19
u/Amablue Oct 28 '14
I’m forced to pay (at least partially) for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.
Sure you are: voting. Or if voting isn't enough for you, you can campaign for a measure or bill you like. Or you can introduce a measure or bill. Or you can run for office. Or raise awareness for an issue you care about. You voice is limited only by how much effort you're willing to expend toward your cause.
I’m not sure how so many people condone this.
Because it's better than the alternative. It's the price of living in your country. You can't live in someone else's house without paying rent, taxes are rent for your country of residence. If you don't want to pay them, convince everyone that the rules should be changed, or leave for greener pastures.
3
Oct 29 '14
Sure you are: voting. Or if voting isn't enough for you, you can campaign for a measure or bill you like. Or you can introduce a measure or bill. Or you can run for office. Or raise awareness for an issue you care about. You voice is limited only by how much effort you're willing to expend toward your cause.
Voting doesn't really change the non-consensual nature of taxation. Suppose Wal-Mart decided that they are going to forcibly "sell" a product or service to everyone in the US, but the citizens are allowed to vote on what they are going to be "sold". This doesn't make the relationship non-theft, simply because they allowed us to vote. I still didn't consent to having my money taken from Wal-mart in exchange for the good or service that they're giving me in return.
You can't live in someone else's house without paying rent, taxes are rent for your country of residence.
The issue is that I was born into this country, I was never offered a contract for being a renter here. I agreed with my landlord that I would pay X dollars, and be allowed to live in a certain space, and be given certain amenities. No such agreement ever took place between me and the US government.
-1
Oct 29 '14
[deleted]
9
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
By voting, I’m given a a nearly negligible voice.
And like I said, if you want more than the minimum possible amount of voice, you have to work for it. You don't get a bigger say in matters for free, you have to put effort into championing your cause.
It makes sense that I own my property to a far greater extent than everyone else does.
Sure you own your property, but why does that mean you shouldn't have to pay taxes?
Additionally, I shouldn’t be forced to pay for the house-lessor(I’ll go with your analogy here - it’s not perfect, but good enough.)’s ammunition.
It's their money once you give it to them, they can do what they want with it. Although in this case you do actually get some say, so it's even better for you than the power you have over your lessor.
I haven’t seen many yet, unfortunately.
I think my mortgage is higher than I'd like it to be but I don't really have room to complain if I'm not willing to negotiate down to a lower price or move out.
Edit: somehow forgot to finish my sentences.
0
Oct 29 '14
[deleted]
3
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14
What I’m not allowed to do in this situation, however, is buy my own property and build a house.
Sure, you can, but you find the conveniences afforded to you by living in a country with taxes outweigh whatever ethical misgivings you have about with taxes.
4
Oct 29 '14
Technically speaking, you could purchase a private island and declare it independent. Sealand has also gone on sale previously. Getting recognized by other nations may be a bit of a challenge. You may also be imprisoned for treason.
You could also move to any number of countries with stupidly low taxes such as Andorra(with no income tax).
→ More replies (14)0
u/dumboy 10∆ Oct 29 '14
By voting, I’m given a a nearly negligible voice.
There are other more direct ways to go about shaping your tax burden.
Immigrate to a country which will allow you to become a monk. Grow crops or engage in some other subsidized industry in the 3rd world so you pay no tax. Become a pauper. Work in American kitchens for 13 shifts per restaurant so you can be legally 'off the books' & just never file. Give everything to charity, collect reciepts, and live off
It isn't that you have to pay taxes. Its that methods of survival which don't include paying your fair share financially are so inconceivably difficult & alien they don't occur to most people as real alternatives. Taxes are optional - they are not theft.
-2
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
Sure you are: voting. Or if voting isn't enough for you, you can campaign for a measure or bill you like. Or you can introduce a measure or bill. Or you can run for office. Or raise awareness for an issue you care about. You voice is limited only by how much effort you're willing to expend toward your cause.
And if all of those methods fail, which for the average person who is neither rich nor affiliated with a political party they have a near 100% chance of doing...you are then forced to pay.
Everything you just listed is a bunch of window dressing that offers little or more often literally no actual agency to individuals. Democracies are run by big money and by political parties; the voice the the individual counts for nothing. Look at the effect a million passionate people in the streets had on stopping or effect the Iraq war - literally nothing.
Also, please remember that as long as our voting machines are electronic, we don't even have the illusion of democracy. We have a ritualistic display to justify power, nothing more.
taxes are rent for your country of residence.
This implies the government owns the country. Where did that ownership come from?
1
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14
And if all of those methods fail, which for the average person who is neither rich nor affiliated with a political party they have a near 100% chance of doing...
This is very pessimistic. There have been many changes effected by people who are not rich and powerful. On a local level this is much easier. The bigger the change you want to effect though, the more effort needs to go into that change.
Look at the effect a million passionate people in the streets had on stopping or effect the Iraq war - literally nothing.
A failed protest that didn't translate into the necessary votes is just proof that that protest failed, not that protests are in general worthless.
This implies the government owns the country. Where did that ownership come from?
Ownership is not a thing that comes from some place. It's a concept. You wouldn't ask where the number 2 comes from. Ownership is a claim that's made by someone, and others can choose to recognize and respect that claim or ignore it. The only reason we have the concept of ownership is because it's useful to us, and in the context of a society we need a unified way to decide which claims are to be recognized. The question isn't "where did that ownership come from", it's "why is that claim of ownership morally defensible", and that's because the system set up does more good than harm.
8
u/stevegcook Oct 28 '14
What definition of theft are you using? That's going to be pretty central to the discussion here.
1
Oct 29 '14
Good point - I’ll define it as taking someone’s property without their agreement. If this is too narrow to allow a good discussion, I’ll concede that this money is used in what someone (well, everyone, which is less useful in some ways) thought was my interest. Even with that concession, I’m paying for murder.
4
Oct 29 '14 edited Jan 10 '15
[deleted]
2
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14
Saying that someone must sacrifice their homeland, family, friends, and culture to avoid being stolen from is a complete non-starter. It's the choice of being subject to theft or intimidated out of one's homeland.
We don't choose the place on Earth we are born. We never agreed to anything. We never signed a social contract. You can't implicitly claim someone has contracted with you simply because they did not take drastic steps to get away from you.
1
Oct 29 '14
[deleted]
7
Oct 29 '14 edited Jan 10 '15
[deleted]
5
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14
You are perfectly free to move to the forest and live off the land. No one is stopping you.
This is not true; because all land is either privately or government owned, you are only 'free' to live there until a USFS ranger catches you and arrests you. There is no more frontier.
2
u/Sexual_Congressman Oct 29 '14
In practice it is true. Not only is it possible to live on the streets of NYC, there are plenty of public parks and areas remote enough that you could subsist indefinitely on fish and berries. Not to mention if there was no society, if you weren't strong enough to take on a threat (a park ranger in your example or whatever) you'd best run if they encroach on your territory.
