PDA

View Full Version : DOTW: Is taxation theft?



sturg33
08-22-2013, 11:43 AM
I'm happy to piggyback Weso's DOTW idea and bring it over the the political/religion board. So, I'll start with this one.

Is taxation theft?

goldfly
08-22-2013, 11:46 AM
easy

no

what does "dotw" stand for? if it is "debate of the week", this debate is already over then

sturg33
08-22-2013, 11:47 AM
My response.

Let's start with the definition:
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

In my mind, theft would be any situation in which someone takes something from me without me voluntarily giving it to them. In other words, if someone holds a gun to my face and says for me to give them my wallet, I will give them my wallet. But that is stealing, because the consequences of not doing so would have been a violent act against me.

Look at it from the government perspective. The government says "give me 30% of your money." I have a choice. Pay them, or go to prison. Even though I don't agree at all with what the money is being used for, and absolutely am not voluntarily giving them my money, I don't see how it is not considered "socially acceptable theft"

What say you?

thethe
08-22-2013, 11:47 AM
I believe the structure of the tax system is the problem and not the concept of tax.

How do you propose the infrastructure of this country survive without taxes?

thethe
08-22-2013, 11:48 AM
My response.

Let's start with the definition:
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

In my mind, theft would be any situation in which someone takes something from me without me voluntarily giving it to them. In other words, if someone holds a gun to my face and says for me to give them my wallet, I will give them my wallet. But that is stealing, because the consequences of not doing so would have been a violent act against me.

Look at it from the government perspective. The government says "give me 30% of your money." I have a choice. Pay them, or go to prison. Even though I don't agree at all with what the money is being used for, and absolutely am not voluntarily giving them my money, I don't see how it is not considered "socially acceptable theft"

What say you?

You could leave the Country. That is another choice as opposed to going to jail.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 11:55 AM
You could leave the Country. That is another choice as opposed to going to jail.

That doesn't address my question... You could leave the country for any reason. I'm asking, is the concept of forceful taxation theft, and if not, why is it different?

thethe
08-22-2013, 11:59 AM
That doesn't address my question... You could leave the country for any reason. I'm asking, is the concept of forceful taxation theft, and if not, why is it different?

It is not theft because you don't have to pay. You can choose to leave. So if you compare it to your scenario you have more choices. It is not close to the same thing.

CK86
08-22-2013, 12:38 PM
Taxation is necessary with proper oversight and checks and balances. I just wish they'd go down instead of always going up.

thethe
08-22-2013, 12:41 PM
Taxation is necessary with proper oversight and checks and balances. I just wish they'd go down instead of always going up.

And thast the point I was making. The structure of the system is what is wrong and not the idea of taxes. Taxes are lessened on the wrong people (wealthy/poor) while the are raised on the wrong people (middle/upper-middle class).

sturg33
08-22-2013, 12:47 PM
It is not theft because you don't have to pay. You can choose to leave. So if you compare it to your scenario you have more choices. It is not close to the same thing.

And if the governmet shuts down my accounts and alerts border patrol, how could I leave?

I could also choose to run away from the guy with the gun, but that doesn't make what he did right.

Now you can keep making all sorts of strawmans, but that doesn't help the conversation. You don't think taxation is theft, tell me why

thethe
08-22-2013, 12:53 PM
And if the governmet shuts down my accounts and alerts border patrol, how could I leave?

I could also choose to run away from the guy with the gun, but that doesn't make what he did right.

Now you can keep making all sorts of strawmans, but that doesn't help the conversation. You don't think taxation is theft, tell me why

I am not saying to skip out on your tax bill currently. You can choose to close up shop and leave in the future. By living within the United States of America you are agreeing to obey the tax laws that have been VOTED into our current laws. The fact that it has gone through the established process of government to be enacted makes it 100% LEGAL!

goldfly
08-22-2013, 12:59 PM
My response.

Let's start with the definition:
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

In my mind, theft would be any situation in which someone takes something from me without me voluntarily giving it to them. In other words, if someone holds a gun to my face and says for me to give them my wallet, I will give them my wallet. But that is stealing, because the consequences of not doing so would have been a violent act against me.

Look at it from the government perspective. The government says "give me 30% of your money." I have a choice. Pay them, or go to prison. Even though I don't agree at all with what the money is being used for, and absolutely am not voluntarily giving them my money, I don't see how it is not considered "socially acceptable theft"

What say you?

it is part of the social contract

this is where i don't agree with the libertarians

taxes suck and we could argue about what the certain amount should be to be taxed and what it should be used for

but taxes are needed and is part of a better society (or should help make a better society offering services etc)

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:06 PM
I am not saying to skip out on your tax bill currently. You can choose to close up shop and leave in the future. By living within the United States of America you are agreeing to obey the tax laws that have been VOTED into our current laws. The fact that it has gone through the established process of government to be enacted makes it 100% LEGAL!

