How does taxation differ from common theft?

[Joe S]

Bias/agenda alert: I think that they are much the same. My intention is to influence people reading this question to critically consider the question and the implications of its answers. I hope that others who already agree with my point of view to express their opinions but also expect and welcome people critical of my view.

To anticipate the dissenting views:

1. Taxation pays for necessary services that can not be provided by the market.

I reject this notion. If a service is necessary and important, methods can be found to exert influence on people to pay for it without resorting to the threat of violence.

2. Voluntary markets introduce free-rider problems.

How many people free-ride off of welfare programs for the poor and subsidies for the rich?

3. Society has legitimized taxation. If you don't like it, then leave.

Gaining the consent of many people does not change the nature of a crime. If enough people consent, I can legally rob you!
x2000: Yes, you would have to pay for the services you named. But why must money be stolen in order to pay for these necessary services? A discussion of how voluntary payment systems might function is outside of the question I posed. However, I will just say that by allowing payment collected by threat of violence opens you up to the money so collected not being used for its stated purpose. I think that national defense (sic) is a perfect example.
Perdendosi:

All that you've proven is that mob-rule works. You have done nothing to prove that the nature of taxation is different from theft. If I refuse to pay my tax, people with guns will show up to force me to pay, imprison me or kill me. The only difference with a common thief is that he is up-front. He doesn't try to legitimize his actions. He doesn't go to my neighbors and ask them how much he should take from me or even to offer to share his plunder with my neighbors.

That I can object with a vote does not stop the taxman from showing up with guns. Collective representation is a sham.

The objections in your final paragraph are no more than socialist concepts though I'm sure you would not suggest that description yourself. Businesses and other organizations would have every incentive to pay for road construction and maintenance. You just don't have the imagination to conceive how to maintain the road in front of your home without robbing me.
MrNiceGuy:

Yes, there are social costs to pay to maintain society. I think that we DO have to pay them. It is interesting that you think that we need a gang of goons to collect protection money (taxes) to take care of the poor.

I do have empathy for the meek. I voluntarily donate about 15% of my income to charitable causes. I plan later this week to donate some of my time to help clean up a community ravaged by a recent flood.

Your empathy consists of asking people to rob me to give to the poor. I'm sure that your surprised when your thugs use very little of the money for its stated purpose. I bet you're appalled at all of the war that is fought with your stolen money.

Why would anyone be surprised that thugs and thieves would be less than honest?
Perdendosi:

First, theft is violence aginst my property. But then, supposing that I do not voluntarily give up my property, the government will send men to kidnap (incarcerate) me if they can. If they are unable to do so, there is a real threat that they might kill me.

This is because I would not part with my property. I continue to challenge you. How is this different than common theft?
x2000:

The mechanism of voluntary payment systems is outside of the scope of the current question simply because it is admittedly complex. If you mean that it is a related subject, you are right. If I am unable to demonstrate that voluntary payment systems could not work, then we are left only with involuntary ones.

For the present question, I am focusing on the nature of taxation. Paying for defense with taxation amounts to the government violating my property in order to defend me. What if I want someone to defend me from having my property violated by the government?

Your last sentence is a statement of the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem will exist as long as people desire more benefits for less effort. I continue to ask you to consider the people who free-ride off of the current tax system. I argue that they benefit themselves and (in the case of national defense) do more harm than good with the money they take from me.
Perdendosi:

Who would build a fire department? I work as an actuary for an insurance company. I can tell you that we would build a fire department. In exchange for fire protection, we would collect premiums to pay for the service.

The premium levels would be based upon how many homes in a neighborhood had insurance with us or with another company that agreed to reimburse us in case their insured home catches fire. In this way, you would have incentive to influence your neighbors to have insurance or perhaps to ask a home-owners association to pay for the coverage.

If an uninsured home caught fire, we would put it out so as to avoid damage to insured homes. We would price this in the same way we price uninsured motorist insurance for auto insurance.

You lacked imagination how an entrepeneur (me) would handle this situation. In how many other ways do you lack imagination?

[Mystine G]

I agree with you 100%.
The only thing I would like to add is that under the Constitution, the only legal federal tax is for defense/military.

