Opinion
Lab
Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
12 comments
Against
meglev245y ago
**TL;DR - This is the wrong way to look at tax, it is an investment not a chore**
‘The only things certain in life is birth, death and tax’. I hear this quote and read it a lot on twitter from many politicians who disagree with high taxation. I personally think this is the wrong way to look at taxation. Don’t get me wrong, what you earn should be yours, and extremely high taxation is something I don’t agree with. However, tax is something that the individual can invest into society.
I can understand why some believe tax is theft, its money you have earned that you are forced to ‘give away’ sometimes without you even being aware of it. However, I see it more as an investment in society than theft. We all use a healthcare system, roads, trains and education that is made available by taxation. [It is not theft] (https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/), you are just sometimes unaware of where your money goes - that is more of a problem. We all benefit off of what tax creates for society and I see it as ‘doing your bit’.
··
Against
jennymagleave5y ago
TL;DR – Taxation pays for public services that we all use and need and also aides the vulnerable in society and is therefore not theft.
In the UK, taxpayer money is spent on a variety of things including social protection, health, education, net debt interest, defence, transport, public order and safety, social services, housing, the environment, industry, agriculture and employment. https://www.finder.com/uk/tax-statistics
To anyone that argues that taxation is theft it is important to ask: if you suddenly became unemployed or unable to work for some reason, would you expect the government to help provide for you and your family? If the UK was attacked and we had to go to war, would you expect the army to go and fight for you? If you were robbed or attacked, would you expect law enforcement to come to give you aide? This is where our taxes go, this is what our taxes pay for – the institutions, services and aide that every citizen relies on and is entitled to rely on.
As for health and education that people argue should be paid for by the user and not subsidised by the state using taxpayers money, I believe that it is a moral virtue to care for and empathise with those less fortunate than ourselves. And for me, that includes taxation that provides support for people living with illness, disability, in poverty or in any difficult situation that would mean that they would not be able to pay for and access a privatised healthcare or educational system.
··
rabidfox4y ago
Just because it might benefit you doesn't stop it from being theft. If someone breaks into your house and steals your tv but decides to do the dishes they still stole your tv.
··
Commentary
freyaehope5y ago
**Should we be forcibly or morally obligated to pay tax?**
• [Taxation](https://cleartax.in/g/terms/taxation) is the term for how a government imposes tax, a compulsory monetary charge, upon its subjects. In the UK, the amount of income tax is determined by your salary bracket. This money [funds](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary) government administration and public services.
• Some people disagree with the premise of taxation and argue that it is theft because it is [compulsory](https://mises.org/wire/yes-taxation-theft) - you cannot choose to opt out of paying tax. Income tax is taken straight out of your earnings, and therefore some people aren’t even aware that they are paying it. Many resent paying tax and therefore do not consent to it – they argue that their money is forcibly taken away from them, which fits a definition of theft.
• Others argue that taxation is not theft as money is not actually [private property](https://taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/), but a component of being part of society. Many believe that paying tax is an investment that we all benefit from as it serves a public good: taxpayers’ money funds education, healthcare, housing, museums, libraries, and road maintenance, among many others. Many believe that it is our duty to pay tax, in order to contribute to society.
··
Mixed
mayowa_o5y ago
**Even if taxation is theft, it is still justified.**
The basis of this debate lies in the assumption that all theft is wrong and therefore should not be practised. We can break this down into a simple deductive argument:
• Premise 1: All theft is wrong;
• Premise 2: Taxation is theft;
• Conclusion: Taxation is wrong.
Since the users above have mainly challenged Premise 2 to disprove the conclusion, I will use an argument adapted from [Professor Michael Huemer](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-taxation-theft) to suggest that even Premise 1 may be flawed:
• Some people believe that certain thefts are morally justifiable e.g. a starving homeless person stealing a loaf of bread from a shop.
• Consequently, what determines the “wrongness” of a theft is how morally justifiable it is.
• When applied to the issue of taxation, we can ask the question: would it be acceptable for the state to steal money to achieve X aim? If the answer is “no”, then tax should not be collected since taxation is theft.
Considering this, we could argue that taxation as a form of theft can be justified in states where taxes are collected for the public good. Therefore, the conclusion that taxation is wrong can be disproved.
··
MrStrawHat5y ago
And what if I think all theft *is* wrong?
··
mayowa_o5y ago
• Well, if you are still unconvinced by the moral challenge to Premise 1, then you move on to challenge Premise 2, which concerns whether tax fits the definition of theft. In my opinion, the concept of theft does not and cannot exist independently of the law, since theft is about depriving someone of their legal right to enjoy the value of the property. Thus, so long as the state has a legal right to your pre-tax income, then taxation **cannot** be theft.
• Then, the final issue left to consider is whether you have a _moral_ right to your pre-tax income, which is outside the definition of theft. Again, I would disagree. There appears to be a general consensus that paying taxes to fund public goods is acceptable. However, if individuals are given the choice to opt-out of certain taxes or pick-and-choose where their taxes go, this has the potential to lead to an inefficient and uneven allocation of funding to certain sectors which ultimately damages the very public goods that we are trying to protect.
• Moreover, we already have some influence over how our taxes are used through exercising our democratic right to vote. Once this has happened, it is probably more appropriate for government officials and expert policy advisers, people who have access to the relevant information, to decide _exactly_ how the taxes are spent, rather than leaving it to the hands of the general public. Admittedly though, there can and should be more openness surrounding how are taxes are allocated.