But just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. For example, slavery was legal. The extermination of ***s was legal. And probably thousands of other examples I don't need to bother getting into. Cause you're smart enough to understand that legality does not equal ethical.

thethe
08-22-2013, 01:10 PM
But just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. For example, slavery was legal. The extermination of ***s was legal. And probably thousands of other examples I don't need to bother getting into. Cause you're smart enough to understand that legality does not equal ethical.

You didn't ask if taxation was ethical.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:10 PM
it is part of the social contract

this is where i don't agree with the libertarians

taxes suck and we could argue about what the certain amount should be to be taxed and what it should be used for

but taxes are needed and is part of a better society (or should help make a better society offering services etc)

Fair enough. And I understand that taxes are necessary to fund some important roles of government. My whole beef with taxation is involuntary taxes. It's much like I hate this Obamacare thing. It is unvolunatry, and if I don't participate, then I am breaking the law.

Income taxes are involuntary.

The obvious (at least I believe obvious) problem is the government is too massive and is too dependent on stealing from the people. I know you agree with me about national defense. But how about welfare? How about all of the debt of education? The dept of interior? The DHS? FEMA? Countless others.

All of these are massive strains on the tax payer, but it wasn't always. And we survived. Taking money from me to fund an afterschool program is theft. It is no different than me robbing someone on the street and giving that money to a homeless person. That is a crime. But the government doing it is ok.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:11 PM
You didn't ask if taxation was ethical.

You're right, I asked if it was theft. Being legal doesn't make it not theft.

Julio3000
08-22-2013, 01:11 PM
it is part of the social contract

this is where i don't agree with the libertarians

taxes suck and we could argue about what the certain amount should be to be taxed and what it should be used for

but taxes are needed and is part of a better society (or should help make a better society offering services etc)

Yep. It takes individual talent, intellect, and initiative to achieve great things in this country. It also takes a functioning social contract, stability, and infrastructure. The latter is largely a function of the collective, and not giving credence to that is a blind spot that I struggle to comprehend. If you don't want to acknowledge it, I'd suggest going to an undeveloped country—or even better, a failed state—and seeing how much your time is worth there.

thethe
08-22-2013, 01:12 PM
Its not theft. Its 100% legal. Theft is illegal.

Your question is a philosophical one and not a legal one. You should phrase your initial question differently.

thethe
08-22-2013, 01:13 PM
You're right, I asked if it was theft. Being legal doesn't make it not theft.

Actually, it does.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:16 PM
Actually, it does.

No. Again, by your logic, then Hitler didn't "murder" anyone because everything he did was legal for German law.

Nonsense.

thethe
08-22-2013, 01:18 PM
No. Again, by your logic, then Hitler didn't "murder" anyone because everything he did was legal for German law.

Nonsense.

So predictable.

I can't believe that you actually made that comparison.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:18 PM
Yep. It takes individual talent, intellect, and initiative to achieve great things in this country. It also takes a functioning social contract, stability, and infrastructure. The latter is largely a function of the collective, and not giving credence to that is a blind spot that I struggle to comprehend. If you don't want to acknowledge it, I'd suggest going to an undeveloped country—or even better, a failed state—and seeing how much your time is worth there.

I think this conversation is steering in the wrong direction. You guys are all making the argument that taxation is necessary (how much, is the question? I would argue that we are way above what is necessary for a functioning society). My question more in lies with the idea of wheteher or not that actual forceful act of taking money from citizens is theft? Citizens MUST pay, even if they absolutely detest what the money is going for (like the Iraq war, for example).

Julio3000
08-22-2013, 01:19 PM
Fair enough. And I understand that taxes are necessary to fund some important roles of government. My whole beef with taxation is involuntary taxes. It's much like I hate this Obamacare thing. It is unvolunatry, and if I don't participate, then I am breaking the law.

Income taxes are involuntary.

The obvious (at least I believe obvious) problem is the government is too massive and is too dependent on stealing from the people. I know you agree with me about national defense. But how about welfare? How about all of the debt of education? The dept of interior? The DHS? FEMA? Countless others.

All of these are massive strains on the tax payer, but it wasn't always. And we survived. Taking money from me to fund an afterschool program is theft. It is no different than me robbing someone on the street and giving that money to a homeless person. That is a crime. But the government doing it is ok.

No, it's a system that you opt into, isn't it?

We survived without child labor laws, workplace & food safety regulations, universal suffrage, environmental regs . . . lots of stuff. And then we decided, through the democratic process, that we were collectively better off WITH these things than without them. We could, and have, reversed and scaled back some of them. Welcome to society.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:20 PM
So predictable.

