At the very least it's a dick move.

Within our existing legal framework, this quite clearly would constitute theft. It doesn't answer whether taxation is theft one way or the other though.

The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft, unless you want to argue that the state really rightfully owns everyone and everything.

But a lot of private individuals acquire money unjustly from other private individuals, even if that acquisition is legally sanctioned. That's basically the definition of capitalism. And taking something back from a thief to compensate the victim is not another case of theft. So in a sense taking from the rich and powerful to care for the poor and powerless is, or at least can be, not theft.

However the way we (anywhere that has tax-funded welfare, not any particular country) do things now, we're not directly taking the ill-gotten gains specifically from the wrongdoers and giving it specifically back to the victims, but rather taking from the class of people reckoned to be likely wrongdoers with likely ill-gotten gains (or at least the subset of those who can't manage to weasel out of it), and giving to the class of people reckoned to be likely victims (or at least the subset of them who can manage to get in on that).

Basically, we're trying to fight theft with theft. Which... is better than just letting the theft go unabated in one direction but not the other. But it's obviously still not perfect. Far better to just stop the original theft, or at least, tax specifically the problematic kinds of gains, to fund welfare specifically to the people victimized in the process.

Like say, tax net income from rent and interest, and if that is a negative number (because someone's paying more rent and interest than they get), then that tax becomes negative, and so a form of cash welfare.

I was talking about the government. It's illegal to steal cars. The government makes the overt threat that you will be forcibly imprisoned if to take a car you don't own. It makes the same overt threat if you take money you don't own. I'm not seeing the difference. Are you saying that the government should protect your property but not it's own, or that it shouldn't protect your property either? — Isaac

As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).

Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter.

You mean you don't work for anyone? — Isaac

I do, but I do not threaten them and I never asked for a government to threaten them either.

Except that's not what you're saying is it? Because people did figure it out for themselves. They gathered together, selected candidates, asked others to vote, ceded power to those individuals to make decisions for the benefit of the group and enforce those decisions against those who disagreed. You're now saying they got that wrong. — Isaac

It is exactly what I am saying.

What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.

And yes, I think that is wrong.

As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).

Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter. — Tzeentch

The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. It is using threat of violence to deter you from stealing it, just like with the car.

What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.

And yes, I think that is wrong. — Tzeentch

So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process.

The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft, unless you want to argue that the state really rightfully owns everyone and everything. — Pfhorrest

You don't need to argue that the state "rightfully owns everyone and everything" to support that it can rightfully take money for its own benefit. Do you not take money for your own benefit, from your boss or clients, for example.

It's only necessary to argue that the money concerned rightfully belongs to the government.

I love how people argue how bad government is for not acting enough when they argue simultaneously that governments shouldn't do anything. If you want governments to act well you have to give them both a mandate and the means to carry out that mandate. If enough people believe in minimal government then don't expect that government to solve anything either.

Second, the threat of violence is implicit in every "voluntary" transaction. It's voluntary right up to the point where people start disagreeing about the service or product delivered.

The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force.

So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process. — Isaac

The key word is "themselves". Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence.

This is undesirable. I'm willing to accept it as a necessary evil, but only under the condition that governments' power is kept as small as possible.

Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying?

Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence. — Tzeentch

Your original suggestion was in the context of...

the arbitration of moral conflicts. — Tzeentch

Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. Do you have anything but wildly unsupported optimism to back this up?

I think this example clearly constitutes theft. Just because someone lives under someone else's roof, does not forfeit their right to their property. — Tzeentch

If the adult child wants to move out then the father would have to give the console back. Though, the father can demand the console as rent if the adult child still wants to continue living under his father’s roof. I think this is analogous to how taxes can be collected as a kind of rent for living in a society that allows you to be wealthy in the first place. Even progressive taxes wouldn’t necessarily constitute theft as it could be argued that those in the upper wealth class receive more benefit from living in a society than some poor person that might only be slightly better off living in a society.

I suppose it might seem problematic that the punishment for not paying your taxes might be jail time. Though, that is rarely the punishment. Usually, the punishment is that the government will try to lock you out of being able to access certain institutions that are kinda important but not essential in the strictest sense. For example, you might have difficulty getting a loan, you might not be able to go to college, and you might lose your job or it might be difficult to find a new job. Most of time, people would just repay the taxes that they haven’t paid once they are caught. Of course, one can just avoid sales taxes in the store by just choosing not to buy anything. In summary, most of the punishments for not paying taxes essentially just involve the person refusing to pay taxes being kicked out of various social institutions that they aren’t entitled to be a part of in the first place or the person always just gets charged these taxes whether they like it or not. So, it’s hard for me to see how this would be unfair to the person who refuses to pay taxes because they always seem to have an option to just go live in the wilderness somewhere where they can be completely free from paying any taxes. The problem is that they seem to want to have it both ways. They want the benefits of living in a society and they don’t want to pay the fees that their society has indirectly voted that they must pay.

