Is Taxation is Theft? Essay

Throughout history, man and government have had a social contract that has been agreed upon. Philosophers throughout history have debated what the social contract is defined as and whether it was right for a citizen or government to break this contract. Multifarious revolutions in history related to the American Revolution, Bolshevik revolution, and the Irish revolution these groups of people fought for what they believed their natural rights were. Either party can break a social contract between a government and it is sovereign when they believe their rights are infringed upon. A government 's role in the social contract subsists to protect the rights of their people and the citizen’s responsibility is to allow the government to protect their rights without oppressing them. The government and its citizens should break the social contract that is agreed upon if the majority society feels that their government is oppressing them.

The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute

The social welfare system in the United States can be a controversial topic especially now with the new presidential elect. For this paper I was assigned to look into two different peoples perceptions and attitudes on the social welfare system. I looked into how they perceived the system and whom they believed benefits from this system. Throughout this paper the identities of the two people I interviewed will not be revealed. I will simply refer to them in pronouns. My goal during this interview was not to educate my two interviewees so some of the information contained in this paper may not be accurate. Throughout this paper the two interviewees opinions will be stated and their opinions will then be compared and discussed. Although the whole population of the United States is experiencing the same welfare system each individual perceives and has different beliefs about the system.

Besides, another point have a place is If the administration takes your property for open utilize, they should remunerate you for it. In England or US property could be seized by the government without compensation to build a road or a bridge. The goal here is to ensure no one has their property taken by the government without being properly compensated, by using this law public ask for compensation. As the country's population continued to grow, however, local governments began to place increasing controls on the use of land. Where landowners believed that these restrictions impeded their use of the property, or damaged its value, they began to argue that these restrictions also constituted a taking of their land requiring adequate

A government is responsible in maintaining and improving the country’s structural elements, such as economy, military, agriculture, education and so on. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, the government requires a budget, which it acquires through taxation of the population. In the reading “Why I Like to Pay my Taxes”, Neil Brooks insists that taxes are a good thing, and that they are necessary for society to function, and beneficial in all aspects. He also criticises: people that see tax increase as negative, call taxation a great burden and a restriction of freedom. Neil Brooks shows bias by displaying only the pros of taxation. It is fair to say that arguments with regards to the pros and cons of taxation are a very grey area. The

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia develops his central idea called the ‘entitlement theory.’ This concept states that redistribution of goods is only considered justified if it has the consent of the owner of the holdings. He mentions here that the only State that is justified in carrying out any duties is the ‘minimal state.’ The minimal State is one that is only limited to the enforcement of of contracts and protection of individuals, etc. Any more intervention from the State, according to Nozick, is a violation of right against the people. The purpose of this essay is to examine Nozick’s argument against redistributive taxation to prove that eliminating taxation means getting rid of public education. I will argue that the right of education is embedded as one of the services that is essential to the development of society and that without the funding for it, it will cease to exist. Using Charles Taylor’s argument, that choices are necessary for autonomy, I show how education gives rise to better autonomy for in the individual. Thus, allowing for the growth and development of the community.

For instance, our National Defense and National Parks are two good examples of non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services. Therefore, the government is in a position to ensure that every citizen reaps the benefits, preventing the deprivation of use due to the inability to pay and other discriminatory factors in our society. Nevertheless, the true reality is that certain goods or services value is greater than one person can afford; therefore, our collective tax payments allow the government to pay these goods and services on our behalf, not burdening one individual citizen to pay the full amount. We must keep in mind that non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services are essential in building strong, healthy communities while strengthening our economic survival. Although it is important for the state government to provide non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services that educate our children, repair roads and bridges, provide healthcare, and serve and protect our communities, the inequality of the distribution demeans and oppresses the citizens residing in disadvantaged communities. For instance, although disadvantaged families receive these goods and services, the level of quality are not equal to the middle class or wealthier

National defence is one of the best examples of a public good and is considered non rival as one person’s consumption of the good does not reduce the amount available for someone else to consume, however like all public goods, it has the free rider problem. This is because people benefit whether or not they contribute towards defence, also, because a free rider’s consumption does not reduce the amount of defence available for others to consume, even those who pay have little incentive to prevent free riding by others. By imposing taxes on all individuals and then providing collective goods, government, in principle, can eliminate free-rider behaviour and produce the “correct” amount of national defence and other collective goods. Indeed, almost

Since the early nineteenth century the reformist of social democracy has hugely affected the development of social policy. Basing its principles on the two theories, socialism and liberalism it has influenced social democracy. The state is a key instrument that constructs social change, social democracy protects individual liberty and believes in state intervention to better the welfare and equality among the public. Altogether social democracy is a theory used by social democrats to transform from capitalism to a welfare state, extending the rights and freedom for citizens. Social democrats accept the confined role of markets, and the economic system. Social democracy is achieved through parliament distributing goods and implementing policies that support the welfare promoting egalitarianism, such as taxing the wealthy to redistribute wealth.

Should the flat tax rate system be implemented? No, the flat tax rate system should not be implemented. In this paper, the pro arguments will be presented, which will affirm the thesis. Then the con arguments will be presented. A rebuttal will then follow, and finally, the author’s conclusion will be offered.

When it comes to the new tax reform framework, while it might help some Americans, it also can hurt the rest of the people who does not fall into one of the tax brackets. However, if the plan is done accurately and it is designed to help all of America, not just the wealthy, then they can get it done. Also, it should be called a tax cut and not a reform. Honestly, the question everyone needs to ask is which income level is really going to benefit from the new framework. Which individual or married couple will this new tax reform help or worst hurt the most.

When the government gets involved and taxes goods and services, it raises revenue for the government, decreases the quantity of goods produced and consumed and therefore, both consumers and the producer of the good will pay, splitting the costs of the tax and leveling up with society’s.

The United States is in a recession; it has been facing some of the worse economic times since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. One option to fix the economy is to change the corporate tax rate. To lower it or to raise it, that is the question economists have been speculating. America's high corporate tax rate and worldwide system of taxation discourages U.S. companies from sending their foreign-source revenue home, which makes U.S. companies defenseless to foreign acquisition from the international opponents (Camp). Corporations and United States citizens have been fighting for a tax reform, which would hopefully help the American economy; either by lowering the corporate tax, or by raising the tax.

Taxation systems are usually modeled in such a way that they take into consideration the social welfare of the citizens. The government and other policy makers have the responsibility of ensuring that the system takes into account the needs of the citizens. The bottom line is that taxation should foster equal distribution of resources. The rate of taxation is usually arrived at after several considerations have been made. The rates are not fixed as they depend on the various economic changes. The issue of how taxation should be distributed among the different economic classes is yet to be addressed.

Another concern expressed by Keong (2007) is the idea that positive liberty means we expect the state to hand us certain things on a silver platter. Positive liberty has been used as a platform to push through ideas such as the principle that everyone is entitled to a minimum income or standard of living, though not everyone is comfortable with the “moral hazard this might evoke” (Keong, 2007). Key questions asked with this in mind include; ‘if you are guaranteed something, will you be willing to contribute back to society for it? Or, will you sit around and collect your entitlements? (Keong, 2007; Haworth, 1991).