Is taxation theft?

Rolfe · 17th July 2009, 04:21 AM

I've come across the unsupported statement that taxation is theft from several posters. No qualification, no ifs or buts, taxation is theft.

For example, this lot. Follow the quotes back to confirm that he's actually talking about taxation.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

And just because you might want something does not give you the right to go and take it from someone else. That's called stealing.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So stealing doesn't matter as long as 50.1% approve of it?

This discussion comes in to complicate the issue in so many political and sociological discussions that I thought it might benefit from its own thread.

Rolfe.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I've come across the unsupported statement that taxation is theft from several posters. No qualification, no ifs or buts, taxation is theft.

I would hardly call an upper limit of approaching 100% a non-qualifier ... and if taking that much isn't theft ----

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

I would hardly call an upper limit of approaching 100% a non-qualifier ... and if taking that much isn't theft ----

Well the UK has had marginal tax rates of above 95% in the past (not that many people paid them)

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:16 AM

That doesn't disqualify it from being theft.

Also, a little caveat that seems to keep being ignored in this type of discussion is that many folks will think that going from a 90% tax to a 95% tax is only a mere 5% increase. They keep forgetting that when doing so, you reduce the person's income (at that level of taxation) by 50%! He's now only bringing home half of what he did before.

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 05:26 AM

No, it isn't, for the same reason that jailing convicted criminals isn't kidnapping and police with a warrant searching a house aren't trespassing.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 05:28 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

That doesn't disqualify it from being theft.

Is failure to levy taxation theft? That's just as legitimate a question IMO.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:28 AM

You seem to believe that because something is not illegal it isn't inherently wrong. Well, slavery was at one time legal --- do you not consider that a form of imprisonment?

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Is failure to levy taxation theft? That's just as legitimate a question IMO.

It's not taxation per se that's being discussed (by me) ... it's rates of taxation.

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

You seem to believe that because something is not illegal it isn't inherently wrong.

No.

Quote:

Well, slavery was at one time legal --- do you not consider that a form of imprisonment?

Ah well, if we're going to make that the benchmark, then taxation isn't theft because I consider that it isn't.

I'm glad we sorted that out.

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

It's not taxation per se that's being discussed (by me) ... it's rates of taxation.

At what rate of taxation does taxation become theft?

Rolfe · 17th July 2009, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

That doesn't disqualify it from being theft.

Also, a little caveat that seems to keep being ignored in this type of discussion is that many folks will think that going from a 90% tax to a 95% tax is only a mere 5% increase. They keep forgetting that when doing so, you reduce the person's income (at that level of taxation) by 50%! He's now only bringing home half of what he did before.

Well, actually, you haven't. Basic allowances still apply. The 90% or 95% rate only applies to the top whack of the income. As you say, you're reducing the income at that level of taxation by 50%. But the taxpayer still has the much lower rate(s) on the first chunk or chunks of income. Without knowing the specifics, it's impossible to say how it would affect his take-home pay.

I was thinking about the 98% tax rates of the 1970s in Britain. I only know about one individual who was hard hit by that, a colleague who suddenly became a best-selling author when he was close to retirement age. Books, movie deals and a popular TV series. Unfortunately, all the income he derived from that came in a very short period of time, and it was when the top tax rate was (I think) 98%.

Of course you know what most people in that situation did. They exercised their right not to pay by getting the hell out. Tax exile. Alfie didn't, because he loved where he was too much. He did quite well, really. Lovely house, very comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle. But no ocean-going yachts or islands in the Caribbean. It was the difference between comfortable affluence and big-lottery-win results.

So, was this theft? And I mean really theft, not just a figure of speech.

Rolfe.

Rolfe · 17th July 2009, 05:36 AM

Actually, having said that, I think this concentration on the tax rate defining the crime is a red herring. Posters have been asserting that taxation is theft, full stop. No rate of taxation is allowed as being legitimate.

Discuss.

Rolfe.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

inherently wrong

OK so this discussion will boil down to the inherent rights and wrongs of the world and some absolutist attempt to define them as truths that descend from the heavens. Can't wait!

