The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Taxation is theft, change my mind.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 739 times Debate No: 112520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I believe that taxation is theft or robbery. I challenge anyone to change my mind.


The problem is that taxation is required for federal funding. In a perfect world, the government would make its own money. This is not a perfect world. The simple fact is that if you provide an alternative method for the government to obtain funds in order to progress the interests of the nation, then taxes are our best bet. I don't like them either, but they are necessary. The reason why taxation is not theft or robbery is that you would not be in the position that you are in without the developments provided by the state. In turn, it is required that some of the funds that you have acquired because you live in a nation with developments that made your job possible are given back to the system to repeat the process. Taxation is not theft, it is an obligation. I do, however, support the argument that taxation is done wrong. Taxation in its purest form is completely justified.
Debate Round No. 1


Just to clarify: im not an anarchist, I do believe that taxation is nessesary. But that does not mean that taxation is not theft. Taxes has to be collected by force, with threats, and at gunpoint if needed.

The definition of steal or stealing is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force. This is exactly what the government is doing.
( )

As I said, I do agree that some of the money is well spent. But the "Its needed" argument is irrelevant. If I would need a new chair for example, does ikea have the right to come to my house and force me into buying their chair and put me in prison if i resist? Most people would say no, even if the chair is needed.


The Problem is that you use a bad analogy. The government is not Ikea and money is not furniture. The reason I believe that the "Its needed" argument is valid is that without roads, one could not get to work. Without laws enforcement, one could actually get money stolen. I say taxes are an obligation not because life would be better without them, but because we could not go to work and get the money we earn without them. If you took out a loan and had to pay back 10% interest, you would do so at risk of losing something more in the process. Just because you think you should not have to pay at an interest rate that high does not mean someone is not going to forces you. A job in a country like the U.S. only pays as high as it does because of government spending and social development. If you would like to work in a sweatshop with no taxes and make next to nothing, be my guest.
Debate Round No. 2


So what you are saying is that because taxation is "needed" therefore it is not theft to go home to people and force them to give you their money, if they resist, you forcefully put them in prison with violence.

I believe that roads would be able to exist even without taxes. Some examples:

You said that taxation is not theft because I would not be in the same position without it. Agreed, but this is just saying that theft is okay if its necessary, even if that would be true, its still theft, and therefore you have not changed my mind.

But again, the definition of stealing is "to take the property of another without permission or right, especially secretly or by force."

Dont you think that it is exactly what the government is doing? They take my money without my permission, and they do it with force, I have no choice but to pay, and if i resist, they will use gunviolence.


It would seem that the base of our disagreement lies within our definition of theft. My view is that taxes are the payment of the services the government provides that makes the jobs we have possible. Without taxes these jobs would not exist therefore we would not be making as much money to begin with. This is a weak argument, but one has the choice not to pay taxes. They either have to not work or move. Cheers, you made some really killer points.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 3 years ago
TheoEkman, I love your Steven Crowder esc. argument. I tto am a fan; he is my favorite political commentator. Sure it is theft, but it is necessary to run a government. I believe that the taxes should be severely lowered to 10-20%, or whatever is only neccesary. The govenment wastes too much money right now, and I think you would agree. The title is a little misleading, because people may thing your arguing against taxes. It seems like your arguing the definition of theft. The argument should be more about how taxes should be lowered because the gov. is wasting it. Love the Don't tread o me flag btw.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.