Taxes are a form of Theft

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Like Evita once said: ''When the rich think about the poor they have poor ideas.'' Voluntary redistribution doesn't work, will never work and has never worked.

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

Churches are small compared to the government which is a huge machine that needs money or else it would cease to function or function poorly.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No it doesn't.

That is not how that works, they are not gifts, they are services provided to you in return for taxes which pay for those services. Without taxes those services would not exist or would be of very poor quality. And government workers and employees don't work for free.

they are provided because the state has a responsibility to provide for the people, not in a contract of sale/service (for that type of thing to be drawn up properly, the government would have to meet and negotiate the terms of the Offer and Acceptance with each and every one of its citizens when they come of age, the government doesn't do that... it has no basis for a legitimate claim on money owed)

In the absence of a contract, benefits provided to other people should be considered gifts (or otherwise, to be held in trust by the individuals with a government right to reclaim if the government wanted to assert this right, but that would not endowe it with any more right to payment)

The government doesn't need to meet with each and every one of its citizens to negotiate a tax contract with them, if you live within their borders you are under their legal authority as a citizen so they have all rights to tax the people to obtain revenue.

And how do you expect the government to pay for these so-called "gifts"? As I have said, government workers and employees don't work for free and the services they provide costs money to maintain and operate. You can't provide something if you can't afford to provide it.

[Vadia]

No it doesn't.

That is not how that works, they are not gifts, they are services provided to you in return for taxes which pay for those services. Without taxes those services would not exist or would be of very poor quality. And government workers and employees don't work for free.

they are provided because the state has a responsibility to provide for the people, not in a contract of sale/service (for that type of thing to be drawn up properly, the government would have to meet and negotiate the terms of the Offer and Acceptance with each and every one of its citizens when they come of age, the government doesn't do that... it has no basis for a legitimate claim on money owed)

In the absence of a contract, benefits provided to other people should be considered gifts (or otherwise, to be held in trust by the individuals with a government right to reclaim if the government wanted to assert this right, but that would not endowe it with any more right to payment)

What do you not understand about this?

The part where we said you were born in hospital?

You know, the ones where many of us use state-insurance to afford? The ones that have people in them who went to public schools and had federal loans to go to non=profit colleges?

Or what about when you were born and someone drove you home, on federal roads.

There you go, you are barely a week old and you owe the government money. Hello new-born baby, do you have 500 dollars to pay for all of us?

[BK117B2]

Oh, it's very clear now. You're not sure what is being discussed.

The services provided with tax revenue are not relevant since we're talking about people who don't want them from the government anyway.

If you wish to quote me, try actually addressing what you've quoted for a change

When you were born, you were in a government funded hospital.

You were driven home on government funded roads.

You went to a government funded school.

You come into this world owing the government money, you don't just opt out of that.

Wrong, my parents paid taxes to receive those things. I, like you, owe for only what I have chosen to receive.

[Vadia]

When you were born, you were in a government funded hospital.

You were driven home on government funded roads.

You went to a government funded school.

You come into this world owing the government money, you don't just opt out of that.

Wrong, my parents paid taxes to receive those things. I, like you, owe for only what I have chosen to receive.

So now you owe money to your parents as soon as you were born.

Now if only we all had parents to pay for our everything, along with loaning you money for college.

[N-E-R]

Let's define theft and work from there.

Full Definition of THEFT
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

Definition a involves the 'felonious taking and removing of personal property'. Firstly, the state determines law and therefore cannot commit a felony. Secondly, property is determined by ownership. Ownership is granted and ensured by the state, therefore the state also defines property and thus defines theft. Therefore, definition a cannot be applied to taxes.
As the state determines law and defines property, definition b cannot be applied either.

Therefore, taxes cannot be theft.

But let's try another dictionary.

theft
noun
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

The fact of property being defined and ensured by the state still remains here. However, no mention is made of law. Wrongful is substituted for unlawful, changing it from a discussion about law and taxes to a discussion about morality and philosophy. It is best to simply ignore the term wrongful here, as although a moral discussion may be interesting it is not the topic at hand.

Taxes still cannot be theft, as the state still defines property, but the term 'wrongful' has added a moral element. The conclusion is weaker here due to the inherent subjectivity of the moral term 'wrongful'.

