What makes taxation NOT theft?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Our Lord disagreed… “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. Who mints money?
 
Why would you be evicted from property you have purchased outright?

However, you DO use common public goods and services- roads, public transport, sanitation, emergency services and such. And do so,presumably, knowing that they are public funded and run by governments. There is such a thing as (to coin a phrase) contract by conduct - if you take or use.a.good.or service knowing that you are expected to pay for.it, and fail to do so, then you in fact may be the thief.

You don’t want to pay taxes don’t use public.services. Some people do try to live “off grid” and so on - but even then I don’t see anyone stunning public.roads, and I.doubt even you would refuse emergency services if you needed them.

And if you dont like politicians, in the US I believe you have options such as writing in candidates that you personally think are good.for public.office. Or.running for office yourself.
 
Last edited:
No one said there was going to be an armed robbery or burglary.

Unless the poster is staying at home all day on the taxpayers, or family members dime, they have to go to work sometime. Right.
 
You need to understand the context in which that statement “Render unto Caesar…” was made. Remember what the Jews said? “We have no king but Caesar!”. Who had a denarius in those days? Only Soldiers and well off people, like the Pharisees.

There was more than one coin in circulation. If you had a Caesars Denarius, there was something else going on there. That coin was out of the special treasury of Caesar himself. The Pharisees were corrupt. Jesus was directly saying hey look fellas - you work for Caesar and therefore don’t complain about your bondage.

But to say in the US that coining money means that it isn’t yours, and therefore taxable is a big leap. If that is true, then the Government would have to say so. (Even if it were true, they wouldn’t say that for fear of an uprising) Why don’t yout test your theory and ask them?
 
Those taxes are not from the income tax. All of it is from money collected directly - sales, tolls, property taxes, etc. And no, there is no such thing as “contract by conduct” in this situation. How can we escape the contract? Do we drive in the ditches or on private property? If the proprietor of the road doesn’t want people to drive on it without paying, then they cannot restrict you to only that particular means. At that point it is a forced “contract” - and therefore is null and void, ab initio.

Government is subject to the people, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Theft is a completely assymetric transaction. The thief gets all the benefit and you lose.
Taxation is a moral and necessary way to fund things collectively. When you pay your taxes, you receive the benefits of roads, peace, commerce, police, schools, etc.

Think of a baseball game. You need THREE parties to play. You need the two teams but you also need the umpires. Without the umps the game is chaos.

When you buy a baseball ticket, part of the money pays for the umpires. Likewise, when you buy gasoline, part of the money goes to pay the taxes that pay for the regulations, oversight, policing of the commerce of gasoline production. You extract a benefit from that so have a moral obligation to pay for that.
 
Fine, taxation is theft, but since all of your stuff was stolen to begin with, why shouldn’t people steal from you? Everything you own, everything you purchase, the money you use to purchase it, and the land you live on were all stolen by your reasoning. Why should stealing from you be any different?
 
Last edited:
lexscripta said:
Those taxes are not from the income tax. All of it is from money collected directly - sales, tolls, property taxes, etc. And no, there is no such thing as “contract by conduct” in this situation. How can we escape the contract? Do we drive in the ditches or on private property? If the proprietor of the road doesn’t want people to drive on it without paying, then they cannot restrict you to only that particular means. At that point it is a forced “contract” - and therefore is null and void, ab initio.

Government is subject to the people, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
So? If you need ANYTHING by way of a good or.service and you cannot perform.or.provide it yourself- be it a type of food, clothing, education, medical care or whatever - then your only.option is either to contract with those who can provide the good or service or do without. That is cslled.economics.

And it doesn’t automatically make.all farmers, tailors, teachers or doctors - or tax gatherers - thieves. Only those who charge unduly high prices relative to the benefits you get in return. How much value do.you place on roads , emergency services, law enforcement and the like?
 
Last edited:
itsjustme said:
40.png
JulianN:
So I gather you don’t vote?
Click to expand...
Never have…never will. In my opinion the lowest form of human life is a politician.
Click to expand...
Those who vote have bought into the conversation as to what those for whom the votes were cast should be allowed to do. Such as raising taxes. Being a member of a democratic state gives you the right to participate in the democratic process. Or not. But if you don’t want to participate in voting then you lose the right to complain about what those who have been voted into power can do.
 
I am amazed at the lack of references to Catholic teaching in a forum called “Catholic Answers.” Why do so many people feel they would rather make up their own stories rather than consult the Catechism?
 
I wouldn’t consider taxation to be theft because all taxes levied in the UK require the consent of Parliament (a principle established in the Petition of Right in 1628 and reasserted in the Bill of Rights 1689). I assume that all democratic countries operate on a similar basis, i.e. that the executive cannot levy taxes without the consent of the legislature. That, to me, would mean that it is not theft. Of course, you could go back one stage further and ask by what authority the legislature legislates.
 
The question wasn’t whether it was a sin, or what the Church’s teachings were on the matter.

It was whether or not taxation was theft. It asked about private property and coercion.

Not everything in life centered around the Church.
 
OK, I’ll bite.

Let’s say you don’t pay taxes, even though you have enough money to do so. You are a thief. Why?

