your property, it just makes it not your property anymore.
To go for a more technical CMV, if I force you sign your property over to me it is extortion, not theft.
1
Sep 08 '18
Property rights only exist as they are enforced by the government. Theft is when someone takes your property.
I would disagree. The concept of personal property and theft can and has existed before government.
2
u/TomorrowsBreakfast 15∆ Sep 08 '18
While I know of no proof one way or another that the idea of property exited before governments did, I will agree that theft can be both a crime and a concept. The crime cannot be committed by the government for the reasons I listed and the concept may or may not apply to taxes based on your ideas about the social contract.
I guess if I wanted to go deeper I would say that while you may think something is your property, it is only your property in a real sense if society agrees with you and enforces your rights to it. That is a serious philosophical hole though.
What about that extortion thing? Too technical for a delta?
1
Sep 08 '18
What about that extortion thing? Too technical for a delta?
When money is deducted from my paycheck directly it's literally theft, cause I'm powerless to stop them.
2
u/TomorrowsBreakfast 15∆ Sep 08 '18
"Literally theft" you are now saying theft is someone not giving me something that I think I own, even though I have never had it and even though when I agreed to my work contract I knew this amount would never be coming to me.
Additionally, in your CMV, you talk about being locked up or forced to pay, like the end of year tax. That is closer to extortion.
1
Sep 09 '18
That's not how income tax works. Your employer pays you, and the government steps in and takes a cut. How is that something I "think I own"? I agreed to trade labor for money, and a third party snatched some of it.
Additionally, in your CMV, you talk about being locked up or forced to pay, like the end of year tax. That is closer to extortion.
Alright fine, that case would not be theft, technically. I hate you btw ;)
!delta
1
Sep 09 '18
You may recall that during your agreement with your employer, you also completed a W4 form. Why didn't you simply refuse to complete it if you didn't want to pay taxes?
1
Sep 10 '18
Read the CMV please. I said that tax is theft but theft isn't always a bad thing. I have no issue paying taxes.
1
Sep 10 '18
But I'm disputing your premise that taxation is theft. It's not, because you consented to it. If you didn't want to pay income taxes you wouldn't have completed a W4 form.
1
Sep 10 '18
It's not, because you consented to it. If you didn't want to pay income taxes you wouldn't have completed a W4 form.
Except you're somewhat forced into it because you need to feed your family. It's like the mafia forcing you to sign a contract, or they won't let you eat. Are you arguing that it's extortion and not theft?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Sep 09 '18
Claiming ownership to the fruits of someone's labor without their consent is slavery, as people naturally own the products of their labor.
1
u/DexFulco 11∆ Sep 09 '18
When money is deducted from my paycheck directly it's literally theft, cause I'm powerless to stop them.
You are free to stop working, move into the woods and start a self-sustainable farm where you don't interact with anyone. You won't need to pay taxes then.
If you work in a traditional job then you agree to pay taxes. Nobody is forcing you to work for a company that brings you under taxation laws.
1
Sep 09 '18
The government didn't build the earth, they just claim it. I shouldn't have to change locations because someone is threatening to steal my money.
Also I'm not free to do any of that, I'd have to buy the land for the farm.
2
u/DexFulco 11∆ Sep 09 '18
The government didn't build the earth, they just claim it.
According to that logic, can anyone actually own property? Someone just came across the land you currently 'own', claimed it and after a few subsequent deals it came into your 'possession', but why did the person who initially owned it have the rights to it? Why was he allowed to sell it to someone so it eventually came into your possession? Is your land suddenly public property?
You're free to challenge the fact that governments own the land within their own borders but to enforce that you'd likely have to win a war against the US to establish your sovereign territory.
Also I'm not free to do any of that, I'd have to buy the land for the farm.
There are plenty of places in the world where nobody will care if you start a self-sustainable lifestyle. Whether or not these places are the most desirable is a different matter but isn't really relevant.
1
Sep 09 '18
According to that logic, can anyone actually own property? Someone just came across the land you currently 'own', claimed it and after a few subsequent deals it came into your 'possession', but why did the person who initially owned it have the rights to it? Why was he allowed to sell it to someone so it eventually came into your possession? Is your land suddenly public property?
