Taxation really isn’t theft

The basics of property rights
In recent discussions around tax justice some right wing groups like the Institute of Economic Affairs have argued that it is morally wrong to tax people. They say that the taxation is akin to theft. The argument that taxation is theft comes from the idea that “I own my property and the government has no right to take it from me”. This needs a very strong idea of property rights and that is really hard to justify. If you look through the history of political thought two big arguments from two big philosophers define the debate on property rights, David Hume and John Locke. Subsequent thought has built on them and combined their views but understanding both helps understand the debate.

Government necessitates property rights
Hume’s justification for property rights is that the only type of government that people will accept is one that protects property rights. In his story of how and why government forms property rights play a crucial part for Hume. For Hume it’s a matter of Human psychology that people are not going to submit to a government which is going to take away their property therefore governments must grant and respect property rights. But the important thing to note about this account is that it’s descriptive not moral. People are selfish and so will not want government which conflicts with their self interest. This does not mean that people have a moral right to property simply that they expect property rights from government. One of Hume’s most well known ideas is that we cannot derive morality from facts about the world. Whether or not you agree with Hume it is very clear from reading him that he doesn’t think that these facts about government bring about any moral obligations. You cannot argue that taxation is theft from this point of view because you are talking about a morality which this view doesn’t even acknowledge exiting. The only arguments on taxation and property rights that this view allows is the question of how high a level of taxation will people tolerate.

Property rights come as a result of our labour
Locke’s justification of property rights is one of the most enduring and popular despite its religious roots. It’s more complicated than Hume’s and has far greater range of interpretation but most people agree on the core elements. When we work the land we infuse it with our own labour and we then develop rights to that now developed land because our labour is a part of it.  This works for Locke because the land is owned by God and God desires that we develop the earth. There are two restrictions to this ability to acquire land that arise from our duty to God. We aren't allowed to acquire so much land that it goes to waste and we must leave enough land for others to be able to get what they need. Locke believed that the invention of money circumvented these two restrictions. Money means that we can sell any fruit of the land that we ourselves don’t need and that others do not need to own property in order to get what they need. Instead people can be paid for work and buy what they need. If this actually worked then there would be unlimited strong property rights. But it doesn't. Whilst it is the case that people cannot find work, aren't paid well enough or cannot work then all property holders who have more than they need have no property rights to that extra property. 

More modern takes on Locke
Locke’s justification may seem a little outdated with its emphasis on working the land and God granting property rihgts but the idea that our work means we own what we make is intuitive and some have tried to salvage it. The most appealing to me of the attempts to modernise it are ones that focus communal responsibility. These accounts replace God with the community and say the obligations retained are to the community rather than God because land is communal. The most flawed attempts are those by philosophers like Robert Nozick who try to simply remove God from the equation. They deny that there are any obligations to others and simply claim that by working you have made something and that thing is purely yours. Nozick is one of the founder members of the taxation is theft club. But the problem with this point of view is they fail to deal with the other ingredient that is combined with your own labour. Creativity does not create property ex nihilo. There is always something which is combined with creativity to create property. In Locke’s story there is land, in modern life there is infrastructure that allows businesses to develop. Whether you say it is Government, God or the community something has a claim to that which was used to develop the property along with the persons own creativity and labour.

This is exactly what President Obama was talking about when he said “you didn’t build that”. It should be immediately obvious the stupidity of the republican response “we built this” when they handed out Lego bricks to attendees of their conference asking them to build things out of Lego. Obviously you made the building butsomeone else made the Lego. Another party (government, God or community) invested something into your property and therefore they also have a right to whatever you produce. Taxation isn’t theft in as much as it is simply the other party claiming the proceeds from their investment.