Let's add a third and final definition, one specifically about law.

theft
n. 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). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft

This definition uses the term crimes, which involves legality, as well as property. Both of the observations on the first definition still hold true here. The rest of the definition is irrelevant. Using this definition, the conclusion is identical to the first: Taxes cannot be theft.

[United States of Natan]

What kind of school do/did you go to? a Public City, County, or State-run school? a Public, State-run University or college? Which you paid for in part with money you received from FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid)? How did you drive there? On roads paid for with Town, County, State, or Federal money? All of these are from taxes (or in the case of roads, sometimes tolls). If you didn't pay taxes, these things wouldn't exist. Would you enjoy driving on a dirt road, if any road is even there? Would you enjoy paying your entire private school or college tuition with your own money or loans?

[Trotskylvania]

Taxes are not theft, because the money was never yours to begin with.

Money is a state institution. Taxes, in their most elementary form, are the charge levied for the upkeep of the state and the monetary system.

[Mushet]

Taxes are not theft, because the money was never yours to begin with.

Money is a state institution. Taxes, in their most elementary form, are the charge levied for the upkeep of the state and the monetary system.

This reminded me of that "render unto Caesar" line.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Taxes are not theft, because the money was never yours to begin with.

Money is a state institution. Taxes, in their most elementary form, are the charge levied for the upkeep of the state and the monetary system.

This reminded me of that "render unto Caesar" line.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto John Cena what is John Cena's.

That's in the Bible, you know.

[New Grestin]

Taxes are designed to help maintain infrastructure, provide funding, and keep shit moving.

They aren't theft, they're a necessity to maintain a stable government.

Contrary to popular thought, the government can't just make more money. It needs taxation as a sort of income.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Bad discussion threads like this one are a form of theft since OP robbed me of valuable time.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Sure, but in proportion to the economy of the US, it doesn't have the same prominence as the oil and gas industry of Norway, which explains the lower GDP/Capita. That is exactly why Sweden and Finland have lower GDP/Capita than the US, with almost identical policies of Norway. While I like the minimal regulation, and high regulatory efficiency of the Nordic Model, the taxes are just too high to bare.

Yes, we have high levels of income equality, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the poor suffering, as if the rich have a greater increase of wages in comparison to the poor, then yeah, of course that means higher income inequality, but that doesn't mean the poor are taking a step back. Finally, the level of income inequality can also be attributed to the record-high levels of third world immigrants coming to America, and taking low-level, low-pay jobs, thereby increasing the gap, for their lack of skills can only explain such. That doesn't mean the exact same people who were in the working class in 1980 are worse off now than they were in the 80s.

Even if the poor are languishing worse than they did before the age of Neoliberalism with Reagan and Clinton, the answer isn't more regulation and taxation. Looking at empirical evidence, the economies that are the least regulated, and the least burdened have the greatest levels of economic growth, and if we just cut our insane corporate income tax, which hurts small businesses, and cut income taxes, which decreases consumer spending, we might as well just have a better economy, and that would, as history proves, help both the poor and the rich.

How does poor people receiving less for producing more when the cost of living is skyrocketing not directly equal suffering or a step back? If people can't afford the products corporations are selling because they can barely get by this is a major problem even for the capitalist. Third world immigrants the main problem of income inequality? I guess Paul Krugman should give back his Nobel Prize. I'm pretty sure the vast cuts in social programs coupled with tax breaks to the rich who sit on their money and put it in tax havens is. Poor people are way worse off since the 2008 economic crisis and are still suffering. The empirical evidence suggest that lack of regulation caused the world capitalist economic crisis and that wealth has not trickled down at all despite huge tax breaks. History doesn't prove any such thing as evident with the Robber Barron of America who screwed over everyone else. The same is true under free market lovers Thatcher, Pinochet and Reagan. The fact of the matter is the middle class is being murdered and all the evidence points toward less taxation not more.

1. No, they haven't been receiving less, the minimum wage has been on the increase, and has never been reduced, and you still haven't disproven how the poor 20 years ago have ascended to higher levels of society, and that the same people aren't in a worse situation. Also, if there is anything wrong with pricing, its due to monopolies and price-fixing, things that happen when competition is restricted: almost always caused directly, or indirectly by the federal government.