ZouPrime · 17th July 2009, 05:45 AM

Theft, just like private property, is a legal concept, not a moral one. That this legal concept arose because of moral imperatives is irrelevant. There are plenty of things that are illegal (and immoral) in most circunstances, but legal (and moral) in others.

It's just that the right wingers/libertarian would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of natural, immuable law, independant of society, that they forget it's simply isn't the case.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Ah well, if we're going to make that the benchmark, then taxation isn't theft because I consider that it isn't.

I'm glad we sorted that out.

Nice diversion to not answering the question.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

OK so this discussion will boil down to the inherent rights and wrongs of the world and some absolutist attempt to define them as truths that descend from the heavens. Can't wait!

Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor.

Disagree?

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by ZouPrime

It's just that the left wingers/liberals would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of communal, shared ownership, independent of whether it was earned or not, that they forget it's simply isn't the case.

Fixed it for you.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor.

I have no idea what an inherent wrong is.

Tell me what an inherent wrong is. Then prove that slavery is an inherent wrong. Thanks.

Or more on topic, prove that tax is an inherent wrong. Use equations please.

Cleon · 17th July 2009, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

OK so this discussion will boil down to the inherent rights and wrongs of the world and some absolutist attempt to define them as truths that descend from the heavens. Can't wait!

Dang. You just went through seven pages in one post. Now what are people going to fight about?

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by ZouPrime

It's just that the right wingers/libertarian would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of natural, immuable law, independant of society, that they forget it's simply isn't the case.

Private property, and the enforced protection of it, is a massively beneficial thing. Wonderful. Immensely market-augmenting and good for society in general and not just the ones with a lot of property.

But it ain't any of those thingies in your quote there, no.

ZouPrime · 17th July 2009, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Fixed it for you.

The fact that private property isn't a natural right doesn't mean that it is of "communal, independent of whether it was earned or not".

It's not even a false dichotomy, it's a complete non sequitur.

ZouPrime · 17th July 2009, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Private property, and the enforced protection of it, is a massively beneficial thing. Wonderful. Immensely market-augmenting and good for society in general and not just the ones with a lot of property.

But it ain't any of those thingies in your quote there, no.

Not sure If I understand correctly your post, but just to make sure: I'm not saying that private property is a bad thing. Of course it's a good thing, it's absolutely necessary in our modern society. All I'm saying is that it's not some kind of "natural law" that take precedence over anything. That's just false. There are plenty of circumstances where it makes perfect sense to bypass private property, for various reasons, and it's not "wrong" to do so.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by ZouPrime

I'm not saying that private property is a bad thing. Of course it's a good thing [ . . . ]

Yes that's clear. However Just thinking now has to just think about whether that nonetheless still makes me (and you) a freeloadin' librull or something else.

Oliver · 17th July 2009, 06:08 AM

Taxation is theft if a Church does it via federal laws.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I have no idea what an inherent wrong is.

Tell me what an inherent wrong is. Then prove that slavery is an inherent wrong. Thanks.

Or more on topic, prove that tax is an inherent wrong. Use equations please.

Have someone make a slave of you in the manner it was used in the 1800's and you'll discover very quickly what is inherently wrong about it, even though I did spell it out.

I also never said taxation was inherently wrong (can you point it out?).

Straw --- enough to stuff a mattress or two.

(Also, will you answer the first question I posed to you?)

Praktik · 17th July 2009, 06:08 AM

If taxation was theft, then pickpockets would track you down and mow your lawn, and you know, render services for the purse they stole.

Darat · 17th July 2009, 06:12 AM

In principle:

The society I live in requires money to maintain it and one of the ways we have decided to raise that money is to levy a charge on all(ish) the members of society. I don't see taxes as anything other than a service charge on a block of flats that pays for the maintenance of the block and the grounds.

(Of course I don't agree with all the ways tax is raised or the rates and so on but that's outside the scope of this thread.)

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Have someone make a slave of you in the manner it was used in the 1800's and you'll discover very quickly what is inherently wrong about it, even though I did spell it out. [ . . . ]

(Also, will you answer the first question I posed to you?)

Since you won't define it much less prove that anything merits the definition, I'll consider this business about "inherent wrongs" to be withdrawn then

That would be fortunate for the thread's hopes of useful life IMO.

