5 ms·

If the money always belonged to the state, and the state simply allows its constituents to keep some of the money they earn, your logic stands. But if the mone

If the money always belonged to the state, and the state simply allows its constituents to keep some of the money they earn, your logic stands. But if the money ever belonged to the individual, then the public cannot "subsidize" the individual keeping what he/she earned. Put another way: if I walk up to someone on the street and forcibly take their money - and if that wasn't mine to begin with - most people would call that 'stealing' (or at least 'coercion' of some sort). If I chose to not forcibly take their money, and they then give that money to the homeless person on the corner, I'm not "subsidizing" the person whose money I didn't forcibly take. It was theirs to begin with - not mine.

learc83 11y ago
The taxation as theft argument implies that you believe that society (through the state) isn't entitled to a share of your money as payment for providing the system that allows you to become rich in the first place. Without the infrastructure provided by society as a whole, no large business would be possible.
- shaftoe 11y ago
  And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism.
  - Retra 11y ago
    The worst argument in the world: http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html "Feudalism is bad, so anything that can be vaguely compared to it must also be bad."
    - sageikosa 11y ago
      Well, depending on whether you consider the fief or the fealty pledge as the defining characteristic of feudalism, it's not a bad analogy. I get more annoyed when people conflate manorialism with feudalism. One is how the people survive, the other is how the lords of the manor (or city) are beholden to a higher power.
  - dibujante 11y ago
    Feudalism, noun: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture. The state has a right to a fixed share of its subjects' income due to the contractually agreed-upon system of taxation. This is what that whole "no taxation without representation" slogan was about. Your connection of representative government to feudalism is puzzling. Are you a libertarian?
    - sageikosa 11y ago
      I don't think representative government was the issue, I think it was the nature of the state's power and influence. It is possible to have a majority opinion that is wrong, and a majority decided policy that is unjust. Surely arguing against the majority that has a policy of punishing dissent is a bad thing if you want to survive, but fortunately the majority still sort of values civil discourse, so we can talk like people solving problems instead of being partisans.
  - learc83 11y ago
    >And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. Yes, because organizations are just collections of individuals. So of course an organization can't do anything without the action of individuals. Is anyone arguing otherwise? > Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism. There are many examples where groups of individuals have rights that are greater than the rights of individuals without bringing up feudalism. No individual has the right to imprison another (for long periods at least). No individual has the right to use violence to enforce a contract. Do you imagine a society where individuals have those rights, or one where the state does not? >which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land) No the state isn't society. In a democratically controlled system, the state is the proxy designated to act on behalf of society (the extent to which states actually fulfill this duty is highly variable).
- bmelton 11y ago
  > you believe that society isn't entitled to a share of your money No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid. If the argument is that he isn't paying taxes on the money he never had, that seems a little odd to me, but even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good. In either scenario, I don't see any way in which Zuckerberg's charitable donations has avoided his obligation to the society which has chosen to prefer charitable giving to taxation.
  - learc83 11y ago
    >No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. So income tax is the only just form of taxation? What about consumption tax? Property tax? > Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid. Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income? >even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good. That's true and I'm OK with that. I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      > So income tax is the only just form of taxation? What about consumption tax? Property tax? I didn't specify income tax, but 'earned'. This would include a variety of taxes, including capital gains, income, etc. To be fair to the situation, this type of donation would likely trigger capital gains, but if the foundation set up is a 501c3, then they would be (possibly?) exempt -- as it seems to be an LLC, there doesn't seem to be a tax dodge here at all. FWIW, I wasn't disputing whether any taxes were just or not; rather, disputing the notion that society is being robbed as a result of non-taxed earnings being withheld. As society has determined that is kosher, then there is no theft. Personally, I consider income tax to be one of the least just forms of taxes, but that did not bear on my argument at all. > Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income? To be honest, it's still a bit ambiguous. If he's holding shares for now, he's paying capital gains on the shares that he holds -- to my knowledge, there's no way to earmark that money for charitable tax exemption without actually donating it, and in the short term, Zuck has stated that he won't be giving it all away immediately. Either way, if we accept the premises that society has chosen tax exemption for charitable contributions is something that society wants, and that he's paying taxes on his current earnings until he gives those shares/moneys away, he isn't robbing anyone of anything. > I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions. I won't go as far as to say that taxation is theft, but as I alluded to earlier, I lean that way on income tax. Regardless, I don't think that's really the point of the argument here. Regardless of whether or not tax is theft, Zuck is still paying his taxes. Any portion of income or potential income he gives away to charity is not theft from society because society has stated it hasn't via tax code. In the counter-hypothetical that guntar made though, wherein Zuckerberg pays the full taxes owed on his earnings and incomes, and yet is still not entitled to do what he wants with his post-tax money, hence the state must be entitled to it? That would definitely be theft, in my opinion.
adaml_623 11y ago
If we talking about US dollars then yes the money comes from the state. The clue is in the name. Is there a quick shorthand way of referring to the notion that tax is theft?
- jclulow 11y ago
  "Babysitting."
- clock_tower 11y ago
  Money is a measure of wealth -- not wealth per se.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> But if the money ever belonged to the individual Nothing belongs to (as distinct from being immediately, physically controlled by) anyone except in the sense that social convention grants them some, usually limited, exclusive control over it. The typical avenue through which that social convention for both the right to control and its limitations is expressed in the modern world is the institution of the State via law (most obviously, property law, but the whole body of law, including tax and other civil and criminal law, addresses either the rights to control or its limitations.)
- ancap 11y ago
  I have seen this argument expressed several times on HN and I find it quite puzzling. To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and society taketh away" Implied in the argument is that the state is synonymous with society. Even in a democratic society you have the issue that a) a limited percentage of the population actually vote and b) of those who vote a minority did not get what they wanted. Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. If you believe those rights exist only because society willed them be for whatever reason, then arguing that no one really owns anything is quite the circular argument.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. We have a system of personal property rights in which personal property is subject to taxation, both ad valorem taxation of wealth (usually, in practice, certain classes of assets are targeted for this, but there is no systemic prohibition in our system of it being applied anywhere) and taxes on particular uses or exchanges of property. So using the existence of those property rights to argue against taxation to support public priorities is quite the self-contradictory argument.
    - ancap 11y ago

