7 ms·

I generally agree with Ben Franklin here, that taxes are not theft, rather the opposite, failure to pay taxes due is theft from the rest of society. He hated th

I generally agree with Ben Franklin here, that taxes are not theft, rather the opposite, failure to pay taxes due is theft from the rest of society. He hated the "all taxation is theft" libertarians of his own day: "The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. That being said I think it's a problem that needs to be fixed in the culture and governance of a people, not in Google itself, since attempting to assign any civic duty to a multinational is probably laughable. Singling out Google probably doesn't do too much good, except maybe to make people think of "favorite company X"'s role in society.

seivan 13y ago
Taxes are theft, you can twist it anyway you want. Say that to workers who have to pay 40-50% of their tax & mandatory pension saving only to see it being swiped out by the government on the next recession.
- eksith 13y ago
  No. Taxes are a service fee paid as agreed to in your social contract (which you signed by participating in said society). If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere that is a. Devoid of taxes (good luck) or b. Devoid of society. Society functions by and large by public services which, whether you like it or not, need money; not magic. Every functional society has had tax collection in some form or another as a result. There are communities that don't charge taxes for things, and they're heavily de-regulated as a result. They also heavily favor self-reliance and don't feature luxuries such as Police or Firefighters.
  - EvanAnderson 13y ago
    Yes. This. I had a more "radically libertarian" view before I "settled down" (bought real property, got married, made a child). I've increasingly bought into the idea that paying a fair fee for the services that society offers is a reasonable bargain. Paying the fee isn't the issue for me anymore. Rather, the uncivil political discourse and refusal to make reasonable compromises to deal with disagreements about how that money should be spent (and how government, defense, and social service programs can be sustainable) is what irks me. Living in the US makes me feel like a large part of my taxes are nothing but throwing good money after bad (even though I know it's really not as bad as I think it is).
    - eksith 13y ago
      No argument from here about wastage. If I'm paying the rate appropriate for decent services, give me decent services please. Some of it may be as bad as we think it is (bureaucracies always have some degree of inefficiency), but a lot, thankfully, are managed by more level heads. I encourage people to donate to their local volunteer fire and ambulance services for this very reason. Also, if your local police are having a fundraiser, you should consider helping. You can side-step the inefficiencies of government distribution (and the bickering) if you take an active role in directly funding these essential services. Most of these should also be tax-deductible so you're just basically side-stepping the middle-man (the bureaucracy) and making sure the money is going where it's needed directly. I mean, honestly, considering how many people are clustered together these days, we're just not equipped to deal with the chaos that will come about if there was no social infrastructure. These things run on tax money. There's nothing inherently wrong with being libertarian (after all, the root "liberty" is in there). I'm just very uncomfortable with the casual disregard for all authority, order and in many cases, common sense, that some folks who claim to be libertarian tend to espouse. Last I checked being libertarian required a great deal of common sense, a sense of fairness and above all else, order and self-control.
rayiner 13y ago
Releveant to the issue at hand: in the state of nature, pasty nerds like Zuck and Brin and Page don't rule the world. Their lot in life is to be subservient to the physically strong, or else be the victim of their strength. Its society, acting through a government that makes possible the kind of orderly world in which Google or Facebook are possible. There are practical reasons to tax more or less. But no moral ones. Without ordered civilization real wealth creation, beyond the savage subsistance level Franklin points out, is not possible and by virtue of that fact there are no moral limits on taxation.
- 1123581321 13y ago
  If I am correctly understanding you, the physically strong are paying for a system designed to keep them under. If Zuck and Brin and Page deserve to pay protection, my high school prom king deserves recompense.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The physically strong are giving up the only thing that can be termed as akin to a natural right: their ability to use violence to take what they want. They do this because society as a whole recognizes its better for most everyone to have a different set of rules. But the only basis for that state of affairs is the social contract. But in a sense you're right. Under our system someone who might be a warlord is stuck bagging groceries. Whether he still benefits is a philosophical question. He may be better off in absolute terms in a society with modern medicine, even if he is a grocery bagger in that world. But psychological research shows that humans perceive prosperity in relative terms. Better to be a warlord in a primitive society than a peasant in a modern one.
- rz2k 13y ago
  Though it shouldn't go without saying that "in the state of nature" the planet's carrying population for humans is far below 7 billion. Regardless of whatever fine tuning is needed for long term sustainability, the solutions that have already allowed so many humans, with a good portion of them even having an excellent quality of life, are not possible through the naive exercise of brute force. Of course, that all goes to reinforce the idea that complete independence and self-sufficiency are unrealistic—the planet can handle far more humans living in communities and cities than it can handle humans as hunter gatherers or humans farming for themselves without trade—and that no one today is successful independent of the economic environment where they find themselves, but it doesn't mean that there is something "unnatural" about people other than warlords having the most influence and power.
