Taxation as Theft!
Offline What is the moral justification for taxation? Why do people have an intrinsic sense in other relationships(business, consumer and personal) that there needs to correlation between benefits and cost for the relationship to be sustained. Why isn't there a corresponding sense when it comes to government? With modern technology, why can't all payment for government services be converted to either user fees or insurance premium payments?
Our government has been described as an insurance company with an army. The difference is you don't have to pay the premiums and security fees if you can't or you're politically connected. The 'army' is used to force extra payment from the rest. This is essentially the cause of the deficits and fiscal crises. People are going to change their behavior to stop any theft, no matter how they are filled with the 'patriotic duty' propaganda.
The entire concept of taxation is irrational and unsustainable. But yet the fiscal collapse of many major world governments and societies will occur before people realize this.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
This is the great trick of semantics that is played. We're told taxes are to "pay for the common services we all need and use". But then we are force a system of taxation where there is little correlation between cost and benefits. Income tax has little to do with the amount of government service needed to enable someone to earn the money.
My argument is that 'taxation' is irrational and unsustainable because it's basically a system whereby the government collect from whatever source they can without providing a corresponding benefit. Its act the same way a thief and people will change their behavior to keep the thief from stealing or move to another area.
They will pay the fees if they can to stay out of the "ghetto". For those that can't, I believe there should be social safety net to get them out of poverty so they can pay, as long as it's part of a social contract that forces responsible behavior.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Taken in reverse order:
1a. Whose standards of "responsible behavior" do you propose to use?
1b. You are willing to force behavior in adherence to a contract but you don't want to force monetary payments in adherence to a contract? Seems like a contradicting philosophy.
2. You want a social safety net but you don't want to provide a means to pay for it? Or will you ask the people who need the net to pay for it (but they can't which is why they need it)?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Good questions. Society already does this with criminal behavior. We try to judge irresponsible behavior and assign a punishment. Unfortately not much science goes into. Punishment is doled out according to what people feel is fair rather than what science say work. Also, we don't include irresponsible behaviors like overpopulation, raising irresponsible children, environmental damage, etc...
Sure I do. If we have a social contract both behaviors and payments must be enforced. But then the problem is what to do with people that can't pay. Society can essentially loan them resources for a while if they are on a path to fend for themselves. Nothing irrational about that. But entitlements for nothing are irrational and unsustainable.
I do have a means to pay for it. Collect money from the people the government grants privileges such a land, water and other natural resource usage. Tax garbage and pollution generation. But all money coming in should be a user fee, not a fucking tax on productivity. We have income tax for the same reason theives rob banks-that is where the money is.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Dear Brian,
I had a really long and informative post for you and any lurkers out there that I just accidentally erased. You are flat out wrong in your accusations that the rich don't pay taxes. In fact, they pay far more in taxes than the percentage of total income they earn while those in the lower 50% earn far more in income than their total share of tax burden. To educate yourself on the subject read http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html the links to the raw data are also provided.
Yes tax as a percentage of GDP is relatively low right now, however fewer people are paying it. So while TOTAL taxes are low, the burden on a few is quite a bit higher. I would appreciate if you would contribute more than $1 or whatever you paid in taxes this year. I'm quite certain I paid my fair share any way you count it unless you believe that I should be punished for the sole reason that I earn money. There is no way I have consumed more in government services than I have paid in. I doubt most people on this site can say the same and I know that about 80% of Americans cannot. The top 20% of us are paying for you to enjoy whatever government services you do, and the top 5% of us are really paying for most of it (58% of income taxes while only making 35% of the income) So maybe you think it is ok to steal from one person to pay for your own government services, I don't. I think everyone who lives in the country should pay their fair share. About 45% of people pay NOTHING and many of those who pay some pay little.
Also, you need to educate yourself on the Great Depression. Taxes were cut in 1925, followed by a large boom, not "right before" the depression. The recession started the end of 1929 and imo the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (passed 1930) was probably one of the primary causes of the worst years that followed 1931-33 because of the economic destruction it caused in Europe more than any immediate effect it had on the US. I had a long explanation that I deleted, I might get into it later if I feel up to it. Income taxes are not the sole variable in the economy, and given American ingenuity in avoiding taxes when they become confiscatory, they aren't even the most important.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Many rich overpay, many underpay. Same is true for middle class and poor. That is what you get when the tax code is driven by special interests rather than the principle of of pay as you go.
But what has happened with globalization and technology is that big money and investment is going to flow quite rapidly to wherever investors get the best deal. So income taxes, minimum wage laws and labor unions effectively act as thieves. There is no difference between a mafia shaking down a business for a 50% cut and a government doing the same.
Here is a story of how America's most leftist city has to give tax breaks to keep twitter around:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20053205-260.html
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen