Why is taxation wrong?

[Focus]

So lately I have been getting into debates with people on why taxes are wrong. I use the basic arguments such as taxes being coercive force, etc, etc. Then my opponent responds that taxes are not voluntary because I can just leave if I do not like taxes. I then state that the choice itself is coercive, but they say that I voluntarily accepted to pay taxes when I bought property in this country. So then they compare the voluntary exchanges between a business and consumer to a citizen and government and say that they are the same. How exactly are they different? I am using the services of the government when I live in the country, aren't I?

Edited November 8, 2008 by Focus

[Zip]

Taxes are not just payments on services you actually use though.

Taxes can be fees for services you never use and that go toward programs you disagree with even. I'm a Canadian so to emphasize my point I'll use an example specific to me.

I have been in the military for over 20 years. In all that time I have been prohibited from using the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada, but approximately 40% of my taxes either directly or indirectly goes toward healthcare.

Also during the 4 years I spent living in Germany I paid Canadian Taxes but didn't receive a single Canadian service. To add insult to injury my wife upon return to Canada was denied unemployment insurance because she had not been eligible to work in Canada in over a year.

Hmph, just remembered another one. For the entirety of my regular force military career I paid into employment insurance but when I left the regular forces I could not collect a single dime from that program.

[Focus]

Taxes are not just payments on services you actually use though.

Taxes can be fees for services you never use and that go toward programs you disagree with even. I'm a Canadian so to emphasize my point I'll use an example specific to me.

I have been in the military for over 20 years. In all that time I have been prohibited from using the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada, but approximately 40% of my taxes either directly or indirectly goes toward healthcare.

Also during the 4 years I spent living in Germany I paid Canadian Taxes but didn't receive a single Canadian service. To add insult to injury my wife upon return to Canada was denied unemployment insurance because she had not been eligible to work in Canada in over a year.

Hmph, just remembered another one. For the entirety of my regular force military career I paid into employment insurance but when I left the regular forces I could not collect a single dime from that program.

What if taxes only paid for the police force, courts, etc, but are still not "voluntary?" There has to be a better argument against taxes then, "Most of the services I pay for, I don't use."

[Zip]

What if taxes only paid for the police force, courts, etc, but are still not "voluntary?" There has to be a better argument against taxes then, "Most of the services I pay for, I don't use."

Any form of compulsion reduces a mans freedom to think act and do. Therefore I believe that the compulsory nature in and of itself is enough to make taxation wrong. I was just trying to give you another point in your argument.

[Focus]

Any form of compulsion reduces a mans freedom to think act and do. Therefore I believe that the compulsory nature in and of itself is enough to make taxation wrong. I was just trying to give you another point in your argument.

The thing is, if I buy property that I know will allow the government to tax me, isn't it just as voluntary as a transaction between a business man and the consumer?

[DavidOdden]

The problem is that you need to get them to accept the idea of "principle", and then you need to get them to accept a particular principle, namely that man's proper means of survival is reason and not force. To talk about "wrong", you have to accept that there is some principle about what is "right" and what is "wrong". For example, they could say "Okay, taxes are wrong but we should tax people anyhow" -- that means that for them notions of "right" and "wrong" play no effective role in deciding how to live your life. You're arguing a very difficult and abstract point with them; do they have a clear understanding of "right" and "wrong" and notions like "should"? Do they actually understand the notion of "force" (example: "You have a choice when a mugger attacks you -- you can choose to hand over your money, or not, so it's not 'force'.").

Their reasoning that "buying property" is a form of agreeing is simply specious. (Like the milkman

at 3:00 implying that the guy "thereby agreed" to buy 1000 liters of milk). You can only agree to something if you actually agree to that thing. Buying property does is not an agreement to anything other than the exchange of property for some other value.

