Taxation is nothing more than theft

[Helvidius]

Perhaps you should view it as


You live in an apartment, you are expected to pay rent, you dont pay rent you get evicted.

Or if it is a condo, the condo board which is elected decides on how much the condo fees are, which if you dont pay said condo fees, you can have your wages garnished or the condo foreclosed on. Meaning you get kicked out of the apartment

But to assume you are merely renting suggests you don't own the land. In your analogy there is no such thing as private property. The government owns everything and the people own nothing.

I think it is a legitimate question to ask if there is private property when you are forced to pay taxes on the land you supposedly own. Now it could be argued that you have a say in what you are taxed because you vote and therefore it is not theft because you have agreed on the taxes in your area.

 

[Psychoclown]

Yes or no? Say I live in an apartment, and everyone else there decides to take 50% of my income from that month. They say I have to pay them or else I have to move. Is that theft?

That seems to me like the best analogy for taxation.

Since you identify yourself as a libertarian, I'm going to assume you're not an anarchist and therefor believe that some type of limited government is necessary. How exactly do you propose that limited government be funded if you view all taxes as theft? If you believe any level of government is necessary, then that government must be properly funded in order to serve its function. The way government collects funding is called taxes.

I think the quote someone else posted in this thread was quite fitting. "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

 

[phattonez]

Perhaps you should view it as


You live in an apartment, you are expected to pay rent, you dont pay rent you get evicted.

I'm talking about something above and beyond rent.

 

[phattonez]

Since you identify yourself as a libertarian, I'm going to assume you're not an anarchist and therefor believe that some type of limited government is necessary. How exactly do you propose that limited government be funded if you view all taxes as theft? If you believe any level of government is necessary, then that government must be properly funded in order to serve its function. The way government collects funding is called taxes.

I think the quote someone else posted in this thread was quite fitting. "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

This doesn't directly contradict what I'm asking. How can taxation be construed as anything other than theft?

 

[phattonez]

I think it is a legitimate question to ask if there is private property when you are forced to pay taxes on the land you supposedly own. Now it could be argued that you have a say in what you are taxed because you vote and therefore it is not theft because you have agreed on the taxes in your area.

But if I individually vote against taxation, how can I be taxed? Just because the majority says so?

 

[phattonez]

Well... your analogy overlooks one thing. You make the claim that you are taxed %50 yet get nothing back. In all reality if everyone in a building was taxed 50% theyd have all that income redistributed or used for things that benefit the whole building. Unless you're hyper rich you tend to get back what you pay in. Bad analogy. Scratch that the hyper rich probably dont pay as much in taxes proportionally as individual middle income families.

If a guy breaks into my house, steals $500 from me, and that buys something that benefits me, it isn't theft?

 

[phattonez]

No, it isn't theft.

You're forgetting what that 50% of everyone's income goes towards for the residents of the apartment. It goes to pay for the power, water, plumbing, maintenance, lawn care, upkeep for the parking garage, parks, and security guards keeping watch.

It's only theft if you get no access or benefit from what the taxes pay for. Because you do get access to services or some benefit to the services the taxes pay for, it isn't theft.

The rent is something you agree to pay. I'm talking about something you're coerced into paying. Even if it does benefit me, how is it not theft?

 

[Wiseone]

The rent is something you agree to pay. I'm talking about something you're coerced into paying. Even if it does benefit me, how is it not theft?

The Constitution gives the right for Congress to levy taxes. But more importantly, what is your solution to all the problems and services destroyed by a tax of taxation, including government. Again, you can't have no taxes while still maintaining government.

 

[phattonez]

The Constitution gives the right for Congress to levy taxes. But more importantly, what is your solution to all the problems and services destroyed by a tax of taxation, including government. Again, you can't have no taxes while still maintaining government.

The latter is a separate issue. And I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about morals. Answer the moral question.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

This doesn't directly contradict what I'm asking. How can taxation be construed as anything other than theft?

Traditionally usury was viewed as a form of theft.

 

[Wiseone]

The latter is a separate issue. And I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about morals. Answer the moral question.

Well its certainly not immoral if thats your question, since it provides for the neccesary government which prevents total anarchy. Allowing the chaos of anarchy, now that would be truly immoral.

