Taxes are a form of Theft

[Alvecia]

It doesn't seem like a very stable system. At the first sign of a declining market, I would assume that donations will slow and private entities will look towards their own survival, leaving the government at a loss for funds.

which is why it would promote personal responsibility, entrepreneurship, community-self-organization and self-reliance... all good things for facilitating the creativity and progress of mankind

You say that as if those things are not already valued and actively promoted.

[Infected Mushroom]

Does the state get you for breach of contract when you call the police but are late in filing taxes? No. Does the state get you for breach of contract if you continue to use the internet (supposedly paid by taxes in some places) if you are late or don't pay taxes? No.

Not per se, no - they take legal action against you including levies and leins.

Just like anyone else who failed to pay what they were required to pay to any company ever.

But would they have a claim in the civil court for breach of contract?

If they sent a state lawyer and went before the civil court and said... ''I want to file a small claim because X here didn't pay his taxes and we had an implicit contract whereby we, the government, provided public services in exchange for him paying taxes...''

How do you think the judge would react? He would be very confused, especially as he'd be unable to find case law that ever explicitly said that a citizen is in a contract with the government whereby the entire taxation regime is a part of it.

The state apparatus isn't even set up to treat taxes like they are contractual transactions

[Ifreann]

If people want a third party to enforce their contracts then they will seek one out and make suitable arrangements with them. Voluntarily. Isn't that what you say is more moral? Nothing imposed on people by men with guns, just what they freely consented to themselves.

I am not sure where this is going...

The point is that you are giving the appearance that the ultimate distinction between legitimate and illegitimate laws are your personal feelings about them. You like contract law, a lot, weirdly so, and thus you don't question the legitimacy of those laws or the government's authority to make and enforce them. You don't like taxation, so you decide that those laws must be illegitimate, without any consideration that same governments exercise the same authority in making tax law.

[Confederate Ramenia]

ITT: The state is valid because the state is valid.

[Trotskylvania]

Not per se, no - they take legal action against you including levies and leins.

Just like anyone else who failed to pay what they were required to pay to any company ever.

But would they have a claim in the civil court for breach of contract?

If they sent a state lawyer and went before the civil court and said... ''I want to file a small claim because X here didn't pay his taxes and we had an implicit contract whereby we, the government, provided public services in exchange for him paying taxes...''

How do you think the judge would react? He would be very confused.

The state apparatus isn't even set up to treat taxes like they are contractual transactions

There's a whole branch of the federal court system devoted solely to issues like taxes.

They deal with complex issues, like determining your tax liability and arbitrating settlement. People can and do successfully win against the government in tax cases.

[BK117B2]

Does the moral good caused by taxes not outweigh government "theft"?

That would be a new topic

[Infected Mushroom]

But would they have a claim in the civil court for breach of contract?

If they sent a state lawyer and went before the civil court and said... ''I want to file a small claim because X here didn't pay his taxes and we had an implicit contract whereby we, the government, provided public services in exchange for him paying taxes...''

How do you think the judge would react? He would be very confused.

The state apparatus isn't even set up to treat taxes like they are contractual transactions

There's a whole branch of the federal court system devoted solely to issues like taxes.

They deal with complex issues, like determining your tax liability and arbitrating settlement. People can and do successfully win against the government in tax cases.

but they've never framed the issue as a contract law issue, its simply ''are you or are you not complying with the tax statute''...

and there's a reason for that. Framing it as a contract between state and individual would be highly problematic and its not a route that even the most pro-government of courts have taken with regards to the regime of taxation...

the problems are the ones I've pointed out, there simply isn't a clear and cogent basis for making out where the elements of this supposedly voluntary contract are... if you take it to be voluntary to begin with. It would practically fail every single test for finding a contract...

[Alvecia]

Does the moral good caused by taxes not outweigh government "theft"?

That would be a new topic

I think it's kind of relevant, but I'll agree.

[Trotskylvania]

There's a whole branch of the federal court system devoted solely to issues like taxes.

They deal with complex issues, like determining your tax liability and arbitrating settlement. People can and do successfully win against the government in tax cases.

but they've never framed the issue as a contract law issue, its simply ''are you or are you not complying with the tax statute''...

and there's a reason for that. Framing it as a contract between state and individual would be highly problematic and its not a route that even the most pro-government of courts have taken with regards to the regime of taxation...

the problems are the ones I've pointed out, there simply isn't a clear and cogent basis for making out where the elements of this supposedly voluntary contract are... if you take it to be voluntary to begin with. It would practically fail every single test for finding a contract...

Because it is not a contract between private individuals. It is a social contract among the people. The state is the instrument of that contract. Living under the jurisdiction of that state entitles you to certain rights and liberties, but it also has commensurate duties. This is no different in taxes than it would be in a murder trial.

[BK117B2]

Hmmm, I have a home and land....none of it involved me agreeing to pay taxes on it every year.

yes it actually did, when you signed the deed you agreed to pay taxes on it. (again depending on state, states without property tax again would be an exemption)

Incorrect. My contract was between me and the person selling it.