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac

I could ask the same of you, no?

All I know is that "might makes right" is no basis.

Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. — Isaac

I am not.

I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But as stated before, I am not oppossed to government as a whole. I can see a clear case for governments threatening with violence to protect others physical safety. I would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.

The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft — Pfhorrest

I agree but I think taxation can also be justified if the state uses this money for the maintenance of civilized society that allows us all to be somewhat wealthy in the first place and just for the general public benefit. I don’t think that the government is spending most of the money that it collects in taxes for its own personal benefit at least in developed countries. Also, I don’t see how taxation couldn’t appropriately be understood as just like the rent that an individual has to pay to a civilized society to live in that civilized society. Even if the rent happens to differ based on income, it may be argued that wealthier people just benefit more from living in a society than poor people do and thus they should pay more taxes.

I would still regard it as a necessary evil, at best.

@Tzeentch

Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan said: Homo humini lupus. I don't like the government idea either but as you said is somehow necessarily because we the humans tend to be so selfish or even dangerous to others. More than an evil, it is a beast in an uncontrolled behaviour. That's the most intriguing paradox.
The government can help you to solving problems or... It is them who create those.

If the adult child wants to move out then the father would have to give the console back. Though, the father can demand the console as rent if the adult child still wants to continue living under his father’s roof. I think this is analogous... — TheHedoMinimalist

Just like a child does not choose to be born in the father's home, so the individual does not choose to be born within a state's borders.

It is analagous insofar as the father's ill parenting can be compared to the state's ill governance.

I suppose it might seem problematic that the punishment for not paying your taxes might be jail time. Though, that is rarely the punishment. — TheHedoMinimalist

Because most people, wisely, do not let it get that far. However, that does nothing to change the fact that this is what is being threatened with.

Indeed. Though, I think recognizing it as a necessary evil avoids stepping into the pitfall of regarding it as a just means to an end.

agree but I think taxation can also be justified if the state uses this money for the maintenance of civilized society that allows us all to be somewhat wealthy in the first place and just for the general public benefit. — TheHedoMinimalist

I would disagree that it can be justified, but in such a case it can be tolerated.

We are, however, continuing to assume states are benevolent and don't use the wealth they received through threat of violence to commit injustice.

We know that in fact, they do. All the time.

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac


I could ask the same of you, no? — Tzeentch

You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. Property is defined by law. Some portion of your wages are, by law, the property of the government, to do with whatever they see fit (within the law).

If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it, despite having a legal claim to it, then I don't think its an unreasonable expectation of mine that you might have worked that out prior to making an assertion based on it.

I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Tzeentch

That doesn't answer the question. If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do?

Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative.

You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. — Isaac

The money rightly belongs to the government. — Isaac

You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications.

If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it — Isaac

Do you think your body is your rightful property?

despite having a legal claim to it — Isaac

And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power?

If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac

Me, personally? Nothing. Mediate, perhaps, if both parties agreed they wished for me to do so. I could see a role for governments as mediators, but not all moral conflicts are solvable, and even less are solvable through use of violence or threats thereof.

Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative. — Isaac

Small government is the alternative. The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add.

It is analagous insofar as the father's ill parenting can be compared to the state's ill governance. — Tzeentch

Well, I think it’s also analogous in that both cases do not seem to constitute theft. The question of whether or not taxation is theft is different from the question of whether or not it is justified. You can think that something isn’t theft but it is unjustified nonetheless.

Because most people, wisely, do not let it get that far. However, that does nothing to change the fact that this is what is being threatened with. — Tzeentch

Ok, so would taxation still be theft if the final punishment that you were threatened with involved the government sending you to live in some forest away from civilization unless another country wants to take you as it’s citizen? After all, you might be entitled to not go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes but are you entitled to be able to continue living in the country that you refuse to pay your taxes in?

We are, however, continuing to assume states are benevolent and don't use the wealth they received through threat of violence to commit injustice.

We know that in fact, they do. All the time. — Tzeentch

Well, could you provide me with some specific examples of what you have in mind here? I’m guessing you might be talking about some small portion of the money being used for something stupid like fighting a war on drugs but I wouldn’t imagine that this constitutes very much of the taxpayer money at all. Though, even with something like the war on drugs, it may be argued that if the majority of the public agreed with this use of money then the government would still just be fulfilling the desires of the people that it represents as it ideally should do.