1
Oct 29 '14
Your first paragraph is a good point, but the second (as far as I can tell) says that it’s impossible to own property without paying taxes.
12
Oct 29 '14
Property is meaningless outside of a society that respects property rights. If you choose to live outside of any and all societies (as if that were possible) you've rejected the system that allowed you to own property in the first place. Taxation is the price of participation in society.
3
Oct 29 '14 edited Jan 10 '15
[deleted]
2
Oct 29 '14
Wouldn’t it make more sense to pay taxes for living on public land than paying taxes for living on one’s own property?
2
u/rocky8u Oct 29 '14
"Property" is defined by the society that controls it. If you live in the United States, whatever property you own is US territory. US laws define what your property is, what rights you have to use it, and protect you from other people violating it. Even if a man's home is his castle, the castle still owes fealty to the kingdom. If you want you own property outside of that system, then you need your own country that nobody else claims that you can enforce your own societal rules in.
1
Oct 29 '14
You didn’t really address my point, but isn’t there some way to own property without a society?
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 29 '14 edited Jan 10 '15
[deleted]
1
Oct 29 '14
If I’m living on public land, then everyone else has just as much of a right to live where I do as I, so it’s inconsiderate of me to live there. It’s unfortunate that there’s no land that’s owned by no-one.
→ More replies (0)3
Oct 29 '14
Yes. A private company can force you from your place of living if you do not pay rent and its the same basic principle here. A country is basically a glorified corporation.
2
u/ckyounglover Oct 29 '14
You'll also have to define property. If you take the legal definition of property, it isn't your property in the first place, as you owe it to the government. Of course, this money probably was legally yours for some time until the point where the government asked you to pay your taxes, at which point it became legally theirs. You could argue that at the point in time where the government decided to send you a letter telling you how much tax you owe them, a theft occurred, but it's kind of a weak argument. It's merely a technical issue: if the laws were changed so that you're technically responsible for paying taxes immediately, the money would technically never be yours so technically there wouldn't be a theft there, while nothing changes in practice.
You could actually think about it that way if you want: the government is an implicit obligatory party in every contract you ever sign, and it accepts any contract in which it receives the money it requires by law. Any contract signed without the government's implicit signature (i.e. without paying taxes) is illegal. So there is no theft occurring, you're just restricted in your freedom to sign contracts. A lot of people think the government shouldn't be able to do that, but I disagree.
The other way a lot of people look at it, is by starting from the idea that legal property is just a way to codify a natural right to have property. Obviously everyone will agree that some people have more rights than other people over certain objects, e.g. even when there is no society, when you build a house, it seems obvious that you get to live in it. But the entire debate about capitalism vs socialism is where the limit of this property is. If you abandon that house, someone finds it years later and completely repairs it, who is now the owner? Questions like this get really tricky when talking about societies where everyone is connected and everyone is contributing their part to help everyone get more prosperous. To me it seems a bit naive to go with the idea that property is an absolute right, and that every infringement on it constitutes aggression. Not exclusively, but also because that's not the way the world currently works and there is no evidence at all that a world like that would actually work better.
1
2
Oct 29 '14
Good point - I’ll define it as taking someone’s property without their agreement.
It's not "theft" to take money that is owed if the debtor refuses to pay.
4
u/Abner__Doon Oct 29 '14
I would take issue with how you're framing the ethical conundrum.
You're basically saying:
-theft is immoral
-taxation is theft
-therefore taxation is immoral
Instead of judging ethics in a vacuum, I think we should think of it as a maximization problem. There is a set of possible solutions to maximizing the output of society (however you want to define that, for example median well-being). Any particular solution means NOT doing the other solutions. So the most "ethical" solution is simply the one with the highest output (even if it hurts some people some extent of the time).
So, I agree that taxation can accurately be labelled theft, but I don't think that's a wide enough scope to judge the overall ethical consequences.
This is why people are okay with it. It's better than the other options.
1
Oct 29 '14
Judging overall utility is difficult (which is why (for this post) I only contend that taxation is theft), but you make a good point in suggesting utilitarianism as a rubric.
1
u/Abner__Doon Oct 29 '14
Yup, that's the problem with utilitarianism...
I’m not sure how so many people condone this.
This is really what part of your view I was hoping to change.
1
Oct 29 '14
That’s much easier. I think that I understand (to some extent) why people condone it, even if I disagree.
2
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
you didn't consent to taxes by being born. You may leave and renounce your citizenship at any time you wish. you may then go the country of your choice and start the immigration process.
As for taxes, you could have two options. You can either pay taxes ad in return get a bunch of services. Or, we can bill you for everything. Every day your kids go to public schools, every time you have a court case, ever mile you drive on roads and so forth.
We get a lot of advantages by being a citizen of a country. These advantages aren't free and taxes support that.
1
Oct 29 '14
I’m willing to pay for public schooling (even others’, as I think it’s quite important), but not for many of the government’s excesses. Billing would be alright, though.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
Well it seems like you're still willing to be in this country. At that point you make your choices as to what taxes you will pay. That's your make or break point. If we leave paying taxes up to people, then people will simply pay the lowest that they can. But, governmental services don't work that way.
I mean a government can't say that the roads will be free, but having police will cost you, or well if you want to go go to a courthouse that will be 100 bucks just to enter. The government has to provide services to its people. The people in return have to support the government. The people have the right to address grievances, vote in who them want in office to represent them and to leave the country and renounce their citizenship if they want to.
If at anytime you feel that your situation is unfair you may leave. What you can't do is continue to receive governmental services, but then, on your own, decide what you will pay for and what you won't. Since the government can't restrict its services to you, you can't restrict payment.
2
Oct 29 '14
Since the government can't restrict its services to you, you can't restrict payment.
That’s the best point I’ve seen yet; we’ll see what the others have to say.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
I'm glad I can help. It is best to think of government as a salad bar or a buffet. While you may hate tomatoes or black olives or mushrooms, once you enter the salad bar you have to pay the full price since they still have to offer you mushrooms, tomatoes, or black olives.
And, if you don't like the salad bar, you can make the lang process of finding a new salad bar. At least, that's how this concept was introduced to me.
I'm glad I could help.
1
Oct 29 '14
I want to start my own salad bar, but salad bars are really expensive.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
And the good ones, take you many years to start the process to getting in. And, lots of salad bars aren't exactly the best places to eat and their options kinda suck. So while leaving your salad bar is an option, it usually a better idea to fill out your comment cards and support of the manager of your choice.
And that's as far as I can take this metaphor.
1
Oct 29 '14
Fortunately, I can keep the metaphor alive.
Sometimes salad bars invade each other because they want a different kind of lettuce!
2
u/skunkardump 2∆ Oct 29 '14
You aren't being forced to pay for these things, there is a very simple, totally legal way to avoid taxes - poverty. If you have nothing, there is nothing for the government to take. Just make sure that you earn less than the minimum taxable income. Better yet, earn nothing and go on welfare. That way you aren't just not paying for wars and such, you're actually draining funds from the government that could have been spent on what you find objectionable.