··
MrStrawHat5y ago
- The concept of theft does not and cannot exist independently of the law
But the law didn't determine that theft was wrong, it followed the consensus that theft should be punished. Therefore stealing is wrong regardless of what the law says.
-So long as the state has a legal right to your pre-tax income, then taxation cannot be theft
To follow on, the state has determined that it has a legal right to take a portion of my earnings. This makes it legal, but that doesn't mean it's morally right, as I haven't voluntarily given my money to the state, it's been taken. This is a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' as the state is taking away from the public but is then telling citizens that it's unlawful when they do it.
-You have a moral right to your pre-tax income
But I do. I worked for my wage, I deserve what I've been given. The state has decided it just wants a portion of the earnings, what right do they have to assert their position?
-This has the potential to lead to an inefficient and uneven allocation of funding to certain sectors
How do you know this doesn't already happen? You're just trusting the efficiency of the government to allocate the funds effectively. I think a greater portion of taxes should go to the NHS and away from the wages of politicians. I think there are inefficient departments within the government that should be abolished. If people choose where to send their tax money this will be a telling insight as to which parts of the government are actually necessary.
-Appropriate for government officials and expert policy advisers [...] to decide how the taxes are spent
That's assuming these are honest people, without corruption. We've seen cronyism many times before, how many people would willingly have paid for the UK track-and-trace system?
··
mayowa_o5y ago
You certainly make interesting points, which I’ll deal with individually:
• Firstly, I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding theft and the law. I was not saying that illegality = immorality. I was dealing with the issue of whether taxation fits the definition of theft. From a legal perspective, tax does not fit this definition.
• Any discussion beyond this point consequently uses the concepts of “theft” and “stealing” in a more metaphorical way, i.e. being deprived of any moral right to your pre-tax income. This is where the foundational issue of “wrongness” lies, which I dealt with in the second part of my response.
• You have questioned what right the state has over your pre-tax income. I think that we should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the citizens, rather than the state. To avoid repetition, I point to the arguments made by previous users.
• Indeed, the government may not always use taxes in a way that some individuals may believe is most efficient. However, to require every individual citizen, regardless of political engagement or knowledge of economic affairs, to decide complex questions of national budget seems quite risky to me. From this point, we would end up debating the merits of representative democracy compared to direct democracy, which is another issue entirely.
··
MrStrawHat5y ago
From a legal perspective, tax does not fit this definition
-I touched upon this briefly, but I'll say it again. Tax doesn't fit this definition because the state both collects tax *and* defines the law. It's a 'do as I say, not as I do' situation. Why would the state admit that taxation is theft? I think people should be free to take drugs recreationally, that's unlawful, but is it morally wrong? If the law and what is moral are two separate issues, what should it matter what the law says? I think this point is irrelevant.
This is where the foundational issue of “wrongness” lies
-I don't think you really did explain it well in your response, as you feel that's an acceptable answer to a point I've already debated. But I'll briefly say what's justifiable and what's immoral are two different things. Killing is morally wrong, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the death penalty still exists in some parts of the U.S. which some argue is justifiable. I think there are definitely instances, such as war, where deaths are justifiable, but that doesn't make them moral. By the same token, you can say tax is justifiable, but taking money from me is immoral.
I think that we should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the citizens
-That doesn't change the fact that money is being taken from citizens unwillingly. If citizens want to donate some of their money as tax in exchange for the services the government provides that's their choice and that would be a fair transaction, but that's not what tax does.
To require every individual citizen [...]to decide complex questions of national budget seems quite risky to me
-Yes it would, but my point is that money transfers should be transactional, as in I voluntarily give my money over in exchange for a good or service. If I don't require that good or service I shouldn't be compelled to give over my money.
All in all, tax is here to stay regardless of what I think is fair, but theft is defined as taking without permission, if I don't give permission for the state to take from me, that's theft.
··
For
MrStrawHat5y ago
Some people view tax as paying for services provided by the government, like education, healthcare, emergency services, the military, etc. I'm in favour of having these, but that doesn't give the government the right to take my money away from me. I don't get to choose which services my tax pays for, I don't get to choose how much is fair, and I don't get to opt out if I don't require any of these services.
··
Mixed
rabidfox4y ago
**Just because you like the benefits doesn't stop it from being theft**
Its more accurate to say taxes are extortion you cannot opt-out of paying taxes you pay them or get fined or sentenced to prison. Taxes fund social security, roads, police, and pay politicians. This is great but taxes pay for bombs, alcoholics, criminals to get medical aid, and even expenses of politicians.
Democracy is often called the tyranny of the majority because the majority forces those who disagree to comply with things they don't like for example, building Trump's wall.
The key to something being theft is the dishonest appropriation of property, this can be through deception, coercion, or misrepresentation. There is no consent in taxes as there are negative consequences to do so. Due to centralisation of government politics are detached from the taxpayers so their values and opinions arent well-represented taxes are regularly wasted on stupid things like walking lizards, planes that don't fly and creating a smart toilet (see rand pauls waste report). The government's job is to protect your rights and "the government which governs the least governs the best"
Milton Friedman was very vocal about minimising taxation and being more efficient in his book " free to choose" he made the following [graph](https://i.imgur.com/jKxtWxN.jpg). Referred to as Money Spent This basically shows that when you buy something for yourself you focus on COST and QUALITY the government cares very little about either of those metrics since they are using other peoples money to buy things for other people they tend to spend more on lower quality products. So while Taxation is theft, it is a necessary evil, and it's our job is to try to keep the government in check about proper representation via voting, protest and appeal
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!