Current Events > ITT, you (attempt to) explain why taxation isn't theft...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Taking money that someone else earned from their own labor is considered theft if anyone other than the government does it. Why is it okay when the government does it? Because the government said they could? You know, there was at least one government that gave itself permission to kill over 6 million of its own people. I guess it wasn't mass murder simply because the government gave itself that right, huh? Just because the government gives itself the right to take someone's money doesn't magically make it morally permissible.
---

In the case of a democratic republic like the U.S. It's okay for the government to collect taxes because they use the money to, among other things; build and repair infrastructure, pay the salary of government workers ( including but not limited to the military, forest service, the president, etc ), and fund public schools. Not to mention the institution and enforcement of law and the people's representation in their own governance. This doesn't mean that all governments carry these out perfectly, but that's the basic idea of it.
---

No matter how 'hard you've worked for it' nothing inherently 'belongs' to anyone, money is a human illusion to keep us civil (among other things). Thus when when we as a collective (or at least the majority of us or the government representing the commonweal) decide that we should implement a taxation system to do the things PhilKenSebben is talking about, and to have it hierarchical so as to indirectly reduce the wealth disparity, the government is not 'stealing' from anyone; they are simply redistributing our collective wealth.
---

PhilKenSebben posted...

In the case of a democratic republic like the U.S. It's okay for the government to collect taxes because they use the money to, among other things; build and repair infrastructure, pay the salary of government workers ( including but not limited to the military, forest service, the president, etc ), and fund public schools. Not to mention the institution and enforcement of law and the people's representation in their own governance. This doesn't mean that all governments carry these out perfectly, but that's the basic idea of it.

What someone does with stolen money doesn't make it not stolen though. If the government would simply charge rent on land, and cutback on the many public services that it provides then they'll have the revenue to pay government workers, implement emergency services, and public courts (which is what I think the government's role should be limited to).

Joelypoely posted...

No matter how 'hard you've worked for it' nothing inherently 'belongs' to anyone, money is a human illusion to keep us civil (among other things). Thus when when we as a collective (or at least the majority of us or the government representing the commonweal) decide that we should implement a taxation system to do the things PhilKenSebben is talking about, and to have it hierarchical so as to indirectly reduce the wealth disparity, the government is not 'stealing' from anyone; they are simply redistributing our collective wealth.

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?
---

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

That's obviously not the main takeaway from my point but sure I'll bite. Well, when we tacitly agree to be a member of a democratic society we grant the legislative branch of the government power to create new statutes etc. (but with checks on power of course). Part of this process involves siphoning out unethical practices (although I see why you might question the legitimacy of different parts of the government deciding which practices are ethical), hence we have public opinion as another check on power. Theoretically when the public opinion on something like a certain taxation policy becomes too severe riots etc. may occur, provoking the government to change the policy as it is no longer in their best interest. Attempting to frame taxation as ethical/unethical and therefore not worthwhile is too simplistic (keep in mind the is/ought distinction), we need to account for practicability too.
---

Because contribution to society shouldn't be relied on by good samaritans alone, or else the entire world would be dug into the stone age with facebook style thoughts and prayers. There needs to be a collection of money to contribute to society, as most people won't get up to vote let alone chip in to the coffers for a fix-the-road budget when there's new toys to buy. People say that taxation is a representation of greed; I view it as humanity's subtle realization that if left to our own devices, we'd treat ourselves dry.
---

I cant
---

---

It's not theft because it's payment for services rendered. Like, this should be obvious? I mean, you are argue about specific details like whether the cost of the things taxes are used for are inflated, but unless you're going to say you literally don't need roads (both the roads themselves and services like plowing), police, public education, or national defense altogether, and you also don't believe that you benefit from other people having access to any of these and other government-funded benefits while living in the same society as you, then you're just whining.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

PhilKenSebben posted...

In the case of a democratic republic like the U.S. It's okay for the government to collect taxes because they use the money to, among other things; build and repair infrastructure, pay the salary of government workers ( including but not limited to the military, forest service, the president, etc ), and fund public schools. Not to mention the institution and enforcement of law and the people's representation in their own governance. This doesn't mean that all governments carry these out perfectly, but that's the basic idea of it.

What someone does with stolen money doesn't make it not stolen though. If the government would simply charge rent on land, and cutback on the many public services that it provides then they'll have the revenue to pay government workers, implement emergency services, and public courts (which is what I think the government's role should be limited to).