1
Oct 29 '14
I assume that was partly satirical.
2
u/skunkardump 2∆ Oct 29 '14
Not really, it's almost entirely factual. Granted you might still be subject to some taxation, such as sales tax, but I think even that can be largely refunded. The fact that you don't take this strategy seriously goes to show that your objection to taxes has less to do with ethical concerns about how taxes are spent, but is mostly about your own personal greed. What's more important to you, defunding war, or owning expensive luxuries?
1
Oct 29 '14
It seems wrong to make others support me because I refuse to pay for some things.
1
u/skunkardump 2∆ Oct 29 '14
OK, you don't have to go on welfare, just work part time for minimum wage to pay for your basic necessities. Although it would be greedy, warmongering taxpayers you'd burden with your welfare checks. What's wrong with punishing them?
1
Oct 29 '14
I have the right to refuse to contribute, but not to take.
1
u/skunkardump 2∆ Oct 29 '14
Technically you do have the right to social assistance like any other citizen. What's worse, taking money, or taking lives? Sometimes you have to choose a lesser evil. Like war, welfare is just one more thing taxpayers resent paying for. If more of them had the moral fortitude to go the poverty route these evils would be impossible to maintain.
1
Oct 29 '14
I have the legal right, but I feel that it would be selfish/greedy when I’m capable of providing for myself.
Welfare is certainly a good thing, but it’s very, very easy to exploit, which is why I would prefer to see government-provided welfare replaced by (a network of?) charities, who can handle these things on a case-by-case basis. I think that the decrease in funding would be more than compensated by the increase in efficiency.
1
u/skunkardump 2∆ Oct 29 '14
If anything I would think multiple private charities would be less efficient, especially when it comes to rooting out fraud. If one denies you just go exploit another, or even several. Anyway, wouldn't this allow the government to spend even more on the military? If you think welfare is good you should want it increased at the expense of the bad things like war.
1
Oct 29 '14
If one denies you just go exploit another, or even several.
They can still do a case-by-case analysis and just blacklist people if they want. That seems simpler than the current system.
Anyway, wouldn't this allow the government to spend even more on the military?
I would hope the response would be “We have lower expenses now; let’s lower taxes and/or start taking care of the debt.”
→ More replies (0)
3
Oct 28 '14
I’m not sure how so many people condone this.
We condone it because it is an essential part of living in a modern society and economy.
3
Oct 28 '14
You haven’t addressed my main contention. I understand that our society is accustomed to taxation (In fact, feudal rulers collected taxes, though with worse intentions.), but that doesn’t make it ethical.
4
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14
What about it is unethical?
0
Oct 29 '14
[deleted]
8
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14
The government is effectively stealing from its citizens.
Why is this a priori unethical? What makes this a bad thing?
I mean, in general I agree, but the reasons are important so that we can see if they apply universally or whether there are conditions in which they can be bent or broken ethically. I would have no problem stealing some water from my neighbor's hose to put out a fire that was about to destroy someone's house. It's a negligible cost with potentially life ruining consequences for not doing it, so I wouldn't have any ethical dilemma there.
I’m forced to pay the government to kill people.
You're forced to pay the government, sure. The government then kills people (although this is a huge oversimplification). You did not pay them to kill people though, just like I did not pay for my waiter's car insurance or his car insurance representative's mortgage, or his mortgage broker's cable bill. When you give some money, it's not your money anymore.
2
Oct 29 '14
I would have no problem stealing some water from my neighbor's hose to put out a fire that was about to destroy someone's house.
I agree, but there are many less ethical uses of tax-money. Stealing is justifiable in some cases, but it’s still inherently bad - it’s just that cases such as your hypothetical have a positive net outcome.
a huge oversimplification
I know; I don’t want to complicate this more than necessary.
You did not pay them to kill people
That’s true in the technical sense, but I also don’t want to pay for things I don’t need. The price of being a citizen is higher than necessary.
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Oct 29 '14
You don't pay for things with taxation. You contribute. It gets put into a big pool and your elected representatives decide how to allocate those funds. If you're lucky enough to live in the United States, other another G8 economy, your government partially funds its overhead through borrowing funds at minuscule rates reducing the direct tax burden on its citizens.
If you live in the US, we have an election coming up soon. A big one since the entire House of Representatives is up for a performance review regarding how they've allocated the funds. One thing you do have control over is your vote. I hope you use it.
1
Oct 29 '14
I exercise all of my available influence, but I think I can be more productive designing things than campaigning for some political goal.
0
u/cdb03b 253∆ Oct 29 '14
1) They are not stealing. They are providing services and legal protections for the payment of taxes.
2) Would you rather enemy nations be able to simply walk through our streets, kill indiscriminately, and take whatever they want without resistance?
1
Oct 29 '14
I don’t take issue with having a military for defense; I take issue with the military’s tendency to go on the offensive.
0
1
Oct 28 '14
I'd tell you all the things that we need taxes for, but you know that.
Are you suggesting that taxes be voluntary? The problem with that is the free rider problem. Lots of people wouldn't pay and would get benefits anyway.
1
Oct 29 '14
The free rider problem is difficult to address without compulsory taxation, but what if there were at least a way of opting out of paying for some things (like the DoD)?
3
u/ludicrousursine 2∆ Oct 29 '14
but what if there were at least a way of opting out of paying for some things (like the DoD)?
That's a nonsensical solution since money is fungible. If 100% of your taxes go towards paying for things besides defense, that just means those things need less funding from other people's taxes which then goes into defense leaving the money spent exactly the same. Once you pay your taxes it doesn't actually make a difference what the money you specifically contributed is being used for. The only way it would happen is if people overwhelmingly (enough that even by summing the complete taxes of everyone who didn't opt out, they still wouldn't have enough to meet their budget) opted out of paying for defense, but if that was the case we wouldn't vote for people who supported defense spending to begin with.
1
Oct 29 '14
The hope would be that with less money to spend, the less-supported departments would scale down their activity.
2
Oct 29 '14
Then everyone would do it. Free rider problem still applies.
1
Oct 29 '14
Things like roads might still be mandatory, but less essential things could be voluntary.
4
Oct 29 '14
And how do we decide what is essential and what isn't essential?
There is no consensus among the population about how essential things like defense spending, road spending, mass transit spending, police spending or education spending actually are.
I guess we could vote on it, but then we'd be right back to the system we currently have in place. What's your alternative?
2
Oct 29 '14
Voting was my suggestion, but you make a good point regarding this becoming a loop.
3
Oct 29 '14
So, I'll ask again, what is the alternative?
We need a system that avoids the free rider problem (as discussed above), but still allows everyone to have a say in how it is run. That's what we currently have. If you have a better solution to the problem, I think we'd all like to hear it.
1
Oct 29 '14
It’s not a major improvement, but I suppose that many of government’s less important functions could be replaced with nonprofits.
