# Taxes are Theft **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749 "2010-04-20T15:12:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/461 "2010-04-26T15:47:42Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > And yes, I hold my insurance company accountable, don’t you? If they are pissing away money, it means I can get a cheaper policy from someone else who doesn’t waste as much. If one company tries to raise my rates so that some people (not me) can get road side assistance, I’ll switch to another company. And you can do the same thing by moving to another country. > [@](#): > > Notice too that I have a policy for the car I own. It doesn’t include a bunch of things I don’t own, or that you want to own. I choose the policy that is right for me, based on my needs and requirements. I have yet to see a workable a la carte form of government. > [@](#): > > Do you think your insurance rates should go up because OTHER people are bad drivers, and others still cant’ afford coverage? But your rate does gfo up because your naighbors are bad drivers. > [@](#): > > It really sucks having in addition to my policy, and separate chunk of insurance to cover uninsured/underinsured drivers. Gee so even the free market hasn’t been able to solve this problem? I must be unsolvable. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/462 "2010-04-26T15:54:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > As a result there are now limits to how much margin a person can use to invest. We have had to legislate responsibility, because without it people would still borrow money they don’t have to invest in things they shouldn’t. And who enforces those limits? I bet the folks who are most in need of that enforcement don’t actually want it and wouldn’t pay for it if asked. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/463 "2010-04-26T16:02:09Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Like you said, there is no universal answer, so stop pretending like government solving problems is the only answer. > > Some times it’s going to make sense for us all to chip in for a police department, we all benefit by lowering crime. So wait, perhaps all taxes aren’t theft only those taxes that are used to pay for things you don’t want to pay for? I think I’ve seen this thread before. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/464 "2010-04-26T16:26:26Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > **Damuri Ajashi** , you quoted a post from several pages back, but I have no desire to appear evasive, so I will do my best to answer them. Sorry I am working my way through the posts. I never know how to approach an intersting thread that is already several days (and pages) old. > [@](#): > > I agree, there are _some_ things where the benefits to society justifies the cost. I think we can all agree that there are _some_ things that don’t. I believe we need to start with the assumption that most things don’t, instead of starting with the assumption that most things do. > > When I say “taxes are theft” it reflects the disconnect with how taxes are collected for the things we agree to pay for. I skipped a handful of pages (when I realized that my posts were duplicative of other posts) but this sounds like you have mellowed your position on taxation and theft a little bit. > [@](#): > > Like I said with public libraries: there is no question they provide a benefit to society, and because they aren’t restricted to one segment\* it seems acceptable to have everyone chip in. But what if I never use the library? Why aren’t libraries like roads? > [@](#): > > I doesn’t makes sense to tax income federally, for a benefit that’s enjoyed locally. Does medicare and national highways fall into that category? > [@](#): > > Looking even closer, many libraries lend books for free, but charge a nominal fee for dvd rentals. Why? Because dvds are for whatever reason consdered to fall outside the category of stuff that should eb abvailable to all regardless of ability to pay. > [@](#): > > Exactly, that’s basically what I’m talking about. We currently have a lot of incentives that encourage or discourage certain actions. My point was that you are probably uninsurable. > [@](#): > > My home owners insurance is designed to cover the cost of replacing my house. It could also include the cost of the fire department to put out the fire. Are you saying taht we should be taxing insurance companies for the fire department? Doesn’t it make mroe sense to tax the hom,eowners through real estate taxes to cover the cost of fire departments the way we do right now? > [@](#): > > Single-payer UHC health care makes a lot more sense to me than single-payer universal fire department. See how a lot of things can go either way, and in the end it has a lot more to do with what we’re used to. I think it depends more on whether you have thought about what makes sense. Like i said, I’m not goi9ng to defend every government expenditure but I spend a lot of time looking at the federal budget and I have trouble identifying the enormous amounts of government waste that peopela re talking about. > [@](#): > > Garbage collection greatly benefits society (check out India if you’re curious) Some places have garbage collection paid by taxes, others individually. I am arguing that when garbage is paid individually it becomes self sufficient–more garbage means more money, less garbage means a better environment. A poor person can then choose how much garbage he/she can afford, and doesn’t get waste based on what other people can afford. Exactly and in poor neighborhoods you would see the garbage pile up and there would be health concerns. In that case, why shouldn’t the city run garbage collection? > [@](#): > > Mass transit could pay for itself if the alternative was more expensive. The alternatives are in fact more expensive in other countries and yet they subsidize their mass transit more than we do. > [@](#): > > Technically speaking, mass transit represents people pooling a small amount of money to avoid a large individual cost. The places with the best mass transit are usually the places where the cost to have a car is prohibitively expensive. The places where it’s the worst are usually where the cost of owning a car is heavily subsidized (free highways, ample free parking, low cost of gas). But I drive my hummer into work every day and pay tolls for every inch of road I drive. I never use mass transit, why are you stealing my money to pay for the mass transit of all those poor people? Yes, it would, exactly my point. Having the tax reflect the usage is self sufficient, and discourages the