2. Telling me that Paul Krugman should return his nobel economics prize means nothing, you haven't disproven how these third-world immigrants have been dragging average wages, average income, and other economic indicators down. If anything, it only makes sense that they are taking low-level jobs most Americans won't do: pulling tobacco, picking cotton and cutting trees, and when they are 15% of the US population, it makes some sense that economic indicators for the working class are dropping, doesn't mean the American worker is doing worse than they did in the 80s and 90s.

3. Yeah, and so is everybody else. Sure, the rich recovered quickly, but just like how they recovered faster in virtually every single recession.

4. What empirical evidence? Bush increased regulation during his tenure, before artificially reducing interest rates, things that are not called the free-market, while continuing the fed's function as a lender of last resort, no wonder why the big three won't clean up their act, and no wonder why the market malinvested in real estate, and caused the recession, as did a malinvestment into stocks during the 1920s.

5. The middle class is being over-taxed, and over-regulated, small businesses are regulated day in and day out, while being taxed with America's ridiculous corporate income tax, if you want to improve the middle class, why don't we start by ending the corporate income tax, and cutting income taxes, while ending all those bullshit deductions that the wealthy have, and just that revenue to cut more taxes for the middle class. At least this way, you don't reduce inequality between the middle class and the wealthy by just making both poorer, just at a greater rate than the middle class, and instead, you have a sustainable catalyst for spending (unlike artificial credit, which is unsustainable), which shall cause sustainable growth for the economy.

[The Freehold of Caelton]

If you don't want to pay your taxes, put aside thirty minutes of your life to consider what is given to you by the entity that is the State. Then, you should consider that the State is funded via taxes. So, if we didn't pay taxes, a lot of things would not function. States aren't some otherworldly beings that came to establish themselves atop humanity. Humans developed the State to manage themselves, as it was getting too out of hand.

You libertarians need to realize that.

It can establish, sustain itself, and provide for others the same way we do it as individual units or as family units. By working for its own income.

Instead of taking money from the people (who work) at gunpoint... the state could run its own for-profit businesses and use that money. You know, the same as everyone else does. There would be no theft or coercion involved.

I'm not too comfortably being governed by a government that is essentially behaving like an organisation of bandits...

Except for the fact that...NO business in the WORLD is large and powerful enough to build and maintain roads, provide enough military force to defend themselves from foreign invaders, ensure the entire nation has infrastructure, create a police force that is actually capable of doing something, and the other millions of things necessary to generally keep a nation intact.
IF one did exist, it would have to exercise a complete monopoly over all economic factors, and stomp[ out any opposition to such power...

[Dyakovo]

[q1. No, they haven't been receiving less, the minimum wage has been on the increase, and has never been reduced, and you still haven't disproven how the poor 20 years ago have ascended to higher levels of society, and that the same people aren't in a worse situation. Also, if there is anything wrong with pricing, its due to monopolies and price-fixing, things that happen when competition is restricted: almost always caused directly, or indirectly by the federal government..

Yes, the minimum wage has effectively decreased, and has steadily done so since the 60s.

[Indira]

Go ahead and just become god for a split second and delete all of the tax codes, departments, etc.

See what happens.

Can we watch from a (very) safe distance?

[Sociobiology]

Go ahead and just become god for a split second and delete all of the tax codes, departments, etc.

See what happens.

Can we watch from a (very) safe distance?

like the moon

[Sociobiology]

and yet there are very effective churches that run almost entirely on donations

Churches are small compared to the government which is a huge machine that needs money or else it would cease to function or function poorly.

churches also don't really provide anything tangible, its easy to stay afloat on donations if you don't have to produce anything.

[Len Hyet]

Greetings NSG,

I have just realised that in my view, the fact that the government forces you give them money on a regular basis (in the form of income tax) from income you rightfully and assiduously earn... is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned theft.

In my view it can be described in no other way. The fact that we consider taxation a normal thing and a legitimate thing is simply a form of Might Makes Right. If a person wrote letters to you to try to compel you to give them a part of your property every Nth period (and if you don't they will do bad things to you like imprison you), you would rightfully and instinctively call such a person a robber. Likewise, If a band of robbers wrote a letter to you and threatened the same, you would rightfully and instinctively call such an organization an organization of robbers.

I've just made the revolutionary connection that the government is in that business too. I mean think about it. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, the tax collectors will send their enforcers to grab you and throw you into a cell (isn't this similar to how a mafia operates?). Except they trick you into thinking its alright by making it a part of the Law. They also trick you into thinking that you've somehow legitimised this Theft because every 4 or so years you get to cast a statistically insignificant ballot that's supposedly a form of consent.

