Do you view taxation as theft?

[utgotye]

Some taxes are theft in the sense that you don't actually "pay" them. Payroll taxes, for example. I didn't pay those, the government simply took them. So in that regard, yes, it is theft. Is it a huge deal? Not really. Taxes, like it or not, are a necessary evil.

That said, the worst of them all is property taxes, which isn't anything of the sort, it's just rent on property you supposedly own. The worst part is when you have to pay said rent on property that technically, according to the city/county/state, isn't even yours, such as boulevards and "public rights-of-way", but are included in the initial price of your lot. Beyond that, they punish those who wish to improve their property by increasing their taxes for doing so. It's kind of like getting that raise you wanted only to find it bumps you into the next income tax bracket.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think people are entitled to live in their country as much as they are entitled to live in their houses, yes.

Well yeah, but you're now clearly avoiding the point. And I believe you intelligent enough for me not to have to explain it.

I'll remind you, you brought up the house metaphor. And not really addressed my criticism of it.

The problem with saying that taxes are just like paying ordinary bills is that we did not accept to those expenses. Saying that we consent "by not moving" is a rather miserable critique that can be used to justify all sorts of criminal and despotic behaviors (Eg, in this country people of the ethnicity X don't get to vote. If you don't consent move out).

I agree. Don't like it, get out is no way to have a discussion about it. Don't like it, go through the mechanisms of Democracy to change it would be a better critique. Now we all know that changing the rules of a Democracy is a slow and arduous process, but it needs to be to prevent radicalisation. So, no, there's no easy and quick way to have things your way.

And that's the same for all of us.

Calling taxes theft (or extortion) is merely to provoke an emotional response. As is calling speed limits fascism.

Fact of the matter is, taxes are a necessary burden which need to be viewed on the level of a society. Calling it theft completely bypasses motivations and intents. It's a fact you enjoy the benefits of a society in one way or another. It's a fact those benefits have to be paid for.

Call it overpricing if you feel you are taxed too heavily, at least that indicates you understand you get something in return for paying taxes. This characteristics is lacking in case of either theft or extortion.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

In an opt-out organ donation system, the hospital cannot be said to have stolen your organs if you didn't opt out. But how does one opt out of taxation? I suppose it would be as easy as choosing to not be a part of one's society.

As for how I personally feel, I don't want to opt out.

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[warpus]

Taxes are theft in the same way that going into a movie theatre and being asked to pay to get in is theft.

 

[Cutlass]

In an opt-out organ donation system, the hospital cannot be said to have stolen your organs if you didn't opt out. But how does one opt out of taxation? I suppose it would be as easy as choosing to not be a part of one's society.

As for how I personally feel, I don't want to opt out.

You get the hell out. Not that there's much of anywhere left to go. As long as you are in the settled areas, you are in fact taking advantage of things paid for in taxes. So if you don't pay, you are freeloading.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Taxes are theft in the same way that going into a movie theatre and being asked to pay to get in is theft.

No, its not. It would be more akin to being dragged into the theater and then asked to pay for the movie. You got to see a movie, and you had to pay, but you didn't get the choice NOT to make the transaction. That absolutely makes it more iffy than straight out "Theft" but its not the same as any other transaction either.

I could see Traitorfish coming in here and saying "Define "Taxation" and "Theft""

I think that's probably the best answer

In all seriousness, I think my mafia example is pretty valid. You get to vote for one of a small group of mafioso who will steal from everyone and use the funds to pay himself a salary but for the most part to provide various services. The reality is that each, however, has his own ideas on what services to provide, and they may all suck. And you don't get to pick "None" either. No matter what you do, a portion of your income is being stolen.

the question is "Do we owe society something just for existing" and "Can we be forced into a transaction against our will?" If the answer to both is no, taxes are certainly wrong, whatever their called.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Taxation is no more theft than the concept of property itself. Property rights don't exist without an institution to enforce them.

This of course, isn't actually an argument against the idea that taxation is theft.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Why not? If it's that bad, move. If you live in a dictatorship then maybe you have a point... but then a lot more than your money is being taken from you. Although you can quibble with the ease of moving you cannot quibble with the fact that you get something for paying taxes.

The better analogy is shopping at a store that you hate. If you don't like what you get for your money then go to a different store.

A much more direct analogy is paying protection fees to a local criminal organization. You get something in exchange for your money, if you don't like it you can relocate.

The populace, as a whole, has chosen what the government is to do. If you don't like it, change the government.

Of course, you object when people do that, as well, and I'm still waiting for you to pay back the money you've stolen from me.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, its not. It would be more akin to being dragged into the theater and then asked to pay for the movie. You got to see a movie, and you had to pay, but you didn't get the choice NOT to make the transaction. That absolutely makes it more iffy than straight out "Theft" but its not the same as any other transaction either.

I could see Traitorfish coming in here and saying "Define "Taxation" and "Theft""

I think that's probably the best answer

In all seriousness, I think my mafia example is pretty valid. You get to vote for one of a small group of mafioso who will steal from everyone and use the funds to pay himself a salary but for the most part to provide various services. The reality is that each, however, has his own ideas on what services to provide, and they may all suck. And you don't get to pick "None" either. No matter what you do, a portion of your income is being stolen.

the question is "Do we owe society something just for existing" and "Can we be forced into a transaction against our will?" If the answer to both is no, taxes are certainly wrong, whatever their called.

