Taxation and Theft

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Suppose tax is indeed theft. What consequence does that have, in your view?

"Consequence" is a very broad term.

I am concerned here just to discuss whether taxation is theft or not.

However, if taxation turned out to be theft, that would be an argument against it, all else equal.

It would imply, perhaps, that alternatives to it should be given more serious consideration, such as more private funding of public goods, or more voluntary tax contributions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Unless there is a benefit from not all paying the same amount.

Or unless it was fair that we paid different amounts. And perhaps you both mean different proportions.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
"Consequence" is a very broad term.

I am concerned here just to discuss whether taxation is theft or not.

However, if taxation turned out to be theft, that would be an argument against it, all else equal.

It would imply, perhaps, that alternatives to it should be given more serious consideration, such as more private funding of public goods, or more voluntary tax contributions.

If you just want to discuss the meaning of the word "theft" is shift it away from the accepted definition of the word, then this is a rather meaningless discussion.

If you want to argue that tax is bad because it is theft then you are arguing in favour of anarchy. That is, unless you can clarify what you mean by "voluntary tax contributions".

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you pay for the services you use but stop short of shouting the pollies their latest jerk job you're going down guy.

That sounds interesting. But could you rephrase?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you just want to discuss the meaning of the word "theft" is shift it away from the accepted definition of the word, then this is a rather meaningless discussion.

If you want to argue that tax is bad because it is theft then you are arguing in favour of anarchy. That is, unless you can clarify what you mean by "voluntary tax contributions".

I don't want to discuss the meaning of the word theft. I want to discuss whether taxation is or is not theft. This may involve considering what the term "theft" means. But that is not the primary goal.

One can argue that taxation is bad because it is theft without concluding that one shouldn't impose taxation, without concluding that the alternatives would be worse, and without concluding that anarchy is the best form of government.

Actually, I am a minarchist. I understand a minarchist government must still be funded. Compulsory taxation is one way to do it. That may or may not involve theft, and it may or may not be worth doing even if it is theft. But if it is theft, it would be a good thing to consider the available alternatives more seriously.

If government functions were worth their salt, why wouldn't the populace pay for them willingly? One answer is that, although may would, there still would be free riders. Perhaps that is one strong argument for compulsory taxation. However, there are solutions other than compulsion. One would have a honors scheme, whereby people indicate formally and publicly how much tax they contribute proportionally. This would create an incentive to contribute, by making non-contribution shameful and suspicious. Another would be that some public services would only be available if proportional contributions were greater (you could issue a voluntary tax card) so that people would decide for themselves whether or not to pay. That would give the government an incentive to compete against private services.

I am sure there would be problems with all of these schemes, and am not wedded to any. But if taxation is theft, then they deserve more serious consideration.

The fact that taxation is not obviously theft is a prima facie argument against its being theft. But not every substantial or true conclusion rests on such prima facie arguments.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
Suppose I withdraw my consent to have some of my money taken from me by the government, but that most people governed by the government continue to give their consent.

Why does their collective consent make it *not* theft for the government to take my money off me by force?

Analogy:

Suppose you think that some of my money would be better spent on ...[text shortened]... on still other people. So they take it off me by force. That's not theft, apparently.

Why?

Good question; but I don't think there's an analogy because there's no social contract between you and I or you and this majority of people in this group you refer to. There is an implied social contract between you and your government. By availing yourself of the privileges of living in a society, you impliedly agree to be bound by its laws. And, even if you had no choice in the matter, the acquiescence of the majority of the citizens in your country to this social contract imputed the agreement to you as well. Society could not function otherwise.

Originally posted by FMF
No. Tax is a kind of symbiosis. Not theft.

It's an unbalanced symbiosis where party A coerces party B continually, and the party B influences party A occasionally.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
I don't want to discuss the meaning of the word theft. I want to discuss whether taxation is or is not theft. This may involve considering what the term "theft" means. But that is not the primary goal.

One can argue that taxation is bad because it is theft without concluding that one shouldn't impose taxation, without concluding that the alternatives w ...[text shortened]... ng theft. But not every substantial or true conclusion rests on such prima facie arguments.

Well, if taxation is theft and some taxation is needed, then you must be forced to conclude that taxation is not always bad, and therefore that theft can be good. This rather distorts the usual meaning of theft (though, like sh76 mentioned, in some cases theft may be justified).

