Taxation is Theft

If I steal your money and use it to cure cancer, I'm still a thief. Get it?

Humma Kavula said:

No. The subject of this thread is whether or not taxation is theft (not what stolen said funds pay for)

Click to expand...

I've already given you the legal and dictionary definition of theft. Theft is a crime, therefore has to be illegal. You can't have a legal crime, can you!

You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.

I think a distinction needs to be made, or at least it does for me.

Taxation for service rendered - moral (example: police, roads,military, etc.)

Taxation for wealth redistribution - immoral

The idea that if a group of people decide to break into Lebron James's home to steal from him is wrong, but perfectly acceptable for those same people to have the government do it for them is rather ridiculous to me.

Ultimately it is all about political power and demagogues who prey on our worst emotions to stay in power. When you rob Peter to give to Paul, you will always have Paul's vote.

Wow.

Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.

Conclusion: Since tax is not illegal, it cannot be theft.



Is this correct?

Nap said:

I think a distinction needs to be made, or at least it does for me.

Taxation for service rendered - moral (example: police, roads,military, etc.)

Taxation for wealth redistribution - immoral

The idea that if a group of people decide to break into Lebron James's home to steal from him is wrong, but perfectly acceptable for those same people to have the government do it for them is rather ridiculous to me.

Ultimately it is all about political power and demagogues who prey on our worst emotions to stay in power. When you rob Peter to give to Paul, you will always have Paul's vote.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered the fact that wealth distribution benefits everyone? It gives everyone a stake in society, it reduces poverty and therefore reduces crime, it creates a happier country.

It took a Russian revolution and two world wars to make Western governments realise the benefits of wealth distribution and welfare systems.

Humma Kavula said:

Wow.

Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.

Conclusion: Since tax is not illegal, it cannot be theft.



Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Let's play along with your incorrect hypothesis that tax is theft. Ok, so tax is theft, what do you want to do about it?

... uh oh - take notice peanut gallery, here it comes!

Aristaeus said:

Let's play along with your incorrect hypothesis that tax is theft. Ok, so tax is theft, what do you want to do about it?

Click to expand...

No sir. I am not here to play along with anything - I am here to debate my position that taxation is theft. If you agree, we can start a new thread. But not until you agree.

Humma Kavula said:

No sir. I am not here to play along with anything - I am here to debate my position that taxation is theft. If you agree, we can start a new thread. But not until you agree.

Click to expand...

Your position has already been disproved. You can argue tax is immoral, but you can't argue it is theft.

Theft is a criminal offence, show me the law which prohibits taxation.

Humma Kavula said:

No sir. I am not here to play along with anything - I am here to debate my position that taxation is theft. If you agree, we can start a new thread. But not until you agree.

Click to expand...

If you think taxation is theft, what do you think should be done about it? DO you think government should be allowed to tax or do you think government shouldn't exist?

Aristaeus said:

Have you ever considered the fact that wealth distribution benefits everyone? It gives everyone a stake in society, it reduces poverty and therefore reduces crime, it creates a happier country.

It took a Russian revolution and two world wars to make Western governments realise the benefits of wealth distribution and welfare systems.

Click to expand...

I see it creating a vicious cycle of dependence and a struggling middle class living check to check due to half the money they earn going to support it. I don't believe that lends itself to a happier country.

You say it reduces poverty and crime but the opposite is likely true. These programs create disincentives for people to find gainful employment and get married for fear of losing the benefits thus creating a cycle of dependence. Throw in the animosity created towards those on welfare due to the vast amounts of fraud and you create division among the populace between those who pay for the services and those who recieve them.

Humma Kavula said:

I'm not redefining the word theft. I am simply pointing out that taxation is stealing (theft). If your argument is that the government can make theft legal for itself, this does not change the fact that it's still theft - the best you can argue is that taxation is legal theft (when the government does it).

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for what your definition of theft is. Without a definition, theft really has no meaning. When I look up the definition of stealing (which you mentioned), I get this:

> take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Well, there is a legal right for the government to tax you, so it's not stealing. So again, how are you defining words like theft and stealing? This idea is a bit loony when people get down to it without this word-thinking nonsense.

FreeWits said:

False. Even most of the extreme anti-tax people admit that the government needs a military. A military costs money. So unless you're talking about the most extreme of the extreme, people agree that the government has the right to tax to fund at least a military. You really don't have to go further than that to realize tax is not theft.

Click to expand...

The military of which you speak is the most expensive on this planet. It consumes (by some accounts) just less than 50% of the Discretionary Budget.

