To any sensible person it's glaringly obvious that tax is not theft. After all, it's a charge created by the only process we know that affords legitimacy in its literal sense - an Act of Parliament. Such logic is however beyond the libertarian fringe who maintain it is theft.
That is a quite commonplace view in the tax profession - indeed, I heard one member of the GAAR committee express that view at a conference not many years ago which makes it refreshing that the government's draft GAAR guidance describes such an opinion as "extreme".
I wrote a briefing explaining why a year or two ago. It's here for the delight of all the extremists who wish to argue.
But I would warn them, the standard moderation principles will apply. In other words, you will have to present a logical argument, which may well challenge you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I wholly agree with you. In the real world society can’t function without legitimate, accountable and STABLE gov’t. Gov’t can’t be stable without a sound financial base. I don’t beleieve anyone claiming tax is theft genuinely beleives it.
My view of paying tax is that is it how we collectively express our desire for the well-being of our fellows, the education of our children, and other values we hold in common. Thus we provide basic amenities, utilities, heath care, schools, and so on by paying into a community chest. It’s not socialism, it’s civilisation.
That our elected officials are idiots does not change the basis of taxation, it merely suggests that we voted for the wrong officials. However it’s difficult to reconcile this because we have every reason to distrust elected officials and authority these days, and it doesn’t seem to matter which bunch of politicians we vote for we always seem to get idiots. Even so I still say the basis for taxation is the same.
What I would like to see is a better spread of taxation across the factors of production: less burden on wages and profits, and more on rents.
It’s good to see a serious challenge to this idea that not paying tax is fair enough if you can get away with it.
I agree re rents!
I don’t think you will get many arguing that tax is theft but I don’t agree with your briefing either.
Your argument seems to be that if you want the protection of property rights then you have to accept any law the State wishes. This is false in the same way that just because the State has the right to imprison people does not mean it can just point at all ginger people and lock them up for life (each if backed by democratic consent).
Property rights are backed by the ECHR as a fundamental right of the individual, as I will agree, is the right of the State to demand taxes. But that right is not unlimited!
It cannot just point at people and demand their entire wealth!……….You don’t need to be an arch libertarian to have a problem with the State essentially owning people.
I believe the State has the right to ask people for an amount of tax in advance and then the individual must make a choice, stay and accept that taxation or leave and escape the reach of the State.
All too often your comments extend into a zone where the State can limit the freedom of the individual through retrospective tax, capital controls or exit taxes. My wealth is not the Nation’s wealth, at the press of a button it can move and I can follow…..
Do you have no faith in democracy?
Clearly not….
Democracy is a check and balance
Oh please……No I don’t entirely trust in Democracy and neither do you!
On your premise we would have the death penalty and all other forms of mob rule. Certain issues are beyond the latest vote in the heat of the moment, how many times have we seen hysteria in the media drive impulsive public outcries….
Getting 50.1% of the population in a vote does not give you the right (or the State the right) to do whatever you want. You are letting your personal belief in the moral right of your cause drag you into a dark totalitarian place.
How many times in history does the State have to abuse its power before you realise that there are limits to what it should ever be allowed to do?
When was the last time a party proposed the death penalty?
Or 100% taxation?
Get real
You will find that the right of the individual to property under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is SUBORDINATED to the right of the state as outlined by Richard. Article 1 of the Ist Protocol to the ECHR provides for a qualified right to property in these terms:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions EXCEPT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS or penalties.”
Many thanks
I will blog on this
This seems to have moved on from a discussion on tax to one on fundamental freedoms, which was probably inevitable and proper. In answer to your last question I would say simply look to Africa. The untramelled and arbitrary use of state power is evil. In a functioning society liberty must rest with the individual; not the collective. These fundamental liberties can and must be subject to restrictions, tax being a restriction on freedom to enjoy one’s property. The fundamental principle though is that property belongs to the individual; not the state.
Wrong, unless the government is corrupted
But then it is the government that must be replaced. The state still has its rights
Tax is not theft, but not paying tax is a theft from society, especially if you are making money as a rentier, such as owning land, energy resources, or creating money.
Could I ask a question regarding this. There will be a meeting in Cambridge this week with Andy Burnham visiting the local Labour Party to discuss the NHS.
What would you ask him regarding PFI in the NHS. I believe the government should tax much of the profit of PFI back in some way, or create helicopter money to pay it off more cheaply. Can you help with this? I would like to frame a useful question carefully.
Ask him why Labour would not buy in PFI debt using current incredibly low current interest rates – which just has to make sense
OK, we truly have been enjoying a dialogue of the deaf haven’t we. I won’t bother your blog again. If you see property as belonging to the state then we will never agree on any of the big questions and I am just wasting you time. Anyway good luck, it has been a pleasue engaging with you- really – and I really mean you no ill.