The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice

by Liam Murphy, Thomas Nagel

In a capitalist economy, taxes are the most important instrument by which the political system puts into practice a conception of economic and distributive justice. Taxes arouse strong passions, fueled not only by conflicts of economic self-interest, but by conflicting ideas of fairness. Taking as a guiding principle the conventional nature of private property, Murphy and Nagel show how taxes can only be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create. Justice or injustice in taxation, they argue, can only mean justice or injustice in the system of property rights and entitlements that result from a particular regime. Taking up ethical issues about individual liberty, interpersonal obligation, and both collective and personal responsibility, Murphy and Nagel force us to reconsider how our tax policy shapes our system of property rights.

Genres: Philosophy, Economics, Politics, Law, Nonfiction

238 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read most of this book for a class on Distributive Justice and the Law. It's interesting because Murphy and Nagel put forth a counterintuitive argument about the allocation of resources in society that is actually quite simple and makes a lot of sense. They argue that contemporary tax policy debates are misguided because they focus on the wrong question: How much of our money can the government take away in taxes? Murphy and Nagel suggest that the notion that our money is in fact our money is not necessarily correct - we define our relative wealth by a social standard that doesn't have to exist. If, for example, we lived on a desert island, our money wouldn't make us wealthy because we wouldn't have use for it. Their approach is to redefine the tax debate into questions of what social obligations we want to undertake and what level of resources do we want to commit to those goals. From that viewpoint, the government can tax resources without taking "our money."

I don't necessarily agree with all that they say, but it's an interesting argument and helps put tax issues into perspective. I'd recommend at least reading the conclusion.

[Oli McGowan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting if tax policy is your thing. Insightful and gives something to the field that was not there previously.

[Diego · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Nagel y Liam Murphy hacen un trabajo increíble al explorar los argumentos de la teoría de la justicia que soportan la idea de impuestos más progresivos, tasas marginales más altas para los ingresos más altos, impuestos al capital y a la herencia. Nagel y Murphy se dedican a desmontar el mito de la propiedad que el libertarianismo vulgar ha creado para oponerse a casi toda forma de impuesto o redistribución.

El libro presenta muchos debates sobre la teoría de la justicia, sobre la base gravable y progresividad de los distintos tipos de impuestos y como estos cumplen o no con distintas nociones de justicia. El mensaje de los autores es que no debemos concentrarnos en la existencia de justicia en las tasas impositivas o en el esquema fiscal, debemos fijarnos en si la sociedad en los resultados es justa o no lo es. Los impuestos son una manifestación de las nociones de justicia que prevalecen en una sociedad y por lo tanto, es la idea de la justicia que tenemos la que debemos tener en mente. Si los resultados de la sociedad cumplen con el mínimo social aceptable, con igualdad de oportunidades en su más amplio sentido y de resultados, esa es la marca por la cual podemos juzgar realmente en la esencia si el sistema fiscal esta haciendo su trabajo al proveer los bienes y servicios públicos necesarios y garantizar los derechos positivos y negativos de las personas.

Es una lectura que debería ser obligatoria para todos aquellos interesados en el debate público sobre los impuestos, en especial para todos aquellos en el espectro político de izquierda.

[Shaun · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit convoluted. Do not expect a major breakthrough with this one. However, it does have a very nice, thorough analysis of tax criteria and the forms of economic justice. Of special interest to me was the bits on endowment, redistribution, and welfare and its connection to Rawlsian issues in A Theory of Justice. Good introduction to justice and taxation, but I expected much more from Mr. Nagel.

[Jonnie]

a real eye opener

[Loki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

What made this book great are the frameworks it gives to understand taxes, justice, and property. I may disagree with some of the conclusions, but the thorough exploration of the options for taxation and their effects were refreshing. The title is definitely provocative, but an important lesson in the problems of the insane amount of individualism our racist, colonial society has baked into us. Society may not be flashy, but it is what makes us humans. We're social creatures, and we should never lose sight of that

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Taxes are good. Because taxes pay Murphy's wages. They paid for his workplace and the building itself. They probably paid for his rent, and they will certainly pay for his pension and old age health care. So Murphy will say anything to increase your tax, or else the government will call "austerity" and refuse to increase his entitlements.

[Jennifer Keegan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking analysis of the inequalities is the American tax scheme. I thought some arguments were a bit one-sided, but overall a great read.

[Keven Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

First time reading Nagel
Complicated

[Henry · Rating 2 out of 5]

An issue of semantics.

[Dreary · Rating 2 out of 5]

fine for anti-libertarian socdem theory, but obviously very limited by that scope. whole thing is moralism so yknow

[Drew Canole · Rating 3 out of 5]

A common criticism of philosophy is that it concludes with statements that are obviously deluded and false or it ends with statements that are trivially true.

This book is victim of the latter, but it benefits in that most people don't recognize the truth. Take this statement from the concluding paragraph:

"The state does not own its citizens, nor do they own each
other collectively. But individual citizens don’t own anything
except through laws that are enacted and enforced by the
state."

That's trivially true, but not top-of-mind stuff. We live with the psychological belief that the stuff that I own I just simply own. The truth, however, is that the only reason you're confident enough to leave your property every morning is because the rest of society respects the private ownership system enough to leave "your" property alone (we've also invested enough resources, as a society, to prevent illegal takeover of property).