[x2000]

#1 You can reject the notion all you want, but you still have to pay for a national defense, cops, and the fire department at a bare minimum.

Edit to add: So you want our nation defense to be paid for by 100% voluntary payment system? You say it's outside the scope of the question, but it's not. Then you go on to say, "I will just say that by allowing payment collected by threat of violence opens you up to the money so collected not being used for its stated purpose."

The reason is simple. People will not pay their fair share if given a choice.

[Perdendosi]

Your response to number 3 is faulty. In fact, if enough people DO consent, you can legally rob me--enough meaning a majority of the state legislature to repeal the robbery statute or (within the bounds of the constitution) make it apply not to you or to the conduct you condone.

Of course, taxation differs from theft because the government--the same government that passes laws about what constitutes theft--engages in taxation. Taxation is definitionally excluded. Taxation is not theft because you have representation in the legislature to abolish/repeal/increase/decrease taxes. Even though you may not agree with the will of the majority regarding the tax, you had a chance to set the tax rate, what deductions you could have, and even what that money is spent on.
You don't get to negotiate with your thief how much they take. You don't (usually) get a voice to determine whether they take your TV, your DVD player, or your wallet. And you certainly don't get a voice in how those funds are spent and whether they can be spent for your personal benefit.

Finally, taxation is part of the social contract we've set up. To the extent that we live in a "Lockean" society where the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and government's responsibility is more than just to keep us safe from invaders (Hobbes), we take collective action, we get collective benefit, AND we share the collective burdens, which include taxation. It's not just "legitimized," it's essential to have a democratic, stable society.

Regarding your first premise, note that it would also be very economically inefficient for individuals to pay for the societal structures put in place through taxation on a transaction-by-transaction basis. If we want to do business, but we need a road to move goods from one place to another, it would take WAY too long and cost WAY too much money for us to negotiate, create, and use the road. So, we could never do business. But if we put in a very small fraction of money away for roadbuilding, then a road will already be there when it comes time for me to sell my widgets to you. Without taxation, commerce would grind to a halt.
You say people can be found to pay "without resorting to threats of violence," but how? Because it's in their economic best interst? Rarely. And the transaction costs make it nearly impossible, as I've discussed before. By appealing to their emotions? Possibly, but that means you have to abandon the idea that people are basically rational economic actors, and that they look for self interest first (which are the foundations of capitalism) Even with taxes there is a need for charity, but charity could never build a fire department ("what are the odds that I will ever use it? It's not in my rational economic interest to pay lots of money for a fire department.")

Hope you like the counterargument. Or, at least, I hope it helps you to improve your points.

EDIT:
What is this "threat of violence" you speak of? The Government is not going to break your kneecaps if you don't pay by April 15; they may garnish your wages, reposess some of your assets, and incarcerate you, but that's a lot different than being forced to pay a mugger money or forfeit your life.

[MrNiceGuy]

If enough people consent, then it is the law, that's how laws are written. Gov does provide necessary services that can't be provided by the market, no private industry could have built and maintain our interstate system, they tried that free market garbage with the rail road industry and it ran it into the ground. As for social programs, you're gonna pay for them either way, if you don't have social programs then the poor will simply steal what they need. Also you will have to scrape the corpses of the elderly and disabled off the sidewalk of your gated community about once a month. Where is your empathy for the meek, they are suppose to inherit the earth you know. I guess, to you, that just means a free burial. Or is that too much "free riding"? "Those lazy dead people should get out and work for their funerals."

[Think Richlyâ„¢]

Taxation = legalized (and enforced) robbery.
Taxation = robbing Peter to pay Paul (rob employee's hard earned money to pay to special interest groups)

Sadly, in a 'democratic' country, if enough people (majority) says it's legal to rob, then it becomes legal to rob. In this case, 'democracy' is equal to two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.

In a constitutional republic, it's two wolves and an armed lamb discussing what's for dinner. However, the lamb's safety depends on how well it can use the gun against the predators.

My friend, our constitutional republic has degraded to the level of a social democracy (socialist democracy). If people don't wake up and take back the republic and restore the constitution, the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness will be in the hands of a socialist brainwashed mob.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
- Daniel Webster

[MajorTomâ™]

Common theft has more letters.