No I won't answer your first question.

Just thinking · 17th July 2009, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Yes that's clear. However Just thinking now has to just think about whether that nonetheless still makes me (and you) a freeloadin' librull or something else.

Easy ... private property includes wealth. Take it from someone to give to someone else who didn't earn it (but could) is what many folks have issues with. Especially when they system of distribution is flawed. Or when the amounts get so high, virtually everything (after a certain point) gets taken.

Darat · 17th July 2009, 06:18 AM

No one "takes" my money.

I freely and willingly (well usually) give my money to pay for the society I wish to live in. Now I am only one voice so there are things that are funded or not funded that I don't agree with but overall I'm OK with the maintenance costs of my society.

If I wasn't and if someone was actually taking my money from me why would I stay?

volatile · 17th July 2009, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Easy ... private property includes wealth. Take it from someone to give to someone else who didn't earn it (but could)

So you're not against tax? You're just against welfare?

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor.

Yes. God gave me some stone tablets.

This discussion of taxation is off to a flying start, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Nice diversion to not answering the question.

Thank you. If you have any other off-topic questions you'd like to derail the thread with, please do direct them to me.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Easy ... private property includes wealth. Take it from someone to give to someone else who didn't earn it (but could) is what many folks have issues with.

Are you talking about wealth tax or income tax? Wealth isn't "earned", it's what earned income or earned capital appreciation (or unearned transfers) becomes.

Quote:

Especially when they system of distribution is flawed. Or when the amounts get so high, virtually everything (after a certain point) gets taken.

Logically the merits of taxation should not be confused with how well a state does it. This qualifier of yours is invalid IMO

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

So you're not against tax? You're just against welfare?

Judging from the phrase "(but could)" he's only against welfare for people who don't need it. In that respect, he'd be kinda like everyone else in the world ever.

Hooray, we're unanimous.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

No one "takes" my money.

I freely and willingly (well usually) give my money to pay for the society I wish to live in.

You seem to be saying you'd voluntarily pay the same contribution you do today even if you weren't required to. That's nice but implausible on the part of the taxpaying public generally. And of course, if it was plausible that everyone paid up willingly like you, then tax wouldn't need to be imposed anyway.

Bottom line--if you mean what you're saying, you're highly exceptional and because you're not the rule, tax needs to remain in the realm of compulsory taking.

billydkid · 17th July 2009, 06:35 AM

No, it is not theft. The collective owns you and everything you own. Whatever you earn, you earn only on the behalf of society and all you are entitled to keep is what society has determined you are entitled to keep. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think history bears out that this approach can only lead to peace and justice and liberty for all.

Darat · 17th July 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

No, it is not theft. The collective owns you and everything you own. Whatever you earn, you earn only on the behalf of society and all you are entitled to keep is what society has determined you are entitled to keep. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think history bears out that this approach can only lead to peace and justice and liberty for all.

I think you are confusing taxation with socialism and/or communism.

Darat · 17th July 2009, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

You seem to be saying you'd voluntarily pay the same contribution you do today even if you weren't required to. That's nice but implausible on the part of the taxpaying public generally. And of course, if it was plausible that everyone paid up willingly like you, then tax wouldn't need to be imposed anyway.

Bottom line--if you mean what you're saying, you're highly exceptional and because you're not the rule, tax needs to remain in the realm of compulsory taking.

Coincidentally a similar concept came up in another thread today but the example was theft and laws against that.

I agree there will always be a small percentage of people in a society that will fail to keep their side of the contract and I see nothing wrong with them being forced to keep to their side of the contract.

Francesca R · 17th July 2009, 06:50 AM

I don't think it's "small". If PAYE and tax returns were replaced by an honesty basket I would hazard a guess that the HMRC would raise something between 5% and 20% of what they get with compulsion. 20% is probably really high-balling it actually.

Dr Adequate · 17th July 2009, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

No, it is not theft. The collective owns you and everything you own. Whatever you earn, you earn only on the behalf of society and all you are entitled to keep is what society has determined you are entitled to keep. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Or, as the Framers of the Constitution put it: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". Frickin' Marxists.

