Taxation IS Theft. But Is It Justified Theft?

“If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized.”
--Lysander Spooner

The most instrumental and necessary element of any genuinely mutual human interaction is consent.

If two people wish to engage in a physical or sexual relationship with one another, what prevents physical and sexual interaction within this relationship from being rape, molestation, or assault?  Consent.  If one person wishes to enter the home or private property of another individual, what prevents this ingress from being classified as trespassing or invasion?  Consent.  If one person wishes to borrow the property of another person for his own intents and purposes, what prevents the taking and usage of those belongings and possessions from being defined as burglary or robbery?  Consent.  If a person wishes to purchase or sell a good or service to another person, what prevents this transaction from falling under the category of coercion or theft?  Consent.

And if the federal government wishes to seize the income and assets of a United States citizen, what prevents this seizure from being theft or coercion?
If you guessed consent, you were correct.  Unfortunately, the federal government does not need the consent or permission of the American citizen to levy taxes and fines upon him.  The federal government's only obligation is to impose the threat of force.

Essentially: Any taxation which occurs is, definitionally, coercive theft.

In instances where there are two parties, one of whom possesses capital and desires a good or a service and one of whom offers a good or service and requires capital, the only way in which an exchange can occur in a free, non-coercive manner is with the absolute consent of both parties.   If one party uses the threat of force to compel the other to provide a good or service that he does not wish to provide in exchange for monetary compensation, this is coercion.  If one party implements the threat of force to intimidate another party into supplying money in exchange for a good or service that the recipient does not necessarily want or evaluate as worth the non-negotiable price, this is theft.
Oxford Dictionary defines 'theft' (or 'stealing') as the "Tak[ing] of another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it".  The same dictionary defines 'coercion' as "The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

Consider the United States income tax system for a moment (in fact, consider virtually ANY income tax system anywhere in the world): The income of working class citizens is involuntarily extracted without the permission or consent of workers.  This is theft.  If members of the working class refuse, resist, evade, or make any attempt to avoid these taxes, the government resorts to threats and ultimatums of force in the form of audits, asset freezing and seizure, and even arrest and imprisonment.  This is coercion.

Taxation, then, by its very nature (and by the very definition of the words) is theft enforced in a coercive fashion.

Every income-earning citizen is required, with their consent or without it, to surrender his property.  If and when he does not, he is impelled to do so under threat of austere retribution and punishment.

The definitions of theft and coercion and the necessity of consent in a truly reciprocal transaction do not change simply because the government is one of the parties involved in the transaction.  These basic legal and economic truths do not become soft and flexible due to government's lust for taxpayer dollars.  Coercion is coercion, no matter who is doing it.  Theft is theft, no matter who is committing it. 

"Double Standards"

There are no definitional exceptions for the ruling class and for governing bodies.
Taxation is inevitably theft.  This is not debatable.  In conjunction with the collectively-determined meanings of the words 'theft' and 'coercion', the federal government steals from, coerces, and intimidates the American taxpayer.  This is an unarguable truth presented to us by the objectivity of language.

The great debate, then, should not be over whether or not taxation is theft, but rather, whether that theft is warranted.

Proponents of the position that the practice of income taxation is justified tend to point to the federal government's utilization of taxpayer dollars to construct roads, to build waterways, to provide federal or state service stations (such as schools, post offices, water refineries, police and fire stations, and state hospitals), to fund military ventures and defense, and to generally preserve vital infrastructure.  This argument would be more convincing if a) the vast majority of taxpayer dollars were allocated only to/for these imperative services, and b) if there were not an incredible number of cases wherein the free market and private enterprises provided precisely the same services more efficiently for a better price.

The problem with insisting that taxation is a necessary evil because taxes are applied to necessary services and infrastructure is that, generally speaking, most tax dollars are not spent thus.  Of the $3.9 trillion taxpayer dollars spent by the federal government during the fiscal year 2016, only 2% ($78 billion) of the budget was spent on internal transportation (roads, highways, waterways, etc.).  Only 2% ($78 billion) was spent on education and schooling.  Further uncategorized infrastructural essentials (labeled as "other") accounted for another 3% ($117 billion) of the budget.

