Is Taxation Theft?

[Gestopft]

Because I work for my money. Sales tax and living tax should be enough.

For most workers, a progressive income tax is going to be better for you than a sales tax.

[Theodarzna]

Because I work for my money. Sales tax and living tax should be enough.

The only reason you are paid and able to "earn that money," is via a massive legal system, police force and a massive network of collectively created structures.

[xChurch]

Threads like this really highlight our species empathy issues, it's pretty disheartening.

[LilSaihah]

Yeah, taxation's theft.

[Garnier Fructis]

Because I work for my money. Sales tax and living tax should be enough.

If anything, sales tax is the tax that should go. Because regressive taxes are shit.

[jeleopard]

The only reason you are paid and able to "earn that money," is via a massive legal system, police force and a massive network of collectively created structures.

Cool. Other taxes can pay for that.

[Endus]

Because I work for my money. Sales tax and living tax should be enough.

You have provided literally no justification for this viewpoint.

Most transactions have some form of tax associated with them. Why should income be excluded? Because that's what income is; a transaction. Besides, there's no way that sales tax and such could pay for the services we currently enjoy.

And before you start saying "cut programs I disagree with, then", that's not how this works. If you think taxes should be reduced, you pick programs you want to keep that you think should be cut. Otherwise, you're just being explicitly self-oriented, without considering society as a whole, which is the proper framework if you want to participate in this kind of discussion and have an argument that others don't simply discard for its obvious flaws.

[BattleSaint]

What's with the fixation on the constitution? Why not say that taxes should be spent on what the country, as a democracy, owes and benefits its people?

in the U.S. specifically, the Federal Govts powers are clearly enumerated in the Constitution,for the express purpose of limiting those powers. Anything extra-Constitutional is therefore unlawful and unauthorized. Anyone who cares for the rule of law should be "fixated" on this. Besides what you feel benefits the "people" may not be what many others feel does so.

[Endus]

in the U.S. specifically, the Federal Govts powers are clearly enumerated in the Constitution,for the express purpose of limiting those powers. Anything extra-Constitutional is therefore unlawful and unauthorized. Anyone who cares for the rule of law should be "fixated" on this. Besides what you feel benefits the "people" may not be what many others feel does so.

If you're opposing taxation because of the Constitution, then you really need to sit down and read it sometime.

Particularly Article 1, Section 8, #1;

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And the 16th Amendment;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If you're going to complain about various specific programs not explicitly detailed in the Constitution, pay careful attention to the bit of Article 1, Section 8, that I put in bold; the general welfare clause is pretty broadly applied.

Now, you might not like that all the above is listed out in the Constitution, but that's the Constitution you've got.

[BattleSaint]

If you're opposing taxation because of the Constitution, then you really need to sit down and read it sometime.

Particularly Article 1, Section 8, #1;

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And the 16th Amendment;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If you're going to complain about various specific programs not explicitly detailed in the Constitution, pay careful attention to the bit of Article 1, Section 8, that I put in bold; the general welfare clause is pretty broadly applied.

Now, you might not like that all the above is listed out in the Constitution, but that's the Constitution you've got.

congressional power to levy taxes is unquestionable. And i do not oppose ALL taxes by any means. And yes i do not like how broadly the general welfare clause has been applied,especially by SCOTUS. I think its essentially used as a blanket excuse to justify all kinds of Govt. overreach. As a Conservative i believe the Govt has an important and legitimate role to play,in maintaining the civil society,but that it has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond what was intended by the framers.
I am in favor of a partial overhaul of the Constitution via the Amendment process to address this issue,specifically as laid out by Mark Levine in his book The Liberty Amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Amendments

[Luxxor]

Threads like this really highlight our species empathy issues, it's pretty disheartening.

Species empathy L O fucking L.

Life isnt fair, adversity breeds strength.

[Endus]

congressional power to levy taxes is unquestionable. And i do not oppose ALL taxes by any means. And yes i do not like how broadly the general welfare clause has been applied,especially by SCOTUS. I think its essentially used as a blanket excuse to justify all kinds of Govt. overreach. As a Conservative i believe the Govt has an important and legitimate role to play,in maintaining the civil society,but that it has overstepped its bounds and gone beyond what was intended by the framers.

The intent of the framers has essentially no value in determining how the Constitution is to be interpreted in the modern era.

Unless you're willing to walk back the application of the First Amendment to anything more high-tech than a newspaper, or the 2nd to anything more developed than a musket, you recognize that as well as I do, and you are applying that principle inconsistently, and only to those passages you want to roll back.