17th July 2009, 04:21 AM	#1
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,327	Is taxation theft? I've come across the unsupported statement that taxation is theft from several posters. No qualification, no ifs or buts, taxation is theft. For example, this lot. Follow the quotes back to confirm that he's actually talking about taxation. Originally Posted by BeAChooser And just because you might want something does not give you the right to go and take it from someone else. That's called stealing. Originally Posted by BeAChooser So stealing doesn't matter as long as 50.1% approve of it? This discussion comes in to complicate the issue in so many political and sociological discussions that I thought it might benefit from its own thread. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

17th July 2009, 05:10 AM	#2
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Rolfe I've come across the unsupported statement that taxation is theft from several posters. No qualification, no ifs or buts, taxation is theft. I would hardly call an upper limit of approaching 100% a non-qualifier ... and if taking that much isn't theft ----
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:16 AM	#4
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	That doesn't disqualify it from being theft. Also, a little caveat that seems to keep being ignored in this type of discussion is that many folks will think that going from a 90% tax to a 95% tax is only a mere 5% increase. They keep forgetting that when doing so, you reduce the person's income (at that level of taxation) by 50%! He's now only bringing home half of what he did before.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones. Last edited by Just thinking; 17th July 2009 at 05:20 AM.

17th July 2009, 05:28 AM	#7
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	You seem to believe that because something is not illegal it isn't inherently wrong. Well, slavery was at one time legal --- do you not consider that a form of imprisonment?
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:30 AM	#8
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Francesca R Is failure to levy taxation theft? That's just as legitimate a question IMO. It's not taxation per se that's being discussed (by me) ... it's rates of taxation.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:14 AM	#3
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by Just thinking I would hardly call an upper limit of approaching 100% a non-qualifier ... and if taking that much isn't theft ---- Well the UK has had marginal tax rates of above 95% in the past (not that many people paid them)

17th July 2009, 05:26 AM	#5
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	No, it isn't, for the same reason that jailing convicted criminals isn't kidnapping and police with a warrant searching a house aren't trespassing.

17th July 2009, 05:32 AM	#9
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Just thinking You seem to believe that because something is not illegal it isn't inherently wrong. No. Quote: Well, slavery was at one time legal --- do you not consider that a form of imprisonment? Ah well, if we're going to make that the benchmark, then taxation isn't theft because I consider that it isn't. I'm glad we sorted that out.

17th July 2009, 05:33 AM	#10
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Just thinking It's not taxation per se that's being discussed (by me) ... it's rates of taxation. At what rate of taxation does taxation become theft?

17th July 2009, 05:34 AM	#11
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,327	Originally Posted by Just thinking That doesn't disqualify it from being theft. Also, a little caveat that seems to keep being ignored in this type of discussion is that many folks will think that going from a 90% tax to a 95% tax is only a mere 5% increase. They keep forgetting that when doing so, you reduce the person's income (at that level of taxation) by 50%! He's now only bringing home half of what he did before. Well, actually, you haven't. Basic allowances still apply. The 90% or 95% rate only applies to the top whack of the income. As you say, you're reducing the income at that level of taxation by 50%. But the taxpayer still has the much lower rate(s) on the first chunk or chunks of income. Without knowing the specifics, it's impossible to say how it would affect his take-home pay. I was thinking about the 98% tax rates of the 1970s in Britain. I only know about one individual who was hard hit by that, a colleague who suddenly became a best-selling author when he was close to retirement age. Books, movie deals and a popular TV series. Unfortunately, all the income he derived from that came in a very short period of time, and it was when the top tax rate was (I think) 98%. Of course you know what most people in that situation did. They exercised their right not to pay by getting the hell out. Tax exile. Alfie didn't, because he loved where he was too much. He did quite well, really. Lovely house, very comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle. But no ocean-going yachts or islands in the Caribbean. It was the difference between comfortable affluence and big-lottery-win results. So, was this theft? And I mean really theft, not just a figure of speech. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

17th July 2009, 05:36 AM	#12
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,327	Actually, having said that, I think this concentration on the tax rate defining the crime is a red herring. Posters have been asserting that taxation is theft, full stop. No rate of taxation is allowed as being legitimate. Discuss. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

17th July 2009, 05:45 AM	#14
ZouPrime Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 498	Theft, just like private property, is a legal concept, not a moral one. That this legal concept arose because of moral imperatives is irrelevant. There are plenty of things that are illegal (and immoral) in most circunstances, but legal (and moral) in others. It's just that the right wingers/libertarian would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of natural, immuable law, independant of society, that they forget it's simply isn't the case.
	Last edited by ZouPrime; 17th July 2009 at 05:49 AM.