harmful effects. Yes there are. UHC for one, represents a way that we all enter into a nation wide group health plan that dramatically lowers individual costs, improves health, and makes everything better. The fact that a handful of people get it for free vastly outweighs the alternative. I also mentioned earlier how a system of employment insurance could be used to fund periods of unemployment, just like disability insurance. If it makes sound economic sense to do this nationally through a government run program, so be it. I see no reason why it can’t be something that people pay into, and then draw from. As a general rule unemployment hurts us all, the problem is to find a system that benefits us, without indirectly rewarding gaming the system. The current system of income tax has a tendency to encourage people to either not work, or stay in lower income brackets, which is exactly what we don’t want. Exactly. By allowing a system where the majority can agree to tax the minority is a recipe for disaster. A politician that stands up and says, “I’ll reduce the taxes for 95% of Americans, by increasing the tax for 5%” is destined to win. But it doesn’t produce what we want or need. All the incentives push politicians to use pork barrel spending to buy votes. Right now, the top 1% is paying 95% of the taxes. What incentive or power is there to change that? That’s right, it’s not free. We need to figure out a cost, and then decide if we can afford it. In addition to the WWII windows, we also have widows from a more recent war. But nobody bothered to fund it. If the government passed around a collection plate before going into Iraq, and had a system where those that wanted the war could pay for it, we’d all be a little bit happier. Did the war in Iraq benefit any of us (other than the people getting defense money)? That war will continue to show up on our federal income tax until the federal debt is zero. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/465 "2010-04-26T17:05:14Z")
Sorry for the break. I hit the reply button accidentally and the edit function was expired. > [@](#): > > Yes there are. UHC for one, represents a way that we all enter into a nation wide group health plan that dramatically lowers individual costs, improves health, and makes everything better. The fact that a handful of people get it for free vastly outweighs the alternative. Now, its starting to sound like its oK to steal my money to apy for health care for poor people as long as you think its a worthy cause. > [@](#): > > I see no reason why it can’t be something that people pay into, and then draw from. I think thats called a savings account rather than insurance. > [@](#): > > As a general rule unemployment hurts us all, the problem is to find a system that benefits us, without indirectly rewarding gaming the system. Yeah, most of the problems youa re talking about arise whenever we talk about insurance or colective action. everything from freeriding to moral hazard to self selection. > [@](#): > > The current system of income tax has a tendency to encourage people to either not work, or stay in lower income brackets, which is exactly what we don’t want. how so? I would think that there is almost always an incentive to be make more money. BTW, are you familiar with the welfare reform act of 1996? > [@](#): > > A politician that stands up and says, “I’ll reduce the taxes for 95% of Americans, by increasing the tax for 5%” is destined to win. Oddly enough that is not how it worked in 2000 and 2004, instead the politician that stood up and said i will lower taxes for 100% of Americans (especially the top 5%), which will pay for itself because of… ummm… supply side economics and stuff (but actually by running a deficit) won. > [@](#): > > But it doesn’t produce what we want or need. We or you? > [@](#): > > All the incentives push politicians to use pork barrel spending to buy votes. Its not politicians that are buying votes, its their votes that are being bought. > [@](#): > > Right now, the top 1% is paying 95% of the taxes. What incentive or power is there to change that? First I think your numbers are wrong and second there is a major political party in this country that has been winning elections on reducing the relative tax burden on that top 1% and getting lots of campaign contributions for their effort (see Mars fortune heirs and campaign contributions to congressmen that supported repealing the estate tax). > [@](#): > > We need to figure out a cost, and then decide if we can afford it. I don’t think we can afford not to have it, everything you presume for your economic philosophy depends on it. > [@](#): > > If the government passed around a collection plate before going into Iraq, and had a system where those that wanted the war could pay for it, we’d all be a little bit happier. Did the war in Iraq benefit any of us (other than the people getting defense money)? While I agree that we were deceived on the cost of the war (the war that would pay for itself), I don’t think we can have a workable system where war efforts are based effectively on contributions. > [@](#): > > That war will continue to show up on our federal income tax until the federal debt is zero. [/QUOTE] The way we achieved that after WWII was with marginal tax rates in excess of 90% ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/466 "2010-04-26T17:10:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Damuri Ajashi, I want to thank you for taking part in my thread, but you are a loooong way back. Just about all of my points were torn to shreds a couple of days ago. Sorry I’m trying to catch up. > [@](#): > > Um, did we have inner city schools BEFORE we had public schools? Not universally. > [@](#): > > We shouldn’t be using literacy rates a hundred years ago to prop up our accomplishments. We need to aim for the highest percentage that we as a society can afford. Agreed, but I was comparing a system without public schools versus a system with public schools. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately this is what happens when you let an engineer get involved with social programs. If we put more money into schools we probably wouldn’t increase the literacy rate much. If we took money out of the schools, we probably wouldn’t reduce literacy rates much either. So why not pull money out until we start to have a noticeable but acceptable level? DC is experimenting with a novel approach. Paying students in poor inner city schools to attend class and not cause trouble. It seems to have a significant impact on the teaching environment, graduation rate adn test scores, apparently being in class and not starting fights does wonders for the learning process. They are also throwing a lot more money at teachers (who can make 100K+) in exchange for the city’s ability to fire you if you suck. > [@](#): > > Hooray, I win. Me 1: Otherside 549 > Sweet, Me 2: Otherside 549 Its not taht you don’t have a point, its that you take it too far. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/467 "2010-04-26T17:21:05Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > No, that’s not that I was saying. I was pointing out that we have a lot of crime under the current system that needs to be acknowledged before dismissing an alternative system. Yeah but the system youa re proposing sounds like something we have already seen (around the 1300’s) > [@](#): > > Three weeks ago. Imagine how frequently it would occur without the regulations. > [@](#): > > You are confusing “education” with “public education.” Nope, I have every idea what you are talking about. I have lived in countries where public education does not exist, the private sector simply does nto step in to fill the gap and people don’t limit their procreation to those they can afford to educate. Most poor kids are taught in Catholic missions or Islamic madrassas, the quality of the education is not bad but it can carry a pretty heavy social price tag. > [@](#): > > Without education society would be very bad off. With public education we are better off. But are we as well off as we could be? If you want to talk about charter schools, fine, there is an argument there, if you want to talk about elminating government’s role in at least funding schools through taxation then I don’t know how you can win the argument. > [@](#): > > There is no excuse for an under privileged child to under perform on the SAT, we as a society are paying too much for that to happen. Technically speaking we should have broken that part of the poverty cycle a long time ago. But now I’m back to preaching. You need to walk a mile in their shoes before you get too preachy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/468 "2010-04-26T17:27:20Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Wow, good reference! (even if you did just want the DVD) Not really sure what you are referring to. > [@](#): > > Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, > the People have abdicated our duties; > for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, > high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and > anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses > > - Juvenal > > We have improved in every single metric since 100AD except that one. > > I was wrong, taxes aren’t theft, they are our punishment for political apathy. Taxes are not our punishment for political apathy after all taxes are hardly bread and circus. Teh tyranny of the minority (special intersts) is our punishment for political apathy. If people only knew the sort of stuff that goes on around here, they would get really pissed off before they sat down to watch Survivor (or whatever people watch these days). ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/469 "2010-04-26T20:42:39Z")
Holy crap there is no way I can respond to all of that, you have won. BTW the dvd reference was to the tv show _Rome_. The final story arc dealt with the issues of grain supplies from Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/470 "2010-04-26T20:56:33Z")
“[cue generic and overly dramtic rebuttle]Those people making minimum-wage would also love a new iPhone and matching iPad, should we the tax payer subsidize that for them too?” > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think part of the governement process is determining what sort of goods fall into the public sphere. What sort of goods should people have regardless of ability to pay. You’re points are excellent, and if I wasn’t running out the door I’d address them in more detail, but I wanted to look at this one. It would be nice if the government could make that determination, and this is where the “we are the government” fits into the equation. Our current system of “spread the love” encourages bad behaviour by both the politicians and the voters. Military bases can’t be closed because the local town needs that revenue stream. Planes and tanks are built to excess for the same reason. Bread and circuses. A politician that can bring government spending to his constituency gets rewarded with another (2,4,6) years at the trough. That same town would riot if their politician said, “The town of Lima, Ohio, now has an extra 5% income tax to offset the money coming into your town from that factory.” The final problem is that democracy is based on a majority vote, so 95% of the population can vote to raise taxes on the other 5%, and lower their own taxes. How do we justify having deficit spending, when people in the future are going to have to pay for what we enjoy now, plus interest? It’s easy for that 95% to vote for something they don’t have to pay for. Ask your kids if they want a puppy, the vote will be 4 to 1 (assuming you have 4 kids) meaning you lose, AND you get to pay for the puppy, oh, and you’ll have to clean up the shit too. The government in effect steels our money, then gives it back to us. In return we’re happy. But hey, things are better than they were 100 years ago so why complain? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749/471 "2010-04-27T17:21:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > It would be nice if the government could make that determination, and this is where the “we are the government” fits into the equation. Is this where you point out the flaws inherent in a democracy. Where people will vote themselves low taxes and hogh geovernment services until the whole system fails? > [@](#): > > The final problem is that democracy is based on a majority vote, so 95% of the population can vote to raise taxes on the other 5%, and lower their own taxes. That is not how things work. Things haven’t worked like that since at least Reagan and probably since Kennedy. Remember we used to have marginal tax rates as high as 92%. Kennedy dropped them to about 70% and Reagan dropped them first to 50% (which made sense) and eventually to 28% (which made absolutely no sense, at least from a fiscal responsibility persepective). > [@](#): > > The government in effect steels our money, then gives it back to us. In return we’re happy. But hey, things are better than they were 100 years ago so why complain? Its one thing to complain, its another thing to call taxes theft. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-are-theft/536749.md?page=23)