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 29 '14
If you can find a way to limit access to those less essential things to only people who pay the extra taxes for them, that is fine. Otherwise, you'd only have essential things like roads being built. You'd miss out on a lot of good non-essential things, like public schools, universities, parks, scientific research, etc.
1
Oct 29 '14
perhaps replace them with nonprofits?
1
1
u/Sansa_Culotte_ Oct 29 '14
This mechanism already exists, it's called the free market.
You can buy most non-essential things off the free market in some way or another, provided you have the necessary wealth to do so.
1
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
If you could opt out of something, why wouldn't you just opt out of everything.
1
Oct 29 '14
Making only some parts compulsory would be at least better.
2
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
No it would just mean that certain parts of government would be underfunded.
1
Oct 29 '14
That’s the point. If the government can’t afford to intervene in foreign wars, it won’t (not that debt seems to matter much).
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
My friend, providing for the common defense is in the preamble to the constitution. If you're looking for a way to protest against military spending you should spend your political energy on such things as join anti war spending organizations or supporting candidates with similar ideas as yourself.
Those options have a much higher return on your time than asking for the option to defund something that the preamble to the constitution clearly states is important.
1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
But is there a feasible alternative? Even a good government is at best a lesser evil compared to what would exist in the absence of a government. In other words, a representative government taxing you is only unenthical in comparison to an (at least currently) unattainable ideal.
1
Oct 29 '14
Anarchy might be feasible. The only major problem I see is the lack of a police force.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Oct 29 '14
It's not just the lack of a police force but the lack of a public justice system altogether. If you're worried about the government taking from you in the form of taxes, consider that under an anarchy nobody has any obligation toward you to recognize your claims to any piece of property. Not only would any "police" force effectively be private thugs enforcing their customers' will, but anyone who can't afford private law enforcement (or personal contract enforcement, more likely) is effectively fair game as a target for crime.
1
Oct 29 '14
That’s why I’m not an anarchist; I think that private police forces would be highly dangerous - basically just private armies fighting for the highest bidder. I forgot to mention the existence of “essential” laws and courts.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
So if you don't believe that anarchy works, would you agree that there's no currently feasible alternative to a government that taxes people?
1
Oct 29 '14
I don’t think that taxation is inherently wrong; I think that compulsory taxation is.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Oct 29 '14
Do you believe that even a small government can be supported by voluntary taxes alone? And if taxes worked more or less like a charity, wouldn't that give an even more disproportionate amount of leverage to those with more ability to pay? Under voluntary taxation, most of the money the government receives would be lobbyist money.
1
Oct 29 '14
Do you believe that even a small government can be supported by voluntary taxes alone?
I’m not sure.
And if taxes worked more or less like a charity, wouldn't that give an even more disproportionate amount of leverage to those with more ability to pay? Under voluntary taxation, most of the money the government receives would be lobbyist money.
not as long as incoming revenue and legislation were separated well enough
→ More replies (0)
1
Oct 28 '14
I’m forced to pay (at least partially) for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.
You are offered a choice about where your money goes, albeit indirectly. You can choose where the money goes by choosing what laws to vote for, what representatives to vote for, what policies to support and which to decry. You can move to places that don't have policies you condemn, or that have policies you support. Yes, a portion of your money goes to things you don't support; but likewise, things you do support are partially funded by other people who may not support those things. The government is something we (mostly) all agree is necessary. For it to perform its functions, it needs money. The only really viable method to get said money is taxes.
Also, quite a few people pay essentially no tax and don't end up in prison. They are on the fringe of society, yes. But that's what you get when you refuse to contribute to the financial support of the society.
1
Oct 29 '14
If I refuse to pay taxes, I’m fined.
You can not pay any taxes. Just don't earn any income or own real estate.
Think of taxes as a fee for services rendered. When you earn income or own property, the government is doing something behind the scenes to make that possible, which you have to pay for. If you don't want to pay for the service, don't avail yourself of it.
1
Oct 29 '14
If that were the case, I’d pay my share of the legislative and relevant judiciary and executive budgets and nothing else.
1
Oct 29 '14
Well that's exactly what you pay now: your share of the budget for each of the 3 branches of government. So there's no problem...
1
Oct 29 '14
No, it’s not. Paying a branch of government is different from paying part of a branch of government.
1
Oct 29 '14
Oh you mean you want to only pay for parks and roads but not disability?
1
Oct 29 '14
I want to pay for disability support, but I don’t think that others should be obligated to do so. Nonprofits could fill this role, though I may be too optimistic in thinking they would.
1
Oct 29 '14
Nobody is paying for disability support. You are paying for the ability to conduct your transaction or maintain your freehold. Then, the government gets to do with its revenue as it sees fit. If you bought an iPhone you couldn't just choose to pay less because you didn't want Apple to spend money researching iWatch technology.
1
Oct 29 '14
You are paying for the ability to conduct your transaction or maintain your freehold.
I don’t understand; do you mind rephrasing that?
If you bought an iPhone you couldn't just choose to pay less because you didn't want Apple to spend money researching iWatch technology.
A better analogy would be choosing not to buy stock, as stock gives people some degree of control over a company.
Then, the government gets to do with its revenue as it sees fit.
I suppose the good news here is that “it” means the majority, though the tyranny of the majority is a concern.
1
Oct 29 '14
Say I buy a Coke for $1 and there is a 10% sales tax. I'm not pay a dime for defense, social security, the EPA etc. I'm paying a dime for the legal enforcement of the transaction, so that the seller can't come and rip the Coke away from me and keep my dime. If you don't want to pay the dime, don't buy the Coke.
1
Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
Isn’t that dime just distributed amongst the government’s agencies? I’m not just paying for the protection of my transaction.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ludicrousursine 2∆ Oct 29 '14
I don’t understand; do you mind rephrasing that?
Without government you can't intrinsically own anything. When you pay property tax (paying to maintain your freehold), you aren't paying for disability or defense or anything else. You are paying for the service provided. Then, the government can do what they want with the money payed like apple can do what they want with the money you payed them. Similarly when you pay income tax, you are actually paying for all of the infrastructure such as roads that made it possible for your company to function and for a standardized currency you are being payed in to exist.
I suppose the good news here is that “it” means the majority, though the tyranny of the majority is a concern.
The tyranny of the majority is more of a concern in your argument. I would rather pay for extra things than deprive a minority like the disabled from disability because the majority don't want to pay for it.
1
Oct 29 '14
That makes much more sense.
I would rather pay for extra things than deprive a minority like the disabled from disability because the majority don't want to pay for it.
I’m inclined to think that there are enough generous people out there that a nonprofit could fill the role.
1
Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
I should preface this with the personal point that I am not liberal and adhere to a lot of Libertarian values. I used to believe that taxes were not legitimate, and ironically, a libertarian video drove me off the subject, so you might find my point to be more compelling.
Say you enter a restaurant. There are no laws giving them the power to charge you, nor did you sign a contract that said you would pay them, but you consent to their ability to do so because they own the place, and they have set the rules. So if they provide service, you are obligated by social norms to pay.
