Is Taxation Theft?
Hello Steemians! Our first post will be about the concept of taxation as theft.
Some people support that obligatory contribution from one’s own income is downright theft. Taxation money is derived by the fruits of each individual’s own hard work and effort. Supporters of this view believe that ‘theft’ is defined by taking other people’s property without their consent, regardless of what it will be used for later on. Any social contract of enjoying free services in exchange for a part of one’s income, would only be valid if voluntary. Furthermore, even though governments are freely elected by the citizens to represent them, they should not be able to exercise more rights than the actual citizens who elect them.
On the other hand, some people believe that it is our moral duty to contribute to the whole good and we should see taxation as charity, not theft. It comes back to us anyway, when we enjoy the free services which are financed with our taxation money such as infrastructure, communication, health, education, and others. Some supporters of this view even suggest that the taxation money wasn’t ours in the first place. Pre-tax income is an iconic figure defined by the unstable market economy, which cannot give each person exactly what they deserve. Furthermore, property rights are part of the same legal system that supports taxation.
What is your own opinion on the matter? Write your opinion in the comment section below, and don’t forget to upvote the post so that more people can see it. The commenter with the most engagement and/or thoughtful comment will get rewarded with 25% of the Steem dollars the post generates. The creators are excluded. We kindly ask you not to use flagging if you disagree with someone. Use thoughtful counter-arguments instead. Also, please do not copy directly from sources on the internet. Use your own words. Your opinion matters!
Income tax is not a charity. Donations to charities are given freely, at will, not at gunpoint. There is nothing wrong with helping women's shelters, homeless people, and assisting in scholarships for college kids. If you want to do those things (which some people do, and some people don't) then you are free to do so. Take your own money/time and donate it. However, it is wrong to force 'morality' upon everybody else because of what you believe they should be doing. The government is not our moral compass, and through income taxation they are telling us that they can spend our money better than we can.
They say two things are certain in life....
But should they be? I think humanity is well on it's way to conquering death trough biotechnological advances. I see no reason why we couldn't outgrow our antiquated taxation system as well. Taxes might have been useful at a point in time for our society... But our society is changing drastically and everyone can see it.
I mean... Just look at us here on steemit! A decentralized social platform that pays you to join in community. Who would've guessed this would be here 10 years ago? If someone predicted this, then major kudos to you Nostradamus2.0.
I consider taxation to be theft, but I'm not so sure that it was intended to be. Maybe it was, I wasn't there when it was implemented and I am by no means a tax history professor. However, through taxes we (I am a US citizen) have managed to accomplish some pretty great things (our national parks, for example). We have also managed to waste massive amounts of cash on failed systems (too many to point to, I'm sure you can think of one in the US) and blame everyone under the sun other than ourselves for it.
I'm rooting for a future void of a centralized government, and therefore void of taxes. I believe every income generating person should choose where 100% of their money goes, and know why it goes there. If you had all of the control over your earnings, then you would never have to 'blame congress' again! I kind of enjoy having an easy target though...
When you think about it, the question of theft doesn't really have much to do with how the money are spent afterwards, so achievements and failures in that persepective are not the most important thing to look at.
Theft is a crime and for theft to be the case some predefined elements of the crime should be met/proven for the crime to be determined to have taken place. For theft to have taken place something that is rightfully yours should be taken from you unrightfully. Is that the case with taxes? Do you have sovereign rights on everything you have come to control as part of society and taking advantage of all the public goods society has provided you with? I'm not sure the answer should necessarily be a yes. So either elements of the crime are hard to prove, both that you have rightful ownership of all your assets and that the government does not have a right to tax you on them.
You mention centralized government becoming void. What do you think will or could replace it? Wouldn't that be another form of government and could it function without any form of taxation?
You mention steemit as an alternative, but it's a system that builds upon all kinds of structures supported by governments and society. If it wasn't for government and taxes, the internet wouldn't exists and steemit couldn't exists without the internet.
You bring up some great points!
I'm not 100% positive that theft is the correct term, but I definitely think taxes are unjustified in many aspects. The way I am seeing it is: if people support a system and enjoy it being around, they should have the choice to fund it and continue funding it by their own will, not by a law that forces them to give up a certain percentage of their earnings. Wishful thinking maybe, but that is what dreamers do, and doers start with.
