Taxation and theft are two debatable topics. The former is a necessary component in modern society, and the latter is often seen as an action that disobeys morality. However, in the outburst of political philosophy, the question arises: is tax theft? In this essay, I will argue that taxation is indeed theft through the lens of philosophy.
Before answering the question of if tax is theft, it is necessary to define taxation and theft, as well as discuss how theft and taxation are viewed philosophically.
Definition of taxation and how it is viewed philosophically.
Taxation was first defined in the early 14th century as an "obligatory contribution levied by a sovereign or government" (Etymon line, 2017). A more modern definition would similarly be defined as “the imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments, primarily to raise revenue for government expenditures” (Editors of Britannica, 2023). Taxation is a crucial component in philosophy, especially political philosophy, as it is often a topic of debate; is tax good or bad? Right or wrong? How much should there be? However, in the context of this essay, I will not argue whether tax is good or bad for society. I will only answer the question of whether taxation is theft.
Definition of Theft and how it is understood from a philosophical viewpoint.
According to the legal institute, “Theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property” (Cornell Law School, 2021). From a philosophical viewpoint, Aristotle, in his virtue theory, explains that stealing is an unjust action because rightful possessions are dispossessed away from the owner. The virtue theory explains that theft is unjust because the object stolen no longer meets the purpose of how it was originally designed; whatever is stolen clearly, was not designed to be stolen (Fisher & Dimmock, 2020).
With these definitions established, to prove tax is theft, I will first explain how the definitions of tax and theft go hand-in-hand; that “taxation” fulfills the meaning of “taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property.” I will then engage in an in-depth discussion of how taxation is unjust, using philosophical principles and ideas to do so.
In short, I will prove two things:
- “Taxation” fulfills the meaning of “taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property.”
- Taxation is unjust.
I will then address various counterarguments.
Does taxation fulfill the definition of theft?
To understand if taxation fulfills the meaning of theft, all that's to do is go through an analysis by comparing the two definitions. To prove that taxation fulfills this definition, we need to make sure that tax is the action of taking someone else’s property and wanting to use it for another purpose. In the definition of taxation, we know that it is levied on other people to raise revenue for governmental expenditures. Fitting in with the definition of theft, we can prove that, theoretically, tax is theft. All that's left to do is to prove so philosophical-wise.
Injustice of taxation
Tax is unjust because people have never agreed to pay tax, as it is contradictory to the will of the owners of the pre-contributed goods. In both definitions of taxation, the word “obligatory” is used. This proves that citizens do not have the right to decide if they want to pay taxes or not. Furthermore, penalties can be imposed if taxes are not paid. For example, according to the IRS of the United States, “A taxpayer has to pay a 15% penalty on the amount owed every month, with a maximum of 75% in the total penalty, if: He or she did not file a tax return or filed it after more than 60 days past the deadline; and If the IRS establishes fraudulent intent to evade taxes by not filing or filing a tax return very late” (IRS, 2023).
Additionally, there is no option for negotiation with taxes. In John Locke’s Treatise of Two Civil Governments, he believes taxation should not be without representation (Duignan, 2019). Locke believes that, when paying taxes, the taxpayer should, in turn, earn representation. So, as long as taxes are exchanged for rights, tax is not theft. However, in the definition of theft, anything that is taken from the person for the thief's usage should be considered as the action of theft. In actual trade, both sides have the right to negotiate the offer until both sides are happy. With taxes, though, the government often gets it one-sided.
It might be objected that many successful protests and riots have managed to shake the rules and make taxation a true trade-off, such as in the famous act of the Boston Tea Party. In this event, American men threw 342 crates of tea into the ocean to protest unfair taxation (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019). This supports Locke’s theory that people need equal rights when paying taxes, and when the Townshend Act was passed, the trade was negotiated. However, the British government passed the Townshend Act only after the riot. Violence should not be fundamental in this process. Instead, both sides should be able to talk in a trade. When the fighting gets involved, the acts are no longer examples of equal exchange and trade; rather, they are war treaties and examples of theft.
Although no one ever explicitly agreed to pay taxes, there is, according to Locke and philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a social contract. Locke’s and Hobbes’ understandings of the concept of the social contract are different, but both oppose my arguments presented in this essay.
According to Locke, all beginnings, including sovereigns, must obey natural rights. If the sovereigns disobey these natural rights, then they are justifiably overthrown (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023). Recognizing Locke’s point previously that for the tax to be fair, it ought to be a trade, which we have proven bogus. On the other hand, however, Hobbes poses a more severe threat to statements.
Consider Hobbes’ understanding of the social contract. He believes that the sovereign is the highest and will need to be obeyed, which will bring the law that the sovereign’s power is not all high and all-encompassing. The social contract allows all beginning to enter and leave society freely. The prominent role of the government is to protect those who enter society. Therefore, taxation is an obligation to those in society, but still voluntary since people can choose not to participate in society. Those who contribute receive protection from the government in exchange. When beings are free to leave and go, taxation becomes voluntary and is not theft (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2023).
In the reconstruction of Hobbes’ idea, those who enter society must contribute to the government to get protection. Taxation is an example of this action, but taxation is not the only solution for citizens to get protection from the government. Consider the Labor Theory of Value by German philosopher Karl Marx; in this design, there is no taxation in the planned economy as labor is given in exchange for protection instead of money, and wealth is equally redistributed (Brooks, 2005). Therefore, no one theoretically gets taxed as everyone gets the amount by the amount of labor they do. Under this system, the government still gets its share by doing its job of governing and protecting.
My explanation might be objected to by the negation that this is simply another way to get the job done besides the more straightforward tax formula. Hobbes’ social contract only states that the participators of society would need compulsory contributions to the sovereign but does not state how. When tax is the only choice, then it is the only way for citizens to obtain this protection, and there is a social contract agreed to. However, this is not true, and thus tax is not necessary when there is a second way to participate in society.
When put in front of two choices, one includes her possessions taken away for use, and one does not. Aristotle's virtue theory, which I mentioned earlier, says that, between these choices, the rational individual would choose the one which does not include their possessions being taken. Under these circumstances, tax is no longer part of the social contract and no longer needs to be fulfilled by the will of a sovereign.
People who don’t pay taxes?
What about the people that do not pay taxes? The ones that leave society do not pay taxes, but they no longer participate in society and receive the benefits of the exchange therefore, are excluded from answering our question. What about those who still participate in society but do not pay taxes? It is usual for policymakers to implement fairness in society; individuals earning under a certain income participate in the trade-off but do not have to contribute with any of their income. These people do not pay taxes, but instead of being stolen from by others, they are the beneficiary of the action of theft. Like with the mythical hero Robin Hood, policymakers steal from the rich to feed the poor because they care about equality. Common controversy is about Robin Hood being either a thief or a hero. Whether it is for a good cause, they are still the thieves, as they steal the tax. Thus, the action remains unjust, leaving taxation as theft.
Conclusion
Evaluating this essay on whether tax is theft, I have firmly proven that tax is theft by proving the two key conditions: that, one, tax fits the definition of theft, and two, that it is unjust. I did so by; defining taxation and theft and how they are viewed from a philosophical viewpoint; thoroughly explaining how and why no one agreed to pay tax and how this statement concludes tax as theft; rebutting the negation by John Locke’s Treaty of Two Governments; breaking and kicking taxation out of the social contract; and, lastly, answering the confusion on the problem of non-taxpayers. Therefore, proves that taxation is indeed theft from a philosophical standpoint.