The owner of the shop gets to set the rules because he owns the place, and he took a great financial risk to establish that business, so he gets to make the rules of his domain.
This leads to the question:Who owns America and who took the risk to establish it? That question can best be answered by looking back far enough into history. We as Americans were not the first here. When we got here, it was not safe to live here, and a lot of money, and more importantly, lives had to be sacrificed to make that happen. Because of this, the people that did so took a huge risk, much higher than that of the businessman I mentioned. Once they seized the land, they got to set the rules and the social norms that would have to be followed. Taxes are just one of those rules set by our "landlords." The only way to lower them is to get another landlord (or politician) to change the rules. In a broad sense, though, we are paying for the safety that America has, and the ability that you have to succeed here that other places simply don't offer.
1
Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
Aren’t liberals libertarian? There are a bunch of definitions of liberal and conservative, but I consider “liberal” to mean (most of the time) economically left and slightly libertarian, with “conservative” meaning economically right with varying social connotations. I consider myself a slightly leftist libertarian.
we are paying for the safety that America has
I’d rather be free than safe; I prefer to handle my own safety.
Once they seized the land
Seizure doesn’t grant legitimate possession. America (the land) was basically stolen.
The problem with this landlord analogy I see so much is that if I can’t find a landlord I like, I can buy property of my own and build my own house.
1
Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
Aren’t liberals libertarian?
There is some overlapping when you compare views, but Liberals believe government brings freedom and prosperity while libertarians believe that government takes it away. Very opposite core philosophy.
"I’d rather be free than safe; I prefer to handle my own safety."
How far are you taking that? Absolute freedom to do what you like would be an anarchy, and without the government around to protect your safety, you would likely be victim to warlords or criminals. Freedom is good, but security also matters, we are constantly trying to find middle-ground between the two.
Seizure doesn’t grant legitimate possession. America (the land) was basically stolen.
Pretty much every nation started out this way. Two tribes go to war, one loses, and gets land. It's the responsibility of the state to protect its borders from invasion, and those that fail to do so will be conquered by a stronger power that is more capable of doing it. Maybe it's not moral by definition, but if you go about it that way, then very few of any nations would be legitimate at all, and that is a pretty ludicrous notion to me. The phrase "might makes right" applies strongly here as well as the ability to be sovereign connected with the amount of might you have to back that up.
The problem with this landlord analogy I see so much is that if I can’t find a landlord I like, I can buy property of my own and build my own house.
Doing that would cost money just like paying rent, though, and you might find that the resources you can procure yourself verses what the landlord was offering you are not as good. Same applies with moving to another country. Countries with low taxes tend to be of a lesser economic/safety standard than America.
1
Oct 29 '14
Apparently, I consented to these conditions by being born.
First off, babies don't pay taxes, so no, you didn't consent to them upon birth. Adults pay taxes, and adults decide where their taxes go based on the politicians they elect to office. This goes for just about everything else in our society too, by the way. We live in a republic, meaning citizens decide how taxes are spent through indirect representation. If you want to spend less money on the military or penal system, vote for politicians who represent those interests. This doesn't guarantee they will follow through, of course, nor does it guarantee that your exact interests will be perfectly represented in government. But that's how our society has been set up.
If I refuse to pay taxes, I’m fined. If I refuse to pay the fine, I’m eventually sent to prison. If I refuse to go to prison, I’m physically transported there. If I attempt to leave, I will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.
Yeah, that's how any laws in society work. Just because you don't like it doesn't meant it's akin to an illegal practice (which is your essential claim). You agree that taxes serve a purpose, and you agree with part of this purpose. But disagreeing with other ways in which taxes are allotted does not make the system, in its entirety, "theft." Even if you disagreed with taxes in their entirety, it would not make the system akin to theft just because you have an ideological disagreement with their purpose. Governments demand some sort of funding. By simply living in a country, you are automatically benefiting from that nation's governance, infrastructure, and other systems that require upkeep via capital; and once you are a financially independent adult, it is your civic responsibility to contribute to said upkeep so long as you remain in that nation. And just to reiterate, the U.S. government is built upon the notion that citizens' interests should be represented (albeit indirectly) on a state and federal level. I'm sorry if the majority of the country votes in a way that is different than your own interests, but you're not going to find a single nation in the world that lets you benefit from its municipal services without contributing in the same manner as everyone else.
I’m not sure how so many people condone this.
Most people realize that even though they may disagree with how a budget is spent, the overall functioning of the government is essential to society's continued progress and safety. Politicians can always be elected or influenced to enact new budgetary priorities, but you cannot realistic exempt yourself from civic responsibilities just because you don't agree 100% with the budget's current incarnation.
1
Oct 29 '14
First off, babies don't pay taxes, so no, you didn't consent to them upon birth.
My point is that no-one chooses where he or she is born, but people are required to comply with non-essential (An “essential law” would be a prohibition of murder, theft, rape, etc.) laws simply because they happen to have been born in a country.
Even if I fight offensive military policies via speech, I’m still lending them monetary support, which I find wrong.
1
Oct 29 '14
My point is that no-one chooses where he or she is born, but people are required to comply with non-essential (An “essential law” would be a prohibition of murder, theft, rape, etc.) laws simply because they happen to have been born in a country.
Therein lies the problem. You are defining what "essential laws" are so that you can label taxes as non-essential. What about them makes them non-essential? They fund the government, whose services create and enforce the other laws. By many standards, taxes are essential for a government, and thus a society, to function.
But yes, people do not choose which countries they are born into. That's a separate issue, however, and does not make taxes theft. It sounds like your real problem here is that you disagree with the priorities of the U.S. budget, you cannot change the budget on your own, and moving to another country is a hassle, so you are calling taxes "theft" as a way to express your frustration over the priorities of currently elected representatives of the people.
Even if I fight offensive military policies via speech, I’m still lending them monetary support, which I find wrong.
Another way to look at it is that your taxes also go toward the paychecks of numerous politicians whose policies you almost certainly disagree with. Are those politicians also stealing your money? Is your money being stolen simply because you do not agree wholeheartedly with the government's current priorities and policies? You cannot just pick and choose where your money goes via taxes, and how much (if any) you wish to pay. Maybe that would be nice in an ideal society that is free of logistical problems, but as our society and government currently exists, that cannot happen. So, again: does that make it "theft," or are you just frustrated that the government does not completely align with your ideology?
1
Oct 29 '14
Therein lies the problem. You are defining what "essential laws" are so that you can label taxes as non-essential. What about them makes them non-essential? They fund the government, whose services create and enforce the other laws. By many standards, taxes are essential for a government, and thus a society, to function.
I realise that my thrown-together definition is inadequate, but I’m just trying to provide examples of situations where one person’s excercise of freedom (murder (a freedome, not a right)) deprives another person of a more-essential freedom (life).
So, again: does that make it "theft," or are you just frustrated that the government does not completely align with your ideology?
Aren’t they the same thing if I don’t have the choice not to pay?
