the emotional aspect of taxation has no relevance when discussing its meaning as it serves as a distraction or attempt to mislead someones convictions THIS is what causes mischaracterizations of taxation in the first place and why so many people confuse it with theft NOT that they think " the product of their efforts are seized by threat of force". people initially see taxation for what it is a legal investment towards their countries goals until they are unethically influenced otherwise by unpatriotic objectives this 'innocent' yet overused unethical mischaracterization is what then influences the feelings of so many to favor a minority who benefit the most from less taxation
No, 240m is the total US population, only 20 % or so are employed. The others are self employed, unemployed, retired, or children/homemakers. Also the average US wage is $25kpa, the average corporate earning is the the $10-100mpa range. So the earnings trough wages are much smaller than any other earnings in the USA. But to answer the question of the OP, yes, taxation is theft. It wouldn't be a theft if it was managed by an elected body and spent on the good of taxpayers. But that is never the case, because you can't elect a guy that is not purchased by other financial interests after elections, and your taxes are spent for the profits of those interests, not you.
Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of.
That's not the reason. I could steal your car, sell it, and use it to pay for a well in the center of town that people may be able to avail themselves of. That doesn't mean stealing your car isn't theft. Taxation isn't theft because theft mean illegal seizure and taxation isn't illegal. Whether there is a moral distinction between theft and taxation is a harder question (moral questions usually are).
Does that mean that taxation is theft when it is used to pay for services that the taxpayer is unable or ineligible to benefit from?
taxation is not as simple as stealing someones car to provide for the needs of the country as a whole people invest some of their income in the form of taxes to government in an effort to pay for the betterment of their society if everyone were their own nation then it would be theft but everyone belongs to a collective in a nation and the most fortunate or biggest beneficiaries of a nation are responsible for investing more than everyone else
It is also a breathing document and in the original constitution allowed for amendments to grow with the country.
That is simply taking my statement out of context. It is quite simple for me. I support an the taxation. There is no moral question whatsoever.
The total US population is over 310 million. In 2009 (the most recent year I was able to get good data for) there were over 140 million people who filed income taxes with 115 million of them earning enough money that they would have paid some income tax if not for tax deductions and credits. My estimate was a little low (it was based on another site, not the IRS site like the above data.) Even so, it is easy to estimate that if those taxpayers only claimed the standard deduction, we'd have collected about another $100 billion or so in taxes. Since we know many people claim a lot more, plus tax credits, the actually amount they dodge is probably even higher.
That's the point. Your statement sounds reasonable when you consider only one context. When you look at in other contexts you find your statement is not true. Uh, huh. Well if you support all taxation without regard to the details or context and ask no moral questions, then yes: it probably is quite simple for you.
if there was morality applied to the act of taxation it would be in how it is used and most taxes go to social security and health care so it is VERY moral the immoral part of taxation is when it funds the military for corporate wars but that is another discussion
But ... tax credits and deductions are necessary to avoid double taxation, so common between states and internationally. (Even when they have a reciprocity/totalization agreement, they never eliminate double taxation completely.) Also, tax credits/deductions are an economic tool to define the direction of doing business in the country, and to differentiate between business groups for preference. Are you arguing that tax credits/deductions skew market forces? Are tax credits/deductions a bad thing or a good thing?
If you look back through the thread, I was responding to the argument between "liberalminority" and "Taxpayer", best characterized by the following exchange: My statement was simply meant to reinforce the idea that there is no difference between a corporation using tax law to their advantage and a private citizen using tax law to his advantage. If avoiding taxes is unpatriotic for one, it is unpatriotic for both. Personally I feel every person should maximize their deductions every time. Give the government the bare minimum you can get away with. I don't feel the government should engage in social engineering through tax credits and deductions, they basically make taxes into a big farce. A simply, clear tax system with no deductions or credits would make it a lot easier for people to understand exactly how much the government is taking from them and better allow voters to determine their opinions of the politicians in office. As it is, the politicians are able to buy votes and hide their collections in a maze of exceptions and loopholes.
The difference is that government has an obligation to use tax dollars to protect rights and to provide for the betterment of society as a whole. With your standard car thief, there is no such guarantee. -Meta
The government guarantee isn't very good either. Our government has used our tax dollars for things that don't necessarily help society or that harm segments of society. Cushy aircraft filled with unlimited wine for our politicians to fly on their world tours don't better society as a whole or protect rights. Likewise when tax dollars were used to forcibly sterilize citizens against their will, it was the opposite of protecting their rights.
True, and overall I'd rather the government take my money than some petty thief. But overall I'd rather limit how much the government can take to a point that it would force them to exactly and only what is absolutely necessary to do.
The only context you have suggested is theft. Theft is the unlawful taking of something that belongs to another. Please be explicit regarding which details you are referring to.
Gravina Island Bridge The Gravina Island Bridge, commonly referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere", was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that currently connects the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island, an island which contains the Ketchikan International Airport as well as 50 residents. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million. Members of the Alaskan congressional delegation, particularly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens, were the bridge's biggest advocates in Congress, and helped push for federal funding.[1] The project encountered fierce opposition outside of Alaska as a symbol of pork barrel spending and is labeled as one of the more prominent "bridges to nowhere".[2] As a result, Congress removed the federal earmark for the bridge in 2005.[3] Funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" has continued as of March 2, 2011 in the passing of H.R. 662: Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011[4][5][6] by the House of Representatives. (more) Any guarantee you imagine may exist, is less than reliable and not mentioned in Websters definition. The only difference is one is allowed by law, the other is not.
Yes, the key is it's unlawful. You had asserted that the difference between theft and taxation was that "Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*) I provided an example of which you agree is theft, which also paid for services which people may be able to avail themselves of. I did this as a way of showing you that what the seized wealth provided is not the distinction between taxation and theft. The distinction is whether the law allowed them to be seized.(*) If someone took your car or home and sold it, illegally -- it would be theft. If someone took your car or home and sold it, legally -- it could be a tax. Whether the money from the sale was used to build a well or just handed to J.P. Morgan... well, the fed has done both (and worse). They still call it a tax.
The distinction is embodied in the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
I'm familiar with the constitution. It doesn't define either word. What point are you trying to make?
Is Taxation Theft?<<<<OP Answer: According to all resources I have seen and that which I have cited in addition to the very idea, why there needs to be a tax, the answer is NO. That is the point. To go further and create hypothetical situations where an actual theft takes place and then try to fit the concept of taxation in is more than contrived; it is outrageous.
... we've already established the answer is no. You just seem to be confused as to the reason the answer is no. Your post:"Taxation is not theft in so far as it is a means to pay for services which people may be able to avail themselves of."(*) My response:"That's not the reason. I could steal your car, sell it, and use it to pay for a well in the center of town that people may be able to avail themselves of. That doesn't mean stealing your car isn't theft. Taxation isn't theft because theft means illegal seizure and taxation isn't illegal."(*) My hypothetical example was to help you understand your error by providing a counter example. Seriously, I don't see how a person could be more clear than saying "That's not the reason." or "Taxation isn't theft."