17th July 2009, 05:46 AM	#15
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Ah well, if we're going to make that the benchmark, then taxation isn't theft because I consider that it isn't. I'm glad we sorted that out. Nice diversion to not answering the question.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:48 AM	#16
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Francesca R OK so this discussion will boil down to the inherent rights and wrongs of the world and some absolutist attempt to define them as truths that descend from the heavens. Can't wait! Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor. Disagree?
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:51 AM	#17
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by ZouPrime It's just that the left wingers/liberals would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of communal, shared ownership, independent of whether it was earned or not, that they forget it's simply isn't the case. Fixed it for you.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 05:52 AM	#18
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by Just thinking Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor. I have no idea what an inherent wrong is. Tell me what an inherent wrong is. Then prove that slavery is an inherent wrong. Thanks. Or more on topic, prove that tax is an inherent wrong. Use equations please.

17th July 2009, 05:53 AM	#19
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,517	Originally Posted by Francesca R OK so this discussion will boil down to the inherent rights and wrongs of the world and some absolutist attempt to define them as truths that descend from the heavens. Can't wait! Dang. You just went through seven pages in one post. Now what are people going to fight about?
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

17th July 2009, 05:55 AM	#20
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by ZouPrime It's just that the right wingers/libertarian would love SO MUCH for private property to be some kind of natural, immuable law, independant of society, that they forget it's simply isn't the case. Private property, and the enforced protection of it, is a massively beneficial thing. Wonderful. Immensely market-augmenting and good for society in general and not just the ones with a lot of property. But it ain't any of those thingies in your quote there, no.

17th July 2009, 05:57 AM	#21
ZouPrime Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 498	Originally Posted by Just thinking Fixed it for you. The fact that private property isn't a natural right doesn't mean that it is of "communal, independent of whether it was earned or not". It's not even a false dichotomy, it's a complete non sequitur.

17th July 2009, 06:04 AM	#22
ZouPrime Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 498	Originally Posted by Francesca R Private property, and the enforced protection of it, is a massively beneficial thing. Wonderful. Immensely market-augmenting and good for society in general and not just the ones with a lot of property. But it ain't any of those thingies in your quote there, no. Not sure If I understand correctly your post, but just to make sure: I'm not saying that private property is a bad thing. Of course it's a good thing, it's absolutely necessary in our modern society. All I'm saying is that it's not some kind of "natural law" that take precedence over anything. That's just false. There are plenty of circumstances where it makes perfect sense to bypass private property, for various reasons, and it's not "wrong" to do so.

17th July 2009, 06:07 AM	#23
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by ZouPrime I'm not saying that private property is a bad thing. Of course it's a good thing [ . . . ] Yes that's clear. However Just thinking now has to just think about whether that nonetheless still makes me (and you) a freeloadin' librull or something else.

17th July 2009, 06:08 AM	#24
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Taxation is theft if a Church does it via federal laws.
	__________________

17th July 2009, 06:08 AM	#25
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Francesca R I have no idea what an inherent wrong is. Tell me what an inherent wrong is. Then prove that slavery is an inherent wrong. Thanks. Or more on topic, prove that tax is an inherent wrong. Use equations please. Have someone make a slave of you in the manner it was used in the 1800's and you'll discover very quickly what is inherently wrong about it, even though I did spell it out. I also never said taxation was inherently wrong (can you point it out?). Straw --- enough to stuff a mattress or two. (Also, will you answer the first question I posed to you?)
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 06:08 AM	#26
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	If taxation was theft, then pickpockets would track you down and mow your lawn, and you know, render services for the purse they stole.
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

