Wesley Snipes Presents: Is tax theft or is all property theft?

pjbetman wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

pjbetman wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skarjo wrote:To be honest, I'm not interested in discussing this in moral terms because I don't think we've set out the terms properly.

I don't think it's theft and no ones really been able to tell me why it is.

As such, morality is beside the question for me. Demonstrate why it really is theft and I'll tell you if I consider it immoral.

I'm defining theft as "taking something from someone without consent". The threat of violence is used as enforcement, but it's the taking without consent that I consider an immoral action.

If you don't agree with that as a definition of theft that's fine, the word theft isn't important. Just replace it with the longform.

And I believe you consent to tax when you consent to earnings.

You're aware that earning in the uk results in tax liability. To pretend that the taxes resulting from earning in the UK are theft is no better than running out on a bar bill because you didn't realise that drinking margaritas might result in a bill.

I don't think anyone is arguing that ALL taxes are bad. I mean, you can consent to some taxes because you think they provide a better world/forest/whatever. But, I think the uses that some of that tax goes to is dubious at best (West Ham football ground anyone?). And, of course, we have very little choice in that.

And how come the little forest girl is forced to hand over her berries and the big corporate forest commission pays a paltry percentage of ENORMOUS profits? Corruption. Where do I vote to stop that?

No one's discussing what taxes are spent on.

I'm being told that taxation is immoral theft.

We vote for the people who spend our taxes every few years, and disagreement as to how they do it is the reason for 'Politics' being a thing.

Doesn't affect whether taxes themselves are theft.

Yes, I'm not sure that taxation is theft exactly. I think it's more of a control measure than anything else - keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer, basically. The real issue here is that we have people with so much money that they don't know what to do with it (gold plated cars, football teams etc), and we have billions of people who struggle day-to-day.

My point was that although we agree to some things that taxes are spent on, we don't have a REAL choice on what those taxes are spent on, therefore we haven't consented to it. We don't even get to choose that everyone pays their full taxes, particularly large corporations and many celebrities. So, how come we HAVE to pay our taxes (under threat of prison/fines etc) but others get away with it? How come THEY get to opt out of it, and we don't?

And trying to pretend that voting in different political parties makes the slightest bit of difference is disingenuous - they all drum to the same beat. Obviously, radical change is very difficult, so why not just keep the status quo, because 'we're all right, Jack'?

I'm not trying to argue, I'm hoping to develop the debate.

Fair in some ways, but what do you propose? Unless we vote on everything, we have to put forward people who we hope represent our feelings to spend the money accordingly.

The big problem is that we, as society, never really hold these people accountable for their failures.

Skarjo wrote:Yes it is, and you're failing to demonstrate why, understanding that UK earnings are subject to UK tax, earning in the UK makes you subject to UK tax is immoral thievery.

Because "understanding consequences" and "consent" are different things. Maybe not in the UK law, but I'm talking about generally.

It's not theft. Please demonstrate why it's theft.

I mean obviously we are never going to agree on this.

Whoo boy.

Those men are wrong.

It is not consent, and the women are in no way accountable for the misunderstanding of the concept of consent held by those idiot men.

Cool. So you agree that the women's actions, for which they understood the consequence for those actions would be being harassed, did not amount to consent for those consequences. Glad we agree with the idea that actions when knowing the consequences are not equivalent to consent, then. At least we got that far.

Literally what I said.

cool

It was a wrong example.

So do you therefore agree with road tax because you use roads? And you know that the products you buy got there via roads?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of which taxes you oppose. I thought it was a thing of principle about theft or something?

Tax which I'm forced to pay without an opt out of, I oppose morally but NOT PRACTICALLY. I don't get to opt out of road tax because I use a car and the roads that pay for it. I could not use a car, and not be forced to pay road tax. Using a car is a delightful bonus, which is why I understand some taxation on that, as it is not a necessary thing to do to survive and it helps you.