[Jinpachi]

I'm not here to educate you. But I don't know, just off the top of my head, the Federal Highway fund, for starters. The simple fact that roads are built at all levels of government should be another clue for you. But really, I tried to correct you but it's not like I will lose sleep over some random person thinking the gas tax pays for all roads. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -



Death taxes are wealth redistribution. That's communism at its most basic level. Capital does not "continually build up over generations", as most people have more than one off spring. It's divided up again and again and again, as we breed more an more. Just look at the Waltons, for example. The biggest fortune ever created has already been split 5 different ways. And then they will have several children, and so on. The overwhelming majority of millionaires are self made. I know that doesn't fit your world view but, facts are facts. This notion that all the wealthy people in the US came over on the Mayflower and are just running the country now could not be more tin foil hat.

I wasnt trying to be difficult, i was sincerely asking for info. But you're right, you're not here to educate anyone. So why is it you're here then? If you are trying to make someone else see your point of view, i would think you would back it up with facts.(not saying you havent), i just wouldnt know where to start to look to be come educated to have an INFORMED opinion on this subject. Everyone who works and pays taxes has an opinion, but not everyone on these forums are economics pros. Again, not trying to be snarky, just really looking for info.

[May90]

I don't think it can be classified as theft, but by a certain definition (demanding payment under a threat, which, in this situation, is punishment according to the law) it can be classified as robbery. But then, some people will go as far as to say that existence of the law itself is slavery, so I guess it depends on how far you are going to stretch these definitions and how literally you understand them.

[Goondicker]

Tax itself isn't theft. Corrupt leaders taking tax money and using it for personal gain is theft.

[Ainyan]

Misappropriation of taxes is theft. Taxes are not theft.

[Raelbo]

Taxing me, to build a traffic light for Walmart at the entrance of the Walmart parking lot because Walmart...that's theft. Because Walmart can afford their own fucking traffic light.

Walmart also pays taxes. Who is to say that the traffic light is not funded by them?

In the end, with any tax system, all the collected tax goes into a big pool which is then split up and distributed where needed. It would be logistically impossible to manage that pool of money by strictly ringfencing ever tax dollar according to what each taxpayer should be contributing to. So you can choose how to see how your tax dollars are being spent: Either you are contributing only to the things you need, or other people (including Walmart) are contributing towards things they don't need, but you do. In the end it boils down to same thing.

Tax becomes theft if you are taxed unfairly. If the government uses your tax money fraudulently that is something different.

[Hiricine]

Taxation is theft--- it defies the right of self-ownership, you own yourself, and you own the fruits of your labor (and therefore, your wages). Unless you volunteer to give up part of your wages, someone else is breaching your self-ownership. Unless you argue that you do not own yourself you cannot legitimize taxes. Taxation at its best is equivalent to someone from the government entering your home against your will, taking your money, and spending it on your neighbor. The most legitimate form of taxes is user fees like tolls and import taxes.

The other premise I see argued is that taxes pay for things you used, which couldn't be further from the truth. Since you can't have those things without money in the first place, taxes are stolen from you to pay for things that will come LATER. The debt based spending that most states have used int he last 100 years turned this on its head.

[Macaquerie]

Walmart also pays taxes. Who is to say that the traffic light is not funded by them?

In the end, with any tax system, all the collected tax goes into a big pool which is then split up and distributed where needed. It would be logistically impossible to manage that pool of money by strictly ringfencing ever tax dollar according to what each taxpayer should be contributing to. So you can choose how to see how your tax dollars are being spent: Either you are contributing only to the things you need, or other people (including Walmart) are contributing towards things they don't need, but you do. In the end it boils down to same thing.

Tax becomes theft if you are taxed unfairly. If the government uses your tax money fraudulently that is something different.

There are things that you know you will need and use on a daily basis, and then there are things that you probably will never use but come in pretty damn handy if you ever do need them. By and large, the private sector can handle the vast majority of the former category, but won't touch a lot of the things in the second category which is why the government needs to handle them.

Take the military for example, we spend hundreds of billions annually equipping the army for an apocalyptic war that we'll most likely never actually fight. If you ask the average citizen, spending that kind of money on military hardware that never gets used is a waste, and given a choice people would probably not be willing to fund it. But if it ever comes down to it, we'll be glad we have those weapons on our side, and that safety net indirectly benefits everyone even if it's not something that taxpayers will ever appreciate.

[Keosen]

In capitalism yeah it is, the richer you are the less you pay.