What follows are some quotes that I think adequately express the thesis and conclusion put forth in this volume.

"Taxes are naturally perceived by most people as expropriations of their property— taking from them some of what is originally theirs and using it for various purposes determined by the government.

...

It isn’t that people are unwilling to pay taxes, but they tend to think of taxes as an incursion by the government on a prior distribution of property and income by reference to which expropriation and redistribution has to be justified.

...

the right question (that we should be asking concerning fair taxation) is: “How should the tax system divide the social product between the private control of individuals and government control, and what factors should it cause or permit to determine who ends up with what?”


(back to me now:) The fundamental change is that 'private property' is just property that belongs to everyone that you've sort-of been given.

I was thinking about this the other day: the only reason we allow people to have private property is because we think society as a whole benefits from mantaining the system that allows it - the system that allows people to own stuff without fear of others taking it.
Nagel's psychological switch makes the awareness that you don't "own" it, atleast not in the way you think you do.

Like all good philosophy books, I didn't really care about what the author's own conclusion was; I'm more interested in the affect it had on my own thinking, and how it's altered my (still in progress) conclusion.

That concludes the theory and practice of taxation. The next major conclusion concerns the political arena of taxation and everyone's self-interest (the rhetoric, versus the prior's reason and in-depth debate).

Nagel claims that too much emphasis on taxation fairness is put on what can be attributed to self-interest. Politics favours the rich, morality favours the poor.

I think in the end these two self-proclaimed amateurs of tax and law over-simplify the issues. They present a good view for the people to adopt as regards their property, but this is stuff that policy makers already know. These ideas may have an effect on how policy makers view the 'moral' side of taxation laws, but I wonder if that has had an effect on the laws and methods themselves.

[Edward Cramp · Rating 4 out of 5]

The premise of this book is quite interesting. It proposes that taxation is among the duties reflected in the rights of private property and that pre-tax income, therefore, has no moral justification in itself. This claim is based largely on the fact that the production and maintenance of wealth depends largely on the stability and shared resources and infrastructure that taxation allow civilizations to maintain. From this position, the authors discuss funding the provision of public goods and alterations to the distribution of wealth through taxation of measures such as consumption, investment, and endowment.

Beyond this single premise, the authors take few radical steps. They acknowledge deontological arguments regarding justice but value consequentialist arguments more strongly. They stay well within the economic orthodoxy. They view public ownership as undesirable due to its lack of historic success. Also, they accept arguments for remuneration, or extrinsic motivation, as essential for work. This narrow focus is somewhat disappointing, but may be valuable for in gaining wider acceptance.

Finally, while the premise favors a collectivist and perhaps even statist position, the authors are careful to accept libertarian ideals when they are compatible and not to dismiss libertarian arguments that are contrary to the premise without justification. Still, those who favor economic liberty are typically not accepting of its restriction. Such individuals see property as a moral right and an extension of self ownership. They view taxation as theft and dismiss the premise of the authors of this book as promoting serfdom. So, while they try to reach all audiences and provide a convincing justification for a certain degree of redistribution, I believe the authors’ arguments are better received by those who need little convincing and fail to persuade the rest.

Regardless, it is a well-presented argument and a great read.

[Saku Mantere · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is based on the premise that property rights have to be evaluated as, rather than an a priori foundation for a political system, an interconnected part of the system that creates and protects them. Property rights and taxation (which fuels the political system) should both be evaluated from a theory of justice standpoint. I found this argument refreshing and thought the book was important, as it highlights many of the contradictions within contemporary libertarian rhetoric. for instance, If the moral justification for the libertarian world view is that the market is an efficient way of rewarding hard work and entrepreneurial risk taking, why do they not promote a 100 percent tax on inheritance? Property rights are a crucial cornerstone to a functioning society, but they do not exist in isolation of the system that creates them.

[Ted Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The clearest, most coherent, and practical book on political economy I have encountered, "The Myth of Ownership" ought to be at the top of reading lists for both taxation and distributive justice. Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel simply point out property is a socially defined intellectual category. It has no meaning outside the social needs social life requires.

The line of argument stems from exploration of the fundament of taxation-from mundane exerience and the ambiguity of fair distribution of responsibility for the common weal to well formed theories of social and economic justice. A brief work that illuminates a multitude of practical concerns, this is a viral work.

I keep this one handy for reference.

[JimZ · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is the true source of individual property and wealth? Murphy and Nagel pose a contrarian theory that gives one pause, and that has implications for a mixed economy and social justice. I find myself constantly referring to the ideas in this book as I hold class discussions.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Made for good conversation with a seatmate on a light rail train who noticed the provocative title.

[David Kaib]

Very useful book for making sense of tax policy, everyday libertarianism (which has implications well beyond the issue of taxes,) But very dry.

[Kristoffer Berg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and convincing, but repetitive and too much about issues on the surface of tax policy.

[Javier Paz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. Challenges well established ideas about taxes and private property in a very compelling way. A must for anyone willing to engage with fairness and equity in taxation.

[Marlon Austin · Rating 2 out of 5]

a somewhat interesting idea which is ruined by how boring they make it

[Thomas Ray]

Phil has a good, short, review here: themassesareangry.blogspot.com/2013/1...