Money, taxes, and the crime of theft are all creatures of the law. Taxes aren't theft because that would be a literal contradiction. Taxes are just part of the rules about how money operates.

I should also note that 1) the law isn't just what some individual or other feels is natural, 2) I'd imagine that primitive law that defines theft also defines obligations to the community (which are analogous to taxes).

Yeah, taxation is obviously a protection racket, not theft.

No it isn't. Property rights are determined by the state, hence taxation by the state cannot be considered theft.

> However, I am a realist

Choose one.

That is a true statement; taxation is theft.

Sure, and it is an opinion or value judgment supported by millennia of social contract even before Enlightenment era thinkers came up with the concept of the social contract. If you're going against one of the basic mechanisms or tools for how society works, you might as well label yourself an anarchist. Which is fine, plenty of mutualist ideologies exist, but you should at least identify yourself so people will understand the very different ideological framework you're arguing from.

> Thats your opinion and the oligarchs who decide how tax money is spent appreciate your conformity.

And the puritans who dictate popular morality appreciate your conformity in wearing clothing. Again, people can oppose oppressive taxes and unjust tax systems, but to argue that taxes are unnecessary is seemingly arguing against all of human society since the development of agriculture. Unless you are a believer in Modern Monetary Theory? Good of you to realize the possibilities of fiat currency.

An income/sales tax is not "all taxes".

By that rational, your using the infrastructure paid by those taxes is also theft right?

I have not seen any evidence to support that. In fact I see plenty of evidence against that. Most people have nuanced opinions on most subjects - myself included. That's not to say that there aren't some people who think that way, but all? Most? No, I don't think that's a fair assessment.

> this isnt a friendly debate about when government spending becomes expensive, they literally dont think taxes should exist. its like claiming a full blown Stalinist simply disagrees with the level of private ownership people expect.

Your reaction seems extreme. So what if they legit think that - that seems like an opinion that could be debated, not a crime requiring punishment.

As for the rest of your reply - I think name-calling is inappropriate. Maybe focus on substance?

Not really. That sort of thinking applies to a specific subgroup in the US, but isn't representative of majority thought.

Pretty sure when you force or coerce someone to buy something they do not want, it is illegal and immoral. And if the value of the item is significantly less than the price paid, it is theft in all but the most pedantic ways.

No, it's by definition not theft. Theft is the unlawful taking of property without consent of the owner; taxation is by definition done by legal authority, and, ipso facto, is not theft.

Now, if you dismiss any moral status of legal authority (not merely legal authority which lacks some proper accountability, but all legal authority irrespective of accountability and structure), then, sure taxation is the moral equivalent of theft without being theft. And if you take the more moderate view that some legal authority is morally relevant, but that that depends on structure and accountability to the governed, then taxation by an improper authority is morally equivalent to theft.

But, by definition, taxation is not theft.

The difference between charging for goods and services vs taxation is that you are unable to choose not to patronise the state. A mugger charging you 75% of your income for the privilege of leaving his dark alley with your throat unslit is providing the same choice to you as the state is with regards to taxation. You are not free to refuse to be a customer of the state, any more than you are free to refuse to be a customer of said mugger.

The only factual mathematically definable difference between theft and taxation is that taxation is legal, and hey presto, it's the agency that writes the laws which defines this difference. Nice trick if you can find idiots naive enough to fall for it, and they are fortunately not in short supply.

If taxation is not theft, then the holocaust, or any killing by any state in all of history, is by definition not murder, because the difference between the murder and state sanctioned killing is the same as the difference between theft and taxation, one is technically illegal, and that is all.

> 75% of your income" is a very different thing than "75% of your income beyond a certain figure"

It is indeed, and you appear to not have grasped what OP actually says, so let's put it here so you can reconsider your position;

>> I am paying 65% (that is right) of my income to the sate (sic) right now

Not "I touch the 65% tax bracket at the top of the progressive income tax schedule which the state I am resident in has declared", but "I am paying 65% (that is right) of my income" period.

So yes, it is nearly three quarters of this person's income, being taken against their will, to support an institution which is not just incompetent, but actually hugely, enormously viciously destructive and damaging to the world at large, to the extent that it is the largest non natural cause of death in the preceding century.

> I don't agree with many actions undertaken by my government, including launching illegal wars which I have protested on the street against.

And worse yet, you actually know just how terrible the actions of the state are, to the extent that you have taken to the street protesting it, and yet you still feel the need to speak up in a public forum about how the idea that these parasites forcibly rob people of nearly three quarters of their earnings makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside?

Think long and hard about this.

> That doesn't mean I don't think everyone is entitled to a certain level of wellbeing, paid for by the general economy.

Even if you granted that "everyone is entitled to a certain level of wellbeing" (and frankly, that's an enormous can of worms right there that I'm not even going to dip a toe into at this point in time) that is an end, not a means. Conflating the end of social welfare with the means of theft does not necessarily follow at all.

> After taxation, what is your actual income? Is it not enough?

After theft, without theft avoidance, my income is about 25% of the original also. Could I do more and live a better life with the other 75% that is instead being stolen from me to finance demonstrably ineffective local social programs coupled with heinously disgusting foreign policy objectives? Is that what you mean by "Is it not enough?" Because if so, no, it's not enough.

Frankly, I'd give up almost all of the rest of it to avoid having given any of it to those parasites to begin with, and this is a constant drain on my motivation for economic activity in general, knowing how much of my earnings will go to finance activities that make me violently ill if I think too hard about them.

True. Taxes are armed robbery with a threat of kidnapping and confinement. They have nothing to do with theft.

So that makes you a libertarian who thinks any tax is theft, and estate tax is just as bad as any other tax?

I always wonder how libertarians really think society would work, when nobody cares about anything other than themselves and their own wishes. Countries with weak governments are really not that nice to live in.

I'd happily allow the government to prevent the exploitation of its citizens, but I don't believe that voluntary transactions are exploitation. Why would I want the government to prohibit me from selling my labor at the price I choose?

> So if you fall along the lines that taxation is theft, who do you expect to protect your property if you're not paying anyone to do so? And why should I pay taxes so that the government can protect your property?

Taxation isn't theft when it is utilized to pay for public goods. It becomes akin to theft when my money is taken to be redistributed to folks in such a way I can't consume (non public good).

Currently I have to pay nearly $2k/year in county tax for other people's children to go to daycare. Why on earth am I paying for that? I pay $2k/month per child to send them to daycare and get $0 of the $2k I send to others back to spend on my own children. That is theft.

> I think my point is still valid, regardless.

Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need.

The "taxation is theft" crowd aren't pro capitalism, they are pro anarcho-capitalism which is essentially just anarchy. Don't listen to them.

Extreme libertarianism, which is seriously flawed, but people still fall for it (out of greed and/or seduction by an oversimple toy model that can't actually work in practice).

How could income based taxation be theft unless we're considering all profit theft? Either it's immoral for someone with power over you to demand part of the value you produce or it isn't.