Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

[phyllo]

Do I need to point out to you the ridiculous examples of fraud found at USAID? Or how about the 186,000 dead people who were receiving food stamps? Does the 7.01 trillion dollars in bureaucrats spent in 2025 alone help the poor? How about the Democrats' war in Ukraine; is that helping the poor?

There are taxes at work...enriching government, and throwing peanuts to the people.

But you're saying that even if the tax money went 100% to the poor and helped them, it would still be immoral stealing.

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not. USAID, food stamps, war in Ukraine, helping poor were all irrelevant. And you need not point out anything.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're saying that even if the tax money went 100% to the poor and helped them, it would still be immoral stealing.

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

... taxpayers give their tacit permission to be taxed....

It's certainly never been explicit. So it's not much of a "permission."

But I've already pointed out that minimal taxation is warranted for things like roads and infrastructure. What it's not necessary for is bureaucracies for everything, or military campaigns, or free stuff for non-citizens, or dance lessons for gay troups in Ireland...all of which the US has funded through people's taxes, without ever consulting them.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're saying that even if the tax money went 100% to the poor and helped them, it would still be immoral stealing.

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not.

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?

[Gary Childress]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not.

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?

How about the government taking a greater per-capita percentage of their money from the wealthiest without asking for permission (meaning whether they like it or not), meaning progressive taxation. Seems like those who benefit the most from society ought to pay the most to maintain it. Doesn't mean take all their money but if they're billionaires or potential trillionaire Elon Musk, then the least they can do is put more of their money (money that didn't go to those who worked for them, who produced all their [referring to the uber wealthy] wealth) toward the society that made them uber rich. How's that for an answer?

[Alexiev]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

False dichotomy. You can take people's money without their permission without robbing them. What about a fine for speeding? The tax money is owed to the government by social contract. This is so obvious that it defies reason that you don't see it. If you don't like it you can move to Antarctica. No taxes there. The climate is pretty nice, what with global warming.

[accelafine]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

False dichotomy. You can take people's money without their permission without robbing them. What about a fine for speeding? The tax money is owed to the government by social contract. This is so obvious that it defies reason that you don't see it. If you don't like it you can move to Antarctica. No taxes there. The climate is pretty nice, what with global warming.

He sees it. At this point he's just trolling. Everyone on here has blown his bullshit out of the water.

[Immanuel Can]

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not.

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?

How about...

How about him answering the question?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

False dichotomy.

Genuine dichotomy. You can either ask somebody to take their property, or not. There's no "sort of ask."

So...no answer.

[LuckyR]

Permission, eh? When you go to the store and walk out with a candy bar, did you give "permission" to the store to take the price of the candy?

[phyllo]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not.

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?

Your question was your attempt to avoid admitting that government waste and mismanagement is just a distraction from your point that taxation is stealing. Muddying the water.

As for answering your question, I already stated my position at the beginning of the thread : There is a price of admission for living within a society. Taxes are the way that the admission fee is collected. That's not stealing, theft or robbery. It's not immoral.

That doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree about how much money is collected or how it is spent. There will always be people who think that too much is being taken from them and that it's being used in an inappropriate way. In a democratic society, they can try to change it to reflect their preferences.

[MikeNovack]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

You are asking a fundamental question about government (what sort)

For example, IF you believe government should be a representative democracy and IF all within that accept this, then ALL are accepting "the money will be spent as decided' AND the minority opinion opposed to this spending HAS "granted permission" (by continuing to accept representative democracy).

You are of course free to argue in favor of some other form of governance. But pretty much all democratic forms imply accepting that you can lose a vote. If you don't accept that, you have to be arguing for something else. Arguing "but in this case what I consider a bad decision was made" is meaningless UNLESS you are suggesting something better (better form of governance). With representative democracy there will ALWAYS be some who consider a decision to be a bad one.

Look, there ARE forms of governance that require unanimity for decisions, Quaker style consensus, for example. Note however that reaching that sort of consensus can take a LONG time << a political example would be the Haudenosaunee, but I don't know if their consensus was Quaker style or just acceptance of the decision (not necessarily all HAPPY with the decision) >>

[Immanuel Can]

So it really doesn't matter if the money was well spent or not.

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?

Your question was your attempt

It was my attempt to clarify what you were actually asking. Are you going to clarify?

There is a price of admission for living within a society.

When did you get to decide that, or who decided it on your behalf?

If you didn't decide it, and somebody else just imposed it on you without your consent, why should you agree?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

IF you believe government should be a representative democracy and IF all within that accept this, then ALL are accepting "the money will be spent as decided' AND the minority opinion opposed to this spending HAS "granted permission" (by continuing to accept representative democracy).

So your supposition is that if the majority elected somebody, then whatever he decided to do is something nobody can object to, and something that must be moral, simply because he was an elected representative?

[phyllo]

It was my attempt to clarify what you were actually asking. Are you going to clarify?

You clarify your position by making me answer a question?

You could have just directly stated your position or stated in what ways I had misrepresented your position.

There is a price of admission for living within a society.

When did you get to decide that, or who decided it on your behalf?

If you didn't decide it, and somebody else just imposed it on you without your consent, why should you agree?

It was decided long before I was born.

It seems to be a reasonable way to pay for services and improve the quality of life.

[MikeNovack]

Are you taking their money with their permission, or are you using the government to rob them of it?

IF you believe government should be a representative democracy and IF all within that accept this, then ALL are accepting "the money will be spent as decided' AND the minority opinion opposed to this spending HAS "granted permission" (by continuing to accept representative democracy).

So your supposition is that if the majority elected somebody, then whatever he decided to do is something nobody can object to, and something that must be moral, simply because he was an elected representative?

a) Discussing "form" -- but where in the usual forms of representative democracy is it implied that the minority need be happy with the decision? That they are not allowed to organize to reverse that decision (if they can). Feel free to discuss in terms of "democratic centralism" on one hand or consensus on another BUT if you do that, be explicit that you mean "under THIS form of democracy.

b) MORAL does not come into it. Forms of democracy are NOT about delivering good, just, wise, or moral decisions. When working properly, just the decisions the people want, for good or for ill.

THAT is why I insist, present to us your other method of governance that is supposed to deliver moral decisions. There are (now) places attempting this. Are you proposing to replace democracy with rule by the Christian equivalent of ayatollahs? Selected from your sect,of course. You do realiz, of course, that a lot of us would resist imposition of that sort of theocracy.