Taxes as theft

[Perd Hapley]

Rather frequently, on internet, radio, etc; we hear taxes described as if they were a form of theft. Things like this:

GWB took that money from us, under the threat of force..

Now if this were an anarchist website, that would be perfectly understandable. But almost all of us here prefer to have some form of government, and the slogan of our Patriot forefathers was not "No taxation," but "No taxation without representation." So what's up with this? To say taxes are too high, and are wasted on too much nanny-state garbage is one thing. To say that taxes are theft is, well, I don't know what that is. 

[Jamisjockey]

Rather frequently, on internet, radio, etc; we hear taxes described as if they were a form of theft. Things like this:

Now if this were an anarchist website, that would be perfectly understandable. But almost all of us here prefer to have some form of government, and the slogan of our Patriot forefathers was not "No taxation," but "No taxation without representation." So what's up with this? To say taxes are too high, and are wasted on too much nanny-state garbage is one thing. To say that taxes are theft is, well, I don't know what that is. 

It cannot be ignored that federal income taxes are taken under the threat of force.  If you do not pay taxes, you will have force used against you.  Federal agents with guns will come and arrest you.  Our money is taken from us, and then given to another.  How is that not theft?  We're not talking about taxation to run a government. 
We have no power to opt out of the garbage they spend our money on. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sure you have the power  just aren't willing to man up and take the consequences. fight the man through the system  or move  gather amongst similar "freemen" and start your own place. good luck with that

[roo_ster]

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
----Ovid

"Crime doesn't pay."
Similar reasons why taxation is not called theft. 

Gov't is force.  The question is, "How much force ought we tolerate?"  Some are fine with allowing gov't to sexually molest children (TSA), some are fine with allowing gov't to murder fellow citizens (Clark County, Nevada), and some are content to place no limits on gov't powers.

[Tallpine]

I don't how anyone could characterize taxes as anything other than theft, either arbitrarily by the leadership, or by the majority from the minority.

OTOH, I see how some services currently provided by governments (mostly state and local) are beneficial to most everyone in the long run.  There are probably alternative ways to fund those services, which might be better or worse than the current system.

But helping kids in Africa is not one of those services, nor most anyone else for that matter.

When everyone who votes pay an equal share (or an equal rate) then it might be somewhat equitable for those services that benefit everyone.  But when it gets to the point where a majority who do not pay are voting to take from the minority who do pay, then how can anyone question that it is blatant theft?

As much as I absolutely hate property taxes, I sorta see the theoretical equity if you assume that government is organized to protect property rights  

[TommyGunn]

What taxes have really evolved into is a system to wage class warfare on the American people.  The last years i have infor available from the National Taxpayers Union is 2006 and the top 1% of income earners then paid 39.89% of the federal revenue derived from the income tax.
The top 5% (which we should remember is also inclusive of the above figure) pays 60.14%
Right now kongress is engaged in a debate on keeping in effect the Bush tax cuts, and if so, on whom, the middle class, or both the middle class and the rich.
According to the democrats raising the trax on the "rich" from @36% to back up to 39% will be "fair" (despite the fact it's only a few per cent difference, one is "fair" so the other rate must be "unfair."  And a whopping 3% makes this difference?  WOW). 

Yeah... the income tax is a form of legalized "theft."

To quote Frederic Bastiat;
 

  "When plunder becomes a way of live for a group of men living together in that society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." 

 

[Fitz]

I don't have a problem with taxes, per se.

I do have a problem with tax money helping dying Africans, when there's many more problems inside our borders to deal with. And, when most of what is wrong with Africa is the fault of Africans.

[AZRedhawk44]

IMO, taxes should be levied based upon the services consumed by the taxpayer.

Live in a municipality?  Pay property taxes and sales taxes.  Even if you rent, your monthly fee to rent the apartment/house is set by your landlord who has to pay the property tax, and he'll set the rent in a way that takes those costs into account.  Those taxes pay for your services you consume in the municipality:  schools, roads, police, fire, etc.  Free market trends between municipalities allows potential residents to shop between towns and find the best balance between taxes and services.  People do it all the time when moving to the Phoenix valley area.