(I don't actually drive btw, but this is the argument)

Income tax I don't see how it's justified. If you are able bodied and mentally able, you have to work to survive. Why should I be taxed for simply acting because I do not want to die of starvation? I think that is tantamount to theft, yeah. But it's required, so practically I support it even though morally I oppose it. We can keep going in circles if you want but I'm honestly bored now, I imagine you are as well.

Communes also pay taxes, BTW @lex-man

yeah we're getting bored because you hold an unwavering view on taxes that only the fruitiest minority loons still believe in, and you still havent given any convincing argument on why taxes are 'immoral' or 'theft'

<]:^D wrote:yeah we're getting bored because you hold an unwavering view on taxes that only the fruitiest minority loons still believe in, and you still havent given any convincing argument on why taxes are 'immoral' or 'theft'

What, that taxes are theft, but they are a necessary thing for society to function (at least at the moment)? I don't think that's particularly Fruity Loony, but thanks for the insult. Most people I know in real life seem to agree with me so unless you're suggesting that I'm in some Fruity Loony World then I don't think that holds true whatsoever.

As for whether the argument is convincing, that's your opinion. Obviously if you fundamentally hold the opposite view you won't be convinced, so you will never see a 'convincing' argument.

Most communes pay taxes but some don't create anything taxable so don't. It's very difficult to live completely off the grid.

Taxation isn't theft.

but profit is

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yes it is, and you're failing to demonstrate why, understanding that UK earnings are subject to UK tax, earning in the UK makes you subject to UK tax is immoral thievery.

Because "understanding consequences" and "consent" are different things. Maybe not in the UK law, but I'm talking about generally.

So not in a meaningful sense, but in the way convenient for you.

Cool. So you agree that the women's actions, for which they understood the consequence for those actions would be being harassed, did not amount to consent for those consequences. Glad we agree with the idea that actions when knowing the consequences are not equivalent to consent, then. At least we got that far.

No, those things are not consequences of those actions, and if it's perceived that they are then the people holding the perceptions are wrong.

That idiot men misunderstand what the consequences of women's clothing choices are doesn't make the women accountable for those consequences; it makes the men accountable for their misconception.

Tax which I'm forced to pay without an opt out of, I oppose morally but NOT PRACTICALLY. I don't get to opt out of road tax because I use a car and the roads that pay for it. I could not use a car, and not be forced to pay road tax. Using a car is a delightful bonus, which is why I understand some taxation on that, as it is not a necessary thing to do to survive and it helps you.

(I don't actually drive btw, but this is the argument)

Income tax I don't see how it's justified. If you are able bodied and mentally able, you have to work to survive. Why should I be taxed for simply acting because I do not want to die of starvation? I think that is tantamount to theft, yeah. But it's required, so practically I support it even though morally I oppose it. We can keep going in circles if you want but I'm honestly bored now, I imagine you are as well.

Communes also pay taxes, BTW @lex-man

Then you're wrong. Because you still benefit from police and firefighters and the army and schools and roads and and and and and.....

It isn't theft

It isn't tantamount to theft.

You, by virtue of living and earning in the UK, benefit from a multitude of privileges paid for by UK taxes. You, by virtue of earning in that system, fully aware that that UK earnings are subject to UK tax, are obliged to pay UK taxes.

It isn't theft, it isn't immoral, it's the price you pay for benefitting from UK society.

Regginator3 wrote:What, that taxes are theft, but they are a necessary thing for society to function (at least at the moment)?

yeah well done for combining the objectionable part of your argument, with a less objectionable part of another argument. we're not discussing the second opinion: the first opinion is the loony one

Regginator3 wrote:As for whether the argument is convincing, that's your opinion. Obviously if you fundamentally hold the opposite view you won't be convinced, so you will never see a 'convincing' argument.

youre the one coming out with an uncommon viewpoint, one that has no basis either semantically, or by real-world application so you will need to provide some really good arguments to convince people otherwise, and you havent.

