Is taxation moral?

[LnGrrrR]

Figured I'd have fun with this topic; is taxation moral? Is it moral at any percentage to force others to provide money to the government?

Is it moral at a certain percentage level, and then anything about that is confiscatory?

I personally can't justify a MORAL reason for taxation. After all, it is an authorized form of theft with the seal of approval of the state. Of course, without it, running a nation would probably be next to impossible. But morally, I can't see a justification. Others can feel free to persuade me though.

[DarrinS]

I don't thinks it's immoral as long as the services being rendered are worth the tax. How else are we going to get all those great services from the likes of the TSA, the US postal service, the FDA, EPA, etc. Not to mention, somebody has to pay for their pensions.

[Wild Cobra]

Figured I'd have fun with this topic; is taxation moral? Is it moral at any percentage to force others to provide money to the government?

Is it moral at a certain percentage level, and then anything about that is confiscatory?

I personally can't justify a MORAL reason for taxation. After all, it is an authorized form of theft with the seal of approval of the state. Of course, without it, running a nation would probably be next to impossible. But morally, I can't see a justification. Others can feel free to persuade me though.
Yes, it can be a moral dilemma. That's why we should stop all unnecessary government spending, and focus just on the intent of our constitution.

[Blake]

I'm not sure 'theft' is the right word.

Close, but not quite.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not sure 'theft' is the right word.

Close, but not quite.
It is theft when it is done in the unfair manner that it is. We are approaching that 50% point where more people benefit from other people's money than those who pay in to the system. At that point, our democracy is like three wolf's and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[Yonivore]

Figured I'd have fun with this topic; is taxation moral? Is it moral at any percentage to force others to provide money to the government?

Is it moral at a certain percentage level, and then anything about that is confiscatory?

I personally can't justify a MORAL reason for taxation. After all, it is an authorized form of theft with the seal of approval of the state. Of course, without it, running a nation would probably be next to impossible. But morally, I can't see a justification. Others can feel free to persuade me though.
If you view the Constitution as a contract then, by the consent of the governed, some taxation is permitted and, therefore, moral.

I think taxation without representation or that which is outside the contract of the Constitution (Obamacare's individual mandates for example) are immoral.

[Blake]

That's why we should stop all unnecessary government spending.

why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

[coyotes_geek]

The "morality" of taxation is more about the application than it is the concept. The government needs revenue. If not taxation, what?

[Blake]

It is theft when it is done in the unfair manner that it is. We are approaching that 50% point where more people benefit from other people's money than those who pay in to the system.

just wait until that richest 1% of Americans hold >75% of the nation's wealth.


At that point, our democracy is like three wolf's and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

what do the sheep vote on to eat?

[Blake]

The "morality" of taxation is more about the application than it is the concept. The government needs revenue. If not taxation, what?

If they were to sell Mary Kay, if they sell enough products, it would eliminate the need to buy vehicles....

of course, other countries might laugh at our President driving a pink caddy.

[TheSullyMonster]

libertarian threads are the worst.

[Wild Cobra]

just wait until that richest 1% of Americans hold >75% of the nation's wealth.
So they would pay >75% of the tax revenue.

You miss my point. I have stated this several times, and I am consistent on this idea. When you have voters who's lives are subsidized rather than contributing to the general welfare, they vote in politicians who are willing to take more money and funnel it their way. This should never happen. If all working voters are tax payer, then all working voters will think twice before voting for politicians running on platforms that demand more revenue.

I believe in equal suffrage.

what do the sheep vote on to eat?
I don't know, but they aren't carnivores.

[Wild Cobra]

libertarian threads are the worst.
At least they are retarded like libtard threads.

[Parker2112]

from what I see, the most vocal conservatives on this board dont know what it means to be conservative. You guys are looking more like republican rah-rah-rah fanboys, not conservatives.

Which might give insight into the current "dumbed-down" state of the party.

[Blake]

I don't know, but they aren't carnivores.

true.

what if two of the wolves vote to eat berries along with the sheep?

Is it moral to force the last wolf to eat berries too?

[Wild Cobra]

true.

what if two of the wolves vote to eat berries along with the sheep?

Is it moral to force the last wolf to eat berries too?
Problem is, the nature of the beast doesn't work that way.

When you have a growing class of people, dependent on government one way or another, are you comfortable when that voting population exceeds the 50% of the voters?

[coyotes_geek]

If they were to sell Mary Kay, if they sell enough products, it would eliminate the need to buy vehicles....

of course, other countries might laugh at our President driving a pink caddy.

What if we just put the entire budget on our Capital One card?

[Blake]

Problem is, the nature of the beast doesn't work that way.

When you have a growing class of people, dependent on government one way or another, are you comfortable when that voting population exceeds the 50% of the voters?

huh?

I thought it was a simple yes or no question.

[Blake]

What if we just put the entire budget on our Capital One card?