 

[phattonez]

Traditionally usury was viewed as a form of theft.

Great, but since both parties agree to the transaction, then where's the problem in charging interest? I never agreed to being taxed.

 

[phattonez]

Well its certainly not immoral if thats your question, since it provides for the neccesary government which prevents total anarchy. Allowing the chaos of anarchy, now that would be truly immoral.

But I didn't agree to the taxation. I would pay for protection voluntarily, but I never agreed to taxation, so how is it moral? If a thief robs from me and uses that money to buy a gun and patrol my house from intruders, is he justified?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Great, but since both parties agree to the transaction, then where's the problem in charging interest? I never agreed to being taxed.

True, taxation is something that is taken from you regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Yes, that is an objective fact.

Now what is the point of this thread? Surely you didn't start it to ask if people agreed with that?

 

[Wiseone]

Great, but since both parties agree to the transaction, then where's the problem in charging interest? I never agreed to being taxed.

I think you agreed to be taxed when you use tax funded services, unless you are content with just taking other people's money.

 

[phattonez]

True, taxation is something that is taken from you regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Yes, that is an objective fact.

Now what is the point of this thread? Surely you didn't start it to ask if people agreed with that?

That because I did not agree to it and it is forced upon me it is immoral.

 

[phattonez]

I think you agreed to be taxed when you use tax funded services, unless you are content with just taking other people's money.

If a guy takes my money and buys me 500 pizzas, is it no longer theft if I eat some of the pizzas?

 

[Wiseone]

If a guy takes my money and buys me 500 pizzas, is it no longer theft if I eat some of the pizzas?

No but if you ask someone to show up to protect you, or ask someone to pay for roads you are morally obligated to pay for those services and its no longer theft if that person takes the money you owe him for serviced you requested.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Don't you basically agree to it by living here? Isn't that a contract implicitly entered into (i.e. to respect the laws of the country) when choosing to reside in this country?

If you don't like it then why not just move to some country that doesn't tax?

 

[phattonez]

No but if you ask someone to show up to protect you, or ask someone to pay for roads you are morally obligated to pay for those services and its no longer theft if that person takes the money you owe him for serviced you requested.

How is this any different than what I just questioned? You just admitted that using the services paid for with your money does not change the fact that the initial theft was still immoral.

 

[phattonez]

Don't you basically agree to it by living here? Isn't that a contract implicitly entered into (i.e. to respect the laws of the country) when choosing to reside in this country?

That's only true if you concede that the government owns the land. However, it would seem to me that the people who use the land own the land (in general), and not the government. It seems to me then that the government is intruding on my property, and that leaving is not an option. The thief could come on my property and say he would not steal anything if I agreed to move. That's still theft immoral though, isn't it?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

That's only true if you concede that the government owns the land. However, it would seem to me that the people who use the land own the land (in general), and not the government. It seems to me then that the government is intruding on my property, and that leaving is not an option. The thief could come on my property and say he would not steal anything if I agreed to move. That's still theft immoral though, isn't it?

No, it's not required for one to concede that the government owns the land, merely that the laws of the government preside over the country as a whole, including private property, and that by living in that country, one implicitly enters into a contract with the government to abide by its laws.

 

[Wiseone]

What is the purpose behind this thread? Is it just to make unreasonable analogies? Can you even argue the issue as the issue? Why all the analogies. Why can't we talk about taxes and government and call them taxes and government?

 

[Wiseone]

That's only true if you concede that the government owns the land. However, it would seem to me that the people who use the land own the land (in general), and not the government. It seems to me then that the government is intruding on my property, and that leaving is not an option. The thief could come on my property and say he would not steal anything if I agreed to move. That's still theft immoral though, isn't it?

The concept of private property is a creation of government.

 

[phattonez]

What is the purpose behind this thread? Is it just to make unreasonable analogies? Can you even argue the issue as the issue? Why all the analogies. Why can't we talk about taxes and government and call them taxes and government?

Because of the mystique that surrounds the government which allows them to get away with things that individuals are not able to. I'm trying to demystify by using analogies to talk about the morality of the actual action.