DOTW: Is taxation theft?

[thethe]

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]

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]

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]

So predictable.

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

LOL. What is wrong with the comparrison?

[thethe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.