Well- answer the question with a question: do we think schools will ever open again? Do school buildings still require upkeep and security? Are there still teachers teaching online classes and retired educators who society promised a pension who need to collect it? Then the answer is- yes you’d still pay taxes, no it isn’t theft, and yes- the logic is just about as ignorant as asking why people who don’t have kids have to pay taxes for schools.
I think they mean they shouldn’t have to pay taxes towards the building’s utilities other than upkeep and lunch meals. Obviously teachers are still working from home and need to be paid.
@carl- I can’t say you’re right or wrong- but I am say that the costs to keep a school running would likely be decreased in some measure- electricity bills for example or if provided- bus service- while increasing in others. You can’t just leave things derelict- machines and such often need to be used on some schedule to prevent even costlier repair or replacement from disuse, grounds may or may not need kept and in absence of regular human presence- pests and critters, thrives and vandals would be more an issue costing additional attention and upkeep. Of course- there’s the simple fact that unused surplus isn’t wasted- it can be used for improvements and deferred upkeep like new buildings or plumbing updates or classroom equipment and such, so there’s no reason to think taxes to schools should be reduced. Especially when now construction and repair can be done without disruption and ready when schools reopen.
@cakelover- you are correct, and also not. Correct that saying the opposite doesn’t rebut. Incorrect for 2 reasons: 1. I am the one who said it. Of course- being that the internet is full of strangers, I can’t expect them all to know I’m probably right. So I do agree some explanation is in order to show why am I right. Hence my long posts. Of course I can be wrong. One time for example, I thought I was wrong about something- and it turned out I was right. So I was wrong about that. (This is largely a joke to be clear. Truth in humor... but a joke.)
But if people prefer to have that money back rather than the school be improved why not? Some people are very short on money and if school isn’t in session not everyone can go back to work. They could use the extra money back to feed and care for the kids they are now with instead of the school. They pay taxes to fund specific benefits and utilities in a school, and now they are still paying for those utilities with taxes but also footing the bill for the utilities their kids are using being home. For example, WiFi.
The more serious reply would be- their hash tag specific to this post is “taxation is theft.” In this case- we can show that the taxation occurring is represented- thus it is not theft. Theft is to steal. To steal is to take without legal right. The government has the legal right to take tax within the bounds of law- as outlined in section 8 clause 1 of the constitution. To be theft- they would have to show that the taxes for schools are not taxes which are legally allowed by the constitution (precedent doesn’t support this) and that one or several conditions are met which violate either the one exception and two qualifications provided in restriction of the powers of taxation given by the constitution; or that taxes for schools violate in some way a judicial ruling on a specific matter of tax.
The legality of individual states levying taxes to fund schools is also dependent upon the states constitution and laws governing taxation, while still having some overlap to federal laws save where congress may not levy taxes which violate the sovereignty of a state. BUT- what is CRITICAL there is that it isn’t the ACT of taxation that would be a crime- but the methods or specifics concerning the tax in question which would be unlawful.
So saying “taxation is theft” is pretty foolish since theft is by its nature in context- the unlawful taking from another, and so long as a tax is lawful... it cannot be unlawful and thus no theft can have occurred. The correct sentiment of one feels taxes in general or a specific tax is somehow immoral etc- would be “taxation is wrong” “taxation is immoral” etc. it’s like saying “that soldier murdered that enemy soldier as they fought!” Well... no. Murder is the unlawful or unjustified killing of another. Combatants fighting in accordance with international law, or a soldier faced with an enemy who is trying to kill them- KILLS an enemy combatant- which would be either a legally sanctioned execution or killing in self defense.
So likewise- taxes aren’t generally kept by the government in a cool tree house. They are spent. So it could be conversion in that case. And even if a specific tax or all taxation violated the stipulations of lawful enrichment- it still most likely wouldn’t be theft. We could classify it again- as conversion, or we could call it extortion perhaps- as assuming you are paying your taxes and not being garnished- you are making a choice to give the money- a legal transfer, it’s just you are doing so under duress- which is a totally different crime.
Where property or assets are seized- that COULD be theft- but again, we get into details and we end up most likely at conversion since the point wasn’t to deprive you of property but to withhold property and or convert property to another instrument.
But it isn’t just semantic since the entire argument of wether it is theft or conversion or whatever else- hinges upon a question of legality. That which is legal cannot by its nature be a crime. It can be wrong, it can be unjustified. But it annoy be criminal, and theft requires a component that the person taking does not have the authority to take.
