Taxation is a hotly contested topic amongst economic and political pundits and enthusiasts, like me. Most people have an opinion on it anyway, people prefer it to be as low as possible but they genuinely believe their tax dollars prevent people from dying on the street, thanks to the government's responsible use of our money. I believe this last statement to be a fallacy, but that isn't the reason for this particular article.
The principle of taxation as a means of financing public services that we all use by necessity is generally uncontested, except by interesting arguments by Walter Block. So this means roads, bridges, police, army, judiciary and of course, the politicians themselves. But there is a separate class of goods and services that are financed by our tax dollars that I consider to be unjustifiable: the majority welfare, medicare, social security and some stand-alone policies such as the first home owners grant and the recent Rudd money.
People such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams will present to you compelling arguments that demonstrate that most welfare subsidies irresponsibility and is thus the cause for the need of more welfare in the future, and if this is a new concept (or an offending one, Youtube both names and listen to their arguments). People like Peter Schiff, Tom DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods will explain to you how medicare and social security are unsustainable and drive up medical costs for everyone. So these fine individuals will explain to you the reasons how these policies can't work and often result in the very opposite of what they intend to achieve.
But is necessary to address another issue, why are these policies wrong... as in, why are they morally wrong. How can they be morally wrong when they intend to help people, you may ask? The answer is, ignore intentions for just a moment, and focus on the acts.
Most of our rights come from owning property... as in we own our bodies (or have stewardship of our own bodies), therefore we have the right to live. If somebody takes away somebody else's right to live, they are called a murderer. The murderer didn't own the individual and therefore had no right to terminate his life. Likewise, you have rights over what you own. For example, if you own your home, you can put a hole in the wall if you want to. Why, because you own the home and you have the right to do whatever you want to your property, because it's yours. Your neighbor can't come into your home and stop you because it isn't his property and therefore he has no right to firstly be in your home and secondly stop you from doing to your property what you want. Last point, you own your thoughts and your ability to think. Therefore, you have the right to think what you want to think and say what you want to say... no one has the right to shut you up and make you speak things you don't want to (unless you do it voluntarily of course). These rights are not given or granted by the government because they do not own you or what you make. People confuse rights and privileges often because of this fundamental principle... something given is not a right, it's a privilege. Something you own, you have rights to.
Likewise the sum of your time and labor, which you can label as your life, turns resources into productivity... as in your work by producing a good and enacting a service. In exchange for your time and labor, or life, you typically receive money. That money represents that value of your time and labor, or life, that you invested in your job.
Here is the key point: you own that money. It is yours and you have full rights to it. The government has no more right to your income than a mugger on some dark street in the city. Therefore, for the government to impose an 'income tax', which puts a claim on a % of your income, basically states that 'we (the government) own 100% of your income and permit you to hold on to whatever portion we see fit'. It also says that you have no rights or ownership to your income, but the government does. If you resist, the government will coerce you with the threat of violence until you pay.
What about the use of the money, it's for noble purposes... good intentions? If a mugger grabs you on your way home, takes your wallet/purse and removes $100 at gunpoint, and you say 'that's not fair, that's my money', what if the robber says this: "No it's ok, I'm going to spend exactly $25 to buy skateboard, which is good for the economy, and I'm going to spend $50 for my sister's medical bill and I'm giving the last $25 to the poor." Does the nobility of his intentions change the fact that the robber stole for you? Of course not, even if the robber promises to pay you back, the very fact that he took from you without your consent, without voluntary exchange (his pledge for your money), makes it theft... even if he also promises to pay you back. It's similar to the story of a father who keeps $50 hidden away for his son so he can buy a new bicycle, and then his son steals the money to spend it on what he wants. Why is the father heartbroken, because his son stole from him... it didn't matter that it was his son or that the money was originally meant for him, he took what was not his. Of course when the government does, we call it taxation, but what is it really?
Jesus Christ once said to men, who tried to trap him with a taxation question (nothing much has changed in 2000 years), "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." A more brilliant answer couldn't be found. I agree that there are services that the government provides that should be paid for by taxation... roads, bridges, police, army, judiciary and yes, even politicians. But when the government actively steals from me and gives the money to someone else to pay for their medical bills, the retirement fund, their mortgage, economic stimulus (which doesn't) and even to the financially disadvantaged, I will call it what it is: theft.
If I want to be charitable, I will be charitable. If I want to pay my neighbors medical bills, I will make a choice to. If I want to help my friend buy a mortgage, guess what... it's my choice to do so, because I have rights to my money, it is my property. The government has no more rights to your money than it does to your body. If you understand this and if you believe it, consider carefully what you ask the government to do on your behalf, because they have no money themselves, all they have is what they take from the rest of us.
God bless,
Dr Washo
Dr Washo, you are getting into logical difficulty :).
When the government taxes me to pay for “roads, bridges, police, army, judiciary and yes, even politicians” how is that not stealing? By your own logic, I own all of that money don’t I?
You try to resolve the illogic of your position by agreeing with Jesus when he says “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”. I am not sure what He meant by this but how can you be sure He meant that you should give Caesar taxes for the roads etc?
God says elsewhere “For all the earth is Mine” (Ex. 19:5)
If we look at the context of the verse you used: “Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.” So they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”. They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt 22:17-22)
I’m sure that these verses do not give enough information to precisely known what Jesus had in mind. One interpretation would be to give Caesar coins with his face on it (well at least a tribute of them similar to the tithe you’d give to God).