Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that taxation is theft. It seems to me that the average person believes taxation is not theft. They believe theft is immoral and taxation is just not seen as immoral. I'm going to question this notion. The basis is that if one person "taxes" you, it's theft. But if multiple people tax you, somehow it's not theft (assuming they've taken the necessary precaution of writing words on paper, also known as "law").
The way I see it, taxes are institutionalized theft. That is, theft that has been made "legitimate." But how does someone take something immoral and convert it into something moral?
I've pose two questions to help sort out the difference between theft performed by an individual and institutionalized theft (that is, theft by a group of individuals, also known as government).
- If taxation is not theft, what would government have to do in order to commit theft?
- If taxation is not theft, is over-taxation theft?
For some reason, the first question takes a lot of effort for people to answer. It's a little out of left field, right? The second question sort-of gives an inch to the idea. In fact, it allows you to answer the first question and open the door to the idea that taxation is actually theft.
If I can get some agreement from above line of questioning, I can bring it home with a soliloquy I call "The Magic Threshold."
The Magic Threshold
| Premise: 1 | Premise: 2 | Premise: 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Assume taxation is not theft until the level taxation is deemed to be excessive. | Government is not capable of theft until taxation is excessive; before that, it is just not theft. | This level might well be different for everyone. |
Questions:
- Is it possible for an individual to do the same?
- Is there a certain level at which taking something that's not yours is also not theft until a certain nominal level, then after that level is crossed, it becomes theft?
- If so, what was it called before the theft threshold is crossed for that individual?
You might simply reply, "I don't think it applies to the individual. It applies to the collective of society."
To which I reply, "But I assume you are not suggesting that collectives are bound by a different set of moral consideration, right?"
Note: This is a repost from Jul 18, 2016.
cheers!Very interesting @inertia! The same logic can be applied to a death sentence I believe - an individual who arrives at the conclusion that someone deserves to die for whatever act of barbarity, would be considered a murderer .. but when the mob gets together it somehow legitimizes pushing someone off the mortal coil. :) ..
Moral of story be those mobs if you want to muder someone. Mom i learned something today!
How would the government acquire funds in order to provide public services without tax? Legit question :) nice post!
Asked and answered here.
Uhhh like they always did before income tax? duh? tarrifs, Loans, etc, no government needs as much money as its currently getting
What is your view how we shall pay for schools, infrastructure such as roads, pavements, street lights, hospitals (in the US they are private, in most other countries they are financed by the people as in collective) and any other cost that we have as a collective?
Asked and answered here.
Thank you for the reference. Can you elaborate a bit more on how it will work, the user pays directly the one who creates. Will everything, from roads to schools etc be paid directly by the user to the one who invests in creating the infrastructure and other common objects and services? Will this all in private hands, ie pure commercial driven? How will abuse and misuse of free market around basic necessities such as healthcare be managed? And how will for instance roads be guaranteed for those who live in remote areas?
Except that the government uses the money collected through taxes to provide services to the public. How much value we get for our money is debatable, but I personally have trouble seeing it as theft when I use the services my tax money pays for.
If an individual extracted funds from you involuntarily, then offered you services in exchange for those funds, would that be acceptable behavior?
Good point. How would you pay for things like infrastructure? I've spent very little time thinking about this, so I'm curious what the alternatives are.
The same people that build them today, road contractors, power companies, etc. And the same people who pay for it will continue to do so. but instead of an inefficient midle-man, the interested party would pay directly to the actor with the capacity to provide a service.
Correct. That middleman usually gets a cut of 80% of the funds collected right now. Wouldn't it be great to increase revenue of those endeavors by 80%?
I understand this line of reasoning but the reason we have a middle-man is to perform the function of organizing things like infrastructure development. How would you organize big projects such as new highways or better public transport? Who would pay for it? Would we only charge the residents that would utilize that infrastructure? How do you even track that? What about healthcare? This is an interesting discussion to be honest! I do hate tax - I pay a lot of it in my country (Australia) BUT it is spent (mostly) for good. Our healthcare is one of the best in the world because of it!
EDIT: I guess crypto and blockchain technologies could help with organization (such as something like what the Aragon project is doing)
It is illegal to pay taxes to a NATO member government that uses your taxes for war. After ww2, a treaty was signed to hold the governments accountable and to stop future wars through the taxation of its citizens. In order to achive this you must open an esure bank account for your taxes. No government can take that tax unless the government takes the account holder to court and prove it is not using your taxes for war or commiting war crimes.
I see some posts here mention infrastructure and public amenities. You are correct in saying that taxes are used for these, but after our taxes are used, we the people still have to pay a fee to use these facilities, our roads are in a terrible state, public transport is appauling and we are crammed on to them like sardines and charged an extortionate fee for the privilege. Our hospitals are in debt and forced to close down. Yet the government's have billions for new weapons for war, our governments have billions to bail out incompetent corrupt bankers and the globalist elite while we the people have to work harder and longer for less money than what we pay into a corrupted system that only benefits the few and not the people.
My answer to the question is tax theft?
After the treaty was signed after ww2, the way our governments got around this was to introduce the PAYE system where your taxes are deducted automatically. If you are awake and think about this logically then the only conclusion is our taxes are being stolen from us and not only is it theft, it is morally wrong and illegal.
The information is out there on the web you just have to research and be strong stand up and dont fear the governments, they work for us not we work for them. Look up tax rebellion
I wasn't a party to any treaty. Taxation is still theft.
I agree with you that its theft, its also illegal, if you look up tax rebellion on wordpress it goes into greater detail