Merged the two discussions.

You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications. — Tzeentch

Not at all. There are many ways of thinking about what is 'right' that would lead to taxes being the 'rightful' property of the government. I think, for example, it is 'right' that everyone should share in the wealth generated from the use of their common resources - that seems fair to me. So some portion of everyone's wealth is the rightful property of each and every person who shares in the common resources that went into generating it.

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. It's a simple question - how do you establish what is the rightful property of a person? You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government.

Do you think your body is your rightful property? — Tzeentch

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs.

And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power? — Tzeentch

You do know states are democratically elected? I do hope that hasn't passed you by all these years. Every few years a tentative 'state' asks the population if they can have, and enforce the having of, a certain proportion of income to pay for a set list of services. If the people agree, they get to enforce it. If the people do not agree, they don't. so it's simply false to claim that the legal claims stem from 'the state' as if it were some monolith. the legal claims stem from proto-states suggesting such claims to the populace, who then agree to them.

If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac


Me, personally? Nothing. — Tzeentch

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair?

The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add. — Tzeentch

A trivial truth with which everyone would agree. the point is entirely about which are which. Not simply that there are two such categories. No-one is advocating that the government intervene in the case of siblings squabbling over who should have the last biscuit, and no-one is suggesting that there should be no government at all, so pointing out that there are two categories of moral conflict is irrelevant. The issue is how we decide which falls into which group. As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion.

You've said that taxation is theft (to an extent) yet you've not given a single reason why that moral conflict is one which the government should not solve, yet threat of violence is one which the government should solve. What is your method of establishing which moral conflicts a government should step in to resolve - and I don't mean for you to provide me with a list, I mean for you to outline the reasons why some things are on that list and others not - the rationale.

Ok, so would taxation still be theft if the final punishment that you were threatened with involved the government sending you to live in some forest away from civilization unless another country wants to take you as it’s citizen? — TheHedoMinimalist

Note that I have not argued that taxation is theft. What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil.

However, keeping in mind what I just stated, I'd like to answer your question.

Is there still a threat of violence in effect when the punishment is exile instead of imprisonment? I would assume so. If the person refuses to be exiled, what would the state do? They would force them through physical violence. In other words, the threat of violence is still there.

After all, you might be entitled to not go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes but are you entitled to be able to continue living in the country that you refuse to pay your taxes in? — TheHedoMinimalist

It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state?

It is the state's, because the state has the power to enforce that claim. Ergo, it acts on the principle of "might makes right", which, as far as I am concerned, is no right at all.

Well, could you provide me with some specific examples of what you have in mind here? — TheHedoMinimalist

Wars, corruption, propaganda, government scandals, well-intentioned but ill-advised policies. The evils of government should be self-explanatory.

What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil. — Tzeentch

A morally justifiable 'evil' is an oxymoron. If it is necessary to achieve a moral end then it is, by definition, the morally right course of action. Just because an isolated example of it out of context would be immoral, doesn't somehow make it immoral in context. Or at least that's a rather silly and unhelpful way of defining actions.

If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. No more need be said of it. What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us?

It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state? — Tzeentch

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?

From where would a private individual derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the individual's property"? Who gave it to the individual?

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac

Voluntary interaction and association, of course.

You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac

That is not something I have said.

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac

And where is that right derived from?

If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac

If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.

A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually.

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac

A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others.

As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac

The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution.

If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. — Isaac

No.

"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon.

What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac

It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end.

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac

Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust.

I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?

From where would a private individual derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the individual's property"? Who gave it to the individual? — Isaac

The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument.

Also, I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not?

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac


Voluntary interaction and association, of course. — Tzeentch

The solution was to moral conflicts where the parties cannot reach a mutually agreed solution - so voluntary interaction and association doesn't answer the question.

You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac


That is not something I have said. — Tzeentch

My mistake. So are they?

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac


And where is that right derived from? — Tzeentch

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. If I was pushed I'd say point to the incoherence of a position which has any concept of property at all without having an entity to which that property belongs who themselves has some control over that.

If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac


If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.

A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually. — Tzeentch

again, just whinging without alternative. If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? Remember these are cases which cannot be resolved by any voluntary means, cases for which such avenues have been tried and failed. What then?

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac


A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others. — Tzeentch

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted and not that of the one with more enforcing power?

As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac


The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution. — Tzeentch

Whatever century then. It doesn't make the idea any less ludicrous. What magical ability did those people have to decide such matters that we lack?