Wrong. Do you owe society by making use of it?

The answer is yes. Debate is about how much.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

A much more direct analogy is paying protection fees to a local criminal organization.

I thought protection money only protected you from the racketeers.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I thought protection money only protected you from the racketeers.

No, racketeers routinely attempt to remove other criminal elements (including other racketeers) because they are a direct threat to business.
If your protection racket doesn't offer it, then you should look into changing your protection racket.

 

[Zack]

I don't understand how you could vote "yes" unless you're an anarchist.

 

[luiz]

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. By calling it theft, you fundamentally misrepresent, and so discredit, what it is. The correct analogy is that you went to a restaurant and had lunch, and now you want to walk off without paying for it.

You made a choice, or, when you were a child your parents made that choice for you, to take advantage of what taxes paid for. And now you say "well I didn't want it, so I don't owe the money to pay for it".

Well fine, get the hell out. Stop freeloading.

The populace, as a whole, has chosen what the government is to do. If you don't like it, change the government.

I'm not discrediting it at all. I agree that calling it theft isn't very constructive, but there's no escaping its similarity to a protection racket. The non-voluntary, non agreed upon nature of taxation leaves no doubt.

Well yeah, but you're now clearly avoiding the point. And I believe you intelligent enough for me not to have to explain it.

I'll remind you, you brought up the house metaphor. And not really addressed my criticism of it.
I agree. Don't like it, get out is no way to have a discussion about it. Don't like it, go through the mechanisms of Democracy to change it would be a better critique. Now we all know that changing the rules of a Democracy is a slow and arduous process, but it needs to be to prevent radicalisation. So, no, there's no easy and quick way to have things your way.

And that's the same for all of us.

Calling taxes theft (or extortion) is merely to provoke an emotional response. As is calling speed limits fascism.

Fact of the matter is, taxes are a necessary burden which need to be viewed on the level of a society. Calling it theft completely bypasses motivations and intents. It's a fact you enjoy the benefits of a society in one way or another. It's a fact those benefits have to be paid for.

Call it overpricing if you feel you are taxed too heavily, at least that indicates you understand you get something in return for paying taxes. This characteristics is lacking in case of either theft or extortion.

Again, the fundamental principle here is we are demanded, under threat of force, to pay a price we didn't agree to for services we didn't ask for. Just saying "but you enjoyed those services!" does nothing to challenge this principle. So taxes are theft, or extorsion (which for me is a kind of theft anyway).

That we get nice services in exchange for taxes is immaterial; we may also get valuable protection out of extortion (see mafia protection rackets).

There's no way to masquerade taxes as voluntary bills. And the fact that (most us) live in democracies does not matter either. From the POV of the individual tax payer the tax rates are unilaterally imposed; it matters not whether from the decision of millions of people or a mad dictator. The individual can't decide which services he wants and how much he thinks they're worth.

I entirely agree that calling taxes theft is not constructive and isn't even very relevant. We need them. But the OP asked the question and I see no other way to answer honestly.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I got this as a definition of theft: the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

I'll let 'crimes' and 'fraudulently' slip for now, although it's clear that taxes are neither crimes nor fraudulent. I'm also iffy about 'permission' or 'consent', since one chooses to live in a society and work for a wager knowing beforehand what part of it will be taxed. But the kicker for me is 'convert it to the taker's use'. The money is funnelled back into society minus the costs of doing so.

The denomination of taxes as theft is based on such loose grounds, it's hardly defensible save for a botched up definition of theft.

So what's wrong with the definition of theft? It takes a lot more than it being manditory.

 

[luiz]

Well, there's no permission or consent, and the intent is to convert it to the taker's use.

(Note that you can steal from a bank to donate to an orphanage and it would still be theft).

 

[dutchfire]

I think I'm on the same page as luiz here. Sure, taxes are needed and useful, and a world without taxes would be a crappy place. But there is no denying that there is hardly any intrinsic difference between taxes and extortion.

About Ziggy's definition:
theft: the generic term for all crimes I don't think you should interpret this as "to be theft, something must be a crime", but as "if something is theft, it is criminal".
in which a person surely corporations can steal too, and corporations are not people in any reasonable part of the world.
intentionally and fraudulently What does this fraudulently do here? Isn't it a repeat of crime?
takes personal property of another without permission or consent this I agree with
and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). I don't agree with this. Robin Hood was a thief. A good thief, but still a thief.

I'd think this would be a better definition:
theft, the act of intentionally taking the personal property of another without his permission or consent.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm still off the opinion that taking money with the known intention of giving it back is not theft.

I think the crux of the matter, and the reason for the disagreement, is viewing it from an individual perspective or from the perspective of society as a whole.

 

[Souron]

The government is more like an investment fund, where you put money in, have some say in what the investment is in, but must ultimately defer to the majority opinion. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's closer than theft.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is theft tax?