Taxation is theft

[financeguy]

Broadly speaking, I agree with the above statement.

Can anyone provide arguments to the contrary?

 

[melon]

Considering that most of us here take part in representative democracies with verifiably free and fair elections, taxation is not theft, because, as our elected representatives, we have given them the authority to tax us to fund the government's--and, by extension, our--institutional interests.

An Athenian-style direct democracy, where all legislation was voted on by directly by the public, is flat-out infeasible, not only because of the kind of people who would likely turn out to show up (special interest groups with a set personality type), but also because we have a hard enough time getting people to show up to vote in a representative democracy.

If you don't like how you're taxed, exercise your proverbial muscle and vote your elected officials out of office.

 

[BVS]

How do all you no tax people propose the government is ran, highways are funded, military built, etc...

 

[anitram]

Disagree.

I would sooner see tax is just another form of a contract than theft. The taxpayer surrenders money and as consideration gets the provision of services.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Broadly speaking, I agree with the above statement.

Can anyone provide arguments to the contrary?

i'm more intrested in your arguement.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I would agree that taxation is theft if you operate under the assumption that there's no such thing as public welfare (read: not 'the dole' but rather well-being or greater good) and that utilities (namely public goods necessary to equitable social function) like water, electricity, gas, and services (equally necessary public goods for equitable social function) like police, courts, fire, and ambulance/health need not be moderated in any way. I don't agree with that, of course. I would if I could, though.

Invariably someone insists that the free market is more efficient, and to them I suggest that the open market is only theoretically more efficient and that while it ought to be more efficient that it doesn't necessarily mean that it always will be more efficient. Case in point, communications networks like tv cable and telephone wires, rail networks, road networks, etc. Who can afford to pay to install that kind of infrastructure in the first place, let alone have competing groups installing multiple networks and bartering with the public over costs? That'd be ridiculous. If monopolies can be more efficient than free-market, then why can't taxation also be a mechanism of efficiency?

Corporatism ruling exclusively over those things which people need to live does not result in a healthy, happy, productive society. All in all, I disagree whole-heartedly with the premise that taxation is theft. I'd even say that taxation is necessary. The notion that people are responsible enough to operate in a truly free market is equally implausible with the notion that people are responsible enough to operate in a truly communist society; people will always exploit, seek short-term gains that cheat long-term sustainability, and revert to a might-makes-right lifestyle when it is profitable to them because at the end of the day there's little to make immediately apparent the fact that the benefit of all will provide the most benefit to the self and not vice-versa. We've come this far and most people still don't get it, I don't put much faith in any institution that promises to make utopias where none have existed or ever likely will.

Government and taxation is an excellent check-and-balance to unbridled exploitation. In the absence of government and the things that government provide, corporations are little more than clans/factions out for their own benefit, and there's very little that's democratic about the way they're run. Going that direction would roll-back nearly all the gains re: quality of life that a democracy provides.

 

[melon]

i'm more intrested in your arguement.

I'd actually love to read this too.

 

[A stor]

How do all you no tax people propose the government is ran, highways are funded, military built, etc...

Plus, the foreign aid that Bono speaks of in Africa.

 

[financeguy]

Disagree.

I would sooner see tax is just another form of a contract than theft. The taxpayer surrenders money and as consideration gets the provision of services.

But no other contract has the co-ercive power of the state to back up one side of it.

If a car dealer sells me a dud car, and negotiations to get a refund do not succeed, I can pursue them in the law courts where I MAY be successful, but if I am not it is pretty much tough titties.

Taxation is essentially an unequal contract as regards the small amount of power of the private citizen vis-a-vis the overwhelming power of the state.

 

[financeguy]

Considering that most of us here take part in representative democracies with verifiably free and fair elections, taxation is not theft, because, as our elected representatives, we have given them the authority to tax us to fund the government's--and, by extension, our--institutional interests.

Ho hum. This ignores the practical reality that the nature of bureacracy is to expand itself. When has a government ever voted for less power for itself? When have parliamentarians ever voted for a reduction in their salaries?