I feel like you're not quite getting my point. Which is, if there weren't taxes you would probably still be spending this money on the same things.
If there was no public school system you would be forced to use some of the money you pay in taxes to put yourself or your children through school. If there was
no public infrastructure program you would most likely be forced by the other people in your community
to pony up some dough to help fix roads that everyone uses.
What taxes do in theory is make things simpler: everyone pays the government, and in turn, when people need money for say,
disaster relief, or education, the government is right there with all the necessary funds and manpower to get it done.

If someone doesn't want to pay taxes they don't have to pay them,
but they would face consequences from the government and their community because they take part in public programs.
In a nutshell, it's like if your in a group that orders pizza and agrees to pay equally, but once it arrives
one person doesn't want to pay. That's fine, they don't have to pay, but if they try to eat some pizza people are gonna be pissed.

As Joelypoely put it: they're not stealing, they're simply redistributing the collective wealth.

Also, local governments ( such as states or counties in the U.S. ) do essentially charge rent on land, it's called the property tax. And citizens would probably get pretty mad if the government started rolling back public programs. That wouldn't be fun for either party involved.
---

It's not right but we're born into a system already in full swing and they have all the guns, tanks, etc. So you either go along to get along or your life will end up sucking even worse than the taxes already make it suck.
---

because that's how any government ever makes income.
---

Are you making us do your homework for you?
---

There has to be some baseline, implicit social contract. Without government, property rights are unenforceable, you have no freedom to move anywhere, there is no court system to hold aggression in check (i.e. NAP is out the window)... under anarchy, theft would be the least of your worries.
---

DoomSwell posted...

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)

I do. Problem is, the government charges people more based on their income, whether they own a business, what kind of capital gains they've had, etc.

Joelypoely posted...

That's obviously not the main takeaway from my point but sure I'll bite. Well, when we tacitly agree to be a member of a democratic society we grant the legislative branch of the government power to create new statutes etc. (but with checks on power of course). Part of this process involves siphoning out unethical practices (although I see why you might question the legitimacy of different parts of the government deciding which practices are ethical), hence we have public opinion as another check on power. Theoretically when the public opinion on something like a certain taxation policy becomes too severe riots etc. may occur, provoking the government to change the policy as it is no longer in their best interest. Attempting to frame taxation as ethical/unethical and therefore not worthwhile is too simplistic (keep in mind the is/ought distinction), we need to account for practicability too.

That's a fair point, I guess. You could say that it's not unethical if people agree to it, but there's always going to be people who don't vote for a certain policy.

CommunismFTW posted...

Because contribution to society shouldn't be relied on by good samaritans alone, or else the entire world would be dug into the stone age with facebook style thoughts and prayers. There needs to be a collection of money to contribute to society, as most people won't get up to vote let alone chip in to the coffers for a fix-the-road budget when there's new toys to buy. People say that taxation is a representation of greed; I view it as humanity's subtle realization that if left to our own devices, we'd treat ourselves dry.

The only thing that will cause what you're describing is a system where everyone is entitled to things and therefore has no incentive to work.

the_rowan posted...

It's not theft because it's payment for services rendered. Like, this should be obvious? I mean, you are argue about specific details like whether the cost of the things taxes are used for are inflated, but unless you're going to say you literally don't need roads (both the roads themselves and services like plowing), police, public education, or national defense altogether, and you also don't believe that you benefit from other people having access to any of these and other government-funded benefits while living in the same society as you, then you're just whining.

See my earlier post about the government charging rent solely on the land that people own. Technically, this would still be called a "tax" but it's the one kind of "tax" that doesn't involve any kind of theft, since nobody truly owns the land that we live on. Also, there's a case to be made for privatized roads, as well as completely private education.

PhilKenSebben posted...

I feel like you're not quite getting my point. Which is, if there weren't taxes you would probably still be spending this money on the same things.

Okay, but my only thing is...people can pay for those things voluntarily based on how much they actually use them. Redistributing wealth is literally just taking from one person to give to another.
---

Because it's the fee you pay to live in a first world country
---

CommunismFTW posted...

People say that taxation is a representation of greed; I view it as humanity's subtle realization that if left to our own devices, we'd treat ourselves dry.

That's a good way of looking at it. I agree.
---

Literally protection money.
---

Taxation is my understanding that part of living in a country where I don't have to fight for my basic rights and don't have to face certain attempts on my life and welfare for resources is they collect taxes on me.
---

tote_all posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

If the government would simply charge rent on land, and cutback on the many public services that it provides then they'll have the revenue to pay government workers, implement emergency services, and public courts

Citation needed.

You want to convince us, you can, with actual numbers.

