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).
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 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.
Natural Immunity Croc
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.
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.
"For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."
Julio3000 (08-22-2013)
goldfly (08-23-2013)
Tapate50 (08-23-2013)
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.
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.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
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.
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?
Natural Immunity Croc
jpx7 (08-23-2013)
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.
thank you weso1!