Is taxation voluntary?

[JBeukema]

Is taxation voluntary?


Sometimes; sometimes not


When we voted to raise taxes, those who voted yea clearly consented to taxation


Believe it or not, kev, not all sex is rape

You keep saying that, and it still doesn't apply.

saying yes to something doesn't count as saying yes?

 

[JBeukema]

No. Taxation is not voluntary. When the consequence of not doing something is having one's income garnished, property seized, or self imprisoned, the "activity" is not voluntary.

And to preempt the inevitable: what about traffic laws blah blah blah.

Traffic laws for public safety are to keep one from killing others whilst operating a vehicle. One can perform one's job without paying taxes and not harm anyone.

Tax cheats harm us all, boedicca.

False reasoning. You are assuming that the taxes are valid in the first place.

Some of us like having a fire department

 

[JBeukema]

Well, we can start by making county or township or village taxes voluntary...

...you don't have to pay them as long as you agree not to use any of the roads maintained by your locality.

or the fire department


or the sewer system

or the police

 

[JBeukema]

A person would have to disappear to escape the long tentacles of the US government

Or just join a commune

 

[JBeukema]

Why are people who cannot afford to take care of their children having them in the first place?

We could try sterilizing them

 

[JBeukema]

Why are people who cannot afford to take care of their children having them in the first place?

And I favor not having the transfer payment system in the first place that would require this form of Eugenics.

So you don't think the poor should breed but you're distancing yourself from eugenics.

That's not what I said. I said people who cannot afford to raise their children shouldn't have them.

They are equivalent statements

 

[JBeukema]

And I favor not having the transfer payment system in the first place that would require this form of Eugenics.

Whoa, I did not say I supported eugenics, boedicca. I'm radical, not evil.

As for doing away with social programs, let's hear it. No more student loans? No food assistance? No medical care? No housing assistance?

Just how far do you go in thinking that a safety net for the poor is a bad thing?

Eugenics is a left wing ideal. Most lefties dont know this, and it's not their fault, because it's hidden well.

Many early eugenicists were social conservatives. Hence the desire to eliminate the foreign races.

Adolf Hitler

Far right on the social aspect of things. Jingoist and racist. Mein Kampf reads like a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show

 

[Greenbeard]

This is an excellent post.

The general point of this, and Greenbeard can correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is still a choice, because one can technically choose not to pay taxes. This is technically true, one could choose not to pay taxes and face the consequences. However, one can hardly call this choice voluntary, because very few people are going to choose to not pay taxes and face imprisonment or worse. Given the coercion involved in this choice it is clearly not voluntary. For example, I choose to pay my taxes because I have to work to live and I don't want to go to prison. However, in the absence of coercion I would not choose to pay taxes. Most people would make a different choice if they weren't coerced by the force of government.

So in essence, a person's choice cannot be considered voluntary if there is coercion involved.

The bolded part is the key. Every choice involves some form of coercion--there is always some sort of incentive at work, there is some background landscape in which your decision is being made, or some push in a given direction that is difficult to overcome. Would you choose to go to work every day if you didn't have to? Would you pay your cable/internet bill if you didn't have to (i.e. could still have access to your cable/internet without paying it)?

Even in your leisure time, which at least theoretically belongs entirely to you, your choices will be constrained by resource limitations or the preferences of the people whose company you enjoy or something else. I'd love to spend this weekend visiting a few friends who live on the other side of the country; that would be my first preference. However, resource limitations create a situation where my actual choice and my preference diverge.

The reality is that there are many situations in which choices (plural) are available to you but that list of choices will not contain every conceivable option. In your case here, that translates into the unavailability of the option of being an American citizen of a given income and not paying the taxes someone of that income would be expected to pay. That's not an option. So if you don't want to pay that tax your options are more limited: effectively give up American citizenship (i.e. emigrate), give up your current income, or violate the law and accept sanction. They may be unappealing options ("very few people are going to choose...") but, again, if you want to simply disregard unappealing options as not being choices, well, that has pretty broad ramifications. Because lots of people, even in free countries, face only unappealing options in all manner of areas. So if "choice" means only having options you like (or any pie-in-the-sky option from some fantasy) available to you--in other words, it's about the quality of available options, from your point of view, and not the quantity--then real choice is a very rare thing.