With taxes, we have no choice and can even be handed a legal sentence if we avoid paying them. That is like someone holding handcuffs in front of you and saying 'give me your money or I take your freedom'. Putting it that way, I'd say taxes are a more of a threat than simply theft.
"Do you have sovereign rights on everything you have come to control as part of society and taking advantage of all the public goods society has provided you with?"
From the majority of public perspectives on this issue in the US, yes. Anything that you earn (money) and purchase (with money) is legally yours. In fact, lawsuits would not happen without this fact, as every lawsuit boils down to money/assets. Someone owing something of theirs to someone else, for x amount of reasons. This implies rights of ownership.
"You mention centralized government becoming void. What do you think will or could replace it? Wouldn't that be another form of government and could it function without any form of taxation?"
I am not sure what exactly would replace it, as that is far above my mental capacities to imagine on my own. Right now we are seeing a blossoming of myriads of decentralized platforms coming into existence, that operate without taxation. They do require funding, but so does anything in this world to operate on a massive scale, like non-profit organizations for example. Do I think a government could exist in this way? Sure! Why not? Less room for corruption!
"You mention steemit as an alternative..."
I wasn't meaning to imply that Steemit could replace a government (but that would be an interesting world, a social media based government....hmmm), I was pointing to Steemit as an example of how society is changing so rapidly. Steemit is a great example since it is the first successful social media platform to exist on blockchain tech. Blockchain technology itself might be an even better example!
"If it wasn't for government and taxes, the internet wouldn't exists and steemit couldn't exists without the internet."
That's a bold claim.... I am not so sure. People have a habit of coming together to create things, so maybe if the internet wasn't made possible by a government it would have been realized by another giant entity of sorts. Or maybe something similar but completely different would have come into existence. That is a hypothetical rabbit hole I don't want to travel too far down.
I do think this is wishful thinking as a lot of the people wouldn't want to part with any of their possessions if they have a choice not to.
I'm not saying you don't have a right of ownership, I'm asking if you think this right is sovereign. I maintain that it's not and it's derived from the same legal system that also forces you to pay your taxes. From a legal standpoint ownership is enforced in the exact same way as taxes - through legislation and government. If you don't have legislation and a body to enforce it, there is no good way to resolve ownership disputes and your possessions could be still taken away from you with the threat of violence by more powerful individuals.
I haven't jet come across an idea or concept of how the government could function in a decentralized fashion without taxation. Also depending on your definition of corruption, it might actually open the gates for some times more than centralized government actually does.
Of course, I wouldn't say that decentralized systems have no place in government and/or society, there are certainly areas where they would bolster efficiency and increase the desired outcomes. Still, I'm not convinced they could function in place of government alone. Government simply has too many functions to fulfill and some of those don't lend themselves to such efforts.
It was funded with tax dollars and international comparability was ensured through regulation and legislation. My supposedly bold claim is about the internet meaning this particular internet. The claim that something like what we have now would be possible without government support is quite questionable and there is actually evidence to support that with a lot of historical and contemporary cases of technological incomparability and standardization usually resulting from government regulations. That's why I see the claim that creating a truly global network of any sort would be much less likely without centralized standardization and regulation efforts and even if it might be possible, it would take much longer for it to evolve and/or be created. What you would be more likely to see would be many smaller networks operating in different areas and/or side by side with limited or lacking compatibility trying to keep their clients and influence. But yeah, that is a huge rabbit hole indeed :)
I think people would be willing to give voluntarily if they receive a service they need instead (as people are now paying e.g. for insurance, or property protection to certain commercial entities). I imagine that a decentralized goverment would be comprised of different service providers and people would voluntarily pay regular fees (perhaps they could still be called "taxes") in exchange for said services. The government would be like a hub for those providers and could also take a cut (or it could be given by the system to the delegates supporting the system, as in steemit).
What makes the difference between legislation and protection racket then?
Will there be enough people to volunteer to pay for nature reserves? Who will pay to enforce a punishment for the enslavement or murder of a possessionless individual with no family? What happens if you need a service like police or a fire department but don't have the money to pay for it? Let them burn your house and rape your family then or what?
The real question is would people voluntarily pay regular fees and would those fees be enough to support those service providers.