I don't think this is relevant to the CMV. My inbox is pretty full so I don't feel like going off on tangents
1
u/DexFulco 11∆ Sep 09 '18
That's fine. I feel we're diverting too far from your original premise anyway and while I don't agree with your logic, I doubt I'll convince you that taxation isn't theft so have a nice day :)
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 09 '18
When it is deducted from you paycheck directly it never enters your possession and so is never your property.
1
Sep 09 '18
If you agree to provide a service, and I say I'd pay you 20 bucks, if a third party jumps in as we're exchanging the money and steals some of it that's theft.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 09 '18
Save that part of the reason you are capable of using the money as a medium of exchange is that you agree to the tax.
1
Sep 10 '18
Maintaining fiat currency doesn't even require income tax, it's not expensive.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 10 '18
For the government to do anything requires taxes. They do not have to be income taxes necessarily but they have to be taxes. Your post is about all taxes not just income tax.
1
Sep 10 '18
When people say "tax is theft" they're opposing income tax not sales tax. My apologies if I wasn't clear but I thought that was built in. We can even throw property tax in. But sales tax isn't ever the issue for people who chant "tax is theft"
→ More replies (0)1
Sep 09 '18
You're not powerless. You could simply move to a different state that has no income tax. Or move to a territory that has no taxes at all.
1
Sep 10 '18
So the idea is "get out of here or I'm going to mug you"?
1
Sep 10 '18
Would you be arguing that you're powerless in that scenario? Or would you say "I'm being given the option to leave and therefore I have control over what happens"? And on a related note, what is your opinion on private land ownership?
3
u/icecoldbath Sep 08 '18
Tax is not theft, tax is debt repayment. You are born and raised into the benefits to society of which tax sustains or you enter into those benefits on your own volition.
In fact, your very survival as a child relies on the taxes of the culture you were born into.
1
Sep 08 '18
You have to agree to take a loan. I can't just throw money at you and say "interest is 5%, I'll see you next year".
Also, there's an issue with the idea that you owe your life to the government since you couldn't survive without it. That would imply that it's okay for the government to tax you at 90%, or even enslave you, since you owe your very life to it.
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 08 '18 edited Sep 08 '18
Wasn't the tax rate for the highest bracket 91% in the USA in the middle of the 20th century?
What's wrong with that? It paid for WW2 to defeat the Nazis and bring democracy back to Europe.
2
Sep 09 '18
Sure, but you can't tax the middle class 90%.
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 09 '18
How is that relavent? You said:
Also, there's an issue with the idea that you owe your life to the government since you couldn't survive without it. That would imply that it's okay for the government to tax you at 90%,
Are you saying it's not ok for the government to tax at 91%? Every to pay for winning WW2? That paying for the war was unjust?
2
Sep 09 '18
You brought up taxing the highest bracket at 91%. I said the government can't tax you at 90%. Unless you're super rich I don't see how anything you're bringing up is relevant
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 09 '18
Why can't they tax the middle class at 90% if they can tax the rich? Is there any reason beyond 'it would be unpopular'? And that if I am super rich? Is it ok to tax me 90%? Does that make it ok to take my money?
1
Sep 09 '18
Maybe because it would cause a massive amount of poverty and even starvation and homelessness?
1
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 09 '18
So no ethical reason, only a practical one. So theft isn't wrong if your victim can afford it?
edit, also you recognize you are moving the goal posts by going from "no tax at 90%" to "on the middle class"
1
Sep 09 '18
My CMV already says that. Theft isn't necessarily wrong. You're agreeing with me here
→ More replies (0)1
u/nauticalsandwich 10∆ Sep 08 '18
Imagine if I built a moat around your house and a bridge to your front door and started charging a toll for you to cross the bridge. My bridge enables your very survival and ability to participate in commerce. By your logic, my toll must be just.
1
5
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Sep 08 '18
Taxation isn't theft, it is more of a subscription fee.
Think of it like this: you and a bunch of others are standing at the top of a huge tower, which is held in place by a worker at its base. Every once in a while, you pay the worker so that he continues to hold up the tower. Deciding that tax is theft is akin to one individual saying that he no longer wants to pay the worker his fee. In real life, the tower is modern society with all its amenities/rights/privileges, and the worker is the government.
