Taxation is...

[metis]

This assumes that all forms of theft are contrary to codified law. There could be a case of theft by legislation. It is quite possible for a majority to vote in favor of theft.

What is classified as being "theft" is determined by the law.

 

[Shaul]

And those aren't societies I'd like to live in.

As for the US, times change as population and demands surge.

To each his own, although I don't know what you find particularly objectionable to the Bahamas or Bermuda. Since the U.S. has a history showing it existed without an income tax before, and as you say times change, it is arguable that it could change back into a society without an income tax. There have been major candidates who ran for President that propose elimination of income taxes.

 

[PureX]

I get it. What is a social construct, is not really that. I as an individual decide that, because I have individual freedom to do that. The problem is that freedom is also a social construct.

Yes. It's selfishness gone blind. It thinks everyone else's selfishness will somehow mitigate and balance out all the insane effects of our collective unchecked selfishness. Huh?

The problem, though, isn't that taxation insults our innate selfishness. Of course it does. The problem is that the bully-boys are always among us, and always just waiting their turn to wreck havoc on us all. Which is why the fantasy of anarchy lasts just as long as it takes the local bully-boys to see that their desire to abuse and exploit everyone around them is standing unopposed. At which time they will gleefully spring into action.

It's why governments were formed in the first place - to protect the non-bully-boys from the bully-boys. And those bully-boys are in us, among us, and all around us. So that protection needs to be full service, and trustworthy. It requires a justice system, effective policing, and a strong standing army. All of which requires a lot of money to set up and run. Money that can only come from, and should come from, the people being protected.

 

[The Hammer]

To each his own, although I don't know what you find particularly objectionable to the Bahamas or Bermuda. Since the U.S. has a history showing it existed without an income tax before, and as you say times change, it is arguable that it could change back into a society without an income tax. There have been major candidates who ran for President that propose elimination of income taxes.

I've edited my previous post if you want to read it.

The main reason why it could work there is small population and small land area. (Bahamas have 63k people total).

We are falling apart over the same issues that toppled the Roman empire. "Do we tax or not/how much/when". The distant lands didn't want to pay taxes, the cities did. Collapse ensued.

 

[Shaul]

What is classified as being "theft" is determined by the law.

Only in the sense of its legality. In light of objective standards perhaps not. No system of law is perfect. Therefore a particular system of law may exhibit any number of deviations from capital T Truth. One such deviation could be theft. If a society duly passed a law that "Theft is legal" that would both be the law and be theft.

 

[Alien826]

The use of taxation by governments is a spectrum, not a binary state of use/non-use. So your question of where it is "completely irrelevant" isn't answerable. It would be like asking for an economy that is completely free-market. I have previously listed some of the alternative methods for financing government operations. The point is that a society decides how much taxation it permits. There is no universal minimum required amount of taxation.

It seems to me that, putting it simply, we have things we (as a society) want to do and how much we (as a society) are prepared to pay for it. So the minimum income (I'm avoiding "taxation" for now) is the cost of what we have decided to do. Lower income results in debt. Higher income is ... unusual.

A can't see what is gained from alternative (to taxation) means of income, other than to confuse the issue. No matter how you do it, paying for public services means taking money away from people. You can shift the load around, but it still isn't free. In the case where there are natural resources that can be applied to income, which is about as far from taxation as you can get, we are still taking a common source of wealth and appropriating it to pay for what we have created.

 

[Shaul]

I've edited my previous post if you want to read it.

The main reason why it could work there is small population and small land area. (Bahamas have 63k people total).

We are falling apart over the same issues that toppled the Roman empire. "Do we tax or not".

Or...
We tax well enough but spend too much needlessly.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm of the opinion it is theft. I never consented. I don't think the government should have a monopoly on essential services. Statists tout this monopoly as proof that society would implode without a government taxing them. Is it really too hard to wrap your head around how a flat surface could be paved in absence of a government?