I can't believe that you actually made that comparison.

LOL. What is wrong with the comparrison?

thethe
08-22-2013, 01:20 PM
You are agreeing to the taxes by living here. If you don't want to agree to them then you are free to leave the country. I think its pretty easy.

Julio3000
08-22-2013, 01:20 PM
I think this conversation is steering in the wrong direction. You guys are all making the argument that taxation is necessary (how much, is the question? I would argue that we are way above what is necessary for a functioning society). My question more in lies with the idea of wheteher or not that actual forceful act of taking money from citizens is theft? Citizens MUST pay, even if they absolutely detest what the money is going for (like the Iraq war, for example).

If I deprive another person of their life, is it murder?

sturg33
08-22-2013, 01:24 PM
No, it's a system that you opt into, isn't it?

We survived without child labor laws, workplace & food safety regulations, universal suffrage, environmental regs . . . lots of stuff. And then we decided, through the democratic process, that we were collectively better off WITH these things than without them. We could, and have, reversed and scaled back some of them. Welcome to society.

You say, as a society, we decided we needed X. And for many things, you're probably right. But I don't think, as a society, we decided we needed the Iraq war. Or Obama care. Or the Patriot act. Instead, the corrupt folks who lied to get elected, madated those things on us, and taxed the living hell out of us to pay for it.

gilesfan
08-22-2013, 01:54 PM
That doesn't address my question... You could leave the country for any reason. I'm asking, is the concept of forceful taxation theft, and if not, why is it different?

If you work in the U.S., you agree to pay taxes.

jpx7
08-22-2013, 02:02 PM
I think this conversation is steering in the wrong direction. You guys are all making the argument that taxation is necessary (how much, is the question? I would argue that we are way above what is necessary for a functioning society). My question more in lies with the idea of whether or not that actual forceful act of taking money from citizens is theft?

One man's theft is another man's just appropriation; the definition of "theft" is as socially-constructed and (nearly) as arbitrary as the tax-rate structure itself (certainly, it's just as arbitrated). That's why the question of social necessity is a much more germane one than the (vastly) more nebulous question: What is "theft"?

I think there's much more utility in debating where and for what tax-revenues are expended than whether the core-concept is socially valid.

50PoundHead
08-22-2013, 02:07 PM
it is part of the social contract

this is where i don't agree with the libertarians

taxes suck and we could argue about what the certain amount should be to be taxed and what it should be used for

but taxes are needed and is part of a better society (or should help make a better society offering services etc)

I would respond, but goldfly already hit this one out of the park.

thethe
08-22-2013, 02:09 PM
If you work in the U.S., you agree to pay taxes.

Not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp. Sturg wants all the benefits of working/living in the US but none of the responsibilities.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 02:17 PM
Not sure how this is a difficult concept to grasp. Sturg wants all the benefits of working/living in the US but none of the responsibilities.

LOL... I think you think I'm a very uneducated person.

thethe
08-22-2013, 02:20 PM
LOL... I think you think I'm a very uneducated person.

That thought has actually never come across my mind about you. Quite the opposite actually. I just think you are misguided slightly in the fact that you don't realize there is the world you think we live in and the real world.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 02:27 PM
That thought has actually never come across my mind about you. Quite the opposite actually. I just think you are misguided slightly in the fact that you don't realize there is the world you think we live in and the real world.

I think there is a world we live in, and I try to recognize the many problems associated with it and ways to make it better for individuals.

Metaphysicist
08-22-2013, 09:27 PM
Regardless of education, I think if you refuse to acknowledge to readily apparent differences between basic taxation and petty theft, then you are asking people to not take you seriously.

zitothebrave
08-22-2013, 09:59 PM
Taxes aren't theft because we can not pay them. That didn't work. Twice though. Articles of confederation failed, not to mention the south in the civil war.

sturg33
08-22-2013, 10:01 PM
Regardless of education, I think if you refuse to acknowledge to readily apparent differences between basic taxation and petty theft, then you are asking people to not take you seriously.

Explain this difference to me - not from a legality standpoint, but from a practical standpoint.

Situation a:
Political candidate campaigns on cutting spending. Gets elected. Once elected, decides to change course and get taxes raised in an effort to provide additional foodstamp benefits for poor individuals. Taxes get raised on each individual on a net $200 a year. Food stamp benefits increase for poor individuals.

Situation b:
Person puts a gun in a rich guy's face and demands his money. Rich guy gives him $200. Person takes that $200 and gives it to the local homeless person to buy food.

thethe
08-22-2013, 10:36 PM
Two things:

1 - It takes more than just one candidate to affect tax policy

2 - And where are these "Robin Hood" characters that you are referencing?

weso1
08-22-2013, 10:44 PM
Are you arguing that certain types of taxation are theft? It seems silly to me to argue that taxation as a whole is theft. Taxation without representation could be argued as theft.