But since this thread has some strong philosophical arguments, I'm curious: what would you say is a choice? What does it mean to choose?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is an excellent post.

The general point of this, and Greenbeard can correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is still a choice, because one can technically choose not to pay taxes. This is technically true, one could choose not to pay taxes and face the consequences. However, one can hardly call this choice voluntary, because very few people are going to choose to not pay taxes and face imprisonment or worse. Given the coercion involved in this choice it is clearly not voluntary. For example, I choose to pay my taxes because I have to work to live and I don't want to go to prison. However, in the absence of coercion I would not choose to pay taxes. Most people would make a different choice if they weren't coerced by the force of government.

So in essence, a person's choice cannot be considered voluntary if there is coercion involved.

The bolded part is the key. Every choice involves some form of coercion--there is always some sort of incentive at work, there is some background landscape in which your decision is being made, or some push in a given direction that is difficult to overcome. Would you choose to go to work every day if you didn't have to? Would you pay your cable/internet bill if you didn't have to (i.e. could still have access to your cable/internet without paying it)?

Even in your leisure time, which at least theoretically belongs entirely to you, your choices will be constrained by resource limitations or the preferences of the people whose company you enjoy or something else. I'd love to spend this weekend visiting a few friends who live on the other side of the country; that would be my first preference. However, resource limitations create a situation where my actual choice and my preference diverge.

The reality is that there are many situations in which choices (plural) are available to you but that list of choices will not contain every conceivable option. In your case here, that translates into the unavailability of the option of being an American citizen of a given income and not paying the taxes someone of that income would be expected to pay. That's not an option. So if you don't want to pay that tax your options are more limited: effectively give up American citizenship (i.e. emigrate), give up your current income, or violate the law and accept sanction. They may be unappealing options ("very few people are going to choose...") but, again, if you want to simply disregard unappealing options as not being choices, well, that has pretty broad ramifications. Because lots of people, even in free countries, face only unappealing options in all manner of areas. So if "choice" means only having options you like (or any pie-in-the-sky option from some fantasy) available to you--in other words, it's about the quality of available options, from your point of view, and not the quantity--then real choice is a very rare thing.

But since this thread has some strong philosophical arguments, I'm curious: what would you say is a choice? What does it mean to choose?

When I refer to coercion I'm referring to what we might call "artificial coercion" as opposed to "natural coercion." In a natural scenario I would be permitted to work without the threat of being imprisoned if I don't give a portion of my income to the state. The state, however, adds the artificial coercion to the equation. Natural coercion would be a scenario like you put forth, such as choosing whether to work or not. The difference should be clear. In one scenario an organization or person says you can't do something unless you give them a portion of what you earn, and in the other you choose yourself whether or not you want to earn anything.

I'm not saying that unappealing options aren't choices, in fact I conceded that they are choices. I simply stated that they are not voluntary choices if the state is using coercion to effect your decision. It's only voluntary if you're free to choose with no artificial ramifications such as imprisonment, death, or any other kind of force.

I would define to choose as to make a decision regarding something, but the question is whether that choice is voluntary or not. I'm of the opinion that if the state is coercing your choice it can't possibly be voluntary.

 

[Big Fitz]

I could enjoy living in WA, SD (Black Hills) and WY (mountains only)

So if taxes are voluntary, if I refuse to pay them I cannot be criminally prosecuted, imprisoned or have any form of government force used against me right?

No?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I could enjoy living in WA, SD (Black Hills) and WY (mountains only)

So if taxes are voluntary, if I refuse to pay them I cannot be criminally prosecuted, imprisoned or have any form of government force used against me right?

No?

If they were voluntary.

 

[Modbert]

Why are people who cannot afford to take care of their children having them in the first place?

And I favor not having the transfer payment system in the first place that would require this form of Eugenics.

So you don't think the poor should breed but you're distancing yourself from eugenics.

Doublethink is great huh?

 

[Big Fitz]

I could enjoy living in WA, SD (Black Hills) and WY (mountains only)

So if taxes are voluntary, if I refuse to pay them I cannot be criminally prosecuted, imprisoned or have any form of government force used against me right?

No?

If they were voluntary.

and the point is, if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail and have my property seized.

