Originally posted by bbarrI was fulfilling this request. Taxation is by definition mandatory and forced. If it was voluntary, there would be no need for it in the first place. You cannot escape this by saying that taxation is generous and compassionate, but only when voluntarily complied with, for the taxation itself applies to all taxpayers, even those paying it unwillingly. Thus, you cannot attribute the virtues of compassion and generosity to the tax law itself, and you must therefore admit that the tax law itself is inconsistent with those two virtues.
If you think taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with either of these virtues, I'd like to see your argument.
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI do not dispute this. I dispute that it is necessary to involve the government in this voluntary taxation. You shouldn't use the term 'taxation' when what you really describe is 'giving to charity'. The former has a connotation of being imposed upon all; the latter, one of being an individual, voluntary choice. The latter is much closer to the solution you propose.
The claim here, once again, is that it is compassionate and generous to willing tax one's self so as to benefit those who otherwise would have to prostitute themselves.
Your claim is trivially true, and as such, does nothing to support or justify a state-imposed welfare tax on all taxpayers.
By the way, I won't hold it against you if you lose this debate to me. I know you've been out of practice for a few weeks. I'm sure all the books will balance soon enough.
Dr. S
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPraytell, where was I attributing the virtues of compassion and generosity to the tax law itself? I have been claiming that folks are acting compassionately and generously by supporting and willingly paying such a tax. That has been my claim since my first post, and your inabilty to grasp this point is, frankly, astounding.
I was fulfilling this request. Taxation is by definition mandatory and forced. If it was voluntary, there would be no need for it in the first place. You cannot escape this by saying that taxation is generous and compassionate, b ...[text shortened]... it that the tax law itself is inconsistent with those two virtues.
Further, it is simply false that taxation is by definition mandatory and forced. Sales taxes are neither forced not mandatory, as people can opt out of buying the taxed product.
Further, taxation doesn't necessarily apply to all citizens (though it does apply to all taxpayers, as you claim [you sure have a way with the tautologies]). Any number of taxes are such that whole classes of people are exempt, and many more are such that even those who are not exempt may write off the taxed amount if they fulfill some further criterion.
So, not only have you failed to understand my fairly rudimentary point, but you've also failed to make a compelling case against the claim you mistakenly took me to be making.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrNowhere. I didn't attribute this belief to you.
Praytell, where was I attributing the virtues of compassion and generosity to the tax law itself?
You asked for an argument that defended the belief that such taxation is not compassionate or generous. I provided that argument. I didn't attribute the opposite position to you, except to the extent that you asked me to defend the position.
Where I used the term 'you' in the body and defense of the argument, I was referring to you as the person who asked me to construct the argument. I certainly did not mean to imply that you yourself thought it was just to impose such a tax on unwilling taxpayers.
Originally posted by bbarrNo sales tax that I know of goes to meet the budget of welfare programs. Such funds come from income taxes. As I already conceded, even income taxes are voluntary, if you accept the alternative that by not working you become a slavemaster to your neighbor.
Further, it is simply false that taxation is by definition mandatory and forced. Sales taxes are neither forced not mandatory, as people can opt out of buying the taxed product.
Originally posted by bbarrMy argument was not constructed so as to demonstrate the truth of this tautology. It was to highlight that I was referring to the entire body of taxpayers, not only the "voluntary taxpayers," as you call them. This distinction was essential to make.
Further, taxation doesn't necessarily apply to all citizens (though it does apply to all taxpayers, as you claim [you sure have a way with the tautologies]).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat are your opinions of the lottery. I consider them a poor man's tax. I like that it is voluntary too unlike a sales tax.
No sales tax that I know of goes to meet the budget of welfare programs. Such funds come from income taxes. As I already conceded, even income taxes are voluntary, if you accept the alternative that by not working you become a slavemaster to your neighbor.
Originally posted by kirksey957I have no objection to the state offering a vountary lottery whose proceeds go to welfare programs. In practice, you are right, they are a poor man's tax, and a cruel one at that. The state lottery is just about the worst legal gamble in town.
What are your opinions of the lottery. I consider them a poor man's tax. I like that it is voluntary too unlike a sales tax.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think involving local goverments would be an excellent idea, and I'm talking about taxation because I'm talking about a tax, and not a donation. The claim is that it would be compassionate and generous to support and willingly pay such a tax. It is not compassionate and generous of those compelled by the tax to pay (of course). Depending on the form of the tax, it actually may make sense to claim that the tax itself is both compassionate (in that it aims at remedying substantial and acute harms while inflicting exceptionally minor and diffuse harm) and generous (in that of the available distributions of potential burden, that one is adopted wherein the least well off are exempt from the tax, and the income brackets are affected progressively, with the lion's share of the tax coming from those business areas that stand to benefit the most from a decrease in prostitution [again levied progressively]).
I do not dispute this. I dispute that it is necessary to involve the government in this voluntary taxation. You shouldn't use the term 'taxation' when what you really describe is 'giving to charity'. The former has a connota ...[text shortened]... weeks. I'm sure all the books will balance soon enough.
Dr. S
So, I'm talking about a tax, my claim is not tautologous, and you make these mistakes because you employ an impoverished notion of a tax (really, a mere Libertarian caricature).
Thanks for your concern about my skillz. Although rusty, I'll try my best.
Originally posted by kirksey957I've always called lotteries 'Stupidity Tax.' It is tax on someone
What are your opinions of the lottery. I consider them a poor man's tax. I like that it is voluntary too unlike a sales tax.
who is to obtuse to realize that their chance of winning is infinitesmal.