I do so, since I approve of the services provided in exchange.

so even by your own usage it is an exchange, you are paying for services, services that many of which you continue to receive if you stop paying taxes sounds like the only theft would be on your part if you stop paying for those services.

Only if you use those services and then refuse to pay. Of course, that's not what we're talking about. If someone doesn't want to exchange for those services, then it is theft to take from them anyway.

Once I'm long dead and gone, it is definitely not mine anymore

So those you willed it too have no claim over it?

then by what right do you claim the person you bought it from or inherited it from had a legal right to own it?
by your logic if you kill the people who own the land it doesn't belong to them anymore so you can then claim it, how is that NOT right by conquest?

That's nonsense. By my logic, for killing them I'd be locked away safely forever and thus would have no ability to go claim anything. Of course, by pretty much any logic, land ownership continuing with no regard for death would mean that all the habitable land on Earth is already taken.

[Sociobiology]

sure there is it is just like a hotel, park, or convention, on these premises you get X, Y, and Z services.
as long as you are on these premises you must pay.

packages services are everywhere.

the government doesn't run with that premise though

Lets say X didn't pay his taxes for a week. And then he wanders into a public park. Did he just commit a breach of contract? Is the state going to get him for breach of contract in addition to tax evasion?

no because he breached the contract as soon as he stopped paying taxes, you think parks are the big services? defense, emergency response, currency, law enforcement, cheap good facilitated by government infrastructure, those are the central services you are receiving. And you don't even have to get off your couch to get them, in many cases you don't have to do anything to get them other than be inside the borders of the country.

No. The state doesn't view the public services it provides as part of a running contract.

sure it does, they even talk about it as such, they argue about their legal obligations under the contract (constitution).

Now consider in a private context. A and X have a contract where X agrees to pay monthly instalments to keep a membership (which he needs to visit this private park). Now if X stops paying for a week and then wanders unto the park what does A get him for? Breach of contract.

and if he never leaves the park to begin with?

I'm not sure why that angle is being advanced at all when the state doesn't even frame its laws and its operations like that. Look at the Canada Income Tax Act for example, there isn't a single word in there about how there's a voluntary contract.


It simply tells you what to do. There isn't a word about terms or corresponding services.

sure there is, read your constitution act, first it defines the parties then it lays out the terms for both parties and how it can be changed, the income act is just a small clause, of course it doesn't lay out the whole thing all over again. The breakage clause in my cellphone contract doesn't reiterate the rate structure.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Out of curiosity, what would you accept as an alternative to the current system we have now?

a system without taxation based on voluntary donations, for-profit state enterprises, and cooperation between the state and private entities...

Such a thing might be possible for a very small nation that doesn't spend a lot and need a lot to function, but would not be possible for highly industrialized western nations that require huge amounts of funding. I can almost guarantee that you won't get the almost $4 trillion dollars that makes up the US federal budget through donations.

[BK117B2]

I never consented to have the government enforce contract law on me. I never voluntarily agreed to be bound by contract law. Yet the government would employ overwhelming, irresistible force against me if I did not abide by these laws.

sure you did, as soon as you reached the age of legal self direction, you chose to remain in the same country you had been living in, thus agreeing to the contract your parents had you living under which every citizen is under. Your parents signed you up, you chose to keep using the service after the point you could legally opt put.
Your still free to leave at any time.
It is a unique problem caused by you being born into it, but there is plenty of president, if you stay in a hotel room beyond the initial agreed upon time you either pay with all the implied contracts or you get thrown out, (you don't even get to pick which). In the case of citizenship your presence beyond the agreed upon time is agreement with the contract, heck they even provide you with schooling so you can better understand the contract of citizenship.

Wrong, not leaving a place you have every right to be does not mean that you have magically agreed to some contract.

[Alvecia]

That's nonsense. By my logic, for killing them I'd be locked away safely forever and thus would have no ability to go claim anything. Of course, by pretty much any logic, land ownership continuing with no regard for death would mean that all the habitable land on Earth is already taken.

That seems like a bit of a dodge. You'd still be able to claim it before you are locked away, so the point stands.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

No, taxation itself is not inherently theft. Government redistribution of wealth (taking from one man by force to give to another man) IS inherently theft.

Collecting tax to pay for police, fire departments, roads, the miltiary, the mail, borders, and so on, is justified and is NOT theft. (Social Security and Medicare are annuities, not redistribution, because you give them your money and get your money back.)

Collecting tax from someone (especially disproportinately based on wealth) in order to give that tax money to someone else IS theft. -and on that note, collecting tax from someone in order to give that money to private businesses as subsisies is also theft.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will forever receive Paul's vote.

[The Liberated Territories]

Enjoyed a road? A public school? Gone on a field trip to the park with your public school? Maybe you if you're a poor senior you enjoy Medicare. Or enjoyed the preservation or beauty of the grand canyon. Or perhaps you like not being invaded by a foreign power.

Thank you taxes!

Bah, nonsense. Enslaving just a few people would be far more efficient than taxes on a majority. We have our priorities all wrong!