An Athenian-style direct democracy, where all legislation was voted on by directly by the public, is flat-out infeasible, not only because of the kind of people who would likely turn out to show up (special interest groups with a set personality type), but also because we have a hard enough time getting people to show up to vote in a representative democracy..

The Swiss seem to come close.

 

[anitram]

Taxation is essentially an unequal contract as regards the small amount of power of the private citizen vis-a-vis the overwhelming power of the state.

I think you are right in the sense that it's hard to argue that for every taxpayer, there is a meeting of the minds between him/her and the government.

But do you really believe that other contracts are equal? If I am applying for a mortgage, what is my bargaining power up against an entity like HSBC or Bank of America? In pretty much every instance where an individual customer is at the mercy of a large corporation, you will have unequal bargaining power. Do we consider that to be theft? Is it lesser theft?

 

[Zoots]

Yeah what about fucking APR's on an auto loan for example? I'd call that theft before I think about taxes. Although, I've often thought about this too... if our tax dollars are being put to good use or not???

 

[Kieran McConville]

I'd suggest that taxation of some kind underwrites the modern state, which in turn is the basis for modern civilisation, that is to say, large-scale civilisation. We can always go back to locally based self-sufficient communities that barely interact with each other... but even then, I suspect you'd be expected to contribute a tithe to the chieftan.

I know you're a conservative Financeguy, but I can't help thinking this thread is a little tongue in cheek.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I know you're a conservative Financeguy, but I can't help thinking this thread is a little tongue in cheek.

I assumed the same, but that didn't stop me from replying anyway

 

[financeguy]

Well, I think it is interesting as a kind of thought experiment to take a 'zero-based budgeting' approach to the public sector, but, granted, I am not really a died-in-the-wool 'privatize everything' minarchist.

I am a keen advocate of investing in rail transport, for example. Now it is probably impossible to build rail transport links without state funding, and those recent attempts to privatize the railways that have been tried, for example under Thatcher in the UK, don't seem to have worked out particularly well (although they were not the disaster the left painted them as either).

Now that I think of it however, interestingly enough most of the early railways in Britain and Ireland were largely built and financed by private companies. And seemingly in Ireland at least the railway network was MORE EXTENSIVE back then in the early twentieth century than it is today under a 100% state owned and financed railway system.

 

[melon]

Ho hum. This ignores the practical reality that the nature of bureacracy is to expand itself. When has a government ever voted for less power for itself? When have parliamentarians ever voted for a reduction in their salaries?

The practical reality is that bureaucracy expands, due to the failure of the electorate to choose proper representatives or punish them for misrepresenting them. The practical reality is that, when polled, for instance, most Americans support any slew of social programs, transportation spending, and a strong national defense, and many elected representatives are judged, at the local level, on what they bring back to their district. And, in spite of "low approval ratings" for Congress and the President, very few incumbent representatives are ever ousted (most people support their local representatives, while they despise those outside, whom they have no choice over), and only a handful of states ever swing from one party to the other come presidential election time.

In other words, the bureaucracy is bloated, spends too much while cutting taxes, and adds on pork projects because that is exactly what their constituents want. Democracy is working, in theory; it is the voters who have failed. The voters have exactly the kind of government that they want, because actions speak much louder than words or polls.

 

[financeguy]

I think you are right in the sense that it's hard to argue that for every taxpayer, there is a meeting of the minds between him/her and the government.

But do you really believe that other contracts are equal? If I am applying for a mortgage, what is my bargaining power up against an entity like HSBC or Bank of America? In pretty much every instance where an individual customer is at the mercy of a large corporation, you will have unequal bargaining power. Do we consider that to be theft? Is it lesser theft?

I don't think that's a particularly good example, to be honest. The market for home loans in most developed countries is extremely competitive. Granted, it is more difficult to get a mortgage now in the so-called post credit crunch world, with conditions having tightened, but rarely in a given country is there only one mortgage lender offering financing. Actually, if anything in recent years - and granted, this is less apparent now - banks were forced to cut their margins to the bone in competing for business.

