Cicero

Not many people will deny that the worker is due his wages; nor that you get what you pay for, and nothing else. This is nothing more than a cold fact that those who are prepared to accept reality appreciate.

Why then, the recent upsurge in numbers (and noise) of those who believe that taxation is theft? Let us leave the obvious constitutionality of taxation out of the picture (for it is self-evident), and concentrate on base reality, rather than principle.

Pretend, for the moment, that you are a settler on the early prairie. You are largely self-sufficient, but you are also isolated, and at the mercy of fortune. You are approaced by a man who says that, for 30 cents on your dollar, you will be provided with roads, rail, hospitals, defense against bandits and foreign conquerers, postal services, and communication with the outside world.

Obviously, you would assume that the man is a liar. Nobody could provide all of those services for such a trifling sum...yet this is exactly what our society has done. For a meager percentage, you are provided with a life that is not soley dependent on good fortune. Could private organizations provide these services at an equal cost? Of course not; corporations must turn a profit, governments do not.

Some, though, decry the disparity in tax rates, between the wealthy and the poor, yet consider: Those who enjoy, whether by good fortune or hard work, greater prosperity under the system should pay more into that system. The rich are the aristocracy in a capitalist nation, de facto if not de jure...and as such must acknowledge the responsibility that this position entails. The early Greek and Roman aristocracies, during their respective republics, understood this, and something more: The nature of aristocracy is that it yields far more responisilities than benefits. Of course, they also viewed responsibility as the worthiest goal, rather than an onerous burden. When the aristocracy demands it's perks, yet denies it's responsibilities, it ceases to be beneficial to society, and becomes an oligarchy (the second worst form of stratification), and a parasite on the national body.

Others would argue that taxation, though not evil in itself, allows a "welfare-state" to come into existence. Yet was it not governmental programs such as the TVA which got people OFF of the dole (and gave us a multitude of hydro-electric dams that we enjoy to this day) during one of the worst periods in our history? Welfare, it is true, should not be a multi-generational stipend, but this is cause for reform (such as those reforms done in Illinois, for example), not removal. It is a simple fact that people are more confident, and more productive, when they have a safety net, even a short-term one.

The final argument is that lowered taxation spurs economic growth. While this seems self-evident, it is also (in a modern, global economy) deceptive. Consider: A wealthy man recieves a large tax break. Is he more likely to invest it in an American corporation, or an overseas corporation in a nation that allows sweatshop conditions (and thus higher profits)? Given the additional cries for repealing capital gains taxation, the situation is this: The government recieves NO additional revenues. In support of this, I challenge anyone to name a single year in which tax breaks generated greater revenue. It has never occurred...Reagan was forced to follow his tax cuts with the largest tax increase in American history (details provided upon request). Bush the Elder was forced to add, not remove taxes, despite his promises...and his son in now running the largest single-year deficit in the world's history, and his tax cuts have barely been implemented.

Thus, it is a simple fact that taxation is not only a necessity, but a duty, possibly the only duty that the American of today is called on to perform. The only reasoning that seems likely to eliminate taxation is that, given a period of prosperity, a human wants more, and faster...and is willing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, in the vain hope of instatnly gaining all of the gold. That old cautionary fable is no less true today than it was when it was first told.

lpetrich

If you are young, and not against taxes, you have no heart.
If you are old, and unwilling to accept taxes, you have no brain.

RED DAVE

My personal belief, seriously, is that this is some kind of oedipal rage aimed at the government. I put tax protest, libertarianism, fundies and the militias in the same category here.

I believe that this is a reaction to the failure of the Sixties to ameliorate the human condition permanently. This is the backlash. Since the hippies are gone and public racism and sexism are not possible, and Communism is gone, there has to be some target.

Why not the government? It's big. It's powerful. It's a main cause of the problem. So, instead of taking an intelligent critique of the state and drawing radical conclusions (like any good anarchist or Marxist), instead, I'll just let fly with my rage using "traditional" right wing beliefs. (Try asking people in my categories above about the gold standard and see what you get, if you think I'm kidding.)

Random thoughts on Monday morning.

RED DAVE

meritocrat

The primary purpose of the state is to protect people's rights. It's not there (or should not exist) to 'expect' its citizens to fund it out of a sense of obligation.

Taxation is stealing money from the state's citizens. Government can easily be funded from user fees and voluntary taxation (and please no nonsense about the free rider problem).

RED DAVE

The primary purpose of the state is to regulate capitalism. That's what it does. The rules, laws, practices, etc., of capitalism, and the instrumentality to enforce them is what makes up the state.

Marx said (paraphrasing from memory): The state is the executive committee of the ruling class. (Bow in obeiscance, all Party members, and chant "Yeh"):

He also said (again, paraphrasing): The essence of the state is special bodies of armed men. (Party members, repeat the above.)

RED DAVE

TMA68

I'm partly at odds with both sides of the "taxation is theft" debate.

Since there are only three factors of wealth production -- land, labor and capital -- there are, for all practical purposes, only three kinds of taxes. I consider a tax that falls on either labor or capital to be theft, but do not consider a tax that falls on land values to be theft. The reason is that I believe taxes on labor and capital violate the exclusive right of the individual to the fruits of his labor, while a tax on land value does not, since land isn't the fruit of anyone's labor, but is a free gift of nature, and -- if self-ownership is to have any meaning -- is that to which all have an equal right of access.

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm

Todd Altman

theyeti

As near as I can tell, taxes can be divided into three categories, but they don't tightly follow land, labor and capital. Instead they're income, consumption, and property. While property taxes could be considered a tax on "land", they include more than just land -- they include car taxes and estate taxes for example. And income taxes could be considered a tax on labor or capital depending on how you look at it. I don't know where consumption taxes would fit.

Of course I don't agree that any of them are "theft" any more than paying dues to belong to any other organization is theft. You choose to be a part of the organization, you choose to pay the fee. It's kind of silly IMO to talk about taxes being theft when a) they're not illegal and b) people pay them voluntarily by virtue of their voluntary citizenship.

theyeti

Dr. Retard

I know I'm trying to 'get into it again', but "people pay them voluntarily by virtue of their voluntary citizenship"? The only way you can make this true is by altering the conventional meanings of the words employed. Maybe taxation is justified, maybe it's not. But it's not voluntary.

lpetrich

Does anyone ever talk about "voluntary respect for others' lives, lberty, and property"?

If something is only a virtue if it's voluntary, then one is led to something like that.

Cicero

Nonsense. "Stealing" is to unlawfully take money or property from it's rightful owner.

Taxation is constitutional (Article I, Sec 8, para 2; and amendment XVI), therefore it is legal, and not theft.

To replace it with "user fees" would transform the republic into a corporation, essentially, which is about the worst form of government I can think of.

Voluntary taxation? You ARE joking, yes?