will_brown 13y ago
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Judge Learned Hand
- prawn 13y ago
  What was the state of globalisation with respect to arranging businesses to minimise tax at the time of that comment? (Genuine question.) Would sentiment among the public or pros have changed with the times?
  - will_brown 13y ago
    The use of differing tax laws between two or more countries to try to mitigate tax liability is probably as old as taxation itself. In Ancient Greece, some of the Greek Islands were used as depositories by the sea traders of the era to place their foreign goods to thus avoid the two-percent tax imposed by the city-state of Athens on imported goods. In 1721, American colonies traded from Latin America to avoid British taxes. In addition, the pilgrims from the Mayflower Pilgrims were not individuals fleeing religious persecution, they were given a "patent" or license by the King of England to settle Virginia, they were actually corporate recruits and given stock in the company in exchange for the risk they took to settle the New World with all assets (crops, livestock, ect...) to be owned by the company. I am not sure if sentiment about taxation has ever changed over time, going to the Bible and Jesus was betrayed by Judas, a tax collector, the disciples vilified Judas before he became a disciple. Then again Jesus himself in relation to taxation may have said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's for ours is the Kingdom of heaven. Sure you have people like Warren Buffet publicly claiming they are willing to pay more, but the reality is nothing is currently stopping him from paying more, he does not need a law mandating him to pay more, he could take it upon himself to pay a flat tax of 35% across the board, but he does not, he still pays less than his secretary. Otherwise as of late the US has helped lower corporate taxation through the advent of the "election to be taxed as a small corporation" (S-election) and the more recent advent of the LLC, both of which which offer a single taxation structure down from the double taxation of your standard corporation.
sologoub 13y ago
Funny you quote Ben Franklin, because in his day, the taxation looked very very differently than it does now: "The tax mechanisms used during first 150 years or so of U.S. tax history bears little resemblance to the current system of taxation. First, the U.S. Constitution restricted “direct” taxation by the federal government – meaning taxes directly on individuals. Instead, the federal government relied on indirect taxes including taxes on imports (tariffs) and excise taxes. Tariffs were the major source of U.S. government receipts from the beginning of the nation up to the early 1900s. For example, in 1800, custom duties comprised about 84% of government receipts." (Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_Un...) Government activity was also a tiny part of the economy: "Another important difference is the scale of government taxation and expenditures relative to the entire economy. Government spending is currently a major portion of the total U.S. economy – in 2002 government expenditures and investment at all levels comprised about 20% of total economic output. In the late 1800s government expenditures were responsible for only about 2% of national output (earlier data on national output are not available). " (Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_Un...) Another source of similar info: "But lets start with what was levied initially: 1. Excise taxes: First levied July 4, 1789, they accounted for 80-95% of all federal government revenue. Tariffs were the main source of government revenue through the 1800s. 2. Property tax: One of the earliest taxes imposed. In 1634, property taxes were assessed by the colonies. In 1796, 14 of the 15 states collected property tax. Delaware levied tax on income from property, but not on the property itself." (Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/08/25/snapshopt-taxes-paid-then-vs-now/#ixzz2ThJLsPFM http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/08/25/snaps...) By looking at these taxes, seems like it would be a no-brainer to pay them. As a property owner, I will gladly pay to ensure I have security, safety and infrastructure around my property. Safe, clean areas with good schools tend to promote better property value growth. As a consumer, if I want something that is imported or otherwise taxed, I will probably still buy it. I may consume less of it due to the price. There has to be an exemption for essentials, but overall, if a Honda or BMW happens to cost 30% more because it's imported, whether I buy it or not will depend on whether it's 30% better than the alternative (if there is one). What we have today is hardly what Ben Franklin was talking about. Today, those who consider themselves upper-middle to upper class are paying 10-22% (top 1% is around 28%). (Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/15/the-real-middle-class-tax-rate-is-minus-5-percent/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/15/the-real-...) For that, they don't get any type of real retirement guarantee, nor any health care guarantee, or even truly free education. Even the public schools cost money because the free services are bare minimum and do not include anything to do with sports or education outside of classrooms. In order to have any of those social safety nets kick in, those upper-middle class members have to hit financial ruin. Also, funny math in the referenced Forbes article - 3 of the lowest quintile supposedly get money back that they did not earn... I haven't verified the math, but it's a bit disturbing that the tax system is being used as a means to directly redistribute wealth, and not actually provide services to all of society. Somehow in my mind, taking money from person A and directly giving it to person B strikes me as wrong. Taking money from person A and providing health care accessible to person A, B and C, does not result in the same emotional response for me, because person A actually gets to enjoy some of the benefit of this social good.

