Taxation and theft
There’s a notion that I’ve come across a few times in the blogosphere that baffles me somewhat – the idea that taxation (any taxation) is “legalised theft”. To start with, this phrase is a oxymoron: “theft” is precisely the removal of property from someone else without the legal right to do so. If we put that to one side and deal with the apparent intended meaning, it is of course true in a trivial sense. In other words, taxation is a legalised way to take money from the taxpayer. The question is, though, whether it is in any way reasonable to append “theft” to the action. Is it really “theft” for the government to pass a law that allows it to take money from its subjects? Or, in other words, is the government morally entitled to levy taxes?
To look at this a bit, let’s take a different example but a related one – the law courts. Here, we have a situation in which the government has passed laws that allow it to take money from certain people under certain circumstances: if someone breaks the law, they often have to pay a fine. For example, the government may impose a speed limit on drivers. By their nature, speed limits are arbitrary choices (there’s no clear dividing line such as “50 mph is safe, 51 mph isn’t”) but legally enforced ones. If we are caught driving above the speed limit, we may be fined. I don’t think many people can have a problem with this principle (however much they may be annoyed by the “restriction of their freedom” of this example). We have broken no universal moral code by driving 5 mph faster, merely the human law of the land. If, however, we concede the morality of taking money from lawbreakers, we have conceded the entire principle – the government is morally entitled to take money from its subjects under certain circumstances. If the government passes a law that imposes a tax, we are legally obliged to pay it. If we say “No”, we become lawbreakers and subject to fines – which we agree are morally allowable.
The question is thus not a simple one of whether governments can “legalise theft”, as is often said. Opposition to the principle of taxation must arise elsewhere, and it is the task of those who oppose taxation to show us why they take this moral position. I’ve not seen a valid defense yet – but I’d like to! 
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
I’m not settled on the theft question yet – but I have not seen taxation in general described as legalized theft. I am pretty certain that those who are most vocal about “legalized theft” mean wealth redistribution through taxation.
I have no problem with rendering unto Caesar – however, when Caesar takes my family’s money and uses it to give to someone else, I am not sure there is a moral justification for such a forced charity.
I want the government to do governemnt business with my taxes. I am opposed to them doing charity for me. I would contend that charitable giving and taxation for the purposes of wealth redistribution are inversely correlated.
Hammertime () (URL)
10:48pm on 07 February 2006
The problem with that logic is that it applies to any government action. Should the government take our money and give it to people to build roads? After all, we’ll never use them all. Just as roads are built for the common good, may the government not supply emergency healthcare (for example) that is free at point of use? You might not need it, but others do. And you might, some day.
Even when it comes to welfare payments, is it really true that this is “wealth redistribution”? Or is it supporting the poor? True wealth redistribution would involve taking more from the rich than from the poor, and this happens in remarkably few countries – certainly not in the USA or UK! (Yes, the moderately well off pay more tax, but the truly wealthy usually pay very little in proportion.)
Anyhow, it’s an interesting and thorny issue! Discussing the issues is interesting and useful. It’s silly phrases like “legalised theft” that leave me cold.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
12:24am on 08 February 2006