You keep citing steemit as if it is an absolutely free market with no regulation while it is not the case. Are not all the hardforks still a form of influencing, regulating and governing the system? I maintain they are and keeping in mind how large some of the whales are (including the founders and the steemit organization if I understand things correctly), it's hard to call it truly decentralized in a practical way.
You are indeed a government system without taxes, but that could not function without regulation either. Would the judicial service provider not be regulated? Who will pay the salaries of the people that help regulate it? Who would decide who those people are? Who would ensure the safety and reliability of that process? Who would pay for all of that? Voluntary fees?
There doesn't need to be a huge difference for it to be the only practical way to organize that we have for now. But the difference is in the intent and process - democracy with the intent to be just vs the pursuit of self-interest without any regard for others.
Ah, sorry for the late reply. I have been busy. Thanks for responding with some good material though!
I read a book once, called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. The whole book is a story of a wise Gorilla who teaches an apprentice about the history of humanity and the advent of agriculture. How we started becoming "takers" instead of "leavers". Putting everything under lock and key and demanding payment for access to what was originally everyone's and no one's. It was one of the most interesting books I've ever read. I only bring it up because I believe it relates to what you are asking me... I do not think that anyone has any true 'ownership' of anything in this world. We are born into it alone with nothing, and we will leave it alone with nothing. The thought sounds very grim but it is actually quite liberating to me. Possessions aren't everything, and the more people who realize that the better off we become as a whole, I believe.
I kind of like the idea the crypto-sphere is running with... like Proof of Steak voting. Or like Steem with the witnesses. It is decentralized and the heart of it is not a group of people, but an unbiased platform that people from all backgrounds can come together and participate in. Money that is allocated via donations, or payments to participate in the voting process could be budgeted out for different causes (like healthcare, poverty assistance, the elderly, etc...). This of course is not an original thought and is being implemented by a bunch of altcoins already. It's a long shot, but I could see the future of government becoming a decentralized social network. Why not?
I didn't mean to sound salty, my bad.
You're right, there was a lot of different institutions that came together to make this a success. Maybe this is the one version of reality where it just happened to turn out right. I still don't think it impossible for a global network to have happened in any number of other possibilities that could have come together in alternate forms and fashions. I'm a bit of an optimist about potentialities I guess.
Way huge!
Thank you for your reply!
I see no major point I disagree with. As far as steemit goes, I would say it is not practically decentralized in terms of it's government and it is quite close to a parliamentary democracy with people voting for individual MPs. It is not unregulated as there are a lot of regulations and some hardforks introduce really drastic changes.
Because of the book you mentioned, I started thinking, is ownership really a sound concept. If taxation can be viewed as theft, isn't ownership a kind of regulated embezzlement? (just a comparison)
Maybe this could be a topic @nobox could use for a post :)
Nice chatting with you @rocking-dave! I like the way you think.
Thank you, it has been a pleasure! :)
incoming ->
Taken from wikipedia: "There are state and federal excise taxes. State and federal inheritance taxes began after 1900, while the states (but not the federal government) began collecting sales taxes in the 1930s. The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s. In 1913, the 16th amendment was ratified."
So... What happened in 1913? Federal Reserve act! We all know what FED is doing. Same thing is in Europe with ECB
And another question. Was economy healthy without tax before 1913? Just read, what was done from 1850s until 1913. People were building big cities in that time...
Taxation is not theft. Unless some government decided to write their laws in a particular way that would make taxation theft.
As a holding member of private property protected by the government, I have consented to the rules and laws of the government that protects that property. One of those rules may be taxation. Since the basis of my property is derived from the government itself, the notion that the government is stealing anything from me is inconsistent since they granted me the power to own that property in the first place and have also given me some legal protection of that property from other individuals.
But lets revisit the idea of force. Many argue that taxation is theft because the government is forcibly removing your property from you. But the only reason it is your property is because you have consented to a government to protect that property from others who may want it. This agreement means you have chosen to follow the rules, even if it means losing some property. There is no theft, but a consensual agreement. If you want to, you can leave the country and try to create an independent entity. Unfortunately, once you leave the contract, nobody will protect you and other nations are free to do with you as they please. Does this appear a little unfair? Sure. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can have your property protected at a cost or you can have your property unprotected at the cost that anyone can use force to steal that property away from you.
If you have declared independence from the government that you used to be a member of, then what is occurring is indeed theft. But at that point it is no taxation but tribute.