[Focus]

The problem is that you need to get them to accept the idea of "principle", and then you need to get them to accept a particular principle, namely that man's proper means of survival is reason and not force. To talk about "wrong", you have to accept that there is some principle about what is "right" and what is "wrong". For example, they could say "Okay, taxes are wrong but we should tax people anyhow" -- that means that for them notions of "right" and "wrong" play no effective role in deciding how to live your life. You're arguing a very difficult and abstract point with them; do they have a clear understanding of "right" and "wrong" and notions like "should"? Do they actually understand the notion of "force" (example: "You have a choice when a mugger attacks you -- you can choose to hand over your money, or not, so it's not 'force'.").

Their reasoning that "buying property" is a form of agreeing is simply specious. (Like the milkman

at 3:00 implying that the guy "thereby agreed" to buy 1000 liters of milk). You can only agree to something if you actually agree to that thing. Buying property does is not an agreement to anything other than the exchange of property for some other value.

He thinks we have a choice to pay taxes because if you buy property on "government soil" then you have agreed to pay taxes. He basically says we put ourselves in the situation to pay taxes. He compares it to buying into a housing development with rules and regulations such as not buying pets and stuff like that. How is this different?

[DavidOdden]

He thinks we have a choice to pay taxes because if you buy property on "government soil" then you have agreed to pay taxes.

His position is predicated on a falsehood, one that the government doesn't even assume at least in the civilized world. Namely that you're buying property "on government soil". Ideas like that were indeed held in communist Mozambique and Russia, where individuals did not buy property, they received permission to use property that is owned or controlled by the state. In the US, we operate on the principle that property is owned privately (although the government can own property). Thus my house is on private soil, not government soil, and nobody has ever seriously held that this is or was "government soil".

As I say, you can't just go making stuff up like "By doing X you have agreed to do Y". An agreement is an actual agreement, it requires voluntary assent.

He basically says we put ourselves in the situation to pay taxes.

By doing what? Many people don't actually buy property. So he must mean "by failing to commit suicide".

He compares it to buying into a housing development with rules and regulations such as not buying pets and stuff like that. How is this different?

When you buy a house in a development subject to conditions and covenants, those conditions are explicitly stated and are part of the agreement which you sign. There is no such thing for "living" -- you do not sign a document at birth vowing to pay taxes, be drafted, restrict your business... No element of the concept "agreement" is present when it comes to taxation requirements; every element of the actual agreement must be present in the document to bind a person to a no-pets clause.

[gags]

He thinks we have a choice to pay taxes because if you buy property on "government soil" then you have agreed to pay taxes. He basically says we put ourselves in the situation to pay taxes. He compares it to buying into a housing development with rules and regulations such as not buying pets and stuff like that. How is this different?

This is a variation on the "social contract" argument. According to that argument, we give up certain rights (property rights in the instant case) in order to create social order. As David said, those who advocate this idea don't understand the concept of force and they don't understand the concept of a contract. Also, the person you are debating doesn't understand the proper role of government in a rational society. The soil should not be owned by the government any more than the government should own your car or your clothes or the food that you eat. When the government properly has a monopoly on force, its role is not to rent you property, it is to protect your right to that property.

[Zip]

He thinks we have a choice to pay taxes because if you buy property on "government soil" then you have agreed to pay taxes. He basically says we put ourselves in the situation to pay taxes. He compares it to buying into a housing development with rules and regulations such as not buying pets and stuff like that. How is this different?

Where is the contract? In a HOA you know what can and can not be done, government gives you no such choice.

If by purchasing property I then signed an iron clad contract with the government carefully defining its powers and jurisdiction I would gladly (if the terms were correct) pay the fee for the upkeep of that government, but that isn't the way it works. {This does offer an interesting possible solution for the problem of funding in an Objectivist society though...}

The government demands your money, and will strip you of your rights and incarcerate you if you do not pay. It doesn't sign a contract with you, it just makes some wishy-washy non-binding promises and then it goes about doing whatever it wants like you are the servant of it instead of the other (and proper) way around

[Publius]

This is a variation on the "social contract" argument.