Therefore, it is not voluntary.

 

[Intense]

Some think that because we have a "representative" republic or democracy or whatever you want to call it that taxation is somehow voluntary or consensual. My question is do you think that taxation is voluntary? Now I'm not asking whether you think taxation is moral or immoral, just whether it's voluntary.

My opinion is that taxation is not voluntary because for something to be voluntary you have to be able to choose not to do it. Since you cannot choose not to pay taxes without being thrown in prison it is clearly not voluntary. loosecannon is of the opinion that because you sign a paper prior to employment that allows the government a portion of your income that you're consenting to being taxed, but I disagree. For one this doesn't cover all forms of taxation, and two you have no other choice but to sign this paper. The government has made it illegal to work without giving them a cut of your income so you are forced by law to sign this paper or you can't legally work. If you can't work you can't live so there's obviously no choice there.

Taxes are clearly coercive, not voluntary.

What do you think?

The Authorization for the construction of the Tax Laws is by consent of the Governed. Ones tax burden is an obligation, it is not optional.

 

[boedicca]

So you don't think the poor should breed but you're distancing yourself from eugenics.

That's not what I said. I said people who cannot afford to raise their children shouldn't have them.

They are equivalent statements

No they are not.

My having an opinion regarding the irresponsibility of parents who choose to bring children into the world which they are unable to support is not the same as forcing them to be sterilized.

 

[boedicca]

Why are people who cannot afford to take care of their children having them in the first place?

And I favor not having the transfer payment system in the first place that would require this form of Eugenics.

So you don't think the poor should breed but you're distancing yourself from eugenics.

Doublethink is great huh?

But your inability to see the difference between individual opinion and government force isn't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Some think that because we have a "representative" republic or democracy or whatever you want to call it that taxation is somehow voluntary or consensual. My question is do you think that taxation is voluntary? Now I'm not asking whether you think taxation is moral or immoral, just whether it's voluntary.

My opinion is that taxation is not voluntary because for something to be voluntary you have to be able to choose not to do it. Since you cannot choose not to pay taxes without being thrown in prison it is clearly not voluntary. loosecannon is of the opinion that because you sign a paper prior to employment that allows the government a portion of your income that you're consenting to being taxed, but I disagree. For one this doesn't cover all forms of taxation, and two you have no other choice but to sign this paper. The government has made it illegal to work without giving them a cut of your income so you are forced by law to sign this paper or you can't legally work. If you can't work you can't live so there's obviously no choice there.

Taxes are clearly coercive, not voluntary.

What do you think?

The Authorization for the construction of the Tax Laws is by consent of the Governed. Ones tax burden is an obligation, it is not optional.

So if it's not optional then it's clearly not voluntary. Right?

 

[Greenbeard]

When I refer to coercion I'm referring to what we might call "artificial coercion" as opposed to "natural coercion." In a natural scenario I would be permitted to work without the threat of being imprisoned if I don't give a portion of my income to the state. The state, however, adds the artificial coercion to the equation.

It sounds like you would consider any social constraints (as opposed to more basic constraining factors, like the need for food or shelter) to be "artificial." I don't know if you mean that word to be derogatory or to indicate a lesser degree of legitimacy, but I'm not sure why you think the constraints imposed by the rules of social interaction are less valid than those imposed by nature. The rules/constraints imposed by the Ten Commandments are all "artificial coercion" in the way you seem to be using the phrase; indeed, the state has stepped up to reiterate some of those rules (e.g. those against killing and stealing). Are those unacceptable constraints?

Again, the message is simple: choosing the items on this list results in sanction. People still kill and steal, there are just extra factors to weigh now when making that decision (the probability of the law catching you, your personal belief in cosmic justice, etc). Constraints. It sounds like you're arguing that since these constraints exist, no one who makes a choice like not murdering someone is on some level doing so involuntarily.

I would define to choose as to make a decision regarding something, but the question is whether that choice is voluntary or not.

But that gets to the heart of it. What's an involuntary choice? Suppose I argue that decision-making (choosing) is the result of a calculation, an algorithm in a person's head based on his many preferences. And let's imagine I'm able to program a machine with all of my preferences (assuming completeness and transitivity of my own preferences). So now I can feed this machine any conceivable situation and set of circumstances/constraints and it spits out a choice either identical to the one I make or equivalent to it (meaning when comparing the machine's output and my own, I'm indifferent between them).