@guest_ you make some interesting points
I suppose it's reasonable to say that the idea of taxation being theft is less of a legal argument and more of a moral argument
The common misconception among arm chair patriots is the constitution is a big warm blanket that says they can do what they want and no one can tell them what to do. That is t what it says and it isn’t the purpose. It DOES safeguard the freedoms of American citizens- and people seek to forget that it also lays down basic human rights and treatment for ALL humans not just citizens. But the entire affair, the document and the papers on its construction and intent, supporting laws and documents- make clear that no right is completely without constraint (criminals can lose their fundamental rights for example) and that there are accompanying RESPONSIBILITIES to these rights- they aren’t just “freebies” but require one to uphold them as well as enjoy them.
And in this big stack of documents on “how this ‘America thing’ is supposed to work” is the part that talks about taxes- and that Americans pay them as one of those aforementioned responsibilities. And that if you don’t pay them, you can lose your rights. You become a thief, and you can go to jail like Al Capone. Because as an American citizen or guest of America you get rights and responsibilities.
And in the infinite wisdom and flexibility of freedom that went in to creating this whole grand experiment in democracy (don’t let famousone see this- he’ll thread jack us on how you can’t be a republic and a democracy at the same time...) they gave you a way out.
If you don’t want to pay taxes you absolutely do not have to. Did you know that? Every single American can opt out. But the constitution is an “all or nothing” sort of deal. So if you don’t like any part of it- you can release yourself from it- you must go to the US embassy and you must declare your intention to forfeit your US citizenship. Once this is completed- you will accrue no more tax debts with the US government so long as you don’t do business with US entities bound by US law. It is a very well designed system.
So there is legal precedent to taxation which makes the concept of taxation not theft by definition. There is the fact that even if the taxation is illegal, the particulars most likely make it something besides theft. There is the fact that you have agreed to the constitution- also known as the TOS of America- including the tax parts, by being a citizen, and you are provided the option to become NOT a citizen and thus be released from the TOS- coupled with the fact that if you actually pay your taxes- these things are you choosing to give your money, not your money being taken. The choice may be made against an alternate and less pleasant choice- but it isn’t theft if it is given, that again becomes another thing entirely.
I'm already here, fucker. The constitution is a document that outlines and restricts the government. The United States is not a democracy, and what makes the United States a great experiment is that it largely was designed to benefit and accommodate individualism. Not collectivism, not holy authority, and sure as fuck not mob rule. The system works best when issues are kept and addressed as locally as possible, when individuals remember their power, and when we put ourselves first. Be it county, state, or country. Many of us believe that tax collection and allocation should be in line with that, with as few entanglements as possible. Particularly the kind that feds were never meant to have any hand in (housing, education, bailing out states and cities that allowed and encouraged their own destruction).
And you should know that renouncing citizenship is not nearly fast, easy, or even something attainable to the average person in any reasonable timeline. Thanks Obama.
Hopefully that is sufficient backing to the statement that taxation is theft. You are of course free to disagree. Please note any discussion would be academic, as to disprove the point you’d have to disprove and out think the majority of world governments and subject matter experts, and get the constitution and various legal documents of several nations changed before the body of evidence would suggest otherwise. Hence why it could be sufficient to just say: “no it isn’t” but to be clear I meant specifically in context to this guy’s thoughts on school taxes- that we can see plainly they are not theft.
@famousone- so... the constitution... doesn’t give the federal government the right to levy taxes- not does it give states the right to do so...? Or... what’s your point about collectivism and all that if the same constitution you speak of, grants the authority to tax individuals with only 3 constraints on that? Serious question- have you ever actually read the constitution. Like- more than the preamble? The federalist papers? A book that summarizes them all? Because I did shout out to arm chair patriots who’d never read the thing and what they think it says.
But- I could be wrong. I mean, maybe you are right, and me, and basically every federal and state judge for over 200 years as well as the Supreme Court and constitutional scholars and lawyers- maybe we are the ones who are wrong. You did know more about masks than me and all the doctors, so it could happen.
Oh! And also- @famousone- you are right on one thing unconditionally and in full sincerity- it is not as simple as I made it sound to relinquish citizenship. I was being hyperbolic but I can see it could seem misleading as opposed to being tongue in cheek. It’s thousands of dollars in fees and you must go to a US embassy in a foreign country. Other than that though it is pretty straight forward save the usual BS paperwork that goes along with legal changes like that- bills and banking and all that stuff. But yes- I do admit that I did make it sound much simpler than it is.
I'm not saying that taxation is theft, I'm pointing out that the people who say that simply want the overreach and bullshit cut back to their actual bounds. Look at the current BS, Trump is threatening the funding of schools based on local Covid response. He can only do that because we tolerated the feds overreaching into state affairs.
I’m not saying there aren’t bullshit taxes or taxes that are taken and then used other than advertised or other corruption- I’m just speaking to this guy’s post and to the broad concept of taxes- not any specific tax or taxes. One can argue a tax is wrong or unjust or misrepresented or misused; but I simply said that by definition taxation isn’t theft.
I suppose it's reasonable to say that the idea of taxation being theft is less of a legal argument and more of a moral argument