I'm surprised that social contract theory is never mentioned on this forum. It is the defining philosophy of government in the West and has been since representative government came into being. It is the social contract which Objectivism seeks to replace, which is kind of a big deal. The theory says that the people, by being free to choose the form of government they want by way of voting, are endorsing the social contract. The contract can be violated if the government does not work towards the general interest of the people, or violates certain natural rights of the citizens. When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature.

The controversy is the whole natural rights thing. There is disagreement over what constitutes natural rights, rights that can't be ceded to the state voluntarily or involuntarily. Objectivists believe taxation constitutes confiscation of property, property being a natural right, and thus is a violation of their natural rights. Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers.

those who advocate this idea don't understand the concept of force and they don't understand the concept of a contract. Also, the person you are debating doesn't understand the proper role of government in a rational society.

I would say it isn't so much a matter of understanding, its a matter of opinion about what the eventual outcomes will be. Can we say definitively that an Objectivist society, although just in the sense of preserving natural rights of property, would not be more chaotic and disorderly? No, I don't think you can know that. So, on one hand, one might say it is rational to have a system of government that doesn't initiate force on its citizens. On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable.

Food for thought anyway.

[hunterrose]

My opponent responds that taxes are not voluntary because I can just leave if I do not like taxes.

Ask your opponent if all voluntary contracts are valid.

I can understand the idea of implicit terms associated with contracts to an extent. If I buy a gun, I implicitly agree to not use it to initiate force. If I buy some copyrighted music, I implicitly agree to not make a million copies and sell them without explicit permission.

Such implicit terms are justified because violating the them violates the (natural?) rights of others. "Voluntary" has nothing to do with it.

Objectivists believe taxation constitutes confiscation of property, property being a natural right, and thus is a violation of their natural rights. Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers.

How are the nonliberal views of natural rights constituted?

I would say it isn't so much a matter of understanding, its a matter of opinion about what the eventual outcomes will be.

I would say it's rather a matter of understanding whether "anticipated eventual outcome" is a valid principle to base political theories on.

On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable.

But nobody who believed in social contract theory could say that. It wouldn't be rational to argue ceding rights which by definition can't be ceded to the government voluntarily or involuntarily.

[DavidOdden]

I can understand the idea of implicit terms associated with contracts to an extent. If I buy a gun, I implicitly agree to not use it to initiate force. If I buy some copyrighted music, I implicitly agree to not make a million copies and sell them without explicit permission.

Such implicit terms are justified because violating the them violates the (natural?) rights of others. "Voluntary" has nothing to do with it.

This is not what "implicit" or "agreement" mean. If you buy a gun, whether or not you agree to not use it to initiate force, you still may not morally or legally use it to initiate force. The basis of man's rights is not some redefinition of the concept "agreement" where a person does not actually agree of know that they have "agreed". Such obligations are rightly encoded in law because acting contrarily would violate the rights of others. That does not create a new set of "agreements" that don;t actually meet the definition of an agreement.

[hunterrose]

Good, then we're in agreement.

[D'kian]

A voluntary transaction implies one thing absent in taxation: that there be no penalties for not volunteering.

Suppose it's raining and you go into a Walmart for the sole purpose of getting out of the rain. You wonder the aisles a while, but buy nothing. Now let's say on your way out a security guard stops you and says "you can't leave unless you buy something. You agreed to do so the moment you stepped into the store. Besides you owe us for sheltering you from the rain" Would that be voluntary or coercive?

[DavidOdden]

Good, then we're in agreement.

I'm glad you've implicitly agreed to repudiate your earlier error.

[Mensch]

Suppose it's raining and you go into a Walmart for the sole purpose of getting out of the rain. You wonder the aisles a while, but buy nothing. Now let's say on your way out a security guard stops you and says "you can't leave unless you buy something. You agreed to do so the moment you stepped into the store. Besides you owe us for sheltering you from the rain" Would that be voluntary or coercive?

