Income Taxation Is Not Theft

However, I think it is flawed nonetheless, as I am about to show you. I will now systematically go through my opponent’s case and refute his argument in a clear and concise manner. Argumentation: C1: We have no legal property rights to our pretax income It seems my opponent has happily misunderstood my entire argument. My opponent argues that we have a legal property right to our pretax income. This cannot be true. We are legally obliged by the law to pay taxes. [7][8][9] Therefore, we have no legal property right to our pretax income. [9] This is a simple analytic truth. To argue otherwise is logically absurd! C2: We have no moral property rights to our pretax income My opponent claims that the government does not create nor distribute, and by extension owns, the currency. However, after careful examination, it soon becomes clear that even his own sources do not support his assertions. [10] The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States (FED) does not create the U. S. currency. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) and the U. S. Mint produces our nation’s paper currency and mints. Both the BEP and the U. S. Mint are part of the U. S. Department of the Treasury, which in turn is a department of the U. S. Federal Government. [11][12] They then put the bank notes and coins into the distribution circulation, of which the FED is a part of. My opponent further backs up his mistaken account of the monetary system by using a conspiracy theory video called ‘The Biggest Scam in the History’, I do not find this source particularly reliable. My opponent further argues that one is not obliged to pay for the services that one does not use. I think this is simply wrong. By delivering the public goods and services, the government is justified in setting the conditions. Taxation is a part of these conditions and by your participation in the system you agree to its conditions. The government is like a casino here, hosting a poker tournament. The house sets the conditions and charges the players at a fixed percentage of their chips. Participating in the tournament means agreeing to its conditions. Until and unless one pays the casino’s charge, one is not entitled to his chips. [13] Furthermore, because of the cohesive nature of the system, you will benefit from the public goods even if you do not use them directly. Take for example the road network. You might not drive a car yourself, but it reduces transportation costs and hence the prices of products you buy. Or take police services, one will always benefit from reduced crime. Another point is that some services do not allow for the possibility to opt out; once the national defense is provided, all people are defended. Not paying for these benefits would qualify as theft. [14] Let me draw a parallel, imagine you are member of a bicycle club. To make use of the benefits and facilities of the club you have to pay a members fee. You accept and join the club, but after a while you discover that you like some services better than others. You make use of the race bikes and mountain bikes, however you do not use the BMX bikes and Tandems. You want to pay tuition only for the services you use, however for practical reasons the club does not offer the option that you only pay for the services that you use. Because the club owns the bicycles they set the conditions, not you. My opponent further commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I never made a claim about the posttax income. I left open what the best structure of the tax scheme is, because it is irrelevant to this debate. But whatever the answer may be, it does not validate the thesis that the pretax distribution of the market is just. I have argued that the distribution of the market is morally arbitrary and therefore has no moral significance. Thus the claim that there are moral property rights antecedent to pretax income is left unsupported. [15] C3: Taxation is not without consent My opponent compares taxation with slavery. This is merely a rhetorical trick, as no rights are violated under taxation. However, I would like to point out a rather essential difference: you can choose terminate the contract whenever you like, as a slave you cannot choose to opt out. A slave is someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay. [16] The government does not own you, you are not forced to work, you get paid and you are allowed to leave. I think it is more appropriate to refer to participants in the current monetary system as customers. If you think you have no choices, you have enslaved yourself. My opponent’s analogies do not correspondent with the situation of taxation — his analogies are nonparallel to the question at hand. Ultimately you decide whether you participate and thereby agree to the conditions, since your participation in the system is not forced; you are offered the alternative to relocate, again emigration is not forbidden. My opponent speaks as though he has a moral entitlement to the advantages of this society, e. g. public goods and services, built on taxation. This is not true, just like the rapist has no entitlement to the woman. The government however ís entitled to your pretax income. Again, imagine yourself in the bicycle repair shop. Like before you want to have your bike fixed. However you find the price absurd high and he even wants to make profit by charging more than the exact amount of service offered! It would be ridiculous if you then accuse the repairman of coercion or demand from him the choice of another shop, equally in quality. Recall the definition of theft; for theft to occur it has to be wrongful. The government works in peoples best interests, determined through elections. Ultimately, the legitimacy is based on democratic decision-making. This is justified with a moral theory like Utilitarian Consequentialism. If my opponent claims this is immoral, it seems to me that this puts the burden on him to proof that some kind of objective moral theory is true. Considering it is moral for the government to set the conditions, the government is morally justified to enforce these conditions. For example, when one does not pay his rent, the owner is morally justified in enforcing his property right. Conclusion: Recall from earlier that in order for taxation to be theft, it must concern that one is the rightful owner of the property being stolen. Firstly, I have argued that we do not have legal as well as moral property rights to our pretax income. The government creates the US fiat currency and by extension owns it and may set the conditions and terms. Therefore, theft cannot occur in the case of taxation, because what is being taken does not belong to us in the first place. Under moral acquisition theory, what is immorally acquired is not rightfully owned by one. In order to negate the resolution, my opponent has to show that we, in fact, do have a property right to our pretax income — he failed to do so. Secondly, I have argued that if one willfully participates in the system, he agrees to the conditions set forth by the system. If one claims not to consent, one cannot justify his participation in the system. Income taxation is not theft. Affirmed Sources: [7] . http://www.ourdocuments.gov... [8] . http://www.sba.gov... [9] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [10] . http://www.richmondfed.org... [11] . http://moneyfactory.gov... [12] . http://www.usmint.gov... [13] . http://www.wenar.info... [14]. http://archipielagolibertad.org...(coment).pdf [15] . http://www.law.nyu.edu... [16] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...