The Meaning of Taxes

I feel silly writing this note because I am merely stating the obvious. However, it seems that from talking to a few people recently, something which should be obvious is lost to some. I expect this to not be so long so please bear with me. 

What are taxes?

Taxes are payment to a party, call it Government, for claims to monetary obligations or assertions that there is money owed. But what does money owed mean? It means that if I raise 10 chickens and the Government says I have to pay the amount of 3 chickens for taxes, it means the Government claims that the labor and the capital that went to 3 chickens is theirs. In short, it's as if I have to pay 3 chickens although I doubt any tax office would accept that as payment. The claim is being made that for every 10 chickens I feed and raise, 7 are truly mine and 3 are owned by the Government. 

But is this justifiable? And is this moral? To answer this, one can merely analyze by noting ownerships. In my chicken farm, I raise, labor, and feed 10 chickens. If they get sick, I pay the agricultural veterinarian for services and medicine. All effort and money spent comes from myself. Everything else that the chickens need to mature comes from the abundance of nature; the air, water, the earth, the occasional beetle or earthworm they find to eat are natural. Who owns nature? Nature as a whole is the heritage of all mankind. In abundance, the air, the water and the Earth obligate me with nil to mankind. In scarcity, I would arguably have an obligation to mankind; but it is not to Government. Why then does Government claim to own 3 chickens that I have?


The somewhat keen observer might say, the Government needs 3 chickens to supply the army to provide security for the nation. However, this is a bogus argument. Firstly, I did not ask for the security that they are requiring me to pay. Secondly, how did they get to the value of 3 chickens? If I raised 20 chickens instead, would they demand 6 chickens? Why would the amount of labor and capital I put into making myself comfortable in life be proportional to the amount of money I owe for security, if it is indeed that I owe money for security. The arbitrariness of using labor and capital as a measure is the argument's weakest point. 

This is evidenced when one looks at other forms of labor with less tangible products. If instead of chicken farming, I was a programmer and I wrote 4000 lines of code, why would I owe 1200 lines of code to the Government? It seems that chickens, delicate and tender they sometimes are, would require more physical security. 

There are ways to fund a manageable Government, but taxing labor and capital are at best suspect and at worst immoral. Government shouldn't be allowed to claim ownership of something, anything, be it chickens or programming code, for no legitimate reason.