If I owned the business I would give this "potential" customer a chance to shelter from the rain and not coerce him into buying anything at that point. As a retail outlet you have to expect that customers come in just to browse without buying. This guy who sought shelter might have found some things interesting in the store for his future purchases. So, as a business owner I would consider my generous offer an advertisement and not force him to pay for the shelter, as in: "buy something or else…"

When this guy talks to his buddies later on, he will spread the word about the generosity of this store policy and they in turn look at the store in a favorable light, even might become customers.

The store owner would have set up some new customers to have more profit in the end. Kindness can be a wonderful tool

-----

Walmart is not a good example, for they already have a policy in place where they encourage people to come and gather like in the old market places, they support fun in the isles, set up benches etc. It is in their self-interest to do so and they are very successful with it.

[KevinDW78]

Another point I don't think I saw anyone make - even in the argument of "you agreed to pay taxes when you bought your property" the government gets to change the terms of that agreement unilaterally without your consent whenever they wish. They can raise your taxes, impose new taxes, etc, none of which you may have "agreed" to when buying your property. Are these people arguing that not only are you agreeing to pay taxes by buying your property, but also granting the government unilateral power to tax you into oblivion come next year if it suits their whims?

[gags]

The theory says that the people, by being free to choose the form of government they want by way of voting, are endorsing the social contract. The contract can be violated if the government does not work towards the general interest of the people, or violates certain natural rights of the citizens.

Again, there is no contract here, using any rational definition of the term. I have never agreed to allow the government to violate my individual rights, yet it does so constantly.

When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature.

Under a rational form of government, 51% of the cannibals wouldn't "negotiate" to eat the other 49%. That is essentially our current system.

The controversy is the whole natural rights thing. There is disagreement over what constitutes natural rights, rights that can't be ceded to the state voluntarily or involuntarily.

There is a rational definition of what constitutes a right. There are disagreements over this because some parties refuse to accept that rational definition.

Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers.

So what?

On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable.

I suppose one might also declare that living in a large prison camp would be a very orderly way to structure society.

[Publius]

I would say it's rather a matter of understanding whether "anticipated eventual outcome" is a valid principle to base political theories on.

Unless you advocate for anarchy, a state is essential to at the very least protect the rights of its citizens. So the continuity of a state is in everybody's interest.

It wouldn't be rational to argue ceding rights which by definition can't be ceded to the government voluntarily or involuntarily.

Social contract theorists argue that natural rights do not extend to an absolute right to property, as an individual is part of a society and therefore there is a balance struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community. The justification for this is the need for a well ordered society, that this is crucial for a society to flourish. This balance is dictated by individuals using their right to change the government as they see fit.

the government gets to change the terms of that agreement unilaterally without your consent whenever they wish. They can raise your taxes, impose new taxes, etc, none of which you may have "agreed" to when buying your property. Are these people arguing that not only are you agreeing to pay taxes by buying your property, but also granting the government unilateral power to tax you into oblivion come next year if it suits their whims?

Again, the power is not absolute, it is subject to the will of the people via elections. If the government begins to disregard the will of the people, the government itself can justifiably be removed.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Publius

[DavidOdden]

Again, the power is not absolute, it is subject to the will of the people via elections. If the government begins to disregard the will of the people, the government itself can justifiably be removed.

This is, however, entirely beside the point, since the question at hand is whether there is a valid argument that taxation is indeed voluntary because by buying property one agrees to submit to the will of the state. That claim has been amply refuted, and the option of voting a government out of office is irrelevant to the central question.

[Publius]

Again, there is no contract here, using any rational definition of the term. I have never agreed to allow the government to violate my individual rights, yet it does so constantly.

A social contract theorist would say the agreement is implicit by enjoying the stability and infrastructure government provides (using government roads, public education for your children, air traffic control system, monetary system, police, courts, public parks, sidewalks, etc.) as an adult. It is your responsibility if you disagree with the more accepted definition of natural rights, to win others in the society over to your view. Failing that, you must accept the decisions of the society you live in, or move to a new one. If the government violates a people's natural rights, e.g. your freedom of movement, to participate in society, or freedom of one's body and mind, then the government must be democratically removed or forcefully overthrown.

