|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: taxes are theft
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I've got friends who keep saying that. And to me, it seems so ridiculous, so patently absurd that I don't even know how to begin talking with them about it. It's like people saying, "Marriage is rape." It's not. Part of me wants to say that people who say such things are too stupid to try to engage with -- but I don't believe that. These are people who are otherwise reasonable. It has to be possible to address their claims reasonably.
But I just end up sputtering.
So how do you address the argument? "It's mine, I earned it, and it belongs to me. Taking what belongs to someone else is theft. Taxes are the government taking what's mine. So it's just government-mandated theft."
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Simply put, the government provides a framework withing which it is possible for them to make that money. Roads, sewers, police, fire fighters, etc.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Driving on our roads, sending your kids to our schools, drinking the clean water we paid to regulate, eating the safe food we paid to regulate, driving the safe cars we paid to regulate, taking advantage of our fire and police protection, USING OUR MONETARY SYSTEM,
without paying taxes,
is theft.
So fuck off, "taxes are theft" assholes, to some country where you don't have to pitch in with everybody else.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Government, money and taxes are part of civilisation as we know it. Not sure how you can do without these things to some extent. Take one away and the others disappear.
I agree with you Josephine. It is a bit silly to just say taxes are theft. We consent to them by reason of the existence of our society.
Question is surely what level of taxation should be? Should poor people pay lots of tax (as they do in the UK on fags, booze, petrol, National Lottery (a quasi tax))? Should rich pay more or less?
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yep - patently absurd, unless you want to bury your own trash, build your own roads, set up your own police force, provide your own doctors etc etc etc.
Tax is about living in society. Then again, those who don't believe in it probably prefer gated ghettos.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Do they grasp the concept of paying someone else to do something? If they pay someone to come and clean their house, do they consider she is stealing the money they give her? Do they also realise that they are paying the person who cleans the street outside their house on the same basis - ie, it's not a job they want to do themselves?
They are probably confusing the State - which collects money from you to spend on services - with corporations, which collect money so that a few people can have much more than everyone else.
The US is a big country. Surely you could set aside an area where tax refuseniks can live together? In towns called Poor, Mean, Nasty, Brutish and Short.
[ 07. September 2012, 07:03: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I saw a programme ages ago about a street that voluntarily paid no council tax at all for two weeks, got all the money back, and had to decide what to do with it and how to pay for all the council services they weren't getting as a consequence. To say it was fractious would be an understatememt.
I think we're lucky to have taxes, it forces us to be socially responsible to others and have a society that actually rubs along okay (albeit with things that could be done very much better). I think if I got all my paycheck to myself I would never give the proportion I pay in tax as charitable contributions.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'd suggest they took a trip to a country where there is no proper system of taxation but where bribery is a common feature of life. That really is theft because you don't even get the value of what you pay or a say in the running of the system.
Tax is a pretty inefficient system, just like representative democracy. In the latter, politicians say any-old-shit to get into power and then proceed to do whatever the fuck they like for 4 or 5 years. In the former, the politicians use the compulsory nature of taxation to take and spend our money in all kinds of ways.
I suspect this is mostly what the phrase is meaning. Well, other than the fact that the person saying it is relatively wealthy and wants to keep more of their money rather than spending it on roads and schools, of course..
[ 07. September 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Money is gift.
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Money is gift.
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?
(getting in first)
Because proper tea is theft.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
Puh. That is nothing in terms of surplus value.
Is it robbery? Yes, of course it is. The capitalists have invested in terms of machinery and structures and innovation and whatnot, but they're profiting exponentially from each hour worked by the employees.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
Puh. That is nothing in terms of surplus value.
Is it robbery? Yes, of course it is. The capitalists have invested in terms of machinery and structures and innovation and whatnot, but they're profiting exponentially from each hour worked by the employees.
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Choice is a strange term when you're talking about surplus value. Theoretically, a worker could choose to work for someone else, set up their own business or co-operative. In practice, most of the time most people are forced to work to raise money for either their capitalist or another one.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Do they grasp the concept of paying someone else to do something? If they pay someone to come and clean their house, do they consider she is stealing the money they give her? Do they also realise that they are paying the person who cleans the street outside their house on the same basis - ie, it's not a job they want to do themselves?
I'd guess their argument would be that any arrangement such as this would be voluntary; they'd voluntarily agree to employ a cleaner at a rate of their choosing (or at least that has been negotiated with the cleaner... in theory). It was their choice. Whereas taxes ain't voluntary, they're imposed by the state and (in theory) you have no choice about paying them or not.
(I say in theory... in practice it seems the richer you get, the more ways around paying tax there are and the more willing the tax authorities seem to be to turn a blind eye to it).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This is as silly a statement as 'property is theft'.
Taxes are peoples' subscription to the world they live in.
There are issues about this that are legitimate matters for debate. The origin of representative government in the middle ages was a tool to get the three estates to buy into the taxes the king needed to collect/wanted to impose. If one believes representative government is a good thing, those who are elected do owe an obligation not to screw more out of the public than is necessary. This means not taking the line, 'You've voted us in. Now we are entitled to do what we like with you until the next election'.