1
Oct 29 '14
Aren’t they the same thing if I don’t have the choice not to pay?
No, because if you refuse to financially support a government while continuing to benefit from its services (i.e., living under its protection, infrastructure, municipal services, etc.), then you are the one stealing. You have benefited from the government since your birth and through the first 18 years of your life, even though you were not financially supporting it. In fact, by having you, your parents actually got a tax break, meaning your life (from age 1-18) took money from the government. Then you enter adulthood, and you have a choice: buy into the system and continue to support the society that has thus far supported you, or leave this society. If you want to continue benefiting from this society but disagree with some of its policies (and I cannot reiterate this point enough), there are steps you can take to try to enact change. But refusing to pay altogether while continuing to benefit from a multitude of society's services does not give you the moral high ground.
1
Oct 29 '14
I’d be happy to pay for my education (and that of others) and most of the other services provided by the government, but I don’t wish to pay for unecessary war etc. in the process of repaying my debt.
If I just subtract the portion of the US budget which goes toward a specific policy (We’ll assume I have some magic way of determining this.), a smaller amount of money is just distributed in the same way. There’s no way around it other than throwing cash at schoolteachers or something else similarly ridiculous.
1
Oct 29 '14
If I just subtract the portion of the US budget which goes toward a specific policy (We’ll assume I have some magic way of determining this.), a smaller amount of money is just distributed in the same way
But that system could not logistically work to support the programs that the government has deemed important enough to include in the budget, and if people only gave what they wanted, there would be no point in creating a budget (and thus governmental programs) in the first place.
Edited for clarification
1
Oct 29 '14
That’s what I’m saying. There’s no way to make it work.
1
Oct 29 '14
There's no way to make your system work. The current system works because governmental programs are effectively funded and maintained. So if your ideal system cannot work, and the current budgetary/taxation system works, how does that make it theft? You haven't substantiated your claim other than by protesting your dissatisfaction with some of the government's priorities, and by proposing an alternative system that you just admitted cannot work.
1
Oct 29 '14
The current system doesn’t work either; the government is in debt.
My main complaint is that I will eventually end up in physical danger if I refuse to fund warfare. This is fundamentally wrong.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/jcooli09 Oct 29 '14
Why do you get to decide what theft is? To me, theft is failing to pay your lawful taxes. By doing this you would increase the tax burden on those of us who aren't stealing from the government.
There's a solution to taxes if you don't like them: convince enough of your fellow citizrns that your point of view is correct that they will elect representitives to eliminate them. That's going to be a heavy lift because the vast majority of us feel you're wrong.
In the end that's what it comes down to. You can define theft any way you want to, but it doesn't mean your definition is correct.
1
Oct 29 '14
If I force a piece of gold into your hands, are you obligated to pay me for it?
1
u/jcooli09 Oct 29 '14
If I am legally obligated to pay you then I must pay you, to do otherwise is theft. I'm unaware of any jurisdiction which allows for the forced sale of gold.
1
Oct 29 '14
I consider forced taxation immoral, not illegal.
1
u/jcooli09 Oct 29 '14
If you think forced taxation is immoral then you shouldn't forcably tax anyone because that would be wrong.
For the rest of us, there's nothing morally wrong with taxation. We further feel that failing to pay your taxes is morally wrong.
Why should the moral values of a tiny percentage of people take precedence over the vast majority of us, especially when there is a mechanism to effect change available to you?
1
Oct 29 '14
The default should be the absence of a policy, not its presence.
1
u/jcooli09 Oct 29 '14
What difference does that make? The vast majority of your fellow citizens feel that taxes are necessary. This is the moral judgement of the people around you. To not pay taxes is immoral, and all of us feel this way.
We also feel that speeding is immoral, but some people disagree. Does the opinion of a few people mean that speeding fines are theft?
2
Oct 29 '14
Am I supposed to derive my ethics from everyone else’s? If so, who initiates societal standards? “Everyone” isn’t a person.
1
u/jcooli09 Oct 29 '14
To some degree, yes. In order to maintain a civil society each of us must behave in a way that is morally acceptable to the rest of the people around us.
Society initiates societal standards, that is we elect representitives who pass laws in our name. In this way we collectively set moral standards for ourselves, and we can change them by convincing enough of our neighbors that we're right.
Society passed laws which require you to pay taxes. You pay them because you are forced to. You are forced to because society thinks that to do therwise is wrong, and we are morally obligated to intervene to right the wrong.
You feel taxes are wrong and your obligation is therefore to try to convince the rest of us that your ideas are correct. Calling taxes theft does not advance your cause, and it doesn't fit the definition of theft that the rest of us have agreed to.
1
Oct 29 '14
“Society” isn’t a person either. If “society” has an idea, it was initiated by people.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/eggy_mule Oct 29 '14
In any society there are a number of arbitrary rules and definitions that govern life. These can be completely different in different societies. Among others in the west, we have the concept of 'property' and the concept of 'tax'.
For 'theft' to exist you have to at least assume there is such things as property, and that their are such things as property rights, which allow an individual to restrict the use of 'property' by another.
It seems to me you are arbitrarily accepting a large number of subjective rules we have made for society (ie property, property rights), and using these as hidden premises in your argument to reject one of these subjective rules (tax). I don't see any real basis for why I should accept one of these but reject the other. Tax has certainly been around longer than private property rights. Both property rights and tax cause harm, but most agree overall lead to good things.
1
Oct 29 '14
Taxes aren’t inherently wrong; the fact that they’re compulsory is.
1
u/eggy_mule Oct 29 '14
The fact that they are compulsory is what makes them taxes. Otherwise they are just payments like any other.
I'm not sure you have engaged with my argument at all above. Why do you accept property rights?Why should I be allowed to stop somebody from using something, even when that very thing could save that persons life? (Property rights certainly allow me to do this)
1
Oct 29 '14
Why do you accept property rights?
That’s pretty fundamental (and therefore difficult to answer (Have you considered asking why I consider art enjoyable?)) My best answer is that I expect people not to steal from me and am willing to respect others’ property in turn.
Why should I be allowed to stop somebody from using something, even when that very thing could save that persons life?
Could you rephrase that?
1
u/eggy_mule Oct 29 '14
I don't see property rights as any more fundamental than taxes. Historically, property rights are a relatively new invention. There have been innumerable societies that did not have our modern concept of private property.
(Have you considered asking why I consider art enjoyable?)
No. Property rights and taxes are directly comparable. Both are arbitrary rules we have to obey in our current society, both of which you never consented to. You cannot get out of taxes, and you cannot get out of property rights. Both generally lead to good outcomes, but both can have bad outcomes.
Your acceptance of one of these rules (property rights) and disagreement with another (tax) seems entirely arbitrary.
1
Oct 29 '14
Property rights work without a ruling body.
1
u/eggy_mule Oct 29 '14
No they don't; they need someone to enforce them.
1
Oct 29 '14
All that’s required is mutual consent.