No.

"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon. — Tzeentch

I didn't say the ends justifies the means, I said a course of action cannot be immoral when the end is moral and there's no alternative. that's not the same as "the ends justifies the means" where a choice of 'means' is implied.

What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac


It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end. — Tzeentch

Where does that get us?

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac


Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust. — Tzeentch

As above, I can't see how it isn't required. If there's no choice then the idea of moral responsibility, fairness and justice are all irrelevant. Morality is a means by which the right course of action is chosen, a motive to do it. It's not an arbitrary and meaningless label to just assign to things.

The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument. — Tzeentch

I know. I'm trying to draw out the implicit reliance on it. as you said

If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch

Who has a right to property and by what means is absolutely fundamental to your position.

I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not? — Tzeentch

There are two types of people who promote small government. Those who value autonomy and those who value selfishness. Obviously the latter are people I do not well tolerate and the more ludicrous your counter arguments sound the less tolerant I become of them. These things have real consequences, If we were discussing the merits of Star Wars, I'd hold myself to a level of moderation, but you're suggesting the poor should starve, that children should go un-housed, that medical care be withheld from those too poor to afford it, that the wealthy should be allowed to steal common resources without bar. These are not morally neutral position we can discuss as if it were a game of cricket.

Well, I think I started a potentially good dialogue on that. After all, it seems to be the case that most of our taxpayer money goes into servicing the public in some way either through medical care or retirement programs or public infrastructure. I think the public usually wants what is being funded by the government and that seems to be a good consideration. Also, taxation doesn’t really make a particular individual less wealthy than another individual only because of taxes under most circumstances. So, it seems that taxation doesn’t disrupt the natural dominance hierarchy of our society that much at all either. So, I’m not entirely sure why people would use the strong language of calling it theft.

I call it theft and use strong language because my property is confiscated without my permission. I do not know whether my money goes to some pensioner or if I’m helping buy some Raytheon missiles.

The government can help you to solving problems or... It is them who create those.

I think there are far more subtle problems we will soon have to contend with, if we’re not already. We don’t just hand over our money when the government taxes us; we also hand over our independence and responsibility to one another.

I cringe whenever state proponents pretend taxation is the moral and compassionate thing to do, as if paying a tax was akin to taking care of the ill and feeding the poor. But really they’re handing that responsibility to someone else, in this case some faceless, centralized authority, who may not even exist in the community, let alone know what’s best for the people there. I wager many tax-payers would be more inclined to help the needy in their own community if they weren’t already paying the government to do it for them.

The infantilization of entire generations will become an issue wherever this paternalistic system is disrupted, just as in any relationship where one side is dependant on the other. If the government is forced into austerity, usually by its own overspending, the services the population has grown to become dependent on could be lost.

I call it theft and use strong language because my property is confiscated without my permission. — NOS4A2

It's not your property. Flat out and simple. It is the property of the government, by law. The same law by which anything is the property of anyone.

You've yet to give an account of why the 'rightful' amount you're owed in return for your labour is exactly your gross wage and not exactly your net wage. Would this mean if you got a pay rise you'd give the extra money back?

I cringe whenever state proponents pretend taxation is the moral and compassionate thing to do, as if paying a tax was akin to taking care of the ill and feeding the poor. — NOS4A2

Yes I cringe too because it is supposed that if we pay taxes we will save other people's lives. Probably it is true thanks to this system at least we give to all the citizens an "opportunity" to start with. But I guess everything do not starts and neither ends just for paying taxes. If the system is screwed the distribution of benefits will be flawed too.

If the government is forced into austerity, usually by its own overspending, the services the population has grown to become dependent on could be lost. — NOS4A2

This is the point where I go totally pessimistic. I don't understand why some people cheers when the State get into debt more than 100 % of their GDP. Like... What's going on here? This method will make us poorer and more dependent from the governors and their laws. At least, I guess, in this situation we will not be so lost because the people nowadays are not ignorant and they understand when the State is not doing their work good or a proper administration.
I guess this is something interspersed. We are lost because... We are so dependent of the State/situation?

It's not your property. Flat out and simple. It is the property of the government, by law. The same law by which anything is the property of anyone.

You've yet to give an account of why the 'rightful' amount you're owed in return for your labour is exactly your gross wage and not exactly your net wage. Would this mean if you got a pay rise you'd give the extra money back?

Right, and slaves were the property of slave-holders by law. Appealing to law isn’t at all convincing.

If I sign a contract for a certain wage in exchange for my labor, I would expect the full amount to be paid.