Taxation is theft and immoral

Well, my previous post did not seem to spark any debate, so this is always a good discussion to spark some lively debate.


Theft is the act of taking, or endeavoring to take, another individuals property without the consent of the owner of that property.
Taxation is mandatory - it is the act of the government taking an individuals property (i.e. currency earned from their labor) without their consent, therefore taxation is theft.

The action of theft goes against the standard of morality, making it immoral; and since taxation is equivalent to theft, taxation is immoral.

Prove me wrong.

 

What debate are you getting at?

Taxation is necessary due to States/Unions/Sovereignty countries uniting with intentions of providing themselves means of distributed wealth.

Sure, because you lose money through taxes depending on how your being taxed, doesn't necessitate it to be a wrongful act against the general populace. Imagine if you had no taxes and your overseeing government had no revenue, there would be no infrastructure advancements at all for one. Then the argument of "no government" isn't even worth debating, humans have proven too many times not able to control themselves.

Taxation is necessary, or who would we rely on to build our roads, hospitals, schools, and various other life necessities? Ourselves? Most people can't even brush their teeth, we cannot rely on ourselves to benefit our general society.

Also, what standard of morality? Because morality is the observers only, you're wrong because your comparison of taxation to morality is yours, not mine.

Prove me wrong if there is anything to prove wrong

 

Study Economics and you'll understand why taxation is necessary.

 

Taxation is absolutely essential for a self-efficient, progressive, advanced nation... how the heck do you suppose we get schools, roads and hospitals built?

 

Purely for the purpose of devils advocate, one could argue capitalism. Everything can be privatized and let the market handle distribution of wealth.

 

It's not ridiculous thinking at all. The state is not the only thing that can provide any good or service. Do you think construction companies build houses for the good of people? No, they don't. They do it to earn a living and people will pay for such goods. Essentially every single business in existence wants/needs roads. Do you know how much profit there is in the medical field? Do you honestly believe nobody would be there to employ a doctor without the government? Same goes for schools. I hope you realize that when the US began there was no income tax. Railroads, wagon transport, and any sort of shipping was all privatized back then. Income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax & was never lifted. (in the US that is)

 

Due to the fact the idea of "no taxes" was a burden on the country.

Humans are innovative, collectively they are quite intelligent, i don't believe for a second that any one countries government has the economic part figured out; Though the idea of capitalism is surely a different twist on the matter and considering the U.S technically is the leader in GDP Growth, it goes to show that privatization wasn't a viable option at any point in our history.

 

Burden on the country, or burden on the government who always wants more?
Almost everything our government has touched has turned into garbage.

 

Jesus, you're so pessimistic... We're in 2017 and people still live on the streets, our government is probably the best in the world for the amount of people they have to govern and the crazy influx of income throughout the nation, (most problems are apparent in rural locations). But, like I said, in hindsight we're still in the extremely early stages of human advancement and progression, in 500-1000 years if we're still around -today will look like the dark ages.

But maybe if our government is garbage you would be best off living where the governments are for morality, justice and freedom, let me list some countries where they don't use that evil tax system:

• United Arab Emirates
• Oman
• Bahrain
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Kuwait
• Bermuda
• Cayman Islands
• The Bahamas
• Brunei

I'm guessing you'd be best suited in these no-income tax countries, exchanging freedom and basic human rights for an even more corrupt system, because guess what? All of these countries that leaders impose income tax on their people are corrupt as hell, actual corruption, a hierarchy system and they're on top, funneling and laundering BILLIONS for themselves, so whatever you think about the U.S. this would NEVER happen.

 

Is it pessimism if it's based off of literally everything that has come of it already? Public healthcare= horrible
Public education= horrible.
When the government runs anything it's destined for failure as there's absolutely zero accountability.
The post office goes billions in debt in one year, and continue to run without any repercussions. What do you think happens if a private business runs into those issues? Yeah, they improve or shut down. The more we make public, the more we go downhill.

 

There's a difference between you "losing" money, and money being taken with the threat of violence or force if you do not pay. It is called theft.

Also, you're argument is a fallacy and does not dispute what we're arguing.

Again, refer to what I just stated. If you want to create a thread disputing if the private sector or government provides better things such as public transportation, roads, etc; then make a separate thread.

My argument here is that taxation is backed by the use of force or violence if you do not comply. You disputed it by saying government provides roads, schools, etc. It does not address the fact taxation is backed by the threat of force/violence making it immoral.

Do you understand what I mean at all? That your entire point neglects the argument taxation is immoral due to the backing of force behind it? And that your argument fails to even dispute that other than by saying the government can supply a school; what does that have to do with taxation being immoral due to the implied use of force if you do not comply?