Maybe also look into getting a home equity loan on the White House

[scott]

It is theft when it is done in the unfair manner that it is. We are approaching that 50% point where more people benefit from other people's money than those who pay in to the system. At that point, our democracy is like three wolf's and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Source?

[MannyIsGod]

If you really want to get into questions of morality then explain to me how land ownership is moral.

[Wild Cobra]

Source?
Don't be ridiculous.

This is a well known established fact, for years now.

Look it up yourself.

[scott]

Don't be ridiculous.

This is a well known established fact, for years now.

Look it up yourself.

No, it isn't. Back up your BS or keep your trap shut.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't thinks it's immoral as long as the services being rendered are worth the tax. How else are we going to get all those great services from the likes of the TSA, the US postal service, the FDA, EPA, etc. Not to mention, somebody has to pay for their pensions.

Well, basing the morality of the theft on the services it renders leads to a problem; your opinion of what is "worth the tax" can differ from others.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure 'theft' is the right word.

Close, but not quite.

If you can come up with a less inflammatory but equally acceptable word, I'm all for it.

[Wild Cobra]

No, it isn't. Back up your BS or keep your trap shut.
It is a well known fact that the net tax payers are shrinking. More than 45% of tax filers either pay no taxes, or get money back they never paid in. I forget which table it is, but you can find it at the OMB historical numbers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) web page. When you add that to those who vote and file no taxes, we could already be past 50% of voters who don't give a damn about raising other people's tax obligations.

[LnGrrrR]

If you view the Constitution as a contract then, by the consent of the governed, some taxation is permitted and, therefore, moral.


Does a child born into this country automatically enter into a contract with his government, without his consent?

[scott]

To cover all my bases, I looked it up, but couldn't find it.

Search Results (http://www.google.com/search?q=bullshit+wild+cobra+says&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari)

[Wild Cobra]

To cover all my bases, I looked it up, but couldn't find it.

Search Results (http://www.google.com/search?q=bullshit+wild+cobra+says&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari)
Wow...

I see you at least have a 75 for an IQ.

[LnGrrrR]

The "morality" of taxation is more about the application than it is the concept. The government needs revenue. If not taxation, what?

Yes, of course in the real world, taxation is considered by most to be necessary. (I'm sure there are a few anarcho-capitalists that might argue otherwise, though.)

But the necessity of something doesn't mean it is ipso facto "moral", does it?

[Wild Cobra]

Does a child born into this country automatically enter into a contract with his government, without his consent?
If I recall, only land owners paid taxes at the time.

[LnGrrrR]

libertarian threads are the worst.

Libertarians tend to be at extreme ends of the spectrum, which tend to be (I find) the most interesting areas to examine.

[LnGrrrR]

If you really want to get into questions of morality then explain to me how land ownership is moral.

Great question to bring up, especially in this thread. I would argue that land ownership is AMORAL, neither moral nor immoral.

How one AQCUIRES land may be moral/immoral, but the idea of land ownership itself is amoral, and must be. Humans must live somewhere, which implies ownership of land in some fashion, be it private or government.

Many libertarians will argue that private ownership is the foundation of property rights; after all, if you have no land with which to call your own, then there is nowhere you can live that isn't controlled by the government.

[scott]

It is a well known fact that the net tax payers are shrinking. More than 45% of tax filers either pay no taxes, or get money back they never paid in. I forget which table it is, but you can find it at the OMB historical numbers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) web page. When you add that to those who vote and file no taxes, we could already be past 50% of voters who don't give a damn about raising other people's tax obligations.

That's not the same as your original statement, not surprising since you don't have an IQ of at least 75.

[LnGrrrR]

If I recall, only land owners paid taxes at the time.

I think Yoni was referring to the present day. Government IS a form of contract with people, but one that citizens are automatically entered into upon birth, with all the requisite pros and cons. (And just pre-empting the "If you don't like it, then change countries" argument, that has nothing to do with the morality/immorality of taxation.)

[scott]

Great question to bring up, especially in this thread. I would argue that land ownership is AMORAL, neither moral nor immoral.

How one AQCUIRES land may be moral/immoral, but the idea of land ownership itself is amoral, and must be. Humans must live somewhere, which implies ownership of land in some fashion, be it private or government.

Many libertarians will argue that private ownership is the foundation of property rights; after all, if you have no land with which to call your own, then there is nowhere you can live that isn't controlled by the government.

I think this calls into play the question of whether the lack of property rights is immoral, as they are the root cause of negative (or positive) externalities (both resulting in lower total social welfare).

[DarrinS]

If you really want to get into questions of morality then explain to me how land ownership is moral.

Good Lord.

[coyotes_geek]

Yes, of course in the real world, taxation is considered by most to be necessary. (I'm sure there are a few anarcho-capitalists that might argue otherwise, though.)

But the necessity of something doesn't mean it is ipso facto "moral", does it?