-you are using roads you did not pay for
-you are using airports you did not pay for (and so on)
-you are relying on the fire dept. to take care of you
-you rely on police protection
-you send your children to public schools you did not pay for
-you benefit because people have access to the emergency room rather than dying on your front lawn
-you don’t have to worry about invaders looting your house and city

And so on for a very, very long list. So if you do not pay taxes, you are a thief, because you are receiving these benefits without payment. Shame on you!
 
God tells us to pay taxes in both the OT and the NT. God would never advocate an evil because God is eternallly good.
 
Unfortunately, as a new member I reached the limit of my allowed posts yesterday, so I could no longer reply. Let me try again.
Erikaspirit16 said:
Let’s say you don’t pay taxes, even though you have enough money to do so. You are a thief. Why?

-you are using roads you did not pay for
-you are using airports you did not pay for (and so on)
-you are relying on the fire dept. to take care of you
-you rely on police protection
-you send your children to public schools you did not pay for
-you benefit because people have access to the emergency room rather than dying on your front lawn
-you don’t have to worry about invaders looting your house and city

And so on for a very, very long list. So if you do not pay taxes, you are a thief, because you are receiving these benefits without payment. Shame on you!
Click to expand...
The same argument could well have been made by 17th century white landowners in the American south. Look at how good I am to you slaves. I give you a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food to eat. I teach you a skill, and if you’re obedient to my rules then I am fair, and just, and kind to you. And all that I expect is that you give me an honest days work in return for all that I have provided you with. To do any less would be to take advantage of my good graces.

And yet somehow you think that I am the one in the wrong here. But it’s not I who am in the wrong, it’s you rebellious slaves who refuse to remit to me that which you are ethically obligated to. Society has rules after all, and it’s you who are in the wrong if you don’t obediently adhere to them.

Yes, society provides people with certain services. Services that society believes are in its own best interest. But the benefits of those services aren’t equally distributed. They’re biased toward the rich and powerful, who provide them ostensibly for the benefit of all, but which do in fact inequitably benefit themselves.

The poor serve the rich, and the rich would have you believe that it’s you the poor person who is in their debt for their providing you with all of society’s benefits. But it’s still one group exploiting another group.

And that’s what makes it theft.
 
itsjustme said:
Yes, society provides people with certain services. Services that society believes are in its own best interest. But the benefits of those services aren’t equally distributed. They’re biased toward the rich and powerful, who provide them ostensibly for the benefit of all, but which do in fact inequitably benefit themselves.

The poor serve the rich, and the rich would have you believe that it’s you the poor person who is in their debt for their providing you with all of society’s benefits. But it’s still one group exploiting another group.

And that’s what makes it theft.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are agreeing with me.

The slavery thing isn’t relevant: The slaves have absolutely no voice in what the slaveholder does.

I think the big fallacy I see here–and this has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads with the same fallacy–is that “government” is some entity over there that has nothing to do with the people (like the slaveholders). But that’s simply not true today–or for the last several hundred years. The “government” is us. We are the government. Do I have to quote Lincoln? “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And of course Lincoln wasn’t famous for his Socialist tendencies.

As for the poor soul above who’s bragging that he never votes, shame on him. He’s like a vagabond that goes to the slaveowner’s house and says “Please, master, make me your slave!”
 
farronwolf said:
The question wasn’t whether it was a sin, or what the Church’s teachings were on the matter.

It was whether or not taxation was theft. It asked about private property and coercion.

Not everything in life centered around the Church.
Click to expand...
The Church is one authoritative source of what the word “theft” means. If you want to consider a different definition, then fine. We could go with the legal definition. Of course that will vary a little bit from one legal system to another, but I don’t think you will find many such systems that support the claim that taxation is theft. Another authoritative source is the Webster’s Dictionary, which defines theft as:

“the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it”

which raises the question of what is felonious? Webster defines it in terms of a “crime”, which leads us back to the legal definition. So that is as dead end.

The only way to support the claim that taxation is theft is to adopt your own private definition of the word “theft”. But as I said before, showing that taxation is theft using a private definition accomplishes nothing in the way of establishing any moral claim. That is why I suggested appealing to the Church for the definition, because that definition is reasonably consistent with the legal definition, and I would argue is the most common understanding among all people, religious or not.

The claim that taxation is theft is based on a super-libertarian or anarchist ideology that makes any conclusion affirming this claim of very limited applicability.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
The slavery thing isn’t relevant: The slaves have absolutely no voice in what the slaveholder does.

I think the big fallacy I see here–and this has been discussed ad nauseum on other threads with the same fallacy–is that “government” is some entity over there that has nothing to do with the people (like the slaveholders). But that’s simply not true today–or for the last several hundred years. The “government” is us. We are the government. Do I have to quote Lincoln? “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And of course Lincoln wasn’t famous for his Socialist tendencies.
Click to expand...
But all that you’ve really done is redefined the slaveowner. It’s still a matter of might makes right. You’re still giving one group of people the power to dictate to another group of people what they are and aren’t allowed to do. The fact that that power may be subject to the whims of the electorate doesn’t mean that the government’s actions are therefore morally justified.

If the government under the authority of the electorate decides that taxation isn’t theft, that doesn’t make it true. Just as the government under the same authority can decide that abortion isn’t murder. That doesn’t make it true.

To take someone’s property by means of coercion…is theft. It doesn’t matter who authorizes it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top