<]:^D wrote:yeah well done for combining the objectionable part of your argument, with a less objectionable part of another argument. we're not discussing the second opinion: the first opinion is the loony one

"Loony" is a bit much. Referring to the idea that "money taken from me without my consent is theft" as loony is surely a bit much, no? Now we can disagree with the consent, and this is what this debate has centred around most recently. Loony though? Really?

Regginator3 wrote:youre the one coming out with an uncommon viewpoint, one that has no basis either semantically, or by real-world application so you will need to provide some really good arguments to convince people otherwise, and you havent.

Uncommon - maybe to GRCade. I'd love to see a national survey on the issue though. Care to fund one? Or shall I?

Skarjo wrote:And I believe you consent to tax when you consent to earnings.

You're aware that earning in the uk results in tax liability. To pretend that the taxes resulting from earning in the UK are theft is no better than running out on a bar bill because you didn't realise that drinking margaritas might result in a bill.

So you agree that taking something from someone without consent is immoral, but you argue consent is given by accepting the terms of your employment?

This is similar to what was said in the other thread, and I can accept the argument that earning GBP implies consent to taxation, as it is the state that controls the currency, so the state has the right to set the terms of use of that currency. If you want to earn or spend GBP then you consent to taxation, I'm happy with that as an argument.

Would you agree this is the difference with my Alice and Bob hypothetical - that the berries there analogous to money are not controlled and given value by Bob, so Bob is acting immorally?

Here is my follow up line of reasoning. If I were to start earning in Bitcoin, a currency not centrally controlled by the state, do you still think I have given consent to taxation? I don't see how that could be reasonably argued.

Taking something without someone's consent isn't always immoral anyway. Arguing morality in terms of these vastly reductive axioms and crap (no offence) analogies remains a huge red herring for this discussion.

Morality isn't even set in stone, anyway. Only very recently has the idea of personal property rights been a thing. For most of human history, we did fine without that concept.

OrangeRakoon wrote:Would you agree this is the difference with my Alice and Bob hypothetical - that the berries there analogous to money are not controlled and given value by Bob, so Bob is acting immorally?

Here is my follow up line of reasoning. If I were to start earning in Bitcoin, a currency not centrally controlled by the state, do you still think I have given consent to taxation? I don't see how that could be reasonably argued.

No, because taxation is not based exclusively in the British pound. You get taxed on income. You get taxed on assets. I can't gift you a Mona Lisa and have you expect to have that tax free. If I paid you in tins of spam that you can later trade for goods and services, no one would reasonably claim that you're free from income tax.

If you got paid in Bitcoin (first of all, my condolences that your primary source of earnings is libertarian dutch tulips), then that is still an asset with a measurable GBP worth (that changes every 4.2 seconds because holy gooseberry fool why would you ever want to use Bitcoin as anything other than a punchline) and thus you get taxed on that asset.

Did you earn it in the UK?

Then you have a UK tax liability.

Skarjo wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:Would you agree this is the difference with my Alice and Bob hypothetical - that the berries there analogous to money are not controlled and given value by Bob, so Bob is acting immorally?

Here is my follow up line of reasoning. If I were to start earning in Bitcoin, a currency not centrally controlled by the state, do you still think I have given consent to taxation? I don't see how that could be reasonably argued.

No, because taxation is not based exclusively in the British pound. You get taxed on income. You get taxed on assets. I can't gift you a Mona Lisa and have you expect to have that tax free. If I paid you in tins of spam that you can later trade for goods and services, no one would reasonably claim that you're free from income tax.

If you got paid in Bitcoin (first of all, my condolences that your primary source of earnings is libertarian dutch tulips), then that is still an asset with a measurable GBP worth (that changes every 4.2 seconds because holy gooseberry fool why would you ever want to use Bitcoin as anything other than a punchline) and thus you get taxed on that asset.

Did you earn it in the UK?

Then you have a UK tax liability.

And then comes the question, why should the state be allowed to intervene in private transactions?

