Ben Franklin once said, "It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people 1/10 part."
Although we chuckle at such thinking today, does Ben have a point? I met a chap not too long ago who proposed that taxation was nothing more than theft. Again, such a radical deviation from the norm is met with derision, but does he also have a point? One would think that such a person would be an anarchist, but he was not. He advocated a type of voluteerism in government. Of course, what funds that were needed would come in the form of paying for services rendered, but like AT&T does for your cell phone. Those that do not like their service simply stop paying for these services rendered and would no longer be serviced.
Now back to Ben Franklins thought about taxation. Most would probably laugh at Ben's assertion and view it as antiquated in relation to his view on taxes, however, the question must be asked, how much taxation is too much? At what point does a government become "hard" or despotic with taxation, or is that even possible? For example, would a government that taxes us 100% of our income be despotic, even if it is democratic so long as it feeds a "protects" its citizens? Is democracy the key to transforming moral taxation from immoral taxation or is there any immoral taxation even if the government is not a democracy?
Back in Ben Franklins day, the colonies were being taxed a great deal to help pay for the expense incurred by the British empire to maintain them. They were reminded that this was to pay for "their fair share", terminology we are well acquainted with today. However, the Founding Fathers diagreed. They felt that not only was the taxation immoral, it was deeply immoral because they could not vote to overturn such taxation. However, are we any different today? What vote cast can undo the taxation happy nanny state even though it is deemed "democratic"? In fact, the only taxes we are asked to vote directly on in the US are school levy's, everything else is decided not be democracy, but by a Representative Republic. If democracy indeed cleanses the unrighteous and transforms them into the righteous in all that they do or say, then can we then say that a Republic is close enough to democracy to use the term democracy in it's stead?
How many here think that the Founding Fathers would have not revolted had they felt "represented" in government and bit their tongues and paid "their fair share", whatever the hell that means? In the end, from my perspecitve society will inevitably gravitate towards a Marxist like redistribution with taxation. After all, those that advocate taxation are adovocating redistribution. It then only matters by what degree we are taxed and these "degrees" seem trivial after awhile.
Today we have a government that is nervous. It desires to spend as it likes but is wary of taxation due to democratic outrage. As a result, democracy seems like an effective tool to discourage despotic taxation, but, on the other hand, democracy might be the death blow to the government and economic system at large as such massive debt is accumulated due to fear of taxation and subsequent public outrage.
Originally posted by whodeyI wonder how this would all be measured and collected. A significant proportion of taxes are used simply in the collection. Surely this proposal would increase the collection costs significantly?
Of course, what funds that were needed would come in the form of paying for services rendered, but like AT&T does for your cell phone. Those that do not like their service simply stop paying for these services rendered and would no longer be serviced.
How would you judge your usage of things like roads and other shared infrastructure?
How would you choose not to avail yourself of the American military?
What about the FBI, CIA, diplomats etc? Could you opt out of those?
I have been reading Alexis De Tocqueville of late. He was a French thinker and philosopher who lived in the 1800's. He travelled to America and wrote "Democracy in America" after his observations. He said the most striking feature of American "democracy" was the asbsense of the state that he observed in Europe. He seems to have credited this by the absence of an aristocratic element. He writes, "In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completly disabled that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence on the course of affairs. The democratic princiiple, on the contrary, has gained so much strength by time, by events, and by legislation, as to have become not only predominant, but all-powerful. No family or corporate authority can be perceived, very often one cannot even discover in it any very lasting individual influence."
As a result of the lack of aristocracy, Tocqueville saw an "equality" in America as he writes, "America, then, exhibits in her social state an extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equility in point of fortune and intellect, or, on other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country in the world, or in any age of which history has perceived the remmbrance."
Tocqueville saw this "equality" issue as a danger to democratic societies, however. Those societies with remarkably "unequal" wealth and power, as was seen in Europe, often have a miscomprehension of equality, resulting in a descent into centralized tyranny. So instead of embracing equality as a condition of natural law and inalienable rights, equality is misapplied politically in the form of radical egalitarianism. He writes, "There is, in fact, a , manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a DEPRAVED TASTE FOR EQUALITY, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations who whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty, on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol; they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty and, if they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would rather perish than lose it."