seivan 13y ago

Taxes are theft, you can twist it anyway you want. Say that to workers who have to pay 40-50% of their tax & mandatory pension saving only to see it being swiped out by the government on the next recession.

eksith 13y ago
No. Taxes are a service fee paid as agreed to in your social contract (which you signed by participating in said society). If you disagree with this contract, you're free to move elsewhere that is a. Devoid of taxes (good luck) or b. Devoid of society. Society functions by and large by public services which, whether you like it or not, need money; not magic. Every functional society has had tax collection in some form or another as a result. There are communities that don't charge taxes for things, and they're heavily de-regulated as a result. They also heavily favor self-reliance and don't feature luxuries such as Police or Firefighters.
- EvanAnderson 13y ago
  Yes. This. I had a more "radically libertarian" view before I "settled down" (bought real property, got married, made a child). I've increasingly bought into the idea that paying a fair fee for the services that society offers is a reasonable bargain. Paying the fee isn't the issue for me anymore. Rather, the uncivil political discourse and refusal to make reasonable compromises to deal with disagreements about how that money should be spent (and how government, defense, and social service programs can be sustainable) is what irks me. Living in the US makes me feel like a large part of my taxes are nothing but throwing good money after bad (even though I know it's really not as bad as I think it is).
  - eksith 13y ago
    No argument from here about wastage. If I'm paying the rate appropriate for decent services, give me decent services please. Some of it may be as bad as we think it is (bureaucracies always have some degree of inefficiency), but a lot, thankfully, are managed by more level heads. I encourage people to donate to their local volunteer fire and ambulance services for this very reason. Also, if your local police are having a fundraiser, you should consider helping. You can side-step the inefficiencies of government distribution (and the bickering) if you take an active role in directly funding these essential services. Most of these should also be tax-deductible so you're just basically side-stepping the middle-man (the bureaucracy) and making sure the money is going where it's needed directly. I mean, honestly, considering how many people are clustered together these days, we're just not equipped to deal with the chaos that will come about if there was no social infrastructure. These things run on tax money. There's nothing inherently wrong with being libertarian (after all, the root "liberty" is in there). I'm just very uncomfortable with the casual disregard for all authority, order and in many cases, common sense, that some folks who claim to be libertarian tend to espouse. Last I checked being libertarian required a great deal of common sense, a sense of fairness and above all else, order and self-control.

rayiner 13y ago

Releveant to the issue at hand: in the state of nature, pasty nerds like Zuck and Brin and Page don't rule the world. Their lot in life is to be subservient to the physically strong, or else be the victim of their strength. Its society, acting through a government that makes possible the kind of orderly world in which Google or Facebook are possible. There are practical reasons to tax more or less. But no moral ones. Without ordered civilization real wealth creation, beyond the savage subsistance level Franklin points out, is not possible and by virtue of that fact there are no moral limits on taxation.

1123581321 13y ago
If I am correctly understanding you, the physically strong are paying for a system designed to keep them under. If Zuck and Brin and Page deserve to pay protection, my high school prom king deserves recompense.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The physically strong are giving up the only thing that can be termed as akin to a natural right: their ability to use violence to take what they want. They do this because society as a whole recognizes its better for most everyone to have a different set of rules. But the only basis for that state of affairs is the social contract. But in a sense you're right. Under our system someone who might be a warlord is stuck bagging groceries. Whether he still benefits is a philosophical question. He may be better off in absolute terms in a society with modern medicine, even if he is a grocery bagger in that world. But psychological research shows that humans perceive prosperity in relative terms. Better to be a warlord in a primitive society than a peasant in a modern one.
rz2k 13y ago
Though it shouldn't go without saying that "in the state of nature" the planet's carrying population for humans is far below 7 billion. Regardless of whatever fine tuning is needed for long term sustainability, the solutions that have already allowed so many humans, with a good portion of them even having an excellent quality of life, are not possible through the naive exercise of brute force. Of course, that all goes to reinforce the idea that complete independence and self-sufficiency are unrealistic—the planet can handle far more humans living in communities and cities than it can handle humans as hunter gatherers or humans farming for themselves without trade—and that no one today is successful independent of the economic environment where they find themselves, but it doesn't mean that there is something "unnatural" about people other than warlords having the most influence and power.

