
No it’s not your money: why taxation isn’t theft (2014) - Torwald
https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/
======
slowmovintarget
2014 (should be in the title)

The article seem to present a tautology for why your pre-tax money isn't
yours. "It isn't yours because you are legally obligated to pay it." Taxes
take a portion of your income. If they don't, and it isn't your income, then
what is it?

It also seems very confused over what is and what isn't "just." They present
income disparity as "unjust" and therefore immoral, but that is subjective.

The argument is that you obviously don't deserve the money you get, therefore
it should be taxed. That's not a very compelling argument. Granted, like the
article, that's just my opinion.

~~~
pwinnski
Is it possible you've misread the article? As I read it, the supposition is
that one's right to one's pre-tax income is either a legal or moral right.
It's not a legal right because of the argument you reference: if it were yours
legally, why is paying taxes legally required?

However, the articles goes on to argue against the moral right on different
grounds. To say that your pre-tax income is morally yours is to argue that
your current pre-tax income--as well as that of all others--is just.

As they spell out, the idea of a legal right is incoherent, while the idea of
a moral right is implausible.

~~~
slowmovintarget
I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just
because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The
argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally
required to pay taxes.

The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has
many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The
wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money
for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money _is_
yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing
money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion
of it to the state.

Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not
theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric.

This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking",
though, and that simply is not true.

The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the
income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".

------
bryanlarsen
"Taxation is theft" is about as accurate as one of the left's old slogans
"Property is theft". There's a valid basis for some of the arguments made
around them, but as absolutes are bunk.

------
jaredcwhite
I don't know about bankers and scientists. I do know about the contracts I
have with my clients as a freelance web developer. They agree to pay me X for
Y service. I perform that service, they pay me. That money is morally and
legally mine, by virtue of the fact that the client and I have agreed upon
that transaction and nobody else had a say in the matter.

Now, the fact that I need to remit a portion of that money back out to
government entities in the form of taxes, as part of living in and doing
business in this country, does not change the situation on the ground—I get
money from my clients, then I must remit a portion of it to the state and
federal tax entities. I wouldn't argue that means "taxation is theft" per
se—but to argue that the money was never really mine to begin with is
ludicrous.

------
IanDrake
Regardless of where you stand, that is some garbage reasoning.

The free market pays a banker more than a cancer researcher, therefore
government must take from the banker and give to the researcher for...
Reasons.

The problem with that is, while the banker has made jobs possible and allowed
people to buy houses...a real and immediate value, the researcher hasn't
healed a single person.

Then, one day, the researcher finds the cure...and then gets paid more than
1,000,000 bankers put together.

We cannot apply an equal value to "trying to do good" and actually doing good.
That's not the way the world works.

I can't eat your good intentions. Nor can they shelter me from the cold.

~~~
IanDrake
Down voted by people who eat good intentions for dinner I guess.

------
gnusty_gnurc
There's an interesting conflict with labor theory of value where the left will
complain labor is deprived the full value of their labor but then nullifies
that value by claiming (in many cases) full rights to it for redistribution
with the aim of absolute equality. Therefore getting the full value of your
labor is essentially meaningless in that state anyway, and from the get-go
certain professions aren't entitled to their labor value.

------
MuffinFlavored
It's a gray area. Who is to say what the right amount of taxes to pay is? Too
little, not enough government support for programs + public services. Too
many, businesses can't flourish.

When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough?

I think a big part of it is that American perception on how efficient the
government is at solving problems given funding (tax dollars). Some people
think the government spends too much on military, some people think the
government doesn't spend enough.

With the country so heavily divided (50% left, 50% right), you have wide-scale
conflicting opinions on "should I pay more in taxes" or "should I pay less".

~~~
pwinnski
> When will poor people ever not be mad at billionaires for not doing enough?

The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for
billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people.

Billionaires are a relatively recent thing, and Rockefeller (the first) faced
enormous resistance to both his wealth and the means by which he accumulated
it.

~~~
Torwald
> The big unexamined assumption here is that it is at all reasonable for
> billionaires to exist within a society that has poor people.

I would say 'yes' that's a completely reasonable thing. The one being a
billionaire doesn't cause the others to be poor.

Wealth (and money) is not a zero-sum game.

~~~
pwinnski
A number of economists disagree with you about billionaires, but it is by no
means a fully resolved question, just a clearly-unexamined assumption.

~~~
Torwald
How then did for example Bill Gates cause anyone to become poor by becoming a
billionaire?

------
Torwald
Does anyone know why this is flagged?