Why can I not set up a private exchange of services without the government getting involved? Why does the state have that right?

(Also thinking Bitcoin is the equivalent of the tulip bubble shows basically zero understanding but whatever)

Regginator3 wrote:
And then comes the question, why should the state be allowed to intervene in private transactions?

Why can I not set up a private exchange of services without the government getting involved? Why does the state have that right?

(Also thinking Bitcoin is the equivalent of the tulip bubble shows basically zero understanding but whatever)

You can, just not on the goverment's turf. The same turf they spend millions on a military specifically to defend.

Find somewhere else to do it.

(And sorry, of course, Bitcoin is super serious and not at all hilarious).

Skarjo wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:
And then comes the question, why should the state be allowed to intervene in private transactions?

Why can I not set up a private exchange of services without the government getting involved? Why does the state have that right?

(Also thinking Bitcoin is the equivalent of the tulip bubble shows basically zero understanding but whatever)

You can, just not on the goverment's turf. The same turf they spend millions on a military specifically to defend.

Find somewhere else to do it.

(And sorry, of course, Bitcoin is super serious and not at all hilarious).

Who gave this "turf" to the state again...?

Karl wrote:Taking something without someone's consent isn't always immoral anyway.

There are two arguments here.

1) Taxation amounts to "taking something without someone's consent".
2) "Taking something without someone's consent" is immoral.

Skarjo is arguing that taxation has implied consent. I accept that, where the state manages a currency, earning in that currency implies consent to taxation.

You are arguing that taking something without someone's consent isn't always immoral. I agree, but in the situations where it is not immoral, there is qualifying context that justifies the taking without consent. The justifying context is like a moral modifier. The base moral value for "taking something without consent", with no other context, is that it is immoral. I think that's important as it means that in any situation where someone may take something from someone else without consent, it must be justified. It's not okay to take things without consent unless you have a further moral argument for doing so.

This was my initial argument about taxation. Taxation is equivalent to taking something without consent, as taxation applies to more than just earnings in the state currency (and hence that implied consent does not cover all aspects of taxation). It is therefore necessary to justify taxation with additional context. The additional context that I believe justifies taxation is that if were not enforced, many people would not pay it and the system would fail.

Skarjo wrote:No, because taxation is not based exclusively in the British pound. You get taxed on income. You get taxed on assets. I can't gift you a Mona Lisa and have you expect to have that tax free. If I paid you in tins of spam that you can later trade for goods and services, no one would reasonably claim that you're free from income tax.

If you got paid in Bitcoin, then that is still an asset with a measurable GBP worth and thus you get taxed on that asset.

Did you earn it in the UK?

Then you have a UK tax liability.

So you are arguing that simply receiving something in a certain geographical region implies consent to taxation? I disagree. That's an incredibly weak argument for implied consent.

Regginator3 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Regginator3 wrote:
And then comes the question, why should the state be allowed to intervene in private transactions?

Why can I not set up a private exchange of services without the government getting involved? Why does the state have that right?

(Also thinking Bitcoin is the equivalent of the tulip bubble shows basically zero understanding but whatever)

You can, just not on the goverment's turf. The same turf they spend millions on a military specifically to defend.

Find somewhere else to do it.

(And sorry, of course, Bitcoin is super serious and not at all hilarious).

Who gave this "turf" to the state again...?

No one.

But their military does a good job of ensuring no one else takes it, so I shan't argue with them.

By all means go ahead though.

Skarjo wrote:No one.

But their military does a good job of ensuring no one else takes it, so I shan't argue with them.

By all means go ahead though.

Ah, so that's what it comes down to - brute force.

OrangeRakoon wrote:
So you are arguing that simply receiving something in a certain geographical region implies consent to taxation? I disagree. That's an incredibly weak argument for implied consent.

No, I'm arguing that earning something in a geographical location makes you complicit in and consenting to the system of earning of that geographical location.

Taxation included.