In this little thought experiment, is the machine making choices? Given its (or, rather, my) preferences, it's choosing the best option available in a given circumstance. But generally we associate the act of choosing with free will. Presumably just programming in some preferences doesn't confer free will to the machine. But maybe you object that the machine is proceeding from my preferences--I put them into it and thus it's a slave to my preferences, it hasn't chosen anything. The outcomes of its "choice" calculations are all deterministic and ultimately I'm the one pulling its strings.

But then you have to ask what that says about me. For again, when I make choices I, too, am weighing my preferences against the incentives and constraints facing me. And it doesn't seem to me I've chosen my preferences anymore than the machine chose them. I don't recall sitting down at any point and consciously deciding that in general steak tastes better than chicken which tastes better than pork. I don't recall choosing to find most shades of green more aesthetically pleasing than most shades of yellow. So when a decision needs to be made and I feed the relevant constraints (natural, artificial, whatever) and circumstances into my mental preference algorithm, have I exercised free will in coming up with my final choice? And is the existence of constraints (including artificial ones) to be weighed any more eyebrow-raising than the fact the set of preferences ultimately determining my choice wasn't itself consciously chosen by me? But what would it even mean to choose one's preferences (on what basis could a preference-less person choose which preferences to select)? Or, put more simply, who's in the driver's seat during the decision-making process? If the machine in my thought experiment isn't displaying free will and doing its own bidding when it spits out a choice, should I be any more convinced that I'm doing my own bidding when I make the same calculation using the same preference-algorithm (of mysterious origin)?

What's the point here? Choices arise when constraints (social-artificial, necessary-natural) collide with preferences, resulting in multiple possible outcomes. What I argued in the earlier post is essentially that since there are multiple possible outcomes for you (compliance, emigration, destitution, sanction) then the basic definition of choice as "multiple options" is satisfied. Your response is that choice isn't really present because 1) several of these possible outcomes are unreasonable and you can't be expected to actually choose them, and 2) your ideal outcome is absent from the list of possible outcomes due to constraints (in other words, the constraints have eliminated your top preference from the realm of possibility).

And so this emphasis on "voluntary" seems to really be a daydream about a perfect world where your personal preferences and the external constraints are orthogonal; the constraints turn out not to be constraints on your preferences at all. That seems implicit in the notion of involuntary choice that you're proposing. And I'd say not only is that a very limited definition of what is or isn't voluntary, it doesn't answer why preferences should be considered so much more legitimate than constraints in this equation, given the haziness of their origins--if, again, you're trying to make a more philosophical point about free will and choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree you can choose to view them as the product of a voting process, and therefore voluntary, or the product of a process that does not require your participation and does not always respond to your direction, and therefore involuntary.

Do you agree we have a patriotic duty to pay our taxes?

Nope.

Really? Why not?

Because it is a civil obligation that has nothing to do with patriotism. Rational people do not pay taxes because they love their country, they pay taxes because they recognize that the government supplies needed services. Patriotism would be holding the government accountable for your taxes and demanding that it spend them responsibly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think because we didn't like taxes and did our best to limit government. I agree the founding fathers wanted limited government. But as a society evolves, it needs to protect its citizens. Having laws without enforcement is completely useless. So with the increase of enforcement means increase in government.

Look everybody cries their is too much government, but without the government, we would have no opportunity for a free market. Thats right I said it, no free market. Why? Remember company towns? You know where you worked for a company and they pay you in company dollars that you spend at their own store meaning you have no money to save yourself and become rich yourself. Or we would have monopolies that could do whatever they want, and charge whatever they wanted because they knew you couldn't get it anywhere else. Government helps protects its citizens but it can't without money.

That is why I believe we went from barely any taxes to the income tax, that plus the sheer size of our country.

This is what liberals always get backward. Government does not exist to protect its citizens, it exists to allow them to protect themselves and each other.

I am little confused about how you can believe that government gives us a free market. A free market is one without any government involvement at all, like the black market that thrived in the West Bank while Israel and Egypt blockaded almost everything. The second the government gets involved in a market it is no longer a free market.