But let's look at your alternatives. You correctly mention that freeloaders would make any voluntary tax system at least very difficult to implement. I'm not convinced that making the names of taxpayers public as a "reward" will bring in enough tax dollars, but if you have some reason to believe this is the case, I'm listening. Your last suggestion is the same as a private insurance scheme, except that it would be run by the government (but since private corporations can run these sort of schemes, the government scheme would never be necessary unless the private market is significantly distorted by cartels and/or monopolies).

Originally posted by sh76
Good question; but I don't think there's an analogy because there's no social contract between you and I or you and this majority of people in this group you refer to. There is an implied social contract between you and your government. By availing yourself of the privileges of living in a society, you impliedly agree to be bound by its laws. And, even if you h ...[text shortened]... s social contract imputed the agreement to you as well. Society could not function otherwise.

It's not only a privilege for me to live in this society. Last time I looked, I worked on behalf of it too. I even contributed to its wealth on net balance. So it's a privilege to have me in it too. Maybe my fellow citizens would prefer me to stay even if the government want to throw me in jail or kick me out.

Also, it is not possible for others, in whatever number, to impute agreement to me. I agree or I don't. People don't agree for me, unless I am a child, mentally ill, etc. If I am an adult, and I don't agree, then others are compelling me to do another's bidding if I don't. The very idea of imputing agreement to another is incoherent.

Suppose, in a poor society, a rich strong man takes a poor weak woman off the street, and allows her to live in nice house in return for sexual access to her. By availing herself of the "privileges" of living in the houses, she impliedly agrees to be bounds by its "laws". Despite its demerits of the deal, it is better than the alternative. Then one day, the woman objects that the man has no right of sexual access to her: she is being coerced, despite all undeniable benefits accruing to her. But he tells her it is her duty. Who's right?

The analogy is incomplete for taxation for a few reasons. But are they relevant?

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
It's not only a privilege for me to live in this society. Last time I looked, I worked on behalf of it too.

Hence the "symbiosis".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if taxation is theft and some taxation is needed, then you must be forced to conclude that taxation is not always bad, and therefore that theft can be good. This rather distorts the usual meaning of theft (though, like sh76 mentioned, in some cases theft may be justified).

But let's look at your alternatives. You correctly mention that freeload ...[text shortened]... cessary unless the private market is significantly distorted by cartels and/or monopolies).

I don't think we disagree too much.

Getting money out of people at all is difficult. Set the tax rate too high, and tax receipts can go down. So I think there is room to try out more positive ideas.

I think the honors roll for tax deserves a try. It would be among the people that contributory norms would spontaneously emerge, and informal public sanction can be as effective as formal sanction. I suspect the emergent norms would be fairer than the norms the government imposes. Moreover, the threat of reverting to compulsory taxation, if the scheme didn't work, would be an incentive that would push norms higher. I also think that people should be free to discriminate, when it comes to employment or providing goods and services, against people who cannot prove they pay enough tax proportionally: reasonable tax provision would be a marker or good citizenship, but on citizens' terms. Of course, I could be wrong too: for example, maybe the level of monitoring requires would be unfeasible. But I am only saying such ideas should be seriously considered, if taxation is theft.

There is also a lot of research in psychology showing that agency is intrinsically rewarding. So, if people were given some choice where their tax money goes, they would contribute more. They would make errors; but over time, the errors would diminish, as necessary public goods were appreciated. The government could also appeal for funds in emergencies.

I also think it would be as good to keep the government lean and eager for our money as it would be let it get fat and complacent. You'd get more for less. The government would have to make the case that it needed it to the people, rather than the people having to make the case for why they should hang on to their own money. This would hold government to account, a good thing. They would be public servants, not overlords.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hence the "symbiosis".

But the lack of balance in the symbiosis is that, if I renege on my end of the deal, I go to prison, whereas if politicians renege on their end of the deal, they just end up out of office.

Originally posted by IshDaGegg
I don't think we disagree too much.

Getting money out of people at all is difficult. Set the tax rate too high, and tax receipts can go down. So I think there is room to try out more positive ideas.

I think the honors roll for tax deserves a try. It would be among the people that contributory norms would spontaneously emerge, and informal public sanc ...[text shortened]... ould hold government to account, a good thing. They would be public servants, not overlords.

Are there any local governments anywhere that have tried this approach?