Philosophical Vegan Forum

Is taxation theft?

If yes; Why? Does taxation being theft even matter if its purpose to is prevent the erosion of the social oder? Do the actions of the government justify its "theft" if it brings good consequences? If it is theft and it is wrong, should all taxation be abolished?

If no, why not? The government forces its citizens into a "contract" that they never agreed to be a part of. They require people pay a portion of their income, and threaten retaliation if they do not comply. Why isn't this theft?

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amThe government forces its citizens into a "contract" that they never agreed to be a part of. They require people pay a portion of their income, and threaten retaliation if they do not comply. Why isn't this theft?

I agree that no one should be forced to pay taxes. However, anyone who chooses not to should not be allowed to use the roads, hospitals or anything else that the government pays for.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:10 am

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amThe government forces its citizens into a "contract" that they never agreed to be a part of. They require people pay a portion of their income, and threaten retaliation if they do not comply. Why isn't this theft?

I agree that no one should be forced to pay taxes. However, anyone who chooses not to should not be allowed to use the roads, hospitals or anything else that the government pays for.

The trouble is the government would have to spend money making sure the non-taxpayer didn't use the roads or hospitals. Who pays for that? And what happens if the non-payer steps on a sidewalk or something?

If you didn't pay taxes, that would also mean somebody could come and and steal from you or murder you, and the government wouldn't provide the service of investigating or punishing the perpetrators.
There would be groups of highly armed (tax paying) sociopaths who would track these people down (people who can't uses the roads, so they're stuck), and just kill them and take everything they have.

So, basically nobody would do it unless they were suicidal. Doesn't seem like a useful option.


That said, I don't care if people want to call it theft or not. I'm not an ideologue, I'm a consequentialist. I have no problem with a robin-hood state, as long as the tax money is being used for good things.
The problem is when it's not being used for good... like war mongering.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:10 am I agree that no one should be forced to pay taxes. However, anyone who chooses not to should not be allowed to use the roads, hospitals or anything else that the government pays for.

So you're in favor of voluntary taxation? Under this system, would the government receive enough money to continue funding schools, libraries, roads, and other public facilities? What if most people were to decide to stop paying taxes? This sounds ideal, but I'm not sure if it's practicable.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:53 pm The trouble is the government would have to spend money making sure the non-taxpayer didn't use the roads or hospitals. Who pays for that?

??? Tax money pays for law enforcement.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:53 pmAnd what happens if the non-payer steps on a sidewalk or something?

He is punished under the law.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:53 pmIf you didn't pay taxes, that would also mean somebody could come and and steal from you or murder you, and the government wouldn't provide the service of investigating or punishing the perpetrators.

Yapp.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:53 pmSo, basically nobody would do it unless they were suicidal.

Exactly.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:13 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:53 pm The trouble is the government would have to spend money making sure the non-taxpayer didn't use the roads or hospitals. Who pays for that?

??? Tax money pays for law enforcement.

So you're saying the tax money from the tax payers has to pay for 24 hour surveillance of the non-taxpayers (or a border wall or something)?

It would be cheaper just to let them use the roads and civil services.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:17 pmSo you're saying the tax money from the tax payers has to pay for 24 hour surveillance of the non-taxpayers (or a border wall or something)?

People are always capable of committing crime. I don't see why the amount of surveillance for this should be any different from vandalism or any other crime. However, if it were to work the potential punishment would have to be sufficient to pay for the costs of such a policy. Future technology will probably make surveillance very low cost.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:28 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:17 pmSo you're saying the tax money from the tax payers has to pay for 24 hour surveillance of the non-taxpayers (or a border wall or something)?

People are always capable of committing crime. I don't see why the amount of surveillance for this should be any different from vandalism or any other crime.

Really?

It's pretty easy to identify a vandal. You see somebody spray painting letters on a wall, and you can make some assumptions can call the police. There's also a good chance that the owner of the wall will see them, and know they shouldn't be doing it.