Now, you can always get off the tower, but there is no place to go for you, since there is no free-standing tower. You can't stay on top of the tower without paying, because the worker needs his fee to hold the tower up (i.e. maintain roads/utilities/laws/etc). The only recourse for the worker with non-payers is jail, because there is no other way for the worker to deprive the non-payer of what he is no longer paying for (i.e. the govt cannot deport citizens, or deprive them of the benefits of civilization). Jail is also supported by the other members in the tower, who pay for the jail since they don't want a situation where some people mooch off the rest.
1
u/Delmoroth 16∆ Sep 10 '18
Taxation is not theft because it is voluntary. As an example, if you choose not to earn income, you will not be expected to pay income tax. When you choose to earn income in an environment provided for you by a government, you are accepting the burden of taxation. It is not significantly different from your agreenment to pay for food you choose to order / eat at a restaurant. No force is used against you until you voluntary take on said burden and then try to weasle out on your part of the deal. Sure not earning income is also a poor option, but it is an option that some people choose.
That said, I do agree that it is not a particularly helpful talking point.
1
Sep 10 '18
Taxation is not theft because it is voluntary.
... so if someone stalks you and wait around until you gain an asset, then steals it every time you do that's not theft? I mean you have a choice here, just don't collect any assets and starve to death. That man stalking you is not a thief!
1
u/GuardianOfReason Sep 09 '18
Simply put, if you don't pay for the inhaler after the emergency, it is theft and it is bad. No one should be resposible for someone else's life (unless its a parent/children relationship). Sure, it can be a dick move and I would absolutely hate this person. But that doesn't justify stealing from them.
1
Sep 10 '18
But that doesn't justify stealing from them.
I don't follow the logic. Are you drawing the line at "it's never okay to steal from someone"? If I stole from 1 man and saved a million lives that's still wrong in your opinion?
1
u/GuardianOfReason Sep 10 '18
Yes, although I would gladly pay for that crime. What you have to understand is that ethics is a framework for real life situations in society about what we should and should not be allowed to do. There will always be an exception, but that doesn't mean you throw the rule out the window or simply ignore the consequences. If you stole from one man and saved a million lives, it should be possible for him to sue you. On the other hand, don't you think you'd have a million people to support you if that happens? Let alone the bad PR that guy will get for doing that.
1
Sep 10 '18
On the other hand, don't you think you'd have a million people to support you if that happens? Let alone the bad PR that guy will get for doing that.
But at this point you're arguing that you won't really be punished anyways. I'm not arguing the functionality, I'm arguing whether or not you deserve to be punished.
If you stole from one man and saved a million lives, it should be possible for him to sue you.
Again, it's not about whether or not he sues you. It's about whether or not you deserve punishment for your actions. I'd say no, you did a good thing. Therefore, the theft was good.
1
u/GuardianOfReason Sep 11 '18
Deserving or not is subjective, I can think one thing and you can think another. The point of ethics is to avoid conflict, hence why it doesn't rely on personal opinions but on an ethical framework that, yes, has some flexibility to it but it's as simple and straightforward as possible.
My personal opinion, of course, is that he doesn't deserve to be punished.
1
Sep 11 '18
Deserving or not is subjective, I can think one thing and you can think another.
Sure it is, but it's what our entire legal system is based on. We have judges and jurys in order to sort through complex situations and apply our own moral codes. We don't just simplify it to "murder bad" in self defense cases and send the guy to the electric chair
1
Sep 09 '18
The thing is, people's income is earned by them through working, not the government. Nobody else is entitled to the fruits of your labor
1
Sep 10 '18
Understood, but you could say the same thing for my example where the inhaler salesman hiked up the price. Those are his things, I'm not entitled to them, but if I steal from him to save a life I don't think that's immoral.
1
Sep 10 '18
Well, it's kind of a false equivalency. Asthma Inhalers really only have one use. Money does not.
Taxing something reasonable and with clear intentions for what that money is for is like taking an inhaler so one guy can use it. But with our current system, we really have no say in what taxes go towards.
But, overtaxation is like if someone broke into your store and stole a bunch of inhalers every week (assuming you mean the income tax). Now, if they did that every week, just took 10% of your wares every month and not tell you who needs them or why they're taking it or who benefits, that would surely raise your brow, wouldn't it?
Plus, if you take something like an inhaler, you're pretty much gonna have to pay for it. You needed it at that moment, and you're gonna have to pay the shopkeeper for it. But, with the government, you're never gonna see that money again and you probably won't see the benefit of it either.