learc83 11y ago

The taxation as theft argument implies that you believe that society (through the state) isn't entitled to a share of your money as payment for providing the system that allows you to become rich in the first place. Without the infrastructure provided by society as a whole, no large business would be possible.

shaftoe 11y ago
And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. I believe that the state (which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land), has no right to a share of anything that is not voluntarily granted or contractually agreed upon. Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism.
- Retra 11y ago
  The worst argument in the world: http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html "Feudalism is bad, so anything that can be vaguely compared to it must also be bad."
  - sageikosa 11y ago
    Well, depending on whether you consider the fief or the fealty pledge as the defining characteristic of feudalism, it's not a bad analogy. I get more annoyed when people conflate manorialism with feudalism. One is how the people survive, the other is how the lords of the manor (or city) are beholden to a higher power.
- dibujante 11y ago
  Feudalism, noun: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture. The state has a right to a fixed share of its subjects' income due to the contractually agreed-upon system of taxation. This is what that whole "no taxation without representation" slogan was about. Your connection of representative government to feudalism is puzzling. Are you a libertarian?
  - sageikosa 11y ago
    I don't think representative government was the issue, I think it was the nature of the state's power and influence. It is possible to have a majority opinion that is wrong, and a majority decided policy that is unjust. Surely arguing against the majority that has a policy of punishing dissent is a bad thing if you want to survive, but fortunately the majority still sort of values civil discourse, so we can talk like people solving problems instead of being partisans.
- learc83 11y ago
  >And without the production of the individuals and businesses that exist in a society, the state would have no ability to skim off the top and spend that money. Yes, because organizations are just collections of individuals. So of course an organization can't do anything without the action of individuals. Is anyone arguing otherwise? > Believing in a higher entity with more rights than any individual is verging on something akin to feudalism. There are many examples where groups of individuals have rights that are greater than the rights of individuals without bringing up feudalism. No individual has the right to imprison another (for long periods at least). No individual has the right to use violence to enforce a contract. Do you imagine a society where individuals have those rights, or one where the state does not? >which isn't "society", it is the governing body of a region of land) No the state isn't society. In a democratically controlled system, the state is the proxy designated to act on behalf of society (the extent to which states actually fulfill this duty is highly variable).
bmelton 11y ago
> you believe that society isn't entitled to a share of your money No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid. If the argument is that he isn't paying taxes on the money he never had, that seems a little odd to me, but even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good. In either scenario, I don't see any way in which Zuckerberg's charitable donations has avoided his obligation to the society which has chosen to prefer charitable giving to taxation.
- learc83 11y ago
  >No. When money is earned, that money is taxed. Society has gotten its share. So income tax is the only just form of taxation? What about consumption tax? Property tax? > Zuckerberg is talking about donating assets that represent money in lieu of keeping it himself, which are above and beyond whatever income taxes he's already paid. Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income? >even if we accept that he should owe those taxes to society, then we have to reconcile that notion with the idea that society has chosen those charities to be considered tax exempt, and has effectively rubber stamped charitable donations as a societal good. That's true and I'm OK with that. I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > So income tax is the only just form of taxation? What about consumption tax? Property tax? I didn't specify income tax, but 'earned'. This would include a variety of taxes, including capital gains, income, etc. To be fair to the situation, this type of donation would likely trigger capital gains, but if the foundation set up is a 501c3, then they would be (possibly?) exempt -- as it seems to be an LLC, there doesn't seem to be a tax dodge here at all. FWIW, I wasn't disputing whether any taxes were just or not; rather, disputing the notion that society is being robbed as a result of non-taxed earnings being withheld. As society has determined that is kosher, then there is no theft. Personally, I consider income tax to be one of the least just forms of taxes, but that did not bear on my argument at all. > Are you saying he's donating after tax income? Or are you saying that it's like he never had income in the first place because he donated it before it became income? To be honest, it's still a bit ambiguous. If he's holding shares for now, he's paying capital gains on the shares that he holds -- to my knowledge, there's no way to earmark that money for charitable tax exemption without actually donating it, and in the short term, Zuck has stated that he won't be giving it all away immediately. Either way, if we accept the premises that society has chosen tax exemption for charitable contributions is something that society wants, and that he's paying taxes on his current earnings until he gives those shares/moneys away, he isn't robbing anyone of anything. > I was arguing against the OP's example of taxation as theft, not against the possibility of charitable giving tax deductions. I won't go as far as to say that taxation is theft, but as I alluded to earlier, I lean that way on income tax. Regardless, I don't think that's really the point of the argument here. Regardless of whether or not tax is theft, Zuck is still paying his taxes. Any portion of income or potential income he gives away to charity is not theft from society because society has stated it hasn't via tax code. In the counter-hypothetical that guntar made though, wherein Zuckerberg pays the full taxes owed on his earnings and incomes, and yet is still not entitled to do what he wants with his post-tax money, hence the state must be entitled to it? That would definitely be theft, in my opinion.

adaml_623 11y ago

If we talking about US dollars then yes the money comes from the state. The clue is in the name. Is there a quick shorthand way of referring to the notion that tax is theft?

jclulow 11y ago
"Babysitting."
clock_tower 11y ago
Money is a measure of wealth -- not wealth per se.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> But if the money ever belonged to the individual Nothing belongs to (as distinct from being immediately, physically controlled by) anyone except in the sense that social convention grants them some, usually limited, exclusive control over it. The typical avenue through which that social convention for both the right to control and its limitations is expressed in the modern world is the institution of the State via law (most obviously, property law, but the whole body of law, including tax and other civil and criminal law, addresses either the rights to control or its limitations.)

ancap 11y ago
I have seen this argument expressed several times on HN and I find it quite puzzling. To paraphrase the argument goes something like: "Society giveth and society taketh away" Implied in the argument is that the state is synonymous with society. Even in a democratic society you have the issue that a) a limited percentage of the population actually vote and b) of those who vote a minority did not get what they wanted. Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. If you believe those rights exist only because society willed them be for whatever reason, then arguing that no one really owns anything is quite the circular argument.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Regardless of what extent the government does reflect the will of society, you still have the issue that we currently do have a system of personal property rights. We have a system of personal property rights in which personal property is subject to taxation, both ad valorem taxation of wealth (usually, in practice, certain classes of assets are targeted for this, but there is no systemic prohibition in our system of it being applied anywhere) and taxes on particular uses or exchanges of property. So using the existence of those property rights to argue against taxation to support public priorities is quite the self-contradictory argument.
  - ancap 11y ago