To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
Originally posted by sh76 Because the government needs money to function.
To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
As is the ability to decide where and what to spend money on..... our money
Originally posted by sh76 Because the government needs money to function.
To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
So you agree that attacks on tax increases by using a "right to property" argument are ridiculous?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra You can view democracy as a market for collective goods. People collectively decide what collective goods to buy from their money, e.g. an army.
Since the "right to property" tends to be formulated in absolute terms by conservatives then it still undermines it. Of course, this is obviously not a problem for you and me who are happy to make it conditional on being post-taxation on the terms you just mentioned.