
If your pay is not yours to keep, then neither is the tax - sergeant3
https://aeon.co/essays/if-your-pay-is-not-yours-to-keep-then-neither-is-the-tax
======
pavel_lishin
It's totally fine to think of taxation as theft, so long as you think of using
public roads as trespassing.

~~~
krath94
When I say taxation is theft, I mean federal income taxes. I'd rather pay more
to my state and local governments. I interact with those more local levels way
more often and receive more benefits from them than from the federal
government. States maintain their own roads.

~~~
xmstr
All states accept federal highway funds. Source:
[http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-state-budgets-
fe...](http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-state-budgets-federal-
funding-2015-2018-trump.html)

~~~
throwaway2016a
That is true but why the level of bureaucracy in the middle? Why not just give
the states the money directly and bypass the federal government?

Just because it is that way doesn't mean it should be.

An obvious answer, though not satisfying, is that some states are too poor for
that.

------
bryanlarsen
The far right says "taxation is theft" and the far left says "capitalism is
theft" or "property is theft".

They're both about equally correct -- there's a core nugget in the argument
that's somewhat logical, but as a bald statement they're a massive over
generalization and patently ridiculous.

------
nekopa
I wish that there would be an option to say how I want my taxes spent. For
example, give 10 categories, like education, military, health, infrastructure,
government etc. Require a minimum for each, say 2%. Then its up to me to allot
the rest of my taxes. So if I am a hawk, I can dump 80% of it in the military.
Or education if I have kids.

I think technically this could be done, but it would be interesting to see
what the result would be, and if a country could run on this principle.

~~~
krath94
I think it really comes down to what roles you assign to each level of
government. For example, I think one of the main roles of the federal
government is to maintain the military. I think a role of state and local
governments is to maintain the infrastructure and education. I'd rather send
more tax money to state and local governments, because I'd see the results. A
lot of the money that states use to build and maintain their roads comes from
the federal government anyway, so why not cut out the middleman and have the
taxpayer give it directly to the state.

Obviously there are some places where you will have overlap between the
different levels. For example, I don't think the federal government should be
completely, 100% out of education, but rather should have a reduced role so
the teachers can do their jobs and educate.

Obviously these ideas would be difficult to implement and are also idealistic.
For example, some states are poorer than others so their tax revenue may not
be enough. But even given that, I think state and local governments having
more power would be better for the people. And no, this isn't some states'
rights dog whistle or whatever (I doubt any of you would accuse me of that,
but people have).

~~~
nekopa
Good points.

Side note: I am a US citizen, but I live in the Czech Republic at the moment,
so I would be interested to see a system which would be flexible enough to
allow any government to utilize.

This actually seems like an interesting enough problem that I may try to code
up a website where people can anonymously enter how much tax they pay (in
currency amounts) and how they would allocate it (in %). Then try to do some
aggregates to see how countries would compare.

------
neuronotic
Richard Murphy has written a book called The Joy of Tax, where one of the
central arguments is that the generally accepted view of tax playing the role
of funding government expenditure is incorrect, or at the very least,
undesirable.

Instead we ought to view tax as being a tool which acts as a force of
contraction in the economy, taking money out of circulation that has been put
there as a result of government spending.

Both of these (fiscal) mechanisms - spending and taxing - ideally act as a
mechanism to democratise the economy. 'Ideally' in the sense that the
mechanisms for choosing and applying such policies are democratic, rather than
authoritarian, subject to capture, etc. 'Democratise' in the sense that
without this intervention, the 'market' has free reign - with ensuing
consequences that influence over it is not in the hands of the many.

Libertarians (especially of the free-market ilk) may see this as a positive,
however, I think it is plainly obvious that a market is never free, and has a
tendency to concentrate wealth (and thus power). In my opinion, decisions over
our collective efforts and available resources ought not to be in the hands of
the few, but rather, in the many - via truly democratic mechanisms and
institutions.

Some interesting, related vids that discuss boom/bust, QE and the like:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY)

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk)

------
featherverse
The article false apart early because it is based on this premise: "There is
no serious political theory according to which my pre-tax income is ‘mine’ in
any morally significant sense."

Stated in Paragraph 2. That's false, there's lots of solid arguments to
suggest that your income belongs to you. To pretend that those arguments don't
exist so that you can write a 3 page essay amounts to dishonesty.

------
teilo
Let's set aside questions of what a particular person's labor is worth for a
moment. One may have all sorts of opinions as to whether someone deserves the
wage they earn, and such arguments are beside the point.

Let us also set aside the questions of taxation. One may likewise have all
sorts of opinions on this subject, but again, they are a distraction from the
central argument.

And finally let us set aside the questions of the exploitation of workers.
Again, this is important, but it is still a distraction.

The central concept behind a wage is this: It is a contractual exchange of X
for Y. I am giving you something, and you are giving me something in exchange.
The "something" I am giving you is my labor. You consider this a thing of
value to yourself or your company. You feel a need for my labor, so you make
an agreement with me to give me something of equal value in exchange. "Equal
value" in this case is determined by negotiation. If I do not agree that what
you are offering me in exchange for my labor is of sufficient value, I can
choose to accept the agreement and gain a more limited benefit, or I can
reject it.

The thing you give me in this case is money. It could be room and board. It
could be many things. But unless the thing you give me in exchange for what I
give you becomes "mine," the entire exchange is a fraud that no rational
person would agree to.

To say that the benefit I receive for the benefit I provide is not "mine" in
any moral sense is completely irrational. And if it is true that my wages are
not "mine" then it must also be true that my labor is not "yours," and you
have no right to keep the fruits of my labor.

What this article assumes is equivalent to saying that there is no such thing
as personal property of _any_ kind, and that includes your own life and
energies. If your wages are not yours, then neither is your labor, and thus
your labor can be coerced from you just as surely as your money can be stolen.
Your life does not belong to you. It belongs "something other." That something
other, as near as I can tell from the article, is the collective whole. You
are only of value so much as you benefit the collective, and as such you are
disposable as soon as you, in the estimation of the ruling authority, cease to
benefit the collective.

If you want to make a legitimate argument in favor of taxation (and I believe
in just and mutually-beneficial taxation, just to be clear), you cannot do so
by denying the fundamental and moral nature of labor and wages. Deny that
moral principle, and you are ultimately denying the value and dignity of human
life itself.

------
krath94
The only person that would write something like this is a university professor
whose income solely depends on the taxation of others.

------
krath94
"Outside of academia, almost everyone assumes that the money I get in my pay-
packet before the deduction of taxes is, in some morally significant sense,
‘mine’."

Oh so you mean like, in the real world?

------
crusso
"Your gross, or pre-tax income, is the money the market delivers to you"

I'm going to sit at home and wait for my delivery of money from the market for
the next few months and contemplate the logic of this article.