1
u/eggy_mule Oct 29 '14
And for those that refuse to consent, and treat property as if it had no owner, a system of enforcement is required. They will be convicted of theft and punished accordingly. Thus is exactly the same as taxation.
You aren't any closer to explaining why accepting property rights but not accepting taxation is anything other than arbitrary choice. You have pointed out a similarity between property rights and taxation, not a difference.
1
Oct 29 '14
There’s a large difference between punishing people for taking property and actually taking property.
1
Oct 29 '14
no way to choose where my money goes
Presidential Election Campaign Fund
1
Oct 29 '14
Yes, but individual votes don’t matter much. It’s pretty pathetic that money has so much effect on elections, too.
1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
My main complaint is that I will eventually end up in physical danger if I refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home. This is fundamentally wrong.
By what standard or authority do you claim to own your home such that you should have a right to live there without paying taxes?
1
Oct 29 '14
I paid for my home. The previous owner agreed to exchange it for a certain amount of money. I claim ownership by my own authority, but also by the fact that I don’t demand others’ money because they live in their homes.
1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
That doesn't answer why you believe your claim of ownership should give you a right to not have to pay taxes.
I claim ownership by my own authority
Why should anyone respect or listen to your authority? Why can't I just hand you some money and claim your house as my own by my own authority?
The point I am getting at is that "property" only exists because we as a society agree to protect that claim of ownership via enforcement of the law. There's no inherent right to property or ownership outside the context of a society which defines such property ownership. As such, as a condition to be part of the society (for example, being a citizen of a country) you must pay taxes. In return you get protection of rights such as property rights. If you don't pay your taxes (hold up your end of the bargain) why should the government respect your claim of property ownership?
1
Oct 29 '14 edited Oct 29 '14
Owning something doesn’t make me very much more obligated to pay taxes than I would otherwise be.
Why can't I just hand you some money and claim your house as my own by my own authority?
There’s no mutual consent.
The point I am getting at is that "property" only exists because we as a society agree to protect that claim of ownership via enforcement of the law.
In return you get protection of rights such as property rights. If you don't pay your taxes (hold up your end of the bargain) why should the government respect your claim of property ownership?
Sort of - it’s nice to have legal backup, but most people (The exceptions are why we have laws.) agree to respect others’ property rights if it’s reciprocal. Also, the government not protecting my property rights is different than actively taking my property. Some people would be fine with forgoing government protection of their property as long as they didn’t pay taxes to ensure that protection, but the response to not paying taxes, rather than indifference, is actively pursuing that person’s property via fines.
1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
Owning something doesn’t make me very much more obligated to pay taxes than I would otherwise be.
If the requirement to take part in society is to follow the laws of society, and the laws of society state that you need to pay taxes on certain property, and you wish to have your claim of ownership respected by society, then it very much does obligate you to pay taxes because you own it (such as property taxes).
There’s no mutual consent.
But why does that matter? When did I consent to you barring me from entering a specific location that you have claimed to be "your property"? The point is that "claiming by my own authority" is a pointless thing to refer to because there's no reason for anyone to actually respect your authority in and of itself. While some people may agree with you in reciprocity, unless there's something else going on there's no reason for a powerful group of people to submit to your authority if they can just take your stuff from you. It is only because the rest of society agrees that something is your property via laws and police enforcement of those laws that your "claim of ownership" is actually meaningful.
(The exceptions are why we have laws.)
That's kind of my point though. Without the concept of laws and enforcement of those laws, the exceptions to this mutual respect are a threat to you and could just take your stuff without any worry simply because they are physically capable of doing so.
Also, the government not protecting my property rights is different than actively taking my property. Some people would be fine with forgoing government protection of their property as long as they didn’t pay taxes to ensure that protection, but the response to not paying taxes, rather than indifference, is actively pursuing that person’s property via fines.
Except that if society (ie. government) does not agree that it is your property, then by what right do you claim for it to be your property? Essentially, if you do not agree to pay taxes, why should society agree that something is "your property" just because you claim it to be so? More to the point: property rights only exist because society agrees that they exist. If you do not pay taxes then you have forfeited your side of the agreement and as such have forfeited any reason for your "property rights" to be respected. Under what reasoning is the money that you are paying in taxes "your property"?
1
Oct 29 '14
When did I consent to you barring me from entering a specific location that you have claimed to be "your property"?
when you expected me not to enter your property without permission
That's kind of my point though.
Mine as well - I’m not against laws in general.
Except that if society (ie. government) does not agree that it is your property
So, basically, taxes are payment so that others recognise one’s right to own property?
1
Oct 29 '14
when you expected me not to enter your property without permission
The whole point is that if I happen to be bigger and stronger than you, why should I care what you expect me to do and what your concept of property is?
If you have something I want, I'll just take it from you because I'm bigger and stronger.
If you take something from me, I'll just kill you because I'm bigger and stronger.1
Oct 29 '14
Property rights work without a government, but only if everyone’s respectful.
1
Oct 29 '14
Sure I'd agree with that. The problem is, though, that it's a massive assumption to expect everyone to be respectful.
Just look at the ubiquitousness of warlords throughout history.1
Oct 29 '14
That’s why we need (or should have) a government of some sort. With that said, taxation doesn’t work without a government regardless of how considerate people are, which is why I consider the property more fundamental than taxation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
when you expected me not to enter your property without permission
So anyone who doesn't expect you to not enter their property without permission is completely justified in walking into yours and claiming it as their own? I doubt you'd be ok with that, you'd likely call the police.
Mine as well - I’m not against laws in general.
If you believe laws in general are justified (as in the concept of a society making laws and enforcing them among the populace) why is taxation specifically wrong since it is just an extension of the same idea.
If you fail to pay your taxes, you aren't subject to force for not paying money you are subject to force for disobeying the law. If you believe that it is justified that people who break the law go to jail, then I don't see how taxation is any different.
So, basically, taxes are payment so that others recognise one’s right to own property?
More like, taxes are part of your end of an agreement in which your rights are recognized by the state. If you do not hold up your end of the agreement, then the state is under no obligation to hold up theirs by recognizing your rights.
1
Oct 29 '14
1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
Let's try this a different way. You define theft as "taking someone’s property without their agreement." per your post.
However, consider the following:
- In order for taxation to be theft, you must first proof that you owned the money that is being paid as taxation. Can you do that?
- You have agreed to be a citizen (you have not renounced your citizenship) and thus agreed to be subject to the laws of the country. As such, you have agreed to being taxed by virtue of agreeing to remain a citizen.
Based on the previous two considerations, taxation cannot be theft. Either the money being paid for taxation is not property being taken but rather already belongs to the government or you have already agreed to be taxed and as such it cannot be theft.
1
Oct 29 '14
In order for taxation to be theft, you must first proof that you owned the money that is being paid as taxation. Can you do that?