And anyone who claims that they play the lottery to help out poor
people is bogus. They play to see if they can win. If they were really
interested in helping out poor people, they would give their money
directly to poor people through charities.
Nemesio
Originally posted by bbarrOriginally posted by bbarr
[b]Yes it would be better to "aim" for that but I think that is a more utopic conversation than the one here is. The reality is there is an epidemic of it where, if better managed, it could at least work better than it does now.
You claim that aiming for the elimination of the social conditions that gives rise to prostitution is too utopian. Then yo ...[text shortened]... ealizable states of affairs that are substantially better from a moral points of view.
[/b][/b]
You claim that aiming for the elimination of the social conditions that gives rise to prostitution is too utopian. Then you go on to claim that there is a problem with prostitution being epidemic.
My claim is, in our current situation where prostitution is still the “second oldest profession” we should have such legal guidelines in places as follows:
1.Must be of legal age
2.Must not be under the influence of any type of drug
3.Must be clean of all type of transmittable diseases
If there are people who qualify for this and would rather do this for a living than learn another trade or live off the system, then this is what I support. For the majority of people who would not qualify, any ideas of assistance are probably noteworthy but there are many who will not take the assistance offered so what should be done in this circumstance? Continue to support them? They should be made to work (and in no such way am I suggesting they should be made to be prostitutes).
Presumably, the majority of those folk working as prostitutes would prefer to do something that isn't so demeaning. I'm not claiming that prostitution is necessarily demeaning, but I take it as obvious that prostitution as a profession tends to be demeaning. Incidentally, this is why I claimed it would be desirable to work towards the end of prostitution: we ought to work towards social conditions that do not require of the poor and disenfranchised that they give up their dignity in order to survive.
I agree in the sense that many may deem it as “demeaning” but they are also many that do not. The answer is not to end prostitution because there are willing participants who subscribe to it. I think the answer is to not have people who do not want to go into it not go into it.
I also think the reality is that many, not all, people are lazy and if they could make a significant amount of money for as little work as possible (such as what a prostitute does) they would rather do that. As you can imagine, there are very high end "call girls" who can get $1000 a night. I know we are not really talking about these type of people but the point I am making is that you can give some people all of the opportunity in the world and they still won't take it.
And why is this relevant? This reminds me of the old welfare-mother myths of the Reagan administration. Every single black mother just having children so that she can get an extra check, right? If you bought that, then I guess it's not too hard for you to believe that somebody would choose to be a prostitute 'cause it is easy (you just lie there, after all), and lucrative (ten 'johns' and maybe you can pay the rent). Why, it's like free money!
Umm actually I do buy into the theory of some people (not all) chose prostitution or having babies to claim an extra check. It’s funny how you say prostitution is not necessarily demeaning but you think it should be abolished. Obviously, you do find it demeaning and the business of way it appears now is. My point was that some people no matter how hard you will try to help them will not help themselves although they are both mentally and physically capable of doing so. These type of people may chose prostitution instead of welfare for support. If they meet the above criterion, so be it.
"Desirable" for whom?
Desirable for those who are now prostitutes, for those who are in financial situations that may necessitate their becoming prostitutes, for those who have loved ones in such straits, and for us as people committed to social justice.
Again nobody should be forced to be a prostitute but I think you are only painting the most ugly picture of it (teenage runaway, crack addict who has no other out). Of course, they should not but there are those who are not and make a very nice living. Why take away their livelihood?
Yes, their clients desire these services. So? Do you think it ought to be the case that we, as a society, encourage this manner of desire-fulfillment?
I think you would assume my answer to this would be “yes” granted all the above is the case.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt is not my fault that you fail to see the possibilities that inhere within the institution of taxation. Excellent, I'm glad you have rescinded you previous claim that all taxes are mandatory and forced. I know it is difficult when an apparently a priori analytic claim to which you are wed turns out, upon examination, to be a posteriori and false. It happens to beginning philosophy students all the time.
No sales tax that I know of goes to meet the budget of welfare programs. Such funds come from income taxes. As I already conceded, even income taxes are voluntary, if you accept the alternative that by not working you become a slavemaster to your neighbor.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI see this as the difference: I would be grateful for a system to help me get back on my feet and support me when I am unable to. I also think its worthwhile, as a taxpayer, to support causes like these because I find them also in my best interest.
In this situation, what makes my concerns superior to those of Joe? Simply the fact that he "has" and I "don't have"?
Suppose I want to buy a big screen TV but can't afford it. Am I justified in stealing from a millionaire because he "has" and I "don't have" ?
If not, what do you see as the difference between the two cases?
This is not the same as the "luxury" of having a big screen TV, like the millionaire. This is talking about the basic priviledge of existence, eating and healthcare. On top of that, trying to get back to the financial situation where we could be self-sufficient, not giving handouts to people who can work and just continue to take the handouts.
Originally posted by Joe FistThis seems disingenous. I've seen many documentaries
Umm actually I do buy into the theory of some people (not all) chose prostitution or having babies to claim an extra check.
about prostitution and, when ultimately asked, 'Would you
want your daughter to become a prostitute?,' the answer has
been invariably, 'No.'
I can't substantiate that there isn't at least one person in
the whole world who would want their daughter to be a prostitute,
(as this would require polling every woman with a daughter), but
in my experience, I've never seen it, either in countries where it
is legal or not.
Nemesio