That applies to grandiose public projects just as much as expenses scandals.
Taxes are part of the social contract unless you say people can opt out of it altogether. That might sound a nice idea in the abstract, but there isn't a stateless anarchistic place such people can go to, though by all reports, Somalia and the Republic of the Congo get fairly near it.
Again, it's a legitimate argument to say that because you can't opt out of the social contract, and because government has the whip hand of compulsion, in return for being given it, it has a greater than ordinary duty not to use that whip hand more than the minimum necessary. 'They' are trustees for power as well as money.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Every time they use something provided by a public authority, just politely tell them that if they don't pay for it, THEY are stealing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Agree with most of what has been said so far in defence of taxation.
Basic point for me is that in pretty much any even moderately advanced society, property is distributed and held according to conventions and rules. In the absence of such conventions and ruiles- that is, the absence of a rule of law of some kind, whether fair or unfair- you can ultimately only hold onto your property if you, and maybe your mates, are prepared physically to defend it and are not overcome by someone else (and his/her mates) who is stronger than you are. So the first question is, are stejjie's freinds willing and able physically to defend their property against all comers, or do they want to have the forces of the courts, police, bailiffs,and so on to help them hold onto what they have and to enforce contracts and obligations against others?
If they do want to rely solely on themselves to protect their rights and property, I respectfully suggest that they sod off to Somalia and see how well they get on there. If they don't - and most people ultimately don't- then the question arises of how you maintain the wider social and institutional structure that maintains a rule of law. In small societies this may be done very cheaply, with unpaid magistrates and juries, ad hoc collections to build/ maintain the local pound or lock-up, and people willing to turn out for the posse or the watch or whatever you call it as and when needed (although you might consider jury duty or watch liability a form of taxation of time rather than money). But as societies grow and get more complex you pretty quickly get beyond the stage where you can rely on goodwill and voluntarism and you need to employ people and pay for things- which needs money- and unless you're in Brunei or one of those oil states where selling natural resources pays for everything, that pretty much means taxes.
This is true even if you are talking about a minimal 'nightwatchman' state. You can certainly argue about how heavy taxation should/ needs to be, but taxation of some kind is pretty much a given.
[ 07. September 2012, 09:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Sorry- I mean Josephine's friends, not stejjie's- I'd forgotten who the OP-er was.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
What Albertus said.
Ultimately, property can only exist in a system or structure that maintains and protects property rights.
This is true both philosophically and practically. Philosophically 'theft' is a legal concept and thus one must have some sort of state structure that creates and maintains the law. This has to be paid for. Historically, in pre-Democratic societies, everything was deemed to belong to the King and he had a right to give it to whomever he liked. The concept of land ownership is so critical, when you think about it. Why on earth should a piece of land belong to me? It is on this piece of land that I can grow the food I eat. But, by what right can I insist that the land is mine and not yours?
Once you start thinking these things through, it becomes clear that taxes are totally inescapable in some form if you want to have any sensible construct of laws and rules.
And, practically, as has been said before, there is a need to be able to defend one's property in the absence of a state to provide you with some protection.
Taxes are indeed compulsory. The state compels you to pay - because they have to use this power to generate revenue. This revenue is necessary for them to function and maintain a framework of laws that entitles you to view things as yours.
There is a big argument to be had about how states use this power and how much and what should be taxed. But to view taxes as inherently theft is a contradiction-in-terms.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Come to think of it, the very best response might be: "Yes, taxes are theft. Who are you going to report it to? The police?"
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Very nice! And thanks, AFZ, for putting my argument much more succinctly and clearly than I did.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
I think I semi-agree: I'd tend to see the distribution of property in general as a social contract, and taxes and the free market are the mechanisms by which it operates. But it's possible for the contract to be unfair, and for both the market and for taxes to work inefficiently or inequitably.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.
That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by alienfromzog
Historically, in pre-Democratic societies, everything was deemed to belong to the King and he had a right to give it to whomever he liked.
What countries are you referring to here ? I don't think this has ever been true of England, and certainly not since long before England could be called a democratic society, though I have heard some people say it of France in the early middle ages.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
AIUI all land belonged to the king as paramount lord. Which may not be all property, but most property is dependent in some sense on land.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI all land belonged to the king as paramount lord. Which may not be all property, but most property is dependent in some sense on land.
AIUI it still does, to some degree, otherwise the state would have no jurisdiction over events on the land or in properties built on it. An Englishman's home may be his castle, but the law still applies within.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.
That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.
That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
Benefit fraud is estimated to be around the 1% mark. The Mail would like you to believe otherwise.
Tax evasion (that's the illegal bit, not counting tax avoidance, which according to our beloved PM is merely immoral) costs the country fifteen times as much. Avoidance tots up to being 70 times as much.
But clearly the unemployed and disabled are equally to blame for the nation's parlous tax receipts. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
Erm, James Watts, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton.. who else..
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.
