Poor people who believe taxation is theft I guess if they want to be consistent with their belief. Although technically they could do some mental gymnastic and say roads are a product of theft and therefore it's ok to trespass.
Agreed. Consider if theft if the total amount after deductions is more than is spent by the government on your ability to conduct business and earn a living. Start, for example, with your police whose existence I'd posit is a large reason you can fill a home with expensive goods and park a nice car in a driveway.
Also: it's fairly easy to pay lower taxes with a good accountant. A cry to lower taxes is made by the elite to convince the middle class to vote for corporate-friendly interests.
Most people that say Taxation is theft aren't literally calling for zero taxes though. It's just a saying, and definitely a hyperbole. There are definitely specific functions of the government that need tax funds. They should get the funds. But the amount we pay in taxes to the federal government is outrageous and most of us don't see a return on our "investment."
The only people that 100% literally mean taxation is theft are anarchists.
> Most people that say Taxation is theft aren't literally calling for zero taxes though. It's just a saying, and definitely a hyperbole.
Then the best thing would be to just stop saying it, and discuss the substantive issues instead. The real issues of what functions need funding, by how much, and how, is a never-ending debate that isn't helped by trite aphorisms, even if, superficially, they seem to cut the Gordian knot.
>The only people that 100% literally mean taxation is theft are anarchists.
Because it is an anarchist argument which attempts to equate government to organized crime. Those hyperbolic anarchists are the ones using the term as intended.
Police and medical should be paid for by other taxes (probably also property tax but there are other solutions).[1]
None of them should be paid for by income tax.
I live in a state with no income tax that receives no federal funds (to the best of my knowledge) for fire and police yet I still have service... go figure...
[1] Oddly enough as against taxes as I am, I don't think someone should have to pay a month+ income to get an ambulance ride to the hospital but that is a whole other can of worms unrelated to this article.
When I say taxation is theft, I mean federal income taxes. I'd rather pay more to my state and local governments. I interact with those more local levels way more often and receive more benefits from them than from the federal government. States maintain their own roads.
The rationale for calling taxation theft is the compulsory nature of taxation - which applies to states as well as the federal government. If taxation is theft, it doesn't cease to be theft when you like what the thieves spend your money on.
Your argument isn't valid because without taxation there would be no public roads to trespass on. At least not federally.
And there are other solutions:
- Tax property owners to pay for roads near their buildings
- Toll roads
- Private ways (actually very common in housing developments and usually work even better than public ones because the landlord / homeowners association is incentivized to keep them well taken care of to keep people from moving out)
- Local income tax (something most libertarian's aren't against because living in a locale is a choice that is easier to change than, say, what country you are a citizen of)
- etc
An interesting mental trap people fall into is thinking that because currently something is paid for one way that taking away that source of income will mean it won't be paid for. The market has a way of working things out.
> Your argument isn't valid because without taxation there would be no public roads to trespass on. At least not federally.
It's perfectly valid if I'm having the argument with someone who wants to pay zero taxes, but is fine using the roads currently in place.
Now, if they're saving up to buy land in Montana and live off the grid - fine, they're trying to work their way out of a circumstance they didn't ask to be placed in. But if someone's an armchair libertarian who hypocritically feeds off the teat they claim to loathe, then I find their argument a bit harder to swallow.
> It's perfectly valid if I'm having the argument with someone who wants to pay zero taxes, but is fine using the roads currently in place.
I would find it hard to find that person even if I went to a gathering of Libertarians.
Being anti-income tax is different than being anti-tax.
Many Libertarian's are OK with (in one form or another):
- Luxury sales and use tax (not on necessities like food and basic clothing)
- Toll roads
- Property tax
- Local income tax
With property tax being a little less common (although I am personally OK with it) because a lot of people will argue that if you have to pay taxes on it you don't really own it.
Then again... I take that back... I WOULD be able to find that person at a gathering of libertarians but my personal experience is that he would be in the minority.
Edit: to add to the lats sentence, perhaps a very loud vocal minority.
You don't own the land you own, even if you bought it. You are paying the zombie tax. Which is to say the population is growing too fast, there isn't enough land, and if there weren't regulations humans would kill you and steal your land and eat your corpse because humans are animals.
So you pay a tax, that tax supports a system we call "society", which kills or controls the masses who would otherwise murder you and take everything you think you own.
I call it the zombie tax because the best way to imagine the alternative would be the unstoppable hordes of zombies we see in hollywood films.
Note: I said I personally agree with property tax. I think it is vital to pay for the roads and other critical services homeowners get from the local municipality. I didn't take a stance on whether or not you actual own your real-estate.
Well if you really want to get into the philosophy of this, it is important to first acknowledge that concepts like "society", or "property" are completely fictional, made-up ideas, that people simply invented.
It's not that different from kids playing pretend in their parent's basement, inventing any rules they want for their game. They can do whatever they want, because there isn't anyone else around to tell them differently.
A lot, I mean a _lot_ of people do not often think about this fact, they sort of assume that these concepts were handed down by some impossible deity (god is not real.) But the truth is they emerged from intelligent self-aware people who for various reasons simply decided that these things should exist.
So with that in mind, if property is make-believe, how can you "own" something? What precisely is ownership? Just more make-believe, using different words.
If it exists at all, it's a social contract, and when it's you versus everyone else, hate to break it to you but it means nothing.
The far right says "taxation is theft" and the far left says "capitalism is theft" or "property is theft".
They're both about equally correct -- there's a core nugget in the argument that's somewhat logical, but as a bald statement they're a massive over generalization and patently ridiculous.
"Outside of academia, almost everyone assumes that the money I get in my pay-packet before the deduction of taxes is, in some morally significant sense, ‘mine’."
