7 ms·

Taxation is not theft. If you must, think of it as how you're paying for access to this society.

by Frondo 10y ago

MichaelBurge 10y ago
It's more than that: * You continue to be taxed even if you're not in the US. Additionally, the US uses its diplomatic advantages to strongarm foreign banks that serve US customers, even if those US customers are never present in the US. * You have to pay a expatriation tax, and a $2,350 fee to renounce citizenship to avoid the above. * Central banking gives the government much more control over the monetary system than is needed to pay for simple services. Look at China to see how bad this can be; the article is about Bitcoin, which is currently mostly used to evade oppressive currency controls in China. I consider our central banking system to be an indirect form of taxation. If these 3 issues were changed, I'd put taxation closer to the 'not theft' than the 'theft' category. Until then, you have to pay the tax even if you don't want access to the US' society.
- matt4077 10y ago
  - You're not paying US taxes in most situations like that because foreign taxes paid get deducted. - You're still profiting from your citizenship by, for example, being rather privileged when it comes to visas, by enjoying the full protection of the US foreign service (an insane machine when in the rare cases where it actually kicks into gear), or simply by having the right to return any time. And regarding your pedestrian pseudo-Randian central-bank conspiracy-babble: Nobody gives a shit what you think. Go play with your bitcoin.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please leave personal attacks out of comment on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
lacampbell 10y ago
Taxation is not theft. Can you explain to me how it's not theft? It's money taken from you whether you consent or not under threat of force. I suppose more technically that's extortion, but there mere fact you get some services in return doesn't change the fact it's not voluntary and done under threat of force.
- solarengineer 10y ago
  I've wondered about this, and the other topic of "Why should a human recognise and heed borders?". My conclusions: a. Humans have evolved into socially needing to exist with each other. b. In general, the various societies across the world have different styles - democracy, dictatorship, kingdoms, capitalism, socialism,etc. c. In general, most of us have the choice of leaving a particular social group and then moving away to another social group. Somewhat easy to do within a country if you are a citizen or are authorised to do so. Somewhat difficult in some cases (e.g., you are not permitted to leave the country). d. If an individual doesn't agree with social norms and "laws", they may most likely still have the option to leave. They will need to relocate to some other place where they are permitted to do (or can get away with doing) what they want to do. If I live in a country, then my predecessors decided together to create a tax system whereby all residents contribute tax, and in exchange receive certain benefits. To prevent free-loading, tax is made mandatory. To ensure some form of proportionate taxation, there are tax slabs. If they are not receiving these benefits, then they need correct the situation. If they feel they are being over-taxed, then they need to present the reasons, and hopefully have sufficient auditing and electoral process in place to correct the over-taxation. If they don't like this and are not effective enough, they (mostly) have the options of reconciling to the situation, or of leaving.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    So because predecessors decided something, the current state has the right to steal from me just because I was born here and haven't moved to another location where there is another state that does the same thing?
    - 10y ago
pitaj 10y ago
If I stole your wallet and gave you a car, it would still be stealing. The social contract is not a contract, it's an invalid excuse. If I made a contract which (1) I could change at any time without your consent, (2) I was in charge of enforcing, (3) I forced on you just because you were in a certain area which I deemed under my control, and (4) never let you opt out, no court in the world would support me. Taxation is theft. The question is whether the moral violation is worth it.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  You're arguing as though the phrase 'social contract' refers to a literal contract, which isn't even slightly true.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    Of course it doesn't refer to a literal contract. But a non-literal contract has no binding, so under what crazy-land definition of justice can the state use it to deem its actions of taxation, conscription, etc as just?
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      It really sounds like you have a mental model of the 'social contract' concept that isn't aligned with what it means for everyone else. To be clear, it says that we (possibly tacitly/implicitly) agree to give up some freedoms to the government in exchange for their governance/defense/etc. It has nothing to do with the enforceable contracts and things you sign. It just frames the relationship between government and constituents in terms of an agreement. So if we give up certain freedoms in this agreement (such as the 'right to not be taxed'), then it's not unjust - we have (tacitly, implicitly) consented to this. It's true that you the individual might not have consented, and might not have the means to leave if you don't like it. But the collective is consenting, and can change the constitution if they change their mind. So taxation is not inherently unjust if the state's constitution says it can tax you by definition. You might think the social contract that we're using is bad, or that the constitution is bad, and that's fine, and you can change it democratically if enough people agree with you. But 'unjust' doesn't really work.