That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
Sure. And, to put it very crudely, the left tries to get the 'squeezed middle' to resent rich tax avoiders while the right tries to get them to resent (generally fairly) poor benefit claimants. So far the right have been rather more successful. if you look, for example, at the (utterly disgraceful IMO) Bluewater speech that David Cameron gave a couple of months ago, that's exactly what he's trying to do. A lot of people like to think that they might be rich one day (even though most of them won't be and the gap between the very rich and the comfortable is huge) but few can imagine themselves depending on benefits.
[ 07. September 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
Erm, James Watts, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton.. who else..
Florence Nightingale? Isaac Newton? if that's an indicator of when you last opened your wallet, chum, remind me never to go for a drink with you! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I'd give him a copy of Rouseeau's The Social Contact to read. Enoch beat me to my favourite response, Proudhon's "Property is theft."
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.
Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Driving on our roads, sending your kids to our schools, drinking the clean water we paid to regulate, eating the safe food we paid to regulate, driving the safe cars we paid to regulate, taking advantage of our fire and police protection, USING OUR MONETARY SYSTEM,
without paying taxes,
is theft.
So fuck off, "taxes are theft" assholes, to some country where you don't have to pitch in with everybody else.
Amen! You and I agree, Mousethief? Wow!
So let's find that large percentage of Americans not paying any income tax and beat the crap out of them!
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Simply put, the government provides a framework withing which it is possible for them to make that money. Roads, sewers, police, fire fighters, etc.
And don't forget handing out corporate charters.
The lights stay on late
In Delaware's Department of State--
so they can answer the phones when people ring them up on the west coast.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
If you're losing roughly 16% of your tax receipts through evasion/avoidance and a 0.2% overspend through fraud in the benefits system, I'm going to suggest us 'nice' people have a better grip of the facts.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.
Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
Pretty much any kind of government involves some compulsory redistribution of wealth, even if it's only levying a minimal rate of taxation to pay for judges and police. It's still taking money from my wage packet or taxing my spending (which amounts to the same thing) to put into someone else's pocket.We might agree that that person (the cop or whoever) is doing good work and delivering value for that money, but it's still money that has been taken from other people, under penalty.
So yes, if you're an anarchist, of left or right or if there is such a thing of the centre, this argument works. If you want any kind of government it doesn't. If you're an individualist anarchist you're down to 'what I have I hold', which must involve the corollary 'and if you can get it off me it's yours'. If you're a collectivist anarchist I would imagine that there would be some expectation that you take part in collective decision making and perhaps putting collective decisions into practice: where that differs from taxation is not entirely clear to me, though I can see there might be an argument.
[ 07. September 2012, 13:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
If you're losing roughly 16% of your tax receipts through evasion/avoidance and a 0.2% overspend through fraud in the benefits system, I'm going to suggest us 'nice' people have a better grip of the facts.
I suppose it depend on who puts your bread on your table. Matt and those in the professions depend for their living on what is left after people have paid tax, but it's as well to remember that none of the professions he mentions, with the possible exception of sales reps, create any wealth whatsoever! I wonder what proportion of GDP is spent on "professional services", and how much of it is mandated by law, so that the professions have the government to thank for a fair slice of their income!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.
Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
Genuine in that they are pretty, intellectual exercises, not in that they are valid. Stable society needs the state. The form and the size may be arguable, but the existence.
New Yorker, look to the Fortune 500 list. Should be a good place to start.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
Generally here there is a strong element of "but for the grace of God"; many people I work with, go to church with, or live near have the experience of spending short periods of time out of work (in my case, a few months after finishing university as I didn't get the first couple of jobs I applied for), or friends and family in that position. Or, where there's no long term job security and they could see themselves looking for work soon. Without job security, there's doubt about ability to put money towards a pension fund, so the level of the state pension becomes a matter of concern. We've all benefited from maternity and paternity leave, we've availed ourselves of the NHS when we've had children or for eye tests and dental checkups. Many of my colleagues benefited from grants to get us through university, and many of us consider the increasing financial burden on students to be a national shame. On the other hand, very few people earn the money needed to benefit from some of the tax breaks that seem to be available to others.
I'm surprised that even the "nasty professionals" (to use your phrase) don't at times think about the safety net provided by the welfare state. If not that they may need it, but maybe that their children might. No thoughts about children going through university into an insecure job market? No concerns about parents or other older relatives reliant on the state pension? No thoughts that they may need the NHS because of accident or illness, or even just because they might become parents?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I get frustrated by people who get booked for speeding and then claim it is just revenue raising and not fair. I counter with 'if you didn't speed you wouldn't be fined'. Such complainers are very egocentric which I think could be applied to the tax thief accusers. They want everything but won't take any personal responsibility.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
What's this 'paid into the system' bollocks? While National Insurance contributions were designed to fund unemployment benefit they have only ever been paid by working people and many of the professions you mention are self-employed so pay profit related NICs. Compared to salaried workers, they aren't not paying their full share! Not if they have a halfway competent accountant (ask your accountant how much NI he pays)!
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed, they are for the benefit of society as a whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to think again.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Taxes are theft ..... Rob the rich to pay the poor .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
