6 ms·

No it’s not your money: why taxation isn’t theft (2014)

12 points by Torwald 7y ago

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
It's a gray area. Who is to say what the right amount of taxes to pay is? Too little, not enough government support for programs + public services. Too many, businesses can't flourish. When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough? I think a big part of it is that American perception on how efficient the government is at solving problems given funding (tax dollars). Some people think the government spends too much on military, some people think the government doesn't spend enough. With the country so heavily divided (50% left, 50% right), you have wide-scale conflicting opinions on "should I pay more in taxes" or "should I pay less".
- pwinnski 7y ago
  > When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough? The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people. Billionaires are a relatively recent thing, and Rockefeller (the first) faced enormous resistance to both his wealth and the means by which he accumulated it.
  - Torwald 7y ago
    > The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people. I would say 'yes' that's a completely reasonable thing. The one being a billionaire doesn't cause the others to be poor. Wealth (and money) is not a zero-sum game.
    - pwinnski 7y ago
      A number of economists disagree with you about billionaires, but it is by no means a fully resolved question, just a clearly-unexamined assumption.
      - Torwald 7y ago
        How then did for example Bill Gates cause anyone to become poor by becoming a billionaire?
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    Jeff Bezos innovating e-commerce + logistics (which resulted in billions of dollars in wealth for him) does not really have much to do with "certain people do not receive the education/opportunity to overcome poverty" in my opinion
bryanlarsen 7y ago
"Taxation is theft" is about as accurate as one of the left's old slogans "Property is theft". There's a valid basis for some of the arguments made around them, but as absolutes are bunk.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
slowmovintarget 7y ago
2014 (should be in the title) The article seem to present a tautology for why your pre-tax money isn't yours. "It isn't yours because you are legally obligated to pay it." Taxes take a portion of your income. If they don't, and it isn't your income, then what is it? It also seems very confused over what is and what isn't "just." They present income disparity as "unjust" and therefore immoral, but that is subjective. The argument is that you obviously don't deserve the money you get, therefore it should be taxed. That's not a very compelling argument. Granted, like the article, that's just my opinion.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Is it possible you've misread the article? As I read it, the supposition is that one's right to one's pre-tax income is either a legal or moral right. It's not a legal right because of the argument you reference: if it were yours legally, why is paying taxes legally required? However, the articles goes on to argue against the moral right on different grounds. To say that your pre-tax income is morally yours is to argue that your current pre-tax income--as well as that of all others--is just. As they spell out, the idea of a legal right is incoherent, while the idea of a moral right is implausible.
  - slowmovintarget 7y ago
    I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally required to pay taxes. The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money is yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion of it to the state. Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric. This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking", though, and that simply is not true. The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".
IanDrake 7y ago
Regardless of where you stand, that is some garbage reasoning. The free market pays a banker more than a cancer researcher, therefore government must take from the banker and give to the researcher for... Reasons. The problem with that is, while the banker has made jobs possible and allowed people to buy houses...a real and immediate value, the researcher hasn't healed a single person. Then, one day, the researcher finds the cure...and then gets paid more than 1,000,000 bankers put together. We cannot apply an equal value to "trying to do good" and actually doing good. That's not the way the world works. I can't eat your good intentions. Nor can they shelter me from the cold.
- IanDrake 7y ago
  Down voted by people who eat good intentions for dinner I guess.
jaredcwhite 7y ago
I don't know about bankers and scientists. I do know about the contracts I have with my clients as a freelance web developer. They agree to pay me X for Y service. I perform that service, they pay me. That money is morally and legally mine, by virtue of the fact that the client and I have agreed upon that transaction and nobody else had a say in the matter. Now, the fact that I need to remit a portion of that money back out to government entities in the form of taxes, as part of living in and doing business in this country, does not change the situation on the ground—I get money from my clients, then I must remit a portion of it to the state and federal tax entities. I wouldn't argue that means "taxation is theft" per se—but to argue that the money was never really mine to begin with is ludicrous.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
There's an interesting conflict with labor theory of value where the left will complain labor is deprived the full value of their labor but then nullifies that value by claiming (in many cases) full rights to it for redistribution with the aim of absolute equality. Therefore getting the full value of your labor is essentially meaningless in that state anyway, and from the get-go certain professions aren't entitled to their labor value.
Torwald 7y ago
Does anyone know why this is flagged?

