> I thought theft is depriving someone of something they own... Semantics really matter indeed. What does "to own" means for you? To have it on your person? To

> I thought theft is depriving someone of something they own... Semantics really matter indeed. What does "to own" means for you? To have it on your person? To have it in your bank account? To hold it with your hands? Turns out it is much more complicated than that and none of these conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient. You should look up the bundle of rights definition of private property to see how complicated it gets. The moment you contractually are entitled to that money, but deprived of your right of exercising your agency over it, you're being deprived of your property too, hence the appropriateness of the term "theft". > if you intended to pay a debt, but later refuse to, then you pay it back with some interest Only if you agreed to this contractually (or whatever ambient legal context defines the terms otherwise). "But I was gonna pay interest on it" is not a defense of delinquency. It is like I can steal your TV and say "I was gonna return it back, with a smaller TV on the side". You can't deprive people of their bundle of property rights (e.g. right of access and use) willy nilly. > Otherwise everyone who declines to make a payment on their credit card bill would also be a thief. Terms of this is very clearly defined on your credit card agreement; you are in delinquency of that missed pay indeed, hence the consequences of penalty payments, credit score impact and so forth.