Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"KN declares: "Tax is a necessary evil to protect society"
The word you should have used was 'tax'. But that would have been tautological and your rhetoric would have been spoilt. Or can you explain to me how taxing someone is the same as stealing from them?
KN declares: "Tax is a necessary evil to protect society against the incentive of the wealthy to waste their resources." This goes to no1marauder's rem ...[text shortened]... is everyone's right to spend their money as they see fit. So why should anyone pay taxes?
So it is alright for government to do evil things? If the goal is important enough? Sounds like "the end justifies the means".
Since stability and law benefit all citizens, or ought to, then why aren't all equally responsible for the support of government, at least as a percentage of their income?
What moral argument can you make that they pay more?
Originally posted by no1marauderAs a percentage of their income, do the rich "waste" more than the poor?
Yes, they're living high on the hog in those "unnecessary" cardboard boxes.
I can introduce you to "poor" people who spend half their income on beer and cigarettes, or is that good also because those items are highly taxed.
Originally posted by Scriabin"Otherwise, to confiscate the illegally gained wealth of those who deal in controlled substances, for example, would also be "stealing."
You define legal terms as though you have the authority to do so. You are entitled to your opinion. You can be as scared as you like; however, the law may be fashioned such that the accumulation of wealth is permitted only so long as it represents benefit to the community. Otherwise, to confiscate the illegally gained wealth of those who deal in controlled ...[text shortened]... our ideological pretzel bending that you are having trouble finding your ass with either hand.
Why are substances controlled? And for the most part, those wealthy from dealing them are untouchable by the tax code. SCOTUS has ruled that persons involved in illegal occupations are protected by the 5th amendment from declaring income, whereas honest shlubs have to file tax returns.
Originally posted by bill718Yes, let's emulate France, who haven't been on the right side of anything since the American revolution, and were late getting there for that.
That's a difficult question. I would prefer government control similar to France. There's is not the perfect solution, but I think it is better than America is mananging things.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Necessary evil" is only justified by "the end justifies the means".
Do you understand the concept of 'necessary evil'? Being polite to people I don't like is a necessary evil; doesn't mean I'm doing evil.
Evil is bad, wrong! Government should be preventing evil not participating in it. Necessary "evil" admits that "theft" isn't too strong a word.
Argue the morality of taxing some people double or triple the rate of others, and letting off some without any taxation or with negative taxation?
Let's hear not what the alleged benefits are, but how it is right and good for everyone individual, including those so taxed.
Originally posted by normbenignTax has nothing to do with morality. If I were to argue about tax rates, I'd go for a socioeconomic argument; more realistically, weigh up the various arguments put forward by tax economists. I think that a flat tax system sounds best but purely for emotive reasons; I don't have a reasoned position on this subject. The only reason I intervened in this thread was to point out that to use 'tax' and 'theft' interchangeably is specious and mendacious. I'm butting out round about now 🙂
What moral argument can you make that they pay more?
Originally posted by normbenignNo, it's more about the right thing to do. In my example, treating people I'm out of sympathy with respectfully is the right thing to do, according to my beliefs. 'Necessary evil' simply involves delaying gratification to achieve a worthwhile end; like taking up exercise for health reasons.
"Necessary evil" is only justified by "the end justifies the means".
If you're going to equivocate on plain, commonly understood terms to achieve rhetorical effects, I'm not interested in talking to you; I'll just watch your antics from a distance. (Unless you're doing it for fun; I'd appreciate that).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf it's the right thing to do it isn't evil.
No, it's more about the right thing to do. In my example, treating people I'm out of sympathy with respectfully is the right thing to do, according to my beliefs. 'Necessary evil' simply involves delaying gratification to achieve a worthwhile end; like taking up exercise for health reasons.
If you're going to equivocate on plainly understood terms t ...[text shortened]... fects, I'm not interested in talking to you; I'll just watch your antics from a distance.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe proper function of taxation is the funding of required government. Then, I concur it isn't theft, but the price everyone pays for the service and protection government offers. Is it government's function to control wasteful spending? To equalize outcomes? To prevent excess wealth or poverty?
No, it's more about the right thing to do. In my example, treating people I'm out of sympathy with respectfully is the right thing to do, according to my beliefs. 'Necessary evil' simply involves delaying gratification to achieve a worthwhile end; like taking up exercise for health reasons.
If you're going to equivocate on plain, commonly understood ...[text shortened]... fects, I'm not interested in talking to you; I'll just watch your antics from a distance.
If government serves one group at the expense of another, it is not serving the noble goal of protecting individual rights, but abusing the rights of some for the benefit of others. That is EVIL. It can't be sugar coated or rationalized. That practice is theft.