will_brown 13y ago

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Judge Learned Hand

prawn 13y ago
What was the state of globalisation with respect to arranging businesses to minimise tax at the time of that comment? (Genuine question.) Would sentiment among the public or pros have changed with the times?
- will_brown 13y ago
  The use of differing tax laws between two or more countries to try to mitigate tax liability is probably as old as taxation itself. In Ancient Greece, some of the Greek Islands were used as depositories by the sea traders of the era to place their foreign goods to thus avoid the two-percent tax imposed by the city-state of Athens on imported goods. In 1721, American colonies traded from Latin America to avoid British taxes. In addition, the pilgrims from the Mayflower Pilgrims were not individuals fleeing religious persecution, they were given a "patent" or license by the King of England to settle Virginia, they were actually corporate recruits and given stock in the company in exchange for the risk they took to settle the New World with all assets (crops, livestock, ect...) to be owned by the company. I am not sure if sentiment about taxation has ever changed over time, going to the Bible and Jesus was betrayed by Judas, a tax collector, the disciples vilified Judas before he became a disciple. Then again Jesus himself in relation to taxation may have said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's for ours is the Kingdom of heaven. Sure you have people like Warren Buffet publicly claiming they are willing to pay more, but the reality is nothing is currently stopping him from paying more, he does not need a law mandating him to pay more, he could take it upon himself to pay a flat tax of 35% across the board, but he does not, he still pays less than his secretary. Otherwise as of late the US has helped lower corporate taxation through the advent of the "election to be taxed as a small corporation" (S-election) and the more recent advent of the LLC, both of which which offer a single taxation structure down from the double taxation of your standard corporation.

sologoub 13y ago

Funny you quote Ben Franklin, because in his day, the taxation looked very very differently than it does now: "The tax mechanisms used during first 150 years or so of U.S. tax history bears little resemblance to the current system of taxation. First, the U.S. Constitution restricted “direct” taxation by the federal government – meaning taxes directly on individuals. Instead, the federal government relied on indirect taxes including taxes on imports (tariffs) and excise taxes. Tariffs were the major source of U.S. government receipts from the beginning of the nation up to the early 1900s. For example, in 1800, custom duties comprised about 84% of government receipts." (Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_Un...) Government activity was also a tiny part of the economy: "Another important difference is the scale of government taxation and expenditures relative to the entire economy. Government spending is currently a major portion of the total U.S. economy – in 2002 government expenditures and investment at all levels comprised about 20% of total economic output. In the late 1800s government expenditures were responsible for only about 2% of national output (earlier data on national output are not available). " (Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States http://www.eoearth.org/article/History_of_taxation_in_the_Un...) Another source of similar info: "But lets start with what was levied initially: 1. Excise taxes: First levied July 4, 1789, they accounted for 80-95% of all federal government revenue. Tariffs were the main source of government revenue through the 1800s. 2. Property tax: One of the earliest taxes imposed. In 1634, property taxes were assessed by the colonies. In 1796, 14 of the 15 states collected property tax. Delaware levied tax on income from property, but not on the property itself." (Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/08/25/snapshopt-taxes-paid-then-vs-now/#ixzz2ThJLsPFM http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/08/25/snaps...) By looking at these taxes, seems like it would be a no-brainer to pay them. As a property owner, I will gladly pay to ensure I have security, safety and infrastructure around my property. Safe, clean areas with good schools tend to promote better property value growth. As a consumer, if I want something that is imported or otherwise taxed, I will probably still buy it. I may consume less of it due to the price. There has to be an exemption for essentials, but overall, if a Honda or BMW happens to cost 30% more because it's imported, whether I buy it or not will depend on whether it's 30% better than the alternative (if there is one). What we have today is hardly what Ben Franklin was talking about. Today, those who consider themselves upper-middle to upper class are paying 10-22% (top 1% is around 28%). (Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/15/the-real-middle-class-tax-rate-is-minus-5-percent/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/15/the-real-...) For that, they don't get any type of real retirement guarantee, nor any health care guarantee, or even truly free education. Even the public schools cost money because the free services are bare minimum and do not include anything to do with sports or education outside of classrooms. In order to have any of those social safety nets kick in, those upper-middle class members have to hit financial ruin. Also, funny math in the referenced Forbes article - 3 of the lowest quintile supposedly get money back that they did not earn... I haven't verified the math, but it's a bit disturbing that the tax system is being used as a means to directly redistribute wealth, and not actually provide services to all of society. Somehow in my mind, taking money from person A and directly giving it to person B strikes me as wrong. Taking money from person A and providing health care accessible to person A, B and C, does not result in the same emotional response for me, because person A actually gets to enjoy some of the benefit of this social good.