The US has better and more effective uses of the money, which other countries discovered ages ago.

Like a National Healthcare System that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg. (Pun intended.) Or free Tertiary Education that allows people to have the post-secondary learned skills that America seeks, as we progress out of the Industrial Age and into the Information Age.

Taxation has far better uses if we just think about what the country strategically needs most. And an expensive DoD is NOT justifiable given other more individual alternatives that are necessary economically to maintain a decent lifestyle for our people.

Wakey, wakey ...

I recognize the need for Public Services provided by the Government. I resent money for Military Offense and Wars of Choice. We have to be stupid to tolerate these wars, ergo our Education system must be a failure. That makes me resent Federal level Education tax monies. The War of Terror is bogus and another tax money rathole. The Drug War is bogus and another tax money rathole. The TSA is useless, as is the DHS, more ratholes. Perhaps we need more line items for choices in our voting booths?
/

Lafayette said:

The military of which you speak is the most expensive on this planet. It consumes (by some accounts) just less than 50% of the Discretionary Budget.

The US has better and more effective uses of the money, which other countries discovered ages ago.

Like a National Healthcare System that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg. (Pun intended.) Or free Tertiary Education that allows people to have the post-secondary learned skills that America seeks, as we progress out of the Industrial Age and into the Information Age.

Taxation has far better uses if we just think about what the country strategically needs most. And an expensive DoD is NOT justifiable given other more individual alternatives that are necessary economically to maintain a decent lifestyle for our people.

Wakey, wakey ...

Click to expand...

I fail to see what anything you said has anything to do with the OP or even my post. I'm honestly confused, especially given your overconfident tone.

Northern Light said:

It's not theft if the money is collected by a publicly controlled central bank answerable to the People. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those. We have the privately owned Federal Reserve.

Click to expand...

yes we need to get someone to make laws to make that damn thing a public owned entity and transparent.

we also need to have some form of punishment for those who instigate a crisis our taxes have to pay for, like the banks a while back. that was/is a form of theft.


but standard taxation is not necessarily theft as we need the government to be able to operate. anarchy will not do.

Humma Kavula said:

Taxation is theft. True or false?

On your mark.
Get set.
Go!

Click to expand...

False.

Humma Kavula said:

Taxation is theft. True or false?

Click to expand...

False. Reading through the thread, I think you're making the error of conflating legally wrong with morally wrong. As others have said, it is a simple fact that taxation is legal by definition but that doesn't automatically mean it's morally right. You could make a legitimate argument that taxation is wrong (though you've made no attempt to do so) but not that taxation is illegal.

Humma Kavula said:

Okay.






The government cannot function without taxation. Ergo, the state is immoral.

Click to expand...

Ergo, taxation is necessary for an organized and civilized society to function.

This is what you said in your post:

Even most of the extreme anti-tax people admit that the government needs a military. A military costs money.

Click to expand...

I responded that the US has far greater needs than just the military* (and I cite decent national-healthcare and postsecondary education for all, both free) in order to obtain a "decent standard of living".

Of course, in the US - money-crazed as it is - measures standard of living by means of income.

I submit that such is not the only criterias. Central to a decent standard-of-living is the means to procure one - and statistics show that 14% of the American population (men, women and children) subsist below the Poverty Threshold, whilst another 20% earn less than the Median Wage.

*Depending upon how one accounts for expenditures, the worst possible case is depicted here:


All the rest goes to a very select 50%, 40% of which are our higher earners (mostly because of post-secondary degrees) and a special class of 10Percenters who are the ultra-rich and simply accumulate riches because their financial wealth cannot do otherwise.

Pray tell me how I am wrong ...

*Just one of the ways of looking at the US's Discretionary Spending budget - scroll down to the pie-chart here.

TAXATION IS SHARING

And sharing is a matter of political governance.

Unless you want to do a Robinson Crusoe and go live on a deserted island, we are all dependent upon a "group". We humans concoct many such "groups". Village/town/city/state/nation. Legislatures. Churchs. Unions. Sports clubs. Affiliations of all sorts. Etc., etc., etc.

Such affiliations are an integral part of our nature as human beings.

We form groups since the dawn of time. In order to survive in a vicious struggle with other animals, we grouped together not only for protection but to increase the species by means of self-protection. In those original groups, everyone helped one another, and there was typically One Chief. Usually the most able hunter, often the most smart. Whichever, it did not matter. What mattered was the safety of the "tribe".