Where did the rest go?

Respectively, 1% ($39 billion), 2% ($78 billion), and 8% ($312 billion) funded non-security international functions, scientific and medical research, and benefits for veterans and federal retirees.  A whopping 16% ($624 billion) was allocated to military and defense spending.  And even more incredibly, the percentage funneled towards healthcare, inflated safety net programs, and market subsidies was 35% ($1.4 trillion).  Consider also the near quarter of the budget (24%, $936 billion) that funded Social Security (which owns over $2.5 trillion dollars of government debt) alone.  Further, an astounding 6% of the budget for the fiscal year ($234 billion) was set aside solely to pay interest on the increasing debt accrued by out-of-control government spending.

What these numbers tell us is that only a minuscule portion of the federal budget (and, ergo, a minute allotment of taxpayer dollars) actually provides for infrastructure.  The remainder goes towards programs and services which may or may not be necessary or desired.  Remember, "If one party implements the threat of force to intimidate another party into supplying money in exchange for a good or service that the recipient does not necessarily want or evaluate as worth the non-negotiable price, this is theft."  This is precisely what is occurring: The central government threatens or exercises force to extort income from the American taxpayer.  This income is subsequently spent on absurd studies, failed social programs, lavish salaries and paid vacations determined by the legislators who receive them, financial compensation for individuals sexually harassed or assaulted by members of the legislature (yes, the taxpayer provides indemnification for Congress' sexual crimes), and interest payments on the debt they have accumulated after decades of such ludicrous expenditure.

Imagine, again, the aforementioned scenarios regarding coercive extortion.  If I were to ask you for thousands of dollars on a weekly basis without specific assurances as to how and where that money was to be sent, you would refuse.  Now suppose that I were to strong-arm you to comply by threatening force.  And suppose, after all of this, you were to discover that the capital I had extorted from you was used to finance a grant for a study on how cocaine affects the sex life of Japanese quails.  You would be outraged.  I would be in prison.

This sort of conduct is illegal, immoral, and deeply disturbing to us when it is perpetrated by individuals.  When governing bodies do it, on the other hand, it is the status quo.

Additionally, take into account the fact that the average American taxpayer plays very little part in influencing or deciding the manner in which tax dollars are spent.  As a result, individual taxpayers end up funding a criminal justice system that they might consider broken and desperately in need of reform, endless foreign military interventions which they might oppose, and institutions and practices with which they do not morally align.  Or consider the often circular nature of federal funding: In the fiscal year 2018, Planned Parenthood spent $8 million on political activism, lobbying, and congressional campaign support. In the same year, Planned Parenthood received over $500 million in taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood contributed to placing government officials in the legislature and those same officials subsequently voted to give back to Planned Parenthood.  This cycle of back-and-forth dirty money politics occurs without the unanimous consent of the very individuals who supplied the money in question.

Referring back to our statistics on the 2016 fiscal year, suppose that vital infrastructure (i.e. roads and waterways, schools, health and law enforcement facilities) were the singular monetary obligation of the federal government.  The budget for the fiscal year 2016 would have been slashed by over 90%.  Even allowing for unreasonably inflated military spending (largely as a result of European defense outsourcing), were infrastructure and defense the sole priorities of the federal budget, roughly $3 trillion would have been saved in a single year, and that $3 trillion could have remained in the pockets of those who earned it.  But income taxation is not just about necessary services and infrastructure.  In reality, the majority of tax funds, dollar-by-dollar, aren't used for these purposes at all.

Only 2% of the 2016 fiscal year budget went to transportation infrastructure.