Live in a state?  Pay sales tax, vehicle registration fees, and other appropriate itemized taxes oriented towards consumption trends.  NOT INCOME TAXES.  Every tax levied should, in the language that creates it, declare where the revenue will be spent (and that it will ONLY be spent on that item in the budget).

Live in the US?  Pay excise taxes, tariffs, import duties, airport use fees or whatever itemized taxes may be justified for expenses.  NOT INCOME TAXES.

One cannot protest income taxes.  One cannot boycott/protest a new expense on the Federal Budget by neglecting to pay that one element of income tax.  Because costs are not correlated to income for the government.  It's impossible to calculate what that share of the element might even be on your income taxes, even if you chose that way to do it.

Itemized taxes allow for free market forces to find lower cost methods of accomplishing the same lifestyle benefits as just accepting the tax structure.  Corporations will examine the cost/benefit analysis of offshore workers and import tariffs versus domestic production, and make their decisions accordingly.  People will decide that $10 of their phone bill going to Federal taxes is too much, and cancel a redundant and never-used landline, freeing that money to consume other things or to invest.

You just get portrayed as a kook or a crazy, instead.  And the IRS sends its SWAT-accountants to kill you.

"Taxes" aren't theft.

"Taxes as one large lump sum with no itemization and no means to choose not to consume services as economic protest" is theft.

They know that most of us don't need the crap they come up with.  And given a means to do so, we'd kill those programs by dodging the consumption-related taxes associated to them.

[Seenterman]

[Chris Rock] You know what's f**ked up about taxes? You don't even pay taxes, they take tax. You get your check and monies gone. That ain't a payment, that's a jack. [/Chris Rock]

[MicroBalrog]

You don't have to be an anarchist to think of taxes as a moral evil. Some of us just think of it as a lesser evil - either we tolerate taxation, or we tolerate anarchy. Anarchy is commonly accepted to be bad.

[Tallpine]

Anarchy is commonly accepted to be bad.

Yeah, but has anyone ever really seen anarchy 

I think it is about as rare as Bigfoot and test tube fusion.

In the fraction of an instant that there might be anarchy, people will start getting together and devising some sort of "government" - even if it is just a clan or neighborhood watch or vigilantes.

From that primitive state where local tribes are feuding with each other, humankind will eventually advance to the point where continental sized nation states can incinerate each other with thermo-nuclear weapons.

[Perd Hapley]

It cannot be ignored that federal income taxes are taken under the threat of force.  If you do not pay taxes, you will have force used against you.  Federal agents with guns will come and arrest you.  Our money is taken from us, and then given to another.  How is that not theft?  We're not talking about taxation to run a government.  
We have no power to opt out of the garbage they spend our money on.  

Because the people they're taxing appointed them to office, and gave them power to make decisions and enforce them. To deny this is to reject the principles of popular govt, and perhaps any govt. at all. Hence my confusion at hearing this from non-anarchists, especially non-anarchists who believe in concepts like popular govt, (limited) majority rule, etc.

I seem to remember a similar phenomenon at the height of anti-Iraq-war sentiment. People on this board talking about how pro-war folks had an obligation to join the military, but the anti-war could be forgiven for not wishing to serve. That's not how a republic works. You can object to the rules, or try to change them, but you don't get to opt out of whichever policy/war you disagree with. 

Yeah, but has anyone ever really seen anarchy  

I think it is about as rare as Bigfoot and test tube fusion.

In the fraction of an instant that there might be anarchy, people will start getting together and devising some sort of "government" - even if it is just a clan or neighborhood watch or vigilantes.

I've had that thought myself. It's one reason I'm not an anarchist. But unfortunately, that is for another thread.

[Boomhauer]

Because the people they're taxing appointed them to office

Let's say there are certain politicians voting to raise taxes. I didn't vote for them, in fact I voted against them. How is this representation of me?

I certainly didn't vote for Obama or any of the Dem politicians in '08 or '06, yet they passed abhorrent legislation. How do I have a say in that case? They are making decisions for me against my wishes and wills, when I didn't ask them to.

[Perd Hapley]

So you don't accept that our leaders and representatives are chosen by majority vote (or a modified form of that, in the President's case)?  What form of government would you prefer? Monarchy? Medieval feudalism? None at all? 