Metaphysicist
08-22-2013, 11:34 PM
Explain this difference to me - not from a legality standpoint, but from a practical standpoint.

Situation a:
Political candidate campaigns on cutting spending. Gets elected. Once elected, decides to change course and get taxes raised in an effort to provide additional foodstamp benefits for poor individuals. Taxes get raised on each individual on a net $200 a year. Food stamp benefits increase for poor individuals.

Situation b:
Person puts a gun in a rich guy's face and demands his money. Rich guy gives him $200. Person takes that $200 and gives it to the local homeless person to buy food.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for proving my point. If you refuse to acknowledge that there is a real and obvious difference in these situations, then you aren't going to be taken seriously.

zitothebrave
08-22-2013, 11:53 PM
Explain this difference to me - not from a legality standpoint, but from a practical standpoint.

Situation a:
Political candidate campaigns on cutting spending. Gets elected. Once elected, decides to change course and get taxes raised in an effort to provide additional foodstamp benefits for poor individuals. Taxes get raised on each individual on a net $200 a year. Food stamp benefits increase for poor individuals.

Situation b:
Person puts a gun in a rich guy's face and demands his money. Rich guy gives him $200. Person takes that $200 and gives it to the local homeless person to buy food.

Made me lol

You can always leave the country, or state, or town if you disagree with the tax policy. But there's a reason that the rich white folk don't flock to UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. Because they love western luxuries, like cell towers, internet, highways, so on so forth that are made possible partially or entirely by taxes. If you disagree with the US tax code you're free to leave. But good luck over there.

Irony of course is that nearly all those countries I list that don't have income tax still have some form of social security which you consider robbery.

sturg33
08-23-2013, 08:03 AM
Just to be clear, neither meta nor zito explained the difference, which I am genuinely curious about. thethe attempted his point number 1 - but i could easily turn around and say it was a "gang of robbers" on the street.

I know you guys disagree that they are similar, I just want to know why you think those two situations aren't comparable?

zitothebrave
08-23-2013, 08:08 AM
I don't think they're similar at all. And I don't think I have to explain the difference. What you're essentially implying is that you see no benefit from taxes and that's not the case. Even people saddled with the heaviest tax burden (rich people with bad accountants) see a return on investment for their taxes. I'm sorry you can't see that they're not the same, because they can't really be further from the same. If someone steals my phone, I don't get a return on that, if someone steals my identity I dont' get a return. Everyone who pays taxes sees a benefit. Sure some folks make out in the tax game, but I'd compare taxes to capitalism before I'd compare it to theft.

thethe
08-23-2013, 08:39 AM
I agree with Zito on the return of investment of taxes. I wish it were more because we dovote too much money to the poor. I suppose that would be "ok" if the wealthy people weren't given a ridiculous amount of tax breaks within the tax code and corporations actually had to pay taxes. I just don't believe in your example Sturg. I believe it isn't realistic and it doesn't recognize that every citizen has a choice to leave the country to another place with little or no taxes. We pay a price to live in the greatest country in the world. You mentioned a few weeks ago that you have a great job that you are doing well in. That job might not be available in these other countries because of the vast markets within the US. Its just the price of living here and you made the choice to live here.

Metaphysicist
08-23-2013, 01:50 PM
Just to be clear, neither meta nor zito explained the difference, which I am genuinely curious about. thethe attempted his point number 1 - but i could easily turn around and say it was a "gang of robbers" on the street.

I know you guys disagree that they are similar, I just want to know why you think those two situations aren't comparable?

The difference has already been pointed out by many people in this thread. The only reason you would still not get it is if you actively refused. And why should I bother trying to explain something to someone who has no interest in listening?

If you were being intellectually honest, this might be an interesting discussion. But literally nothing anyone could say will change your opinion, and so your question is not actually a question but a way to make yourself feel smug.

sturg33
08-23-2013, 02:10 PM
The difference has already been pointed out by many people in this thread. The only reason you would still not get it is if you actively refused. And why should I bother trying to explain something to someone who has no interest in listening?

If you were being intellectually honest, this might be an interesting discussion. But literally nothing anyone could say will change your opinion, and so your question is not actually a question but a way to make yourself feel smug.

Seriously. What is the difference?

Zito explained an ROI. But if my taxes are going to Iraq or to foreign aid or to expanded food stamps, I'm not really seeing an ROI.

So what is the difference? I'll check back in on Monday. Go Braves~!

gilesfan
08-23-2013, 02:12 PM
LOL. I love it when Meta puts tinfoil in place.