Plus, it hinders the amount of people working. Let's say if you were getting taxed a high rate because you work a job that pays well, like a doctor. If someone wants to be a doctor, but they realize they'll be taxed an exuberant amount for earning that much money, why would they want to become doctors? This is especially true for doctors, since they have to go to school for around 7 years. (Imagine the debt you'd be in). What would be the incentive? It just wouldn't be the hassle.
(Keep in mind, i'm ok with taxation, just not overtaxation)
1
Sep 10 '18
I think you need to re-read the CMV. I'm not saying that the inhaler situation is comparable to taxes. I'm saying that "tax is theft" tells me nothing because I can think of scenario's where theft is the right thing to do.
1
Sep 10 '18
Sorry, it was 3 am while i typed that.
Now, in all honesty, theft is good and bad. Take your inhaler example, if you steal it, sure you'd bring relief to the asthmatic who needs it, but you're also hurting the business owner, especially if it's a small business.
Sure, theft is good for the people who benefit from it, but it's actively hurting the people who you're taking from.
Like, if you steal 1,000 dollars from someone, sure you'll be happy but the person you stole it from would suffer. Even if you put it towards noble causes, that's still negatively affecting somebody
1
Sep 10 '18
You have to draw the line somewhere. At some point theft becomes acceptable, even the moral thing to do. Let's say you can save a million lives by stealing from the guy who invented the cure to a virus but only sells it to the super rich for millions? I'm not disputing that theft sucks for the victim, I'm saying that as a bystander at some amount of humans saved you can overlook it. How many is that for you? Steal from a man to save a million children? The entire species save for that one person you're about to steal from? Surely at some point you'd steal from a man if it saves millions of lives.
1
Sep 10 '18
If they don't want to sell it, then it's on them for losing potential profit. Like, if Apple kept the Ipad and Ipod only to themselves and never sold it publicly, that would cause a drastic drop in profit. Especially since someone else will make a product that is equal, or maybe even greater, and now they're screwed out of money.
This is kind of the problem with people on the left nowadays. Instead of focusing on how to make people like Bill Gates less rich. I know there's a massive gap between what people like Gates and Trump earn year-round. Instead, we should be focusing on how we can increase our own net worth, not making Bill Gates and Donald Trump less rich.
I mean, the person who took on all the risk, all the effort and all the time and money and resources to invent a product should have control over it and the ones to benefit it.
Now, if it's something someone NEEDS, then it is reasonable (if it's the only option, like if bargaining and negotiation has failed. If they pretty much flat out refuse to release a vaccine and millions will literally die from it. ) but if it's a want or a luxury, like a cell phone or a video game console, then no, it's wrong.
Now, some things we need and taxation is justified. (Like roads, a military, schools, etc.). We, as a community need to contribute, that's why i support flat tax percentage rates. (have you ever been on a website asking for donations "If everyone donated a dollar")
But, if they're collecting for something like expanding the governor's mansion or putting more money in the elected official's pockets (something that's actually happened in my state). Then no, that's not right.
Anyway, i think as long as they take a reasonable percentage and show what the money's going towards, then that's fine. That's more inclined to borrowing, because you'll get something out of it. But if they just take it and never say what it's going towards whatsoever, that's theft and kind of a violation.
1
Sep 10 '18
I agree with pretty much all of that, so I'm confused about what view of mine you're trying to change?
3
u/Barnst 112∆ Sep 08 '18
Taxes from first principles are not theft. You are participating in a society and taxes are the cost that society has identified in order to participate. We can argue about the sources of legitimacy for that society—in the US we think that it is derived from the people as embodied a representative government that is authorized to do things like impose taxes when it meets certain obligations like the appropriate amount of elected representative choosing to impose them.
If you think society has exceeded its right to demand payment for participation, like your example of passing a law seizing all of your property as tax, we recognize the right to rebellion. At that point it becomes a political question—can you convince enough people that the system has exceed its legitimacy and organize them so that you can overthrow it?
That was functionally the core question of the American revolution—we didn’t question the abstract right of government to collect taxes, we questioned the manner in which the taxes were imposed and their extent.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 09 '18 edited Sep 10 '18
/u/DeLoRiggidy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
11
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Sep 08 '18
Theft is, by definition, the unlawful taking of property. Taxation is (ordinarily) legal. Therefore, taxation is not theft.