Taxation as theft.

[Leonhard]

I know of a couple of good members of tweb who hold to the political philosophy that taxation should be regarded as theft. I don't really know how that can make sense. However the more important question is, if we take this proposition seriously. Why is tax fraud then wrong?

From what little I've come across on the internet, the person who coined the term in the eighties, used it to justify tax resistance.

Not least to say I don't understand how anyone can imagine a tax-free government to work.

Anyone who hold to this view who'd mind to explain. Is it something you take seriously, or is it just a rhetorical device to get people to think about morality and government?

[Adam]

It goes back over a century to pure Anarchism taught by Proudhon and Priince Kropotkin. It's Utopian stuff and everyone else knows won't work, "Property is theft" was their motto.

[Leonhard]

Its just a term I don't get. I suppose they'd say that my landlord isn't stealing from me, even though I'd rather not have to pay rent. Without knowing, I imagine that they point out that I've consented to living here, signing a contract. Yet why can't I say the same about them? It wasn't by consent that they were born, but they're certainly staying in their country, or not, by their own consent.

[Cow Poke]

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to taxes for infrastructure, police, fire, etc.... And I think what fuels opposition to taxation is the abuses in spending.

I'll start there.

[Cow Poke]

Its just a term I don't get. I suppose they'd say that my landlord isn't stealing from me, even though I'd rather not have to pay rent.

When you rent, you enter into a contract in which you decide you're willing to give some of your money for the convenience of not living under a bridge. If your landlord suddenly advised you that he needed to drastically increase your rent to cover "expenses", and you saw that all he was doing was charging you more to purchase his new Ferrari, you'd probably be unhappy.

You, however, would have the option of going elsewhere to rent a home. With governmental taxation, we don't have that option.

Without knowing, I imagine that they point out that I've consented to living here, signing a contract. Yet why can't I say the same about them? It wasn't by consent that they were born, but they're certainly staying in their country, or not, by their own consent.

But you have the option of renting from somebody else.

[Cow Poke]

...but they're certainly staying in their country, or not, by their own consent.

That's actually a good point, if I understand what you're saying.

Currently, my wife and I are looking for a new home, and a major consideration is taxes. Living "in the city" (as opposed to "out in the county") adds a layer of taxation that can dramatically impact the cost of living in a home.

For example, the same property "in the city" has taxes of $6,000 a year, where a comparable property in the county has taxes of $3,000 a year. It's our choice. We weigh the convenience and advantages of "living in the city" (high speed internet, proximity to services, etc) against "living in the country".

So, to some extent, we have a choice over how much we are taxed. Not the case, however, with federal income tax.

[Bill the Cat]

If taxation is theft, then benefitting from what taxes pay for is also theft. By having a cop patrol your neighborhood, you are stealing their services. By having a fireman available to put out your home if it is on fire is theft of their services.

Taxation is not theft...

[Leonhard]

When you rent, you enter into a contract in which you decide you're willing to give some of your money for the convenience of not living under a bridge. If your landlord suddenly advised you that he needed to drastically increase your rent to cover "expenses", and you saw that all he was doing was charging you more to purchase his new Ferrari, you'd probably be unhappy.

You, however, would have the option of going elsewhere to rent a home. With governmental taxation, we don't have that option.

Why not? Spell it out for me. Can't you build a raft and sail into the ocean and try to live there, as some libertarians I've seen have actually considered.

But you have the option of renting from somebody else.

And... you could move to another country? What's the difference?

[Cow Poke]

Why not? Spell it out for me. Can't you build a raft and sail into the ocean and try to live there, as some libertarians I've seen have actually considered.



And... you could move to another country? What's the difference?

See my Post #6

[Cow Poke]

If taxation is theft, then benefitting from what taxes pay for is also theft. By having a cop patrol your neighborhood, you are stealing their services. By having a fireman available to put out your home if it is on fire is theft of their services.

Taxation is not theft...

And I think it's a lot easier to accept being taxed for services actually utilized (or available to be utilized) than higher level taxation that seems to have a greater propensity to be abused.

[Leonhard]

See my Post #6

Well... strictly speaking I imagine that if you as a US citizen go to Denmark and start working here for a while, you'd still pay taxes to the US? But you're free to renounce the citizenship. Now its not really my problem that there isn't a country on the face of the Earth, where citizens don't pay taxes. That's just reality. However you're also free to go Galt, or renounce your citizenship and start your own country somewhere.

Otherwise paying taxes while abroad is no more different than me paying rent, even though I'm in Scotland for an entire month.

[Teallaura]

Taxation, strictly speaking, is not theft. HOWEVER, taxation can indeed be unjust - which is what those who call it theft are actually getting at.

[Cow Poke]

Taxation, strictly speaking, is not theft. HOWEVER, taxation can indeed be unjust - which is what those who call it theft are actually getting at.

Yeah!

[Juvenal]

Don't mind me. I'm just looking in to see how long you can troll Dee Dee before she notices it.

[Jedidiah]

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to taxes for infrastructure, police, fire, etc.... And I think what fuels opposition to taxation is the abuses in spending.

I'll start there.

I accept the idea as a token only. The real idea is taxation without representation. Today our "representatives" do not honestly represent us. Instead they mouth the right words and (most of them in my opinion) just skim off what they can get. Even the Republicans do it.