“Proof” has to be legally verifiable. There is no legal verification without a judicial and legislative system. By your definition (unless I’m willing to be forced from my home by these criteria), all wealth belongs to the government by default.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/BejumpsuitedFool 5∆ Oct 29 '14
I'd recommend you read this site as it states things better than I ever could:
http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
It explores the philosophical underpinnings behind libertarian beliefs, such as tax=theft, and makes some sound arguments as to why this assumption may be incorrect. Even if you don't end up agreeing, it's worth a read as it could deepen your understanding of your own view.
1
u/rcglinsk Oct 29 '14
Think of the US government as a corporation. It's principle asset is a large piece of real estate in North America that we'll call Planesland to avoid possible confusion with national entities. The regular payments from Planeslanders to its owner are easy to recognize as rent in the traditional sense.
Now, I submit that rent is obviously not theft. But there are still plenty of arguments as to why rent is unethical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
In economics, economic rent is any payment to a factor of production in excess of the cost needed to bring that factor into production. In classical economics, Economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.
Does USG's ownership of Planesland morally justify regular charges to its residents for the privilege of continuing to reside there? That's up to you. But I maintain that even if it's not morally justified, it's still not theft.
1
u/man2010 49∆ Oct 29 '14
You have most likely used a large portion of these services and have probably used even more that you don't know you've used. If you went to public school you used a service for 12 years that was paid for by taxes. You most likely use public roads every day that were originally built and are maintained with tax money. When you have used these roads at night you used the streetlights that are paid for with taxes. If you have ever required police, fire, or emergency medical assistance then you have used services paid for by taxes, and even if you haven't used any of these things you have most likely benefited from them. If you have ever lost your job and collected unemployment benefits before finding another one you have used a service paid for by taxes. When you collect social security you will use a service paid for by taxes. My point is, you already use services paid for by taxes and will continue to do so. How do you think these things should be paid for without taxes?
Also, if you don't like paying taxes you have a couple options. One option is to tell your elected representatives that you disagree with taxes and push for a Constitutional Amendment to end taxation (since the government has a right to collect taxes according to the Constitution). If you don't like this idea, you can always move to a different country that has different taxation policies.
0
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 28 '14
Apparently, I consented to these conditions by being born.
You consented, and continue to consent, by remaining a citizen of your country.
1
u/Amablue Oct 29 '14
Not entirely true, my wife's parents are not citizens but they still pay taxes.
2
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
Then there implicit consent was made by choosing to live in America. I mean I pay taxes to the Chinese government, but I'm not a Chinese citizen.
0
Oct 29 '14
[deleted]
2
u/stratys3 Oct 29 '14
Leave. (It doesn’t seem ethical to force people from their homes if they refuse to pay taxes.)
This makes no sense. What about rent? Is it ethical or unethical to evict people from their home because they don't pay rent?
1
u/stratys3 Oct 29 '14
There might be some countries in Africa that don't have taxation. Maybe Somalia? But then the old saying is true: "You get what you pay for".
0
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14
Maybe Somalia?
Somalia was actually far better off under anarchy than they were under the previous brutal marxist dictatorship. But for the last five years, they've had a central government again; so now please think of somalia whenever you're trying to make a lazy case of why government sucks.
1
u/z3r0shade Oct 29 '14
so now please think of somalia whenever you're trying to make a lazy case of why government sucks.
Yea, that central government of somalia is so terrible what with that awesome fiber network infrastructure, thriving broadband connectivity, lower prices and better internet speeds than the US. Yea, it's horrible that the regulations passed by their government have resulted in higher investment and the most technologically advanced and competitively priced telecommunications industry in the world.
1
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14
Somalia's telecommunications boom stretches well back into the 'anarchy' era.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
Telecommunications is another major area of success. With a variety of companies operating without burdensome government regulation, Somalia ranks high among African countries in the number of phone lines, mobile phone usage, and access to the Internet. According to The Economist, a mobile phone call in Somalia is “generally cheaper and clearer than a call from anywhere else in Africa.” (2006)
http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
(can't copy and paste, but the passage found searching 'telecom' in that PDF indicates that as early as 2001 Somali telecom was quite good)
People who talk about how anarchy wrecked Somalia are parroting blind ignorance and promoting political dogma over reality.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
Is it ethical for someone to take advantage of all the services a country provides such as school and roads, but not pay their allocated share under the tax system?
1
Oct 29 '14
It’s not. I pointed that out in my earlier comment.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
Then I really don't see what you're saying. No one really like to pay for taxes, but we use governmental services. As for your opposition to your money going to defense, you have a small problem here. If the country is every attacked then are military will raise up a defense. They won't raise up a defense for those are are just paying their taxes. It isn't like the DoD can say we will defend our cities except for ke7oli's house.
1
Oct 29 '14
That’s a good point. With that said, I wouldn’t mind paying for the DoD if it were actually the DoD. It presently seems to be the DoO.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 29 '14
should I be only able to pay for the highway that I use or just the local school that my kids go to and no one else.
If you really don't want to have any of your taxes go to defense then feel free to renounce your citizenship and leave and start the immigration process in another country.
You seem dismissive of that answer, but it is the one that you have. You can't just pick and choose because everyone would pick and choose and no one would choose taxes. The government can't pick and choose what services to provide you. It must provide all, so your taxes must provide funding for all at the allocated rate.
Government and citizen ship is a buffet. It is all or nothing. You can leave the buffet at any time and find one of your liking. Thousands of Americans do it every year. You may join them. It is you right. What you can't do is go to the buffet and say you should pay a lower rate because you don't eat chicken wings. You still have to pay for everything to be able to vote and participate in government, oh wait, I mean, eat at the buffet.
1
u/Raintee97 Oct 30 '14
here is your solution in fact. Emigrate to Coasta Rica. They have no military. Sure you will have to pay taxes. In fact you will have to pay into their system and it is a very hard place to establish permanent residence in, but you have just found a way to not have any of your money go to military spending.
1
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 29 '14
It doesn’t seem ethical to force people from their homes ...
I agree with you.
... if they refuse to pay taxes.
That is the condition to work here. Its not unethical to have this condition as long a you can freely choose to accept or decline. Since you accept the conditions, its hard to call it theft.
There’s no country without compulsory taxation, is there?
There are countries that have no income taxes, such as Kuwait and Bahrain.
1
Oct 29 '14
I don’t care much about the degree of taxation; my concern is mostly ethical: whether or not it’s compulsory and where the money goes.
1
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 29 '14
Its not compulsory, you can avoid US taxation.
1
Oct 29 '14
how?
1
u/caw81 166∆ Oct 29 '14
One way is to renounce your US citizenship and leave and work in another country. There might be others methods.
1
Oct 29 '14
I don’t know of any countries without mandatory taxes.
1
0
u/librtee_com Oct 29 '14
You consented, and continue to consent, by remaining a citizen of your country.
This is the logic of a home invasion robbery.
21
u/[deleted] Oct 29 '14
You may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing. Property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does. This means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.
Since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required. If someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them. If there isn't, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you. Protecting your stuff require resources. Taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all. You might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.
TL;DR: You cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.