Edit: wouldn't you be making topics about what gives the government the right to charge rent on land if that was the case?

All they'd have to do is make sure the rent that they charge on the land is high enough to cover the costs of those things. And I think it goes without saying that the less the government does, the less revenue it will need, so I don't think I need examples of actual numbers to make my point. For what it's worth though, economists do consider this type of rent to be the perfect "tax"...

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax
https://www.ft.com/content/392c33a6-211f-11e3-8aff-00144feab7de

Damn_Underscore posted...

Because it's the fee you pay to live in a first world country

I already pay rent to my landlord, who presumably includes her tax burden in my rent. I don't deserve to be double taxed!
---

The taxes you pay ensure that people will help you if your house is burning down, a maniac tries to go on a shooting spree, a foreign power invades and wants to take your stuff, keeping the roads driveable, and making sure there is adequate health care.

But if you want none of those, I'm sure there are plenty of 3rd world nations that would be happy to have you living there.
---

You can stop paying taxes when you're ready to stop using roads, power, water, emergency services, and give up the rights and protections afforded you by being a citizen.

That seems pretty fair.

On the other hand, it would be swell if the government would start spending responsibly.
---

tote_all posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

so I don't think I need examples of actual numbers to make my point.

Too lazy to do easy work to mathematically prove your point?

I've lost interest.

Too lazy to read the articles I posted that prove my point?
---

A land tax is not a rent, though.
---

Theft implies that you get nothing in return.
Taxes keep the government running, ergo you get something in return.

Because you agree to paying taxes in exchange for citizenship in whatever country you're in
---

Because the constitution says it isn't.
---

If you dont want to pay tax, fuck off to some deserted island and live there. Dont use public roads on the way out
---

Balrog0 posted...

A land tax is not a rent, though.

It's "economic rent." The only reason it's called a "tax" is because the government happens to be the recipient. If we go by what's actually happening with a land value tax, it's just an entity who owns some space making it available to whomever is willing to pay. Essentially the government is just another realtor in that whole process.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

Theft implies that you get nothing in return.
Taxes keep the government running, ergo you get something in return.

I'll pretend that all of our tax money is being used in ways that help taxpayers.
---

What currency are you using?
---

So you replace income tax with land tax. How much do you think land tax should be? How would that work?
---

People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties
---

tote_all posted...

"Government spending would be lower if they only do this, this and this."

No, government spending would be lower if they spent less money on lots of things.

tote_all posted...

"And how is it stealing to tax people, but it's not stealing to "rent" them the land?"

It's not stealing to charge rent on the land, because nobody truly owns the land. Natural resources are commonly owned, hence the government can claim ownership over natural resources like land. Taxing someones income is theft because it's money that THEY earned from THEIR job. The fruit of ones labor belongs to no one else but the individual.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

The fruit of ones labor belongs to no one else but the individual.

Uh no

The fruits of labor should go to the collective for the betterment of the whole group
---

Also the fruits of your labor go to the company you work for

They just cut you a check so you'll keep coming and working for them.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

aking money that someone else earned from their own labor is considered theft if anyone other than the government does it

so close to realizing the nature of the exploitation of the working class
---

But for real it's not theft because you're a citizen of whatever country you live in

By virtue of that agreement, you agree to pay taxes out of your paycheck and when you buy stuff
---

Darmik posted...

So you replace income tax with land tax. How much do you think land tax should be? How would that work?

I already admitted that I haven't done the calculations myself, but economists seem to agree that a land value tax would be a viable replacement to all other taxes, so...

Intro2Logic posted...

People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties

Yes, unfortunately.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

I already admitted that I haven't done the calculations myself, but economists seem to agree that a land value tax would be a viable replacement to all other taxes, so...

What does that actually mean though?

You can't just say 'land tax' and not bother to clarify. Who decides how much land tax is? Does everyone pay the same? Does the Government charge land tax by size or area? What if you live in an apartment? What if you rent? What if you live in a caravan?
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

Intro2Logic posted...
People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties

Yes, unfortunately.

Why do you think this is unfortunate?
---

wackyteen posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

The fruit of ones labor belongs to no one else but the individual.

Uh no

The fruits of labor should go to the collective for the betterment of the whole group

If you're a collectivist/socialist then that's certainly consistent with your philosophy. My problem with that is that there will always be moochers who take advantage of those who actually do the work.

wackyteen posted...

Also the fruits of your labor go to the company you work for

They just cut you a check so you'll keep coming and working for them.