You want a low ball quote and the lack of quality that goes with it? Profit over people is not nice, IMO. Who will pay for police protection, libraries, streets, etc?

 

[The Hammer]

Or...
We tax well enough but spend too much needlessly.

Sure.

We could cut several billion dollars from the bloated defense budget. I'd love to see that.

 

[Alien826]

Only in the sense of its legality. In light of objective standards perhaps not. No system of law is perfect. Therefore a particular system of law may exhibit any number of deviations from capital T Truth. One such deviation could be theft. If a society duly passed a law that "Theft is legal" that would both be the law and be theft.

Eh? Theft is by definition illegal. In that case it either wouldn't be accurately defined as theft after the law was passed, or you have an oxymoron.

 

[The Hammer]

. I never consented.

You could always become homeless, thus "leave society". You don't want the services your taxes pay for, that's how you opt out.

 

[metis]

Only in the sense of its legality.

But "theft" is a legal term!

theft
[THeft]
NOUN

1. the action or crime of stealing:

 

[metis]

If a society duly passed a law that "Theft is legal" that would both be the law and be theft.

Then it would be no longer "theft".

 

[Shaul]

It seems to me that, putting it simply, we have things we (as a society) want to do and how much we (as a society) are prepared to pay for it. So the minimum income (I'm avoiding "taxation" for now) is the cost of what we have decided to do. Lower income results in debt. Higher income is ... unusual.

A can't see what is gained from alternative (to taxation) means of income, other than to confuse the issue. No matter how you do it, paying for public services means taking money away from people. You can shift the load around, but it still isn't free. In the case where there are natural resources that can be applied to income, which is about as far from taxation as you can get, we are still taking a common source of wealth and appropriating it to pay for what we have created.

"we"?

Perhaps voices of dissent should be considered. Or at least given a hearing!

So you recognize there is taking of wealth going on. It isn't so hard to understand that many, many would disagree with how the money taken is spent and how much is taken. Ignoring those who want less of their wealth taken to pay for things they don't even want is a sure recipe for increased taxation. Taxation can be reduced, if we want to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

<sigh> Once again. The amount of taxation is a spectrum, not an absolute. The point is a society can choose the finance means it uses and taxation is not the only option.

In the United States personal income taxes did not exist (Federally) until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Prior to its passage the government financed its operations via tariffs.

And tariffs are a form of taxes. So a standard society and not the special cases that can function without any taxes at all. As for the level of taxation that is politics and you and I don't decide that as individuals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So? The more salient point is that they have good relations with their neighbors which eliminates the need for a military. The elimination for the need for taxes to support a military is real.

Yeah, let us all do that. Your country goes first and removes all taxation.

 

[metis]

So you recognize there is taking of wealth going on. It isn't so hard to understand that many, many would disagree with how the money taken is spent and how much is taken.

This is why we vote in many countries.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"we"?

Perhaps voices of dissent should be considered. Or at least given a hearing!

So you recognize there is taking of wealth going on. It isn't so hard to understand that many, many would disagree with how the money taken is spent and how much is taken. Ignoring those who want less of their wealth taken to pay for things they don't even want is a sure recipe for increased taxation. Taxation can be reduced, if we want to.

You are not a we and neither am I. Yet you start with a "we"? and end with doing the same.

 

[Sand Dancer]

There are many alternatives to finance government services besides taxation. Just a few of them include: voluntary contributions, lotteries, pay-for-service licenses, and privatization of services. The fact is there are alternatives to taxes.

The countries that don't have income taxes usually run on tourism or oil profits, or you have to be wealthy to live there.

 

[Shaul]

But "theft" is a legal term!

theft
[THeft]
NOUN

1. the action or crime of stealing:

Um, actually it is both a legal and a moral or ethical term. As the definition you provided shows. A crime may or may not be codified in law. You are equating lowercase "law" with uppercase "Law". The former is an imperfect man made construct the latter is the ideal archetype of the concept.