17th July 2009, 06:12 AM	#27
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	In principle: The society I live in requires money to maintain it and one of the ways we have decided to raise that money is to levy a charge on all(ish) the members of society. I don't see taxes as anything other than a service charge on a block of flats that pays for the maintenance of the block and the grounds. (Of course I don't agree with all the ways tax is raised or the rates and so on but that's outside the scope of this thread.)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

17th July 2009, 06:13 AM	#28
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by Just thinking Have someone make a slave of you in the manner it was used in the 1800's and you'll discover very quickly what is inherently wrong about it, even though I did spell it out. [ . . . ] (Also, will you answer the first question I posed to you?) Since you won't define it much less prove that anything merits the definition, I'll consider this business about "inherent wrongs" to be withdrawn then That would be fortunate for the thread's hopes of useful life IMO. No I won't answer your first question.
	Last edited by Francesca R; 17th July 2009 at 06:14 AM.

17th July 2009, 06:14 AM	#29
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Originally Posted by Francesca R Yes that's clear. However Just thinking now has to just think about whether that nonetheless still makes me (and you) a freeloadin' librull or something else. Easy ... private property includes wealth. Take it from someone to give to someone else who didn't earn it (but could) is what many folks have issues with. Especially when they system of distribution is flawed. Or when the amounts get so high, virtually everything (after a certain point) gets taken.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

17th July 2009, 06:18 AM	#30
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	No one "takes" my money. I freely and willingly (well usually) give my money to pay for the society I wish to live in. Now I am only one voice so there are things that are funded or not funded that I don't agree with but overall I'm OK with the maintenance costs of my society. If I wasn't and if someone was actually taking my money from me why would I stay?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

17th July 2009, 06:21 AM	#31
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by Just thinking Easy ... private property includes wealth. Take it from someone to give to someone else who didn't earn it (but could) So you're not against tax? You're just against welfare?
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

17th July 2009, 06:25 AM	#32
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Just thinking Slavery -- inherently wrong to keep a person (who did nothing) against his will and force him to do your labor. Yes. God gave me some stone tablets. This discussion of taxation is off to a flying start, isn't it? Originally Posted by Just thinking Nice diversion to not answering the question. Thank you. If you have any other off-topic questions you'd like to derail the thread with, please do direct them to me.

17th July 2009, 06:29 AM	#34
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by volatile So you're not against tax? You're just against welfare? Judging from the phrase "(but could)" he's only against welfare for people who don't need it. In that respect, he'd be kinda like everyone else in the world ever. Hooray, we're unanimous.

17th July 2009, 06:29 AM	#35
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by Darat No one "takes" my money. I freely and willingly (well usually) give my money to pay for the society I wish to live in. You seem to be saying you'd voluntarily pay the same contribution you do today even if you weren't required to. That's nice but implausible on the part of the taxpaying public generally. And of course, if it was plausible that everyone paid up willingly like you, then tax wouldn't need to be imposed anyway. Bottom line--if you mean what you're saying, you're highly exceptional and because you're not the rule, tax needs to remain in the realm of compulsory taking.

17th July 2009, 06:35 AM	#36
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	No, it is not theft. The collective owns you and everything you own. Whatever you earn, you earn only on the behalf of society and all you are entitled to keep is what society has determined you are entitled to keep. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think history bears out that this approach can only lead to peace and justice and liberty for all.
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

17th July 2009, 06:44 AM	#37
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by billydkid No, it is not theft. The collective owns you and everything you own. Whatever you earn, you earn only on the behalf of society and all you are entitled to keep is what society has determined you are entitled to keep. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think history bears out that this approach can only lead to peace and justice and liberty for all. I think you are confusing taxation with socialism and/or communism.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

17th July 2009, 06:48 AM	#38
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by Francesca R You seem to be saying you'd voluntarily pay the same contribution you do today even if you weren't required to. That's nice but implausible on the part of the taxpaying public generally. And of course, if it was plausible that everyone paid up willingly like you, then tax wouldn't need to be imposed anyway. Bottom line--if you mean what you're saying, you're highly exceptional and because you're not the rule, tax needs to remain in the realm of compulsory taking. Coincidentally a similar concept came up in another thread today but the example was theft and laws against that. I agree there will always be a small percentage of people in a society that will fail to keep their side of the contract and I see nothing wrong with them being forced to keep to their side of the contract.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008