Federal income tax in the United States was not established by the 16th Amendment until 1913, and yet the federal government still managed to preform with remarkable efficacy while supplying and maintaining indispensable services and internal functions.  How was this possible?  In large part, it was possible because federal expenses in the early 1900s were dwarfed by federal expenses today.  Because of the limited size, number, and capacities of federal departments and the industries in which they held jurisdiction, the United States central government operated almost entirely off of the proceeds of import and export tariffs, minimal excise tax, and public land sales.

This is an economic truth: The larger the government, the greater the expenses.  As the United States government's size increased, expenses also increased due to expanded market subsidization (including needless agricultural subsidies and repeated automotive bailouts), unconstitutional federal programs (such as Social Security and a host of investigative bureaus), unnecessary and unauthorized wars, hefty industry buyouts, massive employee compensation and salaries, and underhanded international bribery.  As expenses increased, the necessity for greater income increased also.  And thus, federal income tax was conceived under the pretext of "vital infrastructure" even though this infrastructure was, by and large, already being sufficiently provided.

The federal government's supply has outgrown demand.  And, conjunctively, its cost has outgrown demand as well.  Its unnecessary (and often undesired) interference in countless domestic spheres, markets, and industries has cost the American people trillions.

Contemplating the success of the private sector when competing with government services should also cause us to reevaluate which services ought to be public and which ought to be placed in the hands of the market.  For example, compare and contrast the United States Postal Service (U.S. Post Office) and private companies such as UPS, FedEx, and DHL.

The U.S. Post Office is a federally controlled and operated agency for which the United States citizen pays at least twice per use.  This is because the U.S. Post Office is bankrolled by federal income tax (to the tune of over $18 billion annually), and yet stamps, boxes, envelopes, and shipments are still sold to taxpayers on a per-transaction basis.  In spite of the fact that American taxpayers have already compensated the U.S. Post Office for its services, they are forced to pay a second time in order to take advantage of those services.  Notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Post Office is doubly reimbursed, the agency still operates at a deficit of $121 billion in intra/extragovernmental debt and unpaid liabilities.  The U.S. Post Office is hemorrhaging over $540 million in net losses annually.

Alternatively, consider UPS.  UPS customers only pay once for supplied services, and they pay only when they use those services.  UPS provides cheap, efficient, reliable package delivery at competitive prices.  Annually, UPS aggregate revenue totals $53 billion, accounting for a $3 billion annual net income.  The company's net worth is almost $92 billion (and has skyrocketed as high as $109 billion in recent years).  UPS is paid only half as many times as the U.S. Post Office, and yet its net worth is still more than $213 billion greater than that of the U.S. Post Office.  And UPS costs taxpayers absolutely nothing.

Why is this?

Ostensibly, UPS is not a fiscal burden on the central government precisely because it is privatized: Because UPS is incentivized to increase revenue, they must offer a high-quality, fair-priced service to their customers.  The U.S. Post Office does not share this stimulant: As a department of the government, it will continue to exist and function regardless of its net income or, as is more often the case, its aggregate losses.  The lack of risks and rewards means that U.S. Post Office is not incentivized to attain success and efficiency, whereas UPS must succeed or face extinction.

We have witnessed the identical phenomenon (wherein the free market and private enterprise offer a better product for a cheaper price) occur in road construction, water treatment, and a plethora of other instances.

This should beg the question: In just how many industries is government provision or interference necessary?  Are there many instances wherein private enterprise and free markets can offer better products for more affordable prices?  Can we alleviate federal spending, and ergo federal taxation by surrendering certain trades and fields to a market which demonstrably sets better prices and provides higher-quality services?

Ultimately, the answer to the question "Is taxation theft?" is yes, by definition, it is.  The answer to the question "Is that theft justifiable?" is that it's up for debate.
Before one defends the practice of income taxation, however, he ought to bear in mind that the acclaimed motivations proffered for the coercive seizure of taxpayer income are not the entire picture.  At best, these alleged reasons are naïve.  At worst, they are intentionally misleading and disingenuous.

The Libertarian Party's position on income taxation

Click here and here for viable alternatives to income taxation.