Note: I would prefer lower taxes, but acknowledge the agreement I make as an active citizen of my country.
I like your point on this matter. Having protection for property and assets you have gained is very important. But, does this system have to maintain the way that it is? What if we had a decentralized (hello crypto) way of arbitrating disputes over ownership that provided the same legal protections as a paid government organization?
I feel, being only 24 years old, that I was born into a situation I didn't ask for. Granted that's how everyone is born, luck of the draw I suppose, but why should I settle for a system that takes from me and gives back in confusing and often corrupted ways. I believe there's always a better way, it's just a matter of time before finding and implementing it successfully.
I see taxes as a currently necessary double-edged sword. It keeps the current system flowing. Without that, we would have chaos. With them, we have unrest and discomfort. Seems likes we are in need of a solution.
A decentralized government is still a government (although one that I would much prefer). Government is simply an implementation of an agreement between a group of people. I'm totally for better implementations of outdated systems that are more people friendly. But you are always going to need some entity to provide legal protections. And you always have people that try to take advantage of it.
Maybe we need an AI governing entity? Hmm, seems dangerous. Maybe not.
Yes I agree, I did not mean to imply that we did not need governance. Just a different form of it, as you said.
Skynet?!
Taxation is absolutely theft, or more accurately extortion. This should be common sense.
I am 100% in opinion for paying the taxes, until I am not in some dictator ruled country, where I may have to give half of my earnings as tax. I personally map my economic success as my ability to pay higher taxes. For me tax is not a liability, ransom or even donation. For me it is an investment. Investment in the infrastructure of our countries, in jobs, in defense and uplifting the people who are currently at the bottom of the economic and social ladder.
Now many people will say, that why should they give their hard earned money to govt. The reason being that these taxes and it's products, i.e. the infrastructure, the roads, the network etc. enable us to conduct our business in the first place. Without the infrastructure, you can't earn much. Hint: see the poorly developed countries like Pakistan, parts of Africa or maybe even some parts of India.
The next thing that most of you will say is that govt. are not using the tax money for the intended purposes. I have to agree with this statement. But partially. Even though, they use part or most of the tax money on stupid things, mainly to fill their own pockets, but it can't be denied that a part of that money is genuinely used in the development of the specific country. When we see it from bottom, then it does seem like that politicians and officials . are using all of the tax money on themselves, but it is being used for us also. The only thing we need is better people up there, which probably we will have in future, if good people actively participate in politics!! It is pretty much like on Steemit. We minnows feel that the platform is being milked and profited only by the whales and we have nothing to earn here, but in reality the options are available for everyone to earn.
I end my comment with the strong opinion that just pay your taxes, don't make excuses!!!
Apologies to the people with whom my opinions did not match.
Hypothetically: What if I come and I say I will kidnap you, if you don't pay me a some of money? Isn't that taxes? I am taxing you. The money will be used to fill in the pot holes on your street. I don't feel comfortable doing that but that is essentially what makes people pay taxes, isn't it?
One question is, is a government controlled by a banking cartel legitimate enough? https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212
Well, I would say the money that you are holding is of other people and not yours. Considering tax amount as the govt's/country's share would be a better thing. I think this concept of govt. taking our money forcefully comes from the fact that we just don't want to contribute willingly. If taxes weren't there, then a country's development won't be there. And since people would never willingly do their contributions, force is required. That's just how we contribute....
A very interesting perspective. Now, if you had wrote a comment that matched perfectly to the opinion I already have, it wouldn't have anything to learn from said comment, would I?
I find it absurd that you apologize at the end. Don't apologize for having a distinct opinion. Bad behavior is when you attack another user personally in some way.
Haha, the apology is more out of fear of whale downvotes than out of modesty.
The tax is something that must remain in the economy of a country, as it helps with the financing of the services we enjoy and partly makes the citizen more conscious in using them, as long as they are for the benefit of the nation. Places where the tax is diverted to projects never completed or even started, the result of theft by unscrupulous people, are not perceived in the short term, but in the long run is quite remarkable!
Taxation is absolutely theft.
Taxation is our current system is not voluntary, and withholding the payment of taxes will eventually end up with you in a cage. It is confiscation of property with the threat of violence. This is theft.