That's what I'm referring to. Your employer pays based on your contributions to the company (i.e. the fruits that you contribute to the company).

wackyteen posted...

But for real it's not theft because you're a citizen of whatever country you live in

By virtue of that agreement, you agree to pay taxes out of your paycheck and when you buy stuff

That goes back to my point about how the government could theoretically give itself the right to kill its citizens (as has been done many times throughout history). It doesn't cease to be murder just because the government gave itself that right.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

It's "economic rent." The only reason it's called a "tax" is because the government happens to be the recipient. If we go by what's actually happening with a land value tax, it's just an entity who owns some space making it available to whomever is willing to pay. Essentially the government is just another realtor in that whole process.

I don't get why property taxes or sales taxes wouldn't also be justified by similar criteria, though I prefer the LVT to both personally
---

Darmik posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

I already admitted that I haven't done the calculations myself, but economists seem to agree that a land value tax would be a viable replacement to all other taxes, so...

What does that actually mean though?

You can't just say 'land tax' and not bother to clarify. Who decides how much land tax is? Does everyone pay the same? Does the Government charge land tax by size or area? What if you live in an apartment? What if you rent? What if you live in a caravan?

Oh ok, now I get what you're asking. Since the government is just acting as a realtor selling property to people, it's competing with the bordering local governments to provide the best prices on land. So the amount that the government charges would be based on the laws of supply and demand. And it's a "tax" on the land that people own, so the only one who would be levied is the actual owner of the land (the landlord). People renting the land would be free of this tax because chances are, their landlord is already including their tax own burdens in the rent.

Antifar posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Intro2Logic posted...
People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties

Yes, unfortunately.

Why do you think this is unfortunate?

Because property taxes take away incentives to improve land. Also, keeping with the philosophy that only natural resources (things that no one made themselves) are commonly owned, what someone does with the land they rent is their own original work, and therefore belongs to them.
---

Mike_Stanton posted...

PhilKenSebben posted...

I feel like you're not quite getting my point. Which is, if there weren't taxes you would probably still be spending this money on the same things.

Okay, but my only thing is...people can pay for those things voluntarily based on how much they actually use them. Redistributing wealth is literally just taking from one person to give to another.

Yes, that is the literal definition if I'm not mistaken. What happens is people tend to hoard money they don't need and power they shouldn't have. In theory what taxes do is take money from the wealthy
and give it to the poor in form of free public services.

Okay so, what would happen if only the people who used public services payed for them
only as much as they used them is: the money it would take for that fraction of the population
to support the service they're
using would be a considerably larger fraction of their income.

Part of the reason for, and the beauty of income based taxing is that it allows the poor and
lower middle class, who benefit most from things like public libraries and schools, to be able
to participate in these programs without having to fully support said programs themselves.

If there was none of this what would most likely happen is the rich would only send their children to and invest their money in more expensive private schools, buy their own books, etc.
Thus leading to a greater class gap, and eventually a pseudo-medieval system of essentially lords, kings, and serfs where the lower class would have no hope of have a better quality of life.

In short, it's not theft because you get something in return; public services and a say in your own governance ( representatives in local and federal government). By definition that's called a trade.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

It's "economic rent." The only reason it's called a "tax" is because the government happens to be the recipient. If we go by what's actually happening with a land value tax, it's just an entity who owns some space making it available to whomever is willing to pay. Essentially the government is just another realtor in that whole process.

I don't get why property taxes or sales taxes wouldn't also be justified by similar criteria, though I prefer the LVT to both personally

Since property taxes also apply to improvements that someone makes to their land, it still amounts to some degree of theft. I'm okay with sales taxes that are meant as "sin taxes" for preventing things like pollution, etc but for the most part they're too regressive,since consumers are the main ones being hit with it.

PhilKenSebben posted...

Yes, that is the literal definition if I'm not mistaken. What happens is people tend to hoard money they don't need and power they shouldn't have.

That's mostly just when "trickle down economics" is applied. When low taxes are combined with high spending like what the Republicans have been doing ever since Ronald Reagan, yeah...that does tend to lead to lots of wealth accruing at the top while adding too much to the debt. If, on the other hand, the government can afford low taxes by making some spending cuts, like during Bill Clinton's presidency, it can make a pretty drastic difference in the distribution of wealth.

PhilKenSebben posted...

In theory what taxes do is take money from the wealthy
and give it to the poor in form of free public services.

They also involve taking from the middle class as well. And while I like the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor in theory, in practice it can lead to some people becoming too dependent on public services, while also making the value of wealth seem less appealing, which can significantly reduce people's incentives to work.
---