The question wasn't whether to tax at all, but justifying progressive taxation. Personally, I believe the founders had it right in prohibiting all forms of direct taxation. Direct taxation is more often used to dictate behaviors and to craft social outcomes than to fund government.
If you don't believe that, then read over the posts. All in support of progressive taxation, cite the benefits to society, and attempt to diminish the moral wrong done to the individual.
Originally posted by normbenignCheap rhetoric. How is a sliding tax scale 'serving one group at the expense of another'? Just imagine, a healthier, more educated population could increase overall productivity, boosting the rich man's profits. Win-win. I'd guess that's the rationale behind progressive taxation, whether it works out in practice or not.
If government serves one group at the expense of another, it is not serving the noble goal of protecting individual rights, but abusing the rights of some for the benefit of others. That is EVIL. It can't be sugar coated or rationalized. That practice is theft.
How did direct taxation come to be introduced despite the Founders' intentions?
Wow. So far, I've gotten a whole boatload of insults, but no one willing to
define 'greed' or 'need' with any care.
Boss de Nage: Again, you reassert yourself, but with no argument forthcoming.
It's as if you believe that as long as the government calls it a 'tax' it can't possibly
be stealing. Certainly, you don't believe that, so why can't clearly define what
makes one tax 'legitimate' and another tax 'thuggery.' I mean, if we taxed
people on something clearly trivial -- say their height or the color of their hair --
then I'm sure then you'd object, and with good reason. So, how do you
justify taxing someone higher because they are less generous?
No1Marauder: I know you believe it's relevant, but you haven't made it
clear exactly why someone's generosity ought to me a mitigating
factor for why they should be taxed more or less. The LODMU makes it
clear that the more money you make, the less an individual dollar means
to you. I agree with this. One's generosity doesn't enter into it.
By making charitable donations tax deductible, you are coercing people
to make donations. And, if those deductions aren't enough to motivate
you to 'give,' the government taxes you at a higher rate, which means
you contribute more monies towards State-sponsored charities which you
may or may not support.
So we coerce people into donating when they might not otherwise donate.
And, I'm sure, the recipients of those donations say, 'I don't care if they
wanted to donate because they cared, or because they wanted to enter into
a lower tax bracket: I'm glad we have the money.' I tend to find this to
be a dangerous line of thinking, since the standard for what constitutes
'need' is yet to be defined. I believe generosity fails to be generosity when
there is a material gain for the giver. It becomes barter. And so, what
government is really doing is coercing barter. And I think that's crap.
It's very easy, of course, to be sarcastic about homeless people living high
on the hog when you refuse to define 'greed' and 'need.' There are
millions and millions of people who would love to live as well as some of
our homeless, and you know it.
Bose de nage: Many of our homeless, particularly those living in urban
areas have access to shelter. (To be clear, I have no objection to State-
Sponsored homeless shelters for the reason you articulate -- I take shelter
to be a basic human need.) That's right: they have warm places to sleep
that they did not or could not earn from the sweat of their own brow. They
have access to soup kitchens for bread they did not earn. (Again, I support
State-sponsored soup kitchens because I take sustenance to be a basic
human need.)
But I don't take access to a television as a basic human need. I don't take
internet access as a basic human need. I don't take possession of a cell
phone as a basic human need. Maybe you do (since you haven't take the
time to define it, then who can say?). Consequently, you remain an elusive
target, free to make potshots at the comments of others because you haven't
actually provided a justification for whichever stance you might actually hold.
If we offer tax breaks for so-called 'generosity,' then should we offer tax
breaks for those who volunteer at soup kitchens or read to blind kids at the
library? I helped an old lady cross the street today. Where's my tax break
for that?
The thing is, when the government offers tax breaks to individuals who donate,
beyond coercing people to give money to institutions they might not otherwise
support, the government is also acting as moral compass for what is good
and just to support, which should raise more than just my eyebrows.
Scriabin: I don't recall defining any legal terms. First of all, if I steal someone's
property, then I never actually own it, so if I lose it, I haven't been robbed.
This isn't the 1st-grade playground where possession is 9/10s of ownership.
The idea that wealth should only be accumulated such that it represents
the benefit of the community is not capitalism: People accumulate
wealth so that they can do with it as they see fit; if they wish to donate, then
they are doing what they want. If they wish to have a room covered in
plasma-screen televisions, then they are doing what they want. (Mind you,
I admire the former and am revolted by the latter.) As soon as we make it
a State-Sponsored duty to 'benefit the community,' it becomes extortion.
There's no pretzel here -- it's a pretty straight line, actually: As soon as we
start saying 'Let's do X for the benefit of the community, or for the common good,'
we can very easily be saying, 'Let's hurt the minority to benefit the majority.'
When we decide to tell people that they must be 'generous or else' for the
so-called good of the community, how does it differ than 'Your money or
your life?'
Nemesio