Tocqueville felt that in early America, the strength of the sovereignty of the American people helped arrest the usual and historic gravitation towards democratic tyranny seen in Europe. In short, America was different than Europe because government was innocuous and dispersed as society did not revolve around government. He wrote, "The administrative power in the US presents nothing either centralized or hierarchical in its constitution; this acounts for its passing unperceived. The power exists but its representative is nowhere to be seen." Tocqueville seems to have credited State rights and Federalism as a source for his innocuous government. "In America the real power is vested in the states far more than the Federal government." LOL. Toqueville was convinced that the American people would never abide by democratic despotism, and the federal government has no way to administratively impose it on the multiplicity of diverse governmental institutions that would resist its enforcement.
So what is the democratic despotism Tocqueville writes about? He refers to it as a soft tryanny. He writes, "Above this race of men stands stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of their happiness; it provides for their security, forsees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of propery, and subdivides their inheritances, what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living! Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits. And having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
--------------------------------------------------------------
So what does this have to do with taxation? The federal centralized beast that Tocqueville so warns us about has but one food source, namely, the federal income tax begun at the turn of the 20th century.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was wondering this myself. Naturally the military would take a huuuuge hit. How one maintains sovereinty and security would be a concern to be sure.
I wonder how this would all be measured and collected. A significant proportion of taxes are used simply in the collection. Surely this proposal would increase the collection costs significantly?
How would you judge your usage of things like roads and other shared infrastructure?
How would you choose not to avail yourself of the American military?
What about the FBI, CIA, diplomats etc? Could you opt out of those?
The upside is that the US would not have soldiers in over 70 countires in the world and would force other countries that depend on the US for protection to protect themselves.
As historic exmples, he said the Vikings were an example. Then seemed to do well without taxation and basically governed themselves. As for myself, I tend to lean towards the Federalism that was hijacked by progressives at the beginning of the 20th century in favor of the Federal government running things.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWould you say that the Founding Fathers were justified in revolting against the British? Did the British crown create less utility than personal consumption in the colonies? In fact, how is such a thing to be measured?
Yes, if the way the taxes are used create less utility than personal consumption would.
Originally posted by whodeyWould you say that the Founding Fathers were justified in revolting against the British?
Would you say that the Founding Fathers were justified in revolting against the British? Did the British crown create less utility than personal consumption in the colonies? In fact, how is such a thing to be measured?
That's hard to say, since it would depend on what would have happened had they not revolted. Clearly a peaceful path to independence or better rule from Britain would have been preferable.
Did the British crown create less utility than personal consumption in the colonies?
Possibly.
In fact, how is such a thing to be measured?
Using empirical research.
Originally posted by BartsSpot on. The dirty secret is that it all comes down to belief. It is like the utility of the stimulus package. The argument will always be that it would have been so much worse without it, no matter how bad it may have gotten afterwards.
While I appreciate a scientific mindset, it is way harder than your answer would suggest. Measuring utility is as good as impossible.
Originally posted by whodeyWhen government spending is targeted at various definable groups and constituencies, taxation to feed that spending amounts to taking from a less numerous group to feed the demands of the majority, or the larger group.
Reading is hard, so let me make this short then.
Can taxation ever be immoral? If so, how?
In short, taxation which funds anything which is targeted to specific beneficiaries is immoral. That was Madison's version of "general welfare".
These days there is little pretence, of equality or fairness. The government has become the hired highwayman of the poor, robbing one group for the benefit of another.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe task of measuring utility over long periods is hopeless. Even determining a fair method of measurement is fraught with pitfalls and roadblocks. The main problem is disparate world views or visions, sets of premises which people will not give up. From these premises, the same empirical data may produce totally opposite results.
[b]Would you say that the Founding Fathers were justified in revolting against the British?
That's hard to say, since it would depend on what would have happened had they not revolted. Clearly a peaceful path to independence or better rule from Britain would have been preferable.
Did the British crown create less utility than personal consu ...[text shortened]...
Possibly.
[b] In fact, how is such a thing to be measured?
Using empirical research.[/b]