I wish that there would be an option to say how I want my taxes spent. For example, give 10 categories, like education, military, health, infrastructure, government etc. Require a minimum for each, say 2%. Then its up to me to allot the rest of my taxes. So if I am a hawk, I can dump 80% of it in the military. Or education if I have kids.
I think technically this could be done, but it would be interesting to see what the result would be, and if a country could run on this principle.
I think it really comes down to what roles you assign to each level of government. For example, I think one of the main roles of the federal government is to maintain the military. I think a role of state and local governments is to maintain the infrastructure and education. I'd rather send more tax money to state and local governments, because I'd see the results. A lot of the money that states use to build and maintain their roads comes from the federal government anyway, so why not cut out the middleman and have the taxpayer give it directly to the state.
Obviously there are some places where you will have overlap between the different levels. For example, I don't think the federal government should be completely, 100% out of education, but rather should have a reduced role so the teachers can do their jobs and educate.
Obviously these ideas would be difficult to implement and are also idealistic. For example, some states are poorer than others so their tax revenue may not be enough. But even given that, I think state and local governments having more power would be better for the people. And no, this isn't some states' rights dog whistle or whatever (I doubt any of you would accuse me of that, but people have).
Side note: I am a US citizen, but I live in the Czech Republic at the moment, so I would be interested to see a system which would be flexible enough to allow any government to utilize.
This actually seems like an interesting enough problem that I may try to code up a website where people can anonymously enter how much tax they pay (in currency amounts) and how they would allocate it (in %). Then try to do some aggregates to see how countries would compare.
The big problem is how could you possibly make a 5 year health care or defence plan if you from year to year will get anywhere between 2%-80% of the available money
This sounds like you are yearning for a more democratic system of government?
I think a key thing is to view 'democratic' as meaning more than merely the opportunity to choose - the common narrative around what a 'democracy' is. Rather, it is the opportunity to participate in framing of the choices, without pre-existing powerful interests having disproportionate influence.
Indirectly, you have this power through elections.
Lack of interest (in the US) in local elections is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Local government has a much larger impact on a person's day-to-day life. Spending on education is largely at the county/city level (while the state and federal governments provide funding, localities can increase the amount and has some discretion in allocation). Development, local roads, police & fire, healthcare - all by and large controlled locally.
But, I do agree, at the federal level, it often feels like we have very little control over taxation and spending.
This is a rehash of a sibling comment I made: The opportunity to select from a curated set of options is better than no choice, but I think having the opportunity to participate in curating of the options is even better and more democratic. See the link I posted in the other comment.
Richard Murphy has written a book called The Joy of Tax, where one of the central arguments is that the generally accepted view of tax playing the role of funding government expenditure is incorrect, or at the very least, undesirable.
Instead we ought to view tax as being a tool which acts as a force of contraction in the economy, taking money out of circulation that has been put there as a result of government spending.
Both of these (fiscal) mechanisms - spending and taxing - ideally act as a mechanism to democratise the economy. 'Ideally' in the sense that the mechanisms for choosing and applying such policies are democratic, rather than authoritarian, subject to capture, etc. 'Democratise' in the sense that without this intervention, the 'market' has free reign - with ensuing consequences that influence over it is not in the hands of the many.
Libertarians (especially of the free-market ilk) may see this as a positive, however, I think it is plainly obvious that a market is never free, and has a tendency to concentrate wealth (and thus power). In my opinion, decisions over our collective efforts and available resources ought not to be in the hands of the few, but rather, in the many - via truly democratic mechanisms and institutions.
Some interesting, related vids that discuss boom/bust, QE and the like:
The article false apart early because it is based on this premise: "There is no serious political theory according to which my pre-tax income is ‘mine’ in any morally significant sense."
Stated in Paragraph 2. That's false, there's lots of solid arguments to suggest that your income belongs to you. To pretend that those arguments don't exist so that you can write a 3 page essay amounts to dishonesty.
Let's set aside questions of what a particular person's labor is worth for a moment. One may have all sorts of opinions as to whether someone deserves the wage they earn, and such arguments are beside the point.
Let us also set aside the questions of taxation. One may likewise have all sorts of opinions on this subject, but again, they are a distraction from the central argument.
And finally let us set aside the questions of the exploitation of workers. Again, this is important, but it is still a distraction.
The central concept behind a wage is this: It is a contractual exchange of X for Y. I am giving you something, and you are giving me something in exchange. The "something" I am giving you is my labor. You consider this a thing of value to yourself or your company. You feel a need for my labor, so you make an agreement with me to give me something of equal value in exchange. "Equal value" in this case is determined by negotiation. If I do not agree that what you are offering me in exchange for my labor is of sufficient value, I can choose to accept the agreement and gain a more limited benefit, or I can reject it.
The thing you give me in this case is money. It could be room and board. It could be many things. But unless the thing you give me in exchange for what I give you becomes "mine," the entire exchange is a fraud that no rational person would agree to.
To say that the benefit I receive for the benefit I provide is not "mine" in any moral sense is completely irrational. And if it is true that my wages are not "mine" then it must also be true that my labor is not "yours," and you have no right to keep the fruits of my labor.
What this article assumes is equivalent to saying that there is no such thing as personal property of any kind, and that includes your own life and energies. If your wages are not yours, then neither is your labor, and thus your labor can be coerced from you just as surely as your money can be stolen. Your life does not belong to you. It belongs "something other." That something other, as near as I can tell from the article, is the collective whole. You are only of value so much as you benefit the collective, and as such you are disposable as soon as you, in the estimation of the ruling authority, cease to benefit the collective.
If you want to make a legitimate argument in favor of taxation (and I believe in just and mutually-beneficial taxation, just to be clear), you cannot do so by denying the fundamental and moral nature of labor and wages. Deny that moral principle, and you are ultimately denying the value and dignity of human life itself.
reply