If I stole a $100 bill from you or threatened you to steal that money, do you not find that immoral? If you do not pay 'x' dollars in taxes a man in a suite and gun threatens to throw you in jail if you do not provide 'x' amount of money. If you resist an attempt at arrest you could be battered, or in serious circumstances shot. Both actions are backed by the use of force or aggression.

Take a class on logic course and you may learn how to form an argument. This does not contribute anything at all.

Why not actually address the argument? Also, if you have even taken an elementary course in economics (which I have, thank you) then you will know there are also alternative views than Keynesian economics such as Austrian Economics.

 

I'd say that since the country provides benefits, taxes are necessary, in an anarchist situation then taxes would be ridiculous, but if you have roads, a township, city water, electricity through a government company, you should pay taxes, where I live taxes are usually 13% though on sales which I think is ridiculous, in my opinion realistically 6-8% would be fair.

 

I consent to taxes because I understand the cost of living in a society.

Neigh; it is theft to live in society, and thereby benefit from all of it's fruits, without paying back (in the form of taxes).

 

Taxes are necessary but shouldnt be that expensive imo

 

I fully believe that anybody who doesn't want to pay taxes shouldn't have to - they just shouldn't benefit from anything state-run. No driving on public roads, reimburse the state for every publically educated worker you employ, no protection from the law, etc.

Sure, we could do that, but it would be fairly miserable for 99.999% of us.

Not at all. With public healthcare, if you get sick, whether or not you live or die isn't determined by your bank account.

How so?

That's a HUGE blanket statement, and completely ignores that it's possible to introduce oversight/accountability into government.

Obviously. The government isn't a for-profit business - it's meant to provided services.

Another sweeping generalization.

 

With public healthcare, its not your bank account (in which you can control) that decides if you live or die, it's your age, wait times, and priority. People from Canada come to the US very often to receive care. Hell, prior to Obama care here I could get into the doctor with just a days notice. Now I'm waiting months.
Do you really need an elaboration on how public education is garbage? Am I speaking with Hellen Keller, lol? I could give you paragraphs on text, but I think I'll just let you google that one. There's a reason many parents are willing to fork over tens of thousands a year for even and ELEMENTARY private education.
Government accountability- Has never been shown. Quite literally any organization suffers from the same problems. We already have multiple agencies doing the same job, inspectors inspecting the inspectors inspectors. What's your solution when it's all the same family? There's already tons of your suggested "oversight".
The post office has made profits in some years, 2016 being one year. If correctly managed they could easily make a profit.

 

I do wish we could pave our own roads and supply our own infrastructure personally out of pocket.

You can also evade taxes if you want.

 

I fully believe that anybody who doesn't pay pizzo shouldn't have to - they just shouldn't be able to benefit from anything mafia-protected. No purchasing goods and services from mafia protected businesses, no protection from mafia thugs...

Your argument is effectively:

Y causes Z.
X should only be able to use Z if X contributes to Y (where Z was caused by Y).
X does not contribute to Y.
Therefore X should not be able to use Z.

The problem is Y causes Z. If Y forcefully prevented anyone else from causing Z, then X really has no choice, but to use Y in order to access Z, not because without Y, Z would never have occurred, but because Y has crowded out Z's occurrence being independent of Y. The question then becomes, even if Y monopolised, crowded out, or reduced the efficiency in the provision of Z, should X still have to contribute to Y for the use of Z?

In any event, what method of quantification do you propose?

 

You can't always control your bank account. Some people are born into shitty situations.

Even if you're well-to-do, certain diagnoses can still bankrupt you. Some cancer treatments easily run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You're waiting longer because more people are trying to see a limited number of physicians, who couldn't afford to earlier. That doesn't sound like a problem with Obamacare, that sounds like there aren't enough people in medicine.

Actually, since this is a debate forum, and you made the claim, the burden of proof's on you here.

Private schools are better, sure, but that's not what we're discussing. You didn't say that public schools were inferior to private ones, you said public education is just plain horrible.

Are you trying to say that the government has literally never once been held accountable?

If every organization suffers from the same problems, then are you saying that every organization is destined for failure?

It's not the same family. Most governments are split into several branches.

Not really sure why you're putting "oversight" in quotes, but the oversight in place works, for the most part.

I didn't say they couldn't, I said that that isn't the point of government.

Sounds good to me, as long as the mafia doesn't squeeze protection money from you anyway.

Yes, as long as X can go create their own Z on a reservation or something, I have no problems with that.

What do you mean?

 

So you're ok with the mafia coercing other people, so long as they aren't coercing you?

But it is harder for anyone to create Z because the government has crowded out the market. If a kid decides to pull and spray your weeds (without your consent/approval/knowledge) and later charge you $50 for it, should you pay the kid the $50?

'Reimburse the state for every publicly educated worker you employ'. I assume that generalises to other areas. How are you going to quantify how much one should reimburse?