The argument that taxation "is the cost of a polite society" does not work. As violently taking property is not polite, and if taxation is something we all agreed to with a "social contract", then it should be voluntary.
Which if was it was voluntary it wouldn't even be called taxes.
Exactly.
Is everything that is taken from you involuntarily theft? It's easy to come up with both mild and extreme counter-example, so there should be something besides agreement that makes it theft.
For instance, if you have acquired some possessions through criminal activity, I don't think society needs your agreement to take them away from you. In my book theft is when something that is rightfully yours is rightfully taken away from you. So for taxation to qualify as theft, it needs to satisfy both requirements. How do you prove that all possessions and finance that you might have gained control of as part of society is actually rightfully yours and not something that society has lent you? Do government-issued money belong rightfully to you without any need of taxation to support their upkeep? And does the government or society not have a right to tax you on your possessions and/or usage of goods and resources it has provided to you.
In a way, one could claim that you have been provided access to a free market and relative safety that is maintained by the government and taxes are a fee that you are charged for accessing those services. Of course, the caveat that you don't really have a way to opt-out of the system is apparent, but does this really turn this arguably reasonable fee into theft?
You did answer your own question. The government owns nothing. It creates monopolies that it controls, forces you to use its service, and pay for it with your property.
The government does not "maintain" a free market. It regulates the market, making it not free.
"Criminal activity" is also a loaded word, and would need to be defined. As buying an ICO in the United States is considered "criminal activity".
The question is how and if society would function without it. How could the market remain free without any regulation or maintenance? Is there a practical way to get there? A perfect free market without any government to enforce some rules or justice is either a very bad state of affairs for society (if you look at it practically) or a utopia (if you think it would the magic to solve all our problems).
If the government doesn't own anything, how does that lead to taxation being unrighful?
Yep, each crime needs definition, but does the word being loaded affect the hypothetical example I gave? Whatever crime is, there is some crime and one could have committed it to gain property and that property might be rightfully taken away from them, isn't that so?
Wow, really?! I didn't know that! Is that really the case?
A free market is a market without regulation. What type of regulation and maintenance are you referring to? Do you look at the market today as a free market? Many things on the "black market" would be legal under a true free market; drugs, prostitution, ext.
Taxation is involuntary as you stated. Removing someone's property without their consent (threat of violence) is theft. If the government doesn't own anything, which it doesn't, than anything it gain it took from someone else. Since its way of obtaining those funds are done under threat of force, the government is just a power source used to force people to give up their property to a centralized power.
Yes, if a crime is committed (fraud for example), that property was obtained through theft itself, and it should be returned to the rightful owner....which would not be the government. As it owns nothing.
The argument that the "government prints the money" does not mean that the government has ownership. It simple created a monopoly on exchange of currency, forcing people to be paid and trade in its fiat currency. However, the wealth created for which the person was paid the fiat currency was created by a private individual or business.
I believe certain ICO purchases are considered a securities issue. EOS for example.
I think the current market has it's problems and while it is not absolutely free, it still qualifies as free. I would say a prosperous free market will have a very hard time existing without regulation and oversight as there are some limitations that are needed to ensure fairness, prosperity and safety.
For instance, you need a way to make contracts enforcible which comes with regulations, limitations and some form of government body that can undo wrongs and issue penalties. Additionally, there are things that could be arguably unsafe or immoral to trade freely and while current regulations might be viewed as too stringent, having no regulation whatsoever comes with its own caveats and dangers.
Technically speaking, it does. All governments own things and some claim ownership of the natural resources of the countries they govern. Supposedly the citizens of the country own those things and the government is kind of a proxy.
Sure, abiding by any laws is not voluntary and that includes both crimes most people agree are a problem and taxation. Can you propose a system that would work better? If abiding by the laws was voluntary, the laws would be mute and unjust acts hurting people would easily become rampant as they will be left unpunished, isn't that the case?
Please notice that this is not the argument I was or am making. I'm saying that the value created by the private individual or business was created as part of an organized economy with publicly funded infrastructure, law enforcement and some level of stability provided by a government. Can you propose a system that would work equally well without taxation? Can you propose a system that would work equally well without any government?
I think this is the best system we've managed to come up with so far and since it requires taxation to function and all participants benefit from having this system in place, taxation should not be viewed as theft but as a necessity and as a logical part of the so-called social contract.