[Sociobiology]

yes it actually did, when you signed the deed you agreed to pay taxes on it. (again depending on state, states without property tax again would be an exemption)

Incorrect. My contract was between me and the person selling it.

really? who enforces the contract?

so even by your own usage it is an exchange, you are paying for services, services that many of which you continue to receive if you stop paying taxes sounds like the only theft would be on your part if you stop paying for those services.

Only if you use those services and then refuse to pay.

which you do by remaining within the borders.
removing yourself from the premises is part of terminating the contract (much like a rental agreement)

So those you willed it too have no claim over it?

then by what right do you claim the person you bought it from or inherited it from had a legal right to own it?
by your logic if you kill the people who own the land it doesn't belong to them anymore so you can then claim it, how is that NOT right by conquest?

That's nonsense. By my logic, for killing them I'd be locked away safely forever

by whom?
remember no state to enforce murder laws.

Of course, by pretty much any logic, land ownership continuing with no regard for death would mean that all the habitable land on Earth is already taken.

which it is

[Geilinor]

No, taxation itself is not inherently theft. Government redistribution of wealth (taking from one man by force to give to another man) IS inherently theft.

Collecting tax to pay for police, fire departments, roads, the miltiary, the mail, borders, and so on, is justified and is NOT theft. (Social Security and Medicare are annuities, not redistribution, because you give them your money and get your money back.)

Collecting tax from someone (especially disproportinately based on wealth) in order to give that tax money to someone else IS theft. -and on that note, collecting tax from someone in order to give that money to private businesses as subsisies is also theft.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will forever receive Paul's vote.

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded that way. The money you pay now goes to current retirees.

[Sociobiology]

sure you did, as soon as you reached the age of legal self direction, you chose to remain in the same country you had been living in, thus agreeing to the contract your parents had you living under which every citizen is under. Your parents signed you up, you chose to keep using the service after the point you could legally opt put.
Your still free to leave at any time.
It is a unique problem caused by you being born into it, but there is plenty of president, if you stay in a hotel room beyond the initial agreed upon time you either pay with all the implied contracts or you get thrown out, (you don't even get to pick which). In the case of citizenship your presence beyond the agreed upon time is agreement with the contract, heck they even provide you with schooling so you can better understand the contract of citizenship.

Wrong, not leaving a place you have every right to be does not mean that you have magically agreed to some contract.

you assume you have a right to it.
rights are social constructs, you don't have them unless the other people agree you do.
humans create rights, and they are among our better inventions.

[Longweather]

And the government needs to make money to protect you. Police, fire, and the military don't work for free. Taxes just happen to be the way they fund their protection of you and services for you.

then they can work for that money themselves (instead of taking other people's rightfully earned income)

I suggest they start their own businesses for that end; it would also help with unemployment

Technically they do. The money taken by taxes is used to provide services to not just you but the people in the nation in general. Things like roads, public education, bridges, and infrastructure in general. Think of it as buying internet access for your home. You pay the company that provides you access to the internet a certain amount of money (with a payment generally up front) over time. Then you get access to the goods after they use that money (and those of others) to pay people to install the necessary equipment. The main difference is that a government does it based upon what you earn and it's an automatic enrollment.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Social Security and Medicare aren't funded that way. The money you pay now goes to current retirees.

The insolvency of Social Security makes it more like a pyramid scheme than an annuity, but you can blame the SS Trust being plundered and replaced with bonds for that.

My point stands: the FICA tax takes your money and gives it back to you at retirement. The problem is that here are more takers than givers due to life expectancy.

[Sociobiology]

have been tried and always fail because people never pay enough for the services they demand. Its also incredibly unfair because you end up with a lot of freeloaders, freeloaders who could easily afford to pay, mind. which creates a downward spiral of people refusing to pay, (why should I pay for them!)
until the system collapses.
for profit are great at many thing, just not monopolies and certain things trend strongly toward monopolies by there very nature, so we have states run those.

Or, in the case of utilities which have a tendency towards monopoly status, we heavily regulate them including price controls. Price increases have to be justified by evidence.

which a lot of people will argue is basically having the state run them. There are not many programs in the government these days not dominated by contractors.

[Ifreann]

No, taxation itself is not inherently theft. Government redistribution of wealth (taking from one man by force to give to another man) IS inherently theft.

Collecting tax to pay for police, fire departments, roads, the miltiary, the mail, borders, and so on, is justified and is NOT theft. (Social Security and Medicare are annuities, not redistribution, because you give them your money and get your money back.)

Hang on. How is it not redistributing wealth to use taxes to pay cops and firefighters and builders and soldiers and postal workers?

[Ifreann]

Wrong, not leaving a place you have every right to be does not mean that you have magically agreed to some contract.

you assume you have a right to it.
rights are social constructs, you don't have them unless the other people agree you do.
humans create rights, and they are among our better inventions.

Right up there with fire and internet porn.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Hang on. How is it not redistributing wealth to use taxes to pay cops and firefighters and builders and soldiers and postal workers?

Do you honestly consider paying a salary to be redistribution? They earned that payment. I should have noted it more clearly: paying an employee of the government is a valid thing to do because one's labor should be compensated.