Now that I think of it, though it has become more difficult to obtain mortgage financing, for those in the fortunate position to have spare funds to lend to the banks, their bargaining power has never been higher. Far from the individual customer (of savings products) being at the mercy of a large corporation, the large corporation is at the mercy of a discerning, well-informed saver, who constantly shifts his/her funds around to avail of the best rate.

Also, you are under no obligation to obtain mortgage financing - or any other form of credit - from any lender. The state obliges all of us to finance anything it deems fit, basically, and applies severe penalties to those who 'opt-out', i.e., evade their taxes.

 

[financeguy]

The practical reality is that bureaucracy expands, due to the failure of the electorate to choose proper representatives or punish them for misrepresenting them. The practical reality is that, when polled, for instance, most Americans support any slew of social programs, transportation spending, and a strong national defense, and many elected representatives are judged, at the local level, on what they bring back to their district. And, in spite of "low approval ratings" for Congress and the President, very few incumbent representatives are ever ousted (most people support their local representatives, while they despise those outside, whom they have no choice over), and only a handful of states ever swing from one party to the other come presidential election time.

In other words, the bureaucracy is bloated, spends too much while cutting taxes, and adds on pork projects because that is exactly what their constituents want. Democracy is working, in theory; it is the voters who have failed. The voters have exactly the kind of government that they want, because actions speak much louder than words or polls.

That is because have a debased political currency (and not just in the US). We have allowed the PR crowd to guide developments of our political systems, which the politicians love of course because it enhances their public profiles.

I simply do not agree with the thesis that a well-informed electorate are going to vote for pork-belly type projects whatever happens. If the electorate were truly informed about the results of their political choices, then I believe they will vote in much greater numbers in favour of, for want of a better expression, politicians of an anti-statist or libertarian bent.

 

[melon]

I simply do not agree with the thesis that a well-informed electorate are going to vote for pork-belly type projects whatever happens. If the electorate were truly informed about the results of their political choices, then I believe they will vote in much greater numbers in favour of, for want of a better expression, politicians of an anti-statist or libertarian bent.

I disagree. Voters will say that they oppose "pork projects," but who gets to define what such a project is? Probably most voters, when asked, will never identify such a project as something that happens near them. "Pork projects" are always other projects in outside districts.

The fact remains that American voters, at least, want low taxes and high spending, and that's what all serious research indicates. This is why the U.S. operates at such crippling deficit levels, because that is what you get when the people voting for you want tax cuts and the same level of government spending. Decades of pandering to the lowest common denominator in all aspects of American life, refusing to tell people that they are objectively wrong and coupled with a longstanding culture of anti-intellectualism, has led to this, and we are reaping what we sow.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well anyway, the argument about taxation greatly predates our modern 'retail democracy', and indeed democracy itself. I'd say the practical argument about taxation ended around the time that kings took upon themselves the right to make war, or indeed to do anything much. In Britain's case, about a millenium.

 

[melon]

Well anyway, the argument about taxation greatly predates our modern 'retail democracy', and indeed democracy itself. I'd say the practical argument about taxation ended around the time that kings took upon themselves the right to make war, or indeed to do anything much. In Britain's case, about a millenium.

But this is where I say that taxation can only be considered theft in an unfree society. In communism, you can certainly blame the government, because you have no alternatives to them or the candidates they choose. In a modern representative democracy, where we, in theory, have limitless parties to choose from, it is our fault if we choose bad leaders ultimately. We are not forced into a two-party system, but if everyone votes that way, that's what we get. In other words, a representative democratic government is only as bad as its voters.

 

[Kieran McConville]

True enough. I guess my point is that the era of absolute monarchs left behind one important legacy: the existence of a state. Democratic or otherwise, it's rare that the vaccuum not be filled by something - and indeed, taxation is a fundamental.