I can't believe it...

What do you think NSG? Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful? Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

Jesus not this shit again.

As has been explained, probably something like a thousand times, you are in a social contract with the government. Or more specifically, your employer is. The government does not "take" your money. Your employer withholds a portion of your salary to pay your taxes. You are free to leave the borders of a civilized country and no longer enjoy the amenities provided by said civilized nation if you really really want to keep every cent you earn.

However, if I may, just for a moment, put forward a counter point. You could stay, stop it with the pseudo-anarchist pseudo-intellectual nonsense and realize that hey, I like driving on paved roads. I like having a fire department. I like having a police force. I like having hospitals.

[Conservatives states]

The government doesn't need to meet with each and every one of its citizens to negotiate a tax contract with them, if you live within their borders you are under their legal authority as a citizen so they have all rights to tax the people to obtain revenue.

And how do you expect the government to pay for these so-called "gifts"? As I have said, government workers and employees don't work for free and the services they provide costs money to maintain and operate. You can't provide something if you can't afford to provide it.

I find this quite troublesome. What is the issue with negotiation? Civil discourse is an ideal isn't it? I don't think many object to welfare of a society, not welfare in the linear sense, welfare as an abstract whole. The moral argument against taxation is that subconsciously it creates resentment within the individual, perhaps not you. But then again, I'm sure you're not an advocate of war which is something tax dollars go towards.

I don't think many people would want others to suffer and become homeless, or die because of some treatable aliment. But when you force their decision, it allows them to find an out, a loophole, a way to skirt the system. They don't act out of the kindness of their heart, which is what we want, instead they bide their time and try to get away with anything they can. Kind of like a child in an authoritarian household.

A good intention can't be morally justified by an act other than good. If taking away something from someone without permission is wrong, then how then can we turn around and say that taxation is morally justified. Forgetting roads and the military of course, because that is a more complex topic.

If humanity is a naturally caring and social animal, then why the need? If humanity is naturally uncaring, and anti-social animal, why even bother, they're just going to find a way around it. It's not apathy, it's about the matter of living by your principles. Lets put it this way, in context to the religious, if you were religious, would you impose it on someone? Religious or otherwise, would you impose it? If not, then why would you turn around and contradict yourself. Because you act as you're going to, and if someone is a polar opposite of you, you should really only go as far as to say they are an asshole, and leave them alone. Perhaps your even kind enough to help them in hardship, and there in lies the opportunity to change minds and promote a good behavior, such as funding a form of social welfare. Taxation is just an excuse to avoid the responsibility of acting in good faith, and in fact it really is only a bad act of faith.

You can't have a moral high ground when you're imposing your will on someone else.

Aggressive acts of murders, and other degenerate acts are also another topic entirely.

So, please take the time to explain to me how I am morally wrong in thinking this way.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Churches are small compared to the government which is a huge machine that needs money or else it would cease to function or function poorly.

churches also don't really provide anything tangible, its easy to stay afloat on donations if you don't have to produce anything.

Except, y'know, healthcare, education, lodging and food.
But other than that, yeah, not too much that is 'tangible' I suppose. I guess one could even make the argument education isn't tangible enough to count, but that would be a rather ancillary point to the one you're trying to make but still blatantly incorrect about.

[Infected Mushroom]

Greetings NSG,

I have just realised that in my view, the fact that the government forces you give them money on a regular basis (in the form of income tax) from income you rightfully and assiduously earn... is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned theft.

In my view it can be described in no other way. The fact that we consider taxation a normal thing and a legitimate thing is simply a form of Might Makes Right. If a person wrote letters to you to try to compel you to give them a part of your property every Nth period (and if you don't they will do bad things to you like imprison you), you would rightfully and instinctively call such a person a robber. Likewise, If a band of robbers wrote a letter to you and threatened the same, you would rightfully and instinctively call such an organization an organization of robbers.

I've just made the revolutionary connection that the government is in that business too. I mean think about it. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, the tax collectors will send their enforcers to grab you and throw you into a cell (isn't this similar to how a mafia operates?). Except they trick you into thinking its alright by making it a part of the Law. They also trick you into thinking that you've somehow legitimised this Theft because every 4 or so years you get to cast a statistically insignificant ballot that's supposedly a form of consent.

I can't believe it...