If you see somebody walking on the sidewalk, you can not assume that person is not a taxpayer. There's no clear indication to witnesses that a crime is being committed.

Every non-taxpayer would have to be tracked carefully to know it was a crime, because nobody would be able to report it since nobody would know something wrong happened unless it was witnessed by a person or computer surveillance system designed to keep track of the person.

And tracking them would not be easy. It's not like you can make them wear house arrest ankle monitors.
All they have to do is invite some friends over for a Halloween party and leave the premises with a mask on.

Incidence of road use would also, by necessity, be much higher than citizens vandalizing.

Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:28 pmHowever, if it were to work the potential punishment would have to be sufficient to pay for the costs of such a policy.

The trouble is that the punishment would have to be death, because otherwise the person has a free insurance policy: if at any time they become sick and need emergency care, they can just break the law and use the road and hospital, and their lives will be saved.

And do we have to pay for courts, too, and imprisonment? And general due process?
Or are the non-tax-payers not entitled to that?

And if they aren't entitled to due process, why not just find them guilty the moment they sign up and send some police to just kill them and save a lot of money? It's not illegal to do, since they have no protection and no right to due process.

And if they are entitled to due process, it would in many or most cases be impossible to fund that through just repossessing their property and selling their organs.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 am Is taxation theft?
If yes; Why? Does taxation being theft even matter if its purpose to is prevent the erosion of the social oder? Do the actions of the government justify its "theft" if it brings good consequences? If it is theft and it is wrong, should all taxation be abolished?

Yes, taxation is theft.

What good is a social order that promotes wars, inequality, wasteful and unsustainable ways of life, theft, pollution, slavery, subordination to authority, irresponsibility, lies, murder, exploitation, speciesism, etc? The good consequences you speak of are dwarfed by the gifts I just listed. We get crumbles back in form of benevolent govt spending. And yet every penny the governments have: they took it from us.

Taxation needn't be abolished. In fact it can't be: Who would be there to propose such a thing, and pass such a law? Is government going to willingly cut off its only source of income and POWER? and then volunteer for the betterment of society?

Paying taxes is optional. You can opt out anytime you want. Personally, I am too comfortable to give up my cozy taxed home at the moment, I admit. I too take part in financing this abomination. One of these days I hope to grow a pair and leave the hamster wheel for good

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:22 pm Yes, taxation is theft.
What good is a social order that promotes wars, inequality, wasteful and unsustainable ways of life, theft, pollution, slavery, subordination to authority, irresponsibility, lies, murder, exploitation, speciesism, etc? The good consequences you speak of are dwarfed by the gifts I just listed. We get crumbles back in form of benevolent govt spending. And yet every penny the governments have: they took it from us.

I've have to weigh all of the pros and cons of society to come to that conclusion. I'm not convinced that the social order is overall more harmful to us. The government uses tax money for many benefits things, like public education and public libraries. Generally, the more educated a population is, the more successful and happy a society is. Tax money is also used to invest in public roads and highways, which is important in reducing fatal accidents. Tax money also goes to Medicare and Medicaid, which helps make health care affordable for thousands of people. It also goes to law enforcement. The government uses our money to fund jails and the courts system. Don't these benefits outweigh the negatives? How would society function if the government doesn't have enough money to fund these basic civil services? Who would enforce the law?

I agree that taxation can be classed as left, but I believe the positive consequences outweigh the negative ones. In this case, the positive consequences is a functioning society.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:22 pm Taxation needn't be abolished. In fact it can't be: Who would be there to propose such a thing, and pass such a law? Is government going to willingly cut off its only source of income and POWER? and then volunteer for the betterment of society?

Agree on this point. Such a decision would not be reasonable.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:22 pm Paying taxes is optional. You can opt out anytime you want. Personally, I am too comfortable to give up my cozy taxed home at the moment, I admit. I too take part in financing this abomination. One of these days I hope to grow a pair and leave the hamster wheel for good

Paying taxes is (technically) not optional. If you refuse to pay taxes, the US government's IRS will fine you or throw you into prison. Paying taxes is a civic duty.