12 points by Torwald 7y ago

It's a gray area. Who is to say what the right amount of taxes to pay is? Too little, not enough government support for programs + public services. Too many, businesses can't flourish. When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough? I think a big part of it is that American perception on how efficient the government is at solving problems given funding (tax dollars). Some people think the government spends too much on military, some people think the government doesn't spend enough. With the country so heavily divided (50% left, 50% right), you have wide-scale conflicting opinions on "should I pay more in taxes" or "should I pay less".

pwinnski 7y ago
> When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough? The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people. Billionaires are a relatively recent thing, and Rockefeller (the first) faced enormous resistance to both his wealth and the means by which he accumulated it.
- Torwald 7y ago
  > The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people. I would say 'yes' that's a completely reasonable thing. The one being a billionaire doesn't cause the others to be poor. Wealth (and money) is not a zero-sum game.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    A number of economists disagree with you about billionaires, but it is by no means a fully resolved question, just a clearly-unexamined assumption.
    - Torwald 7y ago
      How then did for example Bill Gates cause anyone to become poor by becoming a billionaire?
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  Jeff Bezos innovating e-commerce + logistics (which resulted in billions of dollars in wealth for him) does not really have much to do with "certain people do not receive the education/opportunity to overcome poverty" in my opinion

bryanlarsen 7y ago

"Taxation is theft" is about as accurate as one of the left's old slogans "Property is theft". There's a valid basis for some of the arguments made around them, but as absolutes are bunk.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

slowmovintarget 7y ago

2014 (should be in the title) The article seem to present a tautology for why your pre-tax money isn't yours. "It isn't yours because you are legally obligated to pay it." Taxes take a portion of your income. If they don't, and it isn't your income, then what is it? It also seems very confused over what is and what isn't "just." They present income disparity as "unjust" and therefore immoral, but that is subjective. The argument is that you obviously don't deserve the money you get, therefore it should be taxed. That's not a very compelling argument. Granted, like the article, that's just my opinion.

pwinnski 7y ago
Is it possible you've misread the article? As I read it, the supposition is that one's right to one's pre-tax income is either a legal or moral right. It's not a legal right because of the argument you reference: if it were yours legally, why is paying taxes legally required? However, the articles goes on to argue against the moral right on different grounds. To say that your pre-tax income is morally yours is to argue that your current pre-tax income--as well as that of all others--is just. As they spell out, the idea of a legal right is incoherent, while the idea of a moral right is implausible.
- slowmovintarget 7y ago
  I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally required to pay taxes. The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money is yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion of it to the state. Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric. This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking", though, and that simply is not true. The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".

IanDrake 7y ago

Regardless of where you stand, that is some garbage reasoning. The free market pays a banker more than a cancer researcher, therefore government must take from the banker and give to the researcher for... Reasons. The problem with that is, while the banker has made jobs possible and allowed people to buy houses...a real and immediate value, the researcher hasn't healed a single person. Then, one day, the researcher finds the cure...and then gets paid more than 1,000,000 bankers put together. We cannot apply an equal value to "trying to do good" and actually doing good. That's not the way the world works. I can't eat your good intentions. Nor can they shelter me from the cold.

IanDrake 7y ago
Down voted by people who eat good intentions for dinner I guess.

jaredcwhite 7y ago

I don't know about bankers and scientists. I do know about the contracts I have with my clients as a freelance web developer. They agree to pay me X for Y service. I perform that service, they pay me. That money is morally and legally mine, by virtue of the fact that the client and I have agreed upon that transaction and nobody else had a say in the matter. Now, the fact that I need to remit a portion of that money back out to government entities in the form of taxes, as part of living in and doing business in this country, does not change the situation on the ground—I get money from my clients, then I must remit a portion of it to the state and federal tax entities. I wouldn't argue that means "taxation is theft" per se—but to argue that the money was never really mine to begin with is ludicrous.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

There's an interesting conflict with labor theory of value where the left will complain labor is deprived the full value of their labor but then nullifies that value by claiming (in many cases) full rights to it for redistribution with the aim of absolute equality. Therefore getting the full value of your labor is essentially meaningless in that state anyway, and from the get-go certain professions aren't entitled to their labor value.

Torwald 7y ago

Does anyone know why this is flagged?