What do you think NSG? Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful? Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

Jesus not this shit again.

As has been explained, probably something like a thousand times, you are in a social contract with the government. Or more specifically, your employer is. The government does not "take" your money. Your employer withholds a portion of your salary to pay your taxes. You are free to leave the borders of a civilized country and no longer enjoy the amenities provided by said civilized nation if you really really want to keep every cent you earn.

However, if I may, just for a moment, put forward a counter point. You could stay, stop it with the pseudo-anarchist pseudo-intellectual nonsense and realize that hey, I like driving on paved roads. I like having a fire department. I like having a police force. I like having hospitals.

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

The government simply imposed one upon you upon the very moment you were born. Thats not a contract, its a power relation. A child can't be born into a contract yet from the very moment you are born, the government exercises power over you.

You do not owe the government money because the government never negotiated the terms with you. They unilaterally imposed terms on you from the get go. You didn't go to the government and negotiate your benefits in exchange for money, the government chose to gave you benefits from the moment you were born. Then it demanded money from you at gunpoint based on its unilateral interpretation of what you owe them. Thats not a valid contract. There is no social contract. There is no valid basis for taxation and there is no sense in which you have meaningfully consented.

This social contract thing is just government propaganda to justify the status quo, promulgated by scholars who do not have a correct understanding of the fundamental principles of contract law (which require two parties to negotiate face to face in some sense, the exact terms and conditions of the contract before it starts running and before it has any binding effect)

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

No, taxation is not theft.

You must pay in order for the government to supply you with certain amenities.

Where will the money come from to - say - pay the teachers' salaries in public schools?

[Infected Mushroom]

Churches are small compared to the government which is a huge machine that needs money or else it would cease to function or function poorly.

churches also don't really provide anything tangible, its easy to stay afloat on donations if you don't have to produce anything.

they provide food, shelter, medicine, and basically a smaller version of everything a government can provide (I've even seen churches that offer shuttle bus services); the Catholic Church has enough guardsmen to form an effective police too if it wanted to and its largely run on donations

churches, unlike governments, do these things without stealing from the people. They have enough confidence in their legitimacy and in their mission to function on donations, and their followers respect them for it

[Galloism]

Jesus not this shit again.

As has been explained, probably something like a thousand times, you are in a social contract with the government. Or more specifically, your employer is. The government does not "take" your money. Your employer withholds a portion of your salary to pay your taxes. You are free to leave the borders of a civilized country and no longer enjoy the amenities provided by said civilized nation if you really really want to keep every cent you earn.

However, if I may, just for a moment, put forward a counter point. You could stay, stop it with the pseudo-anarchist pseudo-intellectual nonsense and realize that hey, I like driving on paved roads. I like having a fire department. I like having a police force. I like having hospitals.

There is no such thing as a social contract, it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law principles

you never sat down with the government face to face and as equal parties, negotiated a contract terms with an Offer and an Acceptance, so no contract is in operation

The government simply imposed one upon you upon the very moment you were born. Thats not a contract, its a power relation. A child can't be born into a contract yet from the very moment you are born, the government exercises power over you.

You do not owe the government money because the government never negotiated the terms with you. They unilaterally imposed terms on you from the get go. You didn't go to the government and negotiate your benefits in exchange for money, the government chose to gave you benefits from the moment you were born. Then it demanded money from you at gunpoint based on its unilateral interpretation of what you owe them. Thats not a valid contract. There is no social contract. There is no valid basis for taxation and there is no sense in which you have meaningfully consented.

This social contract thing is just government propaganda to justify the status quo, promulgated by scholars who do not have a correct understanding of the fundamental principles of contract law (which require two parties to negotiate face to face in some sense, the exact terms and conditions of the contract before it starts running and before it has any binding effect)

You can't owe the government any money by the mere virtue of going to work, because to owe money to the government you have to have bought something from the government under a valid contract of sale. For there to be such a contract, the parties need to have a moment where they meet face to face, discuss and set out the terms of the Offer and the Acceptance as equal parties and hammer out the details... then they need to agree and finalise the contract. That NEVER happened.

Ok, so let's say you go into a building where they serve food, and you tell them you want some quesadillas, two martinis, and 11 margaritas. Then they present you with a bill.

Since you never specifically discussed the cost of all this food and alcohol, doing a dine and dash stagger is both ethical and moral. That's what we're saying here.

Correct?