[freakazoid]

So it would be acceptable to set up concentration camps and persecute a certain group of people, as long as it was the majority vote?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

been done on executive order before  here

[AZRedhawk44]

So you don't accept that our leaders and representatives are chosen by majority vote (or a modified form of that, in the President's case)?  What form of government would you prefer? Monarchy? Medieval feudalism? None at all? 

While it's falsely attributed to Ben Franklin, it's still sensible:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Just because "everyone says so" doesn't make it okay.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

what do you suggest?

[makattak]

So you don't accept that our leaders and representatives are chosen by majority vote (or a modified form of that, in the President's case)?  What form of government would you prefer? Monarchy? Medieval feudalism? None at all?  

I would prefer to have a constitutional republic where the rules are laid out and we only have majority rule on a small set of issues and a super majority is necessary for major changes.

Too bad that doesn't exit in this world anymore.

[AZRedhawk44]

what do you suggest?

Itemized and justified taxes that are approved by a supermajority, but never attributed to a general pool or cross-subsidized to fund alternate projects.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sounds a might complicated. has anything like that ever been done?  on any scale? even corporate?

[freakazoid]

Sounds a lot less complicated than what we got now.

[AZRedhawk44]

sounds a might complicated.

Complicated.

Complicated?

Srsly?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

THAT is complicated.

(Not that I trust the evaluation of how complicated something is, from a guy who can't even figure out the shift key... )

[Perd Hapley]

So it would be acceptable to set up concentration camps and persecute a certain group of people, as long as it was the majority vote?

Now you are equating taxation with concentration camps. Still, how do we decide that concentrations camps are legal or illegal, aside from a majority vote? Or how do we establish courts to declare them illegal, without a majority vote? Or how do we establish a constitutional republic with a bill of rights and a court system without a majority (or super-majority) vote? Or at least a vote by a majority of citizens of nine of the thirteen states, etc?

While it's falsely attributed to Ben Franklin, it's still sensible:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Just because "everyone says so" doesn't make it okay.

Then how is your ideal tax system to be implemented? By a well-armed lamb telling everyone how much tax they will pay? How is that not theft?  

[AZRedhawk44]

Then how is your ideal tax system to be implemented? By a well-armed lamb telling everyone how much tax they will pay? How is that not theft? 

Kinda like this (Let's take FedGov as the example here):

1.  Start with no taxes.
2.  Itemize desired expenses.  Based upon the importance of the expense, decide what method to use to tax or otherwise raise revenue (tariff, fee, excise, etc).
3.  Implement tax, track revenues from the tax and allocate them to the expense.

Take the Dept of Defense.  Pretty important function.  It needs to be funded to the tune of $600 billion or so.  To what degree should everyone pay for the cost of the DoD? 

[Clears throat, stands at the well of the House]

I, Congressman Redhawk, propose that we levy a 2% national sales tax on all food items.  This tax will be used to pay for the combined budget of the Department of Defense as outlined in appendix A of the submitted bill.

[/proposed bill]

Other types of legislation?  Perhaps the urinating on Jesus taxpayer funded art stuff?

[Assumes Pelosian thought process]

I, the looney from the Left Coast, propose that we implement a 1% excise tax on all gasoline sales.  This tax will be used to hire drop-out Berkeley artists that can't get jobs but can otherwise poo on religious talismans.

[/proposed bill]

The bill gets voted down because no one wants to go home to all the drivers in Fly-over America and tell them they're paying for poop-Jesus in the NYC Art Museum via a national gasoline excise tax.  And those that REALLY oppose it can boycott it by not driving.

Also, a counterpoint source of funding can be proposed, like this:

[Redhawk objection]

I object, and offer as an alternate source of funding that you implement a 5% tax on all sales of Dave Matthews Band, Phish and John Lennon music, as well as hemp jewelry, to fund this project.

[/Redhawk objection]

The House then decides that making everyone pay for poo-art is a bad idea, but making all the diseased hippies pay for it through their crappy music and fashion taste is a good idea.

My examples are silly... but particular industries or products can be targeted to pay for particular projects.  Gasoline excise taxes to pay for interstate highways.  Firearms/ammo excise taxes to pay for the ATF (don't like how the ATF operates?  Starve it by not buying guns/ammo for a year and they'll get the point).  Sales taxes for truly common defense issues.  Fees for use of ports.