What mattered was to protect and further The Group (aka the "tribe").

Over the centuries these "groups" came under common leadership in the form of royalty - a group of nobles who possessed the land upon which most of the people worked. Royalty derives from the word "regal", meaning august, glorious, imposing, kingly, magnificent, etc., etc. Which worked for a great long time, a few thousand years until we, as a people, decided that birth should not decide our leaders but democracy should.

Democracy, the origins of the word: late 16th century: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.

Thus, "power-to-the-people" or "power-of-the-people". Aka, We, the People.

Democracy, after a few hundred years, we have learned, is a malleable thing. If power resides in the people, then the key element of any democracy are the rules of voting - and its outcome. Meaning the "popular-vote" - or the "vote of the people".

Nothing has changed in the definition. What has changed - in fact, in the US it has always existed - is the manner in which the power of the people is represented in a legislative body the purpose of which is to make laws upon which rests the power of the judiciary.

From the very beginning, America's leaders were a select few of educated individuals; and their notions of "democracy" did not include the rabble that was making its way from Europe into the ex-colonies. It was central that land-owners maintained principle-powers in order to protect their "vested interests".

And, despite the efforts of Andrew Jackson, NOTHING HAS CHANGED - the Electoral College never has been and is not today a representation of the popular-vote for the presidency.

America's democracy is therefore incomplete* - The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists ...

*AKA "work-in-progress"? Let's hope so, because Donald Dork is the fifth PotUS to have been elected by the EC but not the popular-vote of the American people. Enough is enough.

Wow. You guys are a real piece of work. Here's what we've got so far:


Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.
Premise: Without taxation, it’ll be anarchy!
Premise: Wealth distribution benefits everyone.
Premise: Theft is a criminal offense and there is no law preventing taxation.
Premise: The government has a legal right to steal (beautiful, thanks for that one FreeWits).
Premise: Taxation is necessary for an organized and civilized society to function



Conclusion: Taxation is not theft.

Humma Kavula said:

Wow. You guys are a real piece of work. So far:


Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.
Premise: Without taxation, it’ll be anarchy!
Premise: Wealth distribution benefits everyone.
Premise: Theft is a criminal offense and there is no law preventing taxation.
Premise: The government has a legal right to steal (thanks for that one FreeWits).
Premise: Taxation is necessary for an organized and civilized society to function



Conclusion: Taxation is not theft.

Click to expand...

Why are you so hung up on the word-thinking about "theft", anyways? I honestly find this as one of the least interesting discussions. Libertarians call taxation theft because they have a losing argument when getting into the details so they need a catchy line, but whether taxation is or isn't theft isn't really interesting. Something like are people better off or worse off with taxation would be a far better question. And yes, I know you aren't the OP, but the OP is asking this because this is how Libertarians and Ancaps have framed the debate. Even if Libertarians and Ancaps are successful in convincing ignorant people with this emotional argument, this is never going to convince the economic policy drivers. Work on getting some real arguments. I noticed you lacked those yet again in this latest comment.

Quick update:


Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.
Premise: Without taxation, it’ll be anarchy!
Premise: Wealth distribution benefits everyone.
Premise: Theft is a criminal offense and there is no law preventing taxation.
Premise: The government has a legal right to steal (beautiful, thanks for that one FreeWits).
Premise: Taxation is necessary for an organized and civilized society to function.
Premise: Taxation being theft is not interesting.
Premise: Taxation being theft is a losing argument.


Conclusion: Taxation is not theft.


(and yes, I am the OP)

Humma Kavula said:

Quick update:


Premise: There's no such thing as legal theft.
Premise: Theft by its definition is illegal.
Premise: You can't have a discussion on tax and claim it is theft without debating the reason why tax exists in the first place.
Premise: Without taxation, it’ll be anarchy!
Premise: Wealth distribution benefits everyone.
Premise: Theft is a criminal offense and there is no law preventing taxation.
Premise: The government has a legal right to steal (beautiful, thanks for that one FreeWits).
Premise: Taxation is necessary for an organized and civilized society to function.
Premise: Taxation being theft is not interesting.
Premise: Taxation being theft is a losing argument.


Conclusion: Taxation is not theft.


(and yes, I am the OP)

Click to expand...

That's the best you can do? You've resorted to refusing to address arguments at this point. And no, saying that calling taxation theft is a losing argument is not a premise to a conclusion of taxation is not theft. lol And everything you have put in your list, yet my word-thinking argument is noticeably absent.