Under a rational form of government, 51% of the cannibals wouldn't "negotiate" to eat the other 49%. That is essentially our current system.

Being eaten would be a violation of one's natural rights, under anyone's definition, and therefore forbidden. Another relevant concept to discuss is political pluralism. Pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation and compromise. This concept goes back to the founding of the US and is fundamental to understanding any western government. The minority opinion cannot be squelched or silenced because they have rights, both natural and civil (codified by law and the Constitution).

There is a rational definition of what constitutes a right. There are disagreements over this because some parties refuse to accept that rational definition.

The definition of what is a right is constantly evolving. That definition you speak of was popular for a time in the 18th and 19th centuries. But it fell out of favor when societal stability began to fracture as evidence of a strong relationship between wealth and societal power began to emerge. So to convince the masses that a dialing back of the notion of natural rights to include a prohibition on taxation, you would have to present evidence that society is best managed when government's only intrusion is to run the police, courts and national defense. Unfortunately, after the recent economic turmoil, public opinion is not heading in that direction.

I suppose one might also declare that living in a large prison camp would be a very orderly way to structure society.

No that would be a violation of natural rights, in this case your freedom of movement.

[Publius]

This is, however, entirely beside the point, since the question at hand is whether there is a valid argument that taxation is indeed voluntary because by buying property one agrees to submit to the will of the state. That claim has been amply refuted, and the option of voting a government out of office is irrelevant to the central question.

The question at hand is whether taxes are wrong, and why or why not. That is the argument Focus is having, and that is the subject you yourself addressed earlier here. Surely this is what he would like to know more about, more than simply whether taxation is agreed to because you bought property. This is not the established justification for taxation under the social contract anyway.

[D'kian]

In Mexico we pay a tax for owning a car, called "tenencia vehicular" (sort of "vehicular ownership"). It's collected by the states (we do ahve states, you kow) but it was mandated by the federal government. It was a "temporary" tax ennacted in the late 60s meant to finance the 68 Olympics, and it should ahve been discontinued. But there's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.

Well, a few years ago a group of people sued the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the tax. they won. The tax was ruled unconstitutional. but the court also ruled that anyone who'd already paid it had, de facto, volunteered to pay it. Therefore if you've ever paid that tax, you have to keep paying it.

Never mind that at various times your car could be detained if you adn't paid the tenencia tax, or you couldn't effect an ownership change if you bought a used car that owed the tax, or you couldn't get it certified for emissions control if you owed it (and if you don't get it certified, you can't drive your car). Never mind, in other words, that the government ennacted an illegal tax and coerced car owners to pay for it. If they were foolish enough not to loose the use of their car by force, they're doomed to keep paying that atx forever (or untill it's rescinded, and hell will freeze over first; the tax now goes to the states).

How's that a for a voluntary social contract?

Oh, for a while common street robbers had the habit to "ask" for all your money while showing you a gun, but never actually saying "give me all your money or I'll shoot." Why? Because a judge ruled that without an explicit threat, the victim was giving his money away voluntarily. Nice, huh? In fact, if you said you were robbed at gunpoint, the thug would produce a dozen witnesses saying he merely "asked." He'd go free, and the victim would go to jail for "making false statements."

[DavidOdden]

The question at hand is whether taxes are wrong, and why or why not.

That is false. Let me quote the essentials of the OP: "Then my opponent responds that taxes are not voluntary because I can just leave if I do not like taxes. I then state that the choice itself is coercive, but they say that I voluntarily accepted to pay taxes when I bought property in this country. So then they compare the voluntary exchanges between a business and consumer to a citizen and government and say that they are the same. How exactly are they different?". There is absolutely no question whether taxes are wrong, and we know why they are wrong. The only question is how to rebut the contention that buying property constitutes consent to being taxed. Stop trying to sidetrack the discussion with this crap about social contracts.