Taxation is not theft. If you must, think of it as how you're paying for access to this society.

by Frondo 10y ago

Taxation is not theft. If you must, think of it as how you're paying for access to this society.

It's more than that: * You continue to be taxed even if you're not in the US. Additionally, the US uses its diplomatic advantages to strongarm foreign banks that serve US customers, even if those US customers are never present in the US. * You have to pay a expatriation tax, and a $2,350 fee to renounce citizenship to avoid the above. * Central banking gives the government much more control over the monetary system than is needed to pay for simple services. Look at China to see how bad this can be; the article is about Bitcoin, which is currently mostly used to evade oppressive currency controls in China. I consider our central banking system to be an indirect form of taxation. If these 3 issues were changed, I'd put taxation closer to the 'not theft' than the 'theft' category. Until then, you have to pay the tax even if you don't want access to the US' society.

matt4077 10y ago
- You're not paying US taxes in most situations like that because foreign taxes paid get deducted. - You're still profiting from your citizenship by, for example, being rather privileged when it comes to visas, by enjoying the full protection of the US foreign service (an insane machine when in the rare cases where it actually kicks into gear), or simply by having the right to return any time. And regarding your pedestrian pseudo-Randian central-bank conspiracy-babble: Nobody gives a shit what you think. Go play with your bitcoin.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please leave personal attacks out of comment on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lacampbell 10y ago

Taxation is not theft. Can you explain to me how it's not theft? It's money taken from you whether you consent or not under threat of force. I suppose more technically that's extortion, but there mere fact you get some services in return doesn't change the fact it's not voluntary and done under threat of force.

solarengineer 10y ago
I've wondered about this, and the other topic of "Why should a human recognise and heed borders?". My conclusions: a. Humans have evolved into socially needing to exist with each other. b. In general, the various societies across the world have different styles - democracy, dictatorship, kingdoms, capitalism, socialism,etc. c. In general, most of us have the choice of leaving a particular social group and then moving away to another social group. Somewhat easy to do within a country if you are a citizen or are authorised to do so. Somewhat difficult in some cases (e.g., you are not permitted to leave the country). d. If an individual doesn't agree with social norms and "laws", they may most likely still have the option to leave. They will need to relocate to some other place where they are permitted to do (or can get away with doing) what they want to do. If I live in a country, then my predecessors decided together to create a tax system whereby all residents contribute tax, and in exchange receive certain benefits. To prevent free-loading, tax is made mandatory. To ensure some form of proportionate taxation, there are tax slabs. If they are not receiving these benefits, then they need correct the situation. If they feel they are being over-taxed, then they need to present the reasons, and hopefully have sufficient auditing and electoral process in place to correct the over-taxation. If they don't like this and are not effective enough, they (mostly) have the options of reconciling to the situation, or of leaving.
- pitaj 10y ago
  So because predecessors decided something, the current state has the right to steal from me just because I was born here and haven't moved to another location where there is another state that does the same thing?
  - 10y ago

pitaj 10y ago

If I stole your wallet and gave you a car, it would still be stealing. The social contract is not a contract, it's an invalid excuse. If I made a contract which (1) I could change at any time without your consent, (2) I was in charge of enforcing, (3) I forced on you just because you were in a certain area which I deemed under my control, and (4) never let you opt out, no court in the world would support me. Taxation is theft. The question is whether the moral violation is worth it.

ajkjk 10y ago
You're arguing as though the phrase 'social contract' refers to a literal contract, which isn't even slightly true.
- pitaj 10y ago
  Of course it doesn't refer to a literal contract. But a non-literal contract has no binding, so under what crazy-land definition of justice can the state use it to deem its actions of taxation, conscription, etc as just?
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    It really sounds like you have a mental model of the 'social contract' concept that isn't aligned with what it means for everyone else. To be clear, it says that we (possibly tacitly/implicitly) agree to give up some freedoms to the government in exchange for their governance/defense/etc. It has nothing to do with the enforceable contracts and things you sign. It just frames the relationship between government and constituents in terms of an agreement. So if we give up certain freedoms in this agreement (such as the 'right to not be taxed'), then it's not unjust - we have (tacitly, implicitly) consented to this. It's true that you the individual might not have consented, and might not have the means to leave if you don't like it. But the collective is consenting, and can change the constitution if they change their mind. So taxation is not inherently unjust if the state's constitution says it can tax you by definition. You might think the social contract that we're using is bad, or that the constitution is bad, and that's fine, and you can change it democratically if enough people agree with you. But 'unjust' doesn't really work.