If you're heading down the path of "do the ends always justify the means" then no, they don't. That being said, I don't see taxation as being one of those instances. We as citizens want certain things from our government, we as citizens need to foot that bill. Given that premise, I don't see a morality issue with using taxation to raise that revenue. I have my disagreements over how taxation is implemented and what services we want from our government. But like I said earlier, that's implementation, not concept.

On a somewhat related yet slightly tangential note to taxation, I will say that one thing that is immoral as hell is all the freaking debt we're heaping upon our children. I can't think of anything more immoral we could be doing than saddling future generations with our debt burden simply because we've fallen in love with big government and little taxes.

[MannyIsGod]

Great question to bring up, especially in this thread. I would argue that land ownership is AMORAL, neither moral nor immoral.

How one AQCUIRES land may be moral/immoral, but the idea of land ownership itself is amoral, and must be. Humans must live somewhere, which implies ownership of land in some fashion, be it private or government.

Many libertarians will argue that private ownership is the foundation of property rights; after all, if you have no land with which to call your own, then there is nowhere you can live that isn't controlled by the government.

Landownership for living is pretty easy to justify. However, land ownership for the purpose of profit is a much harder notion to come to terms with, in my opinion. I don't believe that is necessarily amoral.

[coyotes_geek]

Landownership for living is pretty easy to justify. However, land ownership for the purpose of profit is a much harder notion to come to terms with, in my opinion. I don't believe that is necessarily amoral.

Is profit immoral?

[TheSullyMonster]

At least they are retarded like libtard threads.

I do use this place for my weekly dose of retarded trolling, it's true. I rarely leave without my fix.



Libertarians tend to be at extreme ends of the spectrum, which tend to be (I find) the most interesting areas to examine.

Oh, definitely. Also, horrifying.

[Bartleby]

I have my disagreements over how taxation is implemented and what services we want from our government.

For me, this points to the bigger moral question: Is it ethical to pay your taxes if you object to the way they are used?

[MannyIsGod]

LnG, I suggest reading on some of the philosophers that came up with the roots for modern political theory such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. I pretty much think the idea of a social contract includes taxation.

[MannyIsGod]

Is profit immoral?

Depends on your morality as does any other question of what is immoral or not. Its a good question. I don't think profit in and of itself is immoral per say, but perhaps excessive profit is different. The question is then of course, what is excessive?

[ElNono]

Source?

:lol

[ElNono]

LnG, I suggest reading on some of the philosophers that came up with the roots for modern political theory such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. I pretty much think the idea of a social contract includes taxation.

I just watched Lost... :hat

[johnsmith]

Depends on your morality as does any other question of what is immoral or not. Its a good question. I don't think profit in and of itself is immoral per say, but perhaps excessive profit is different. The question is then of course, what is excessive?

Or for that matter, who defines excessive......or even who defines any morality.

[Duff McCartney]

You miss my point. I have stated this several times, and I am consistent on this idea. When you have voters who's lives are subsidized rather than contributing to the general welfare, they vote in politicians who are willing to take more money and funnel it their way. This should never happen. If all working voters are tax payer, then all working voters will think twice before voting for politicians running on platforms that demand more revenue.

That has always been the case in this country. Hell in any country. Maybe they haven't been subsidized, but people are always gonna vote in someone who is gonna take the most from the government and give it to them.

Whether it be what you term welfare, or the money to fund projects that only concern their district. To think that if people work and contribute to taxes they won't vote for spending of those taxes is ridiculous.

Regardless of what Republicans, Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives want to say they all need government for something.

[frodo]

tax is being paid for our own securities and welfares etc.... and it seems a much better method of investment than stock market. the war costs are mainly built on loan debt, not the tax payer money in my opinion.

[boutons_deux]

"the war costs are mainly built on loan debt, not the tax payer money"

bullshit, the interest on that debt MUST be paid on schedule in REAL DOLLARS, or there is default. Those interest payments take away from productive uses.

The wars in Iraq and Aghanistan have not/will not increase security. They are being conducted for the exclusive benefit of the war-profiteering MIC and the oil/gas companies.

[Blake]

If you can come up with a less inflammatory but equally acceptable word, I'm all for it.

Is there a word for when the mafia offers you protection as long as you pay their protection fee?

[LnGrrrR]

If you're heading down the path of "do the ends always justify the means" then no, they don't. That being said, I don't see taxation as being one of those instances. We as citizens want certain things from our government, we as citizens need to foot that bill. Given that premise, I don't see a morality issue with using taxation to raise that revenue. I have my disagreements over how taxation is implemented and what services we want from our government. But like I said earlier, that's implementation, not concept.

I could see how this would work if all people that were taxed agreed to said taxation. But, of course, we don't require an agreement from the citizenry to be taxed.

If people agreed to the taxation, then I could understand that being moral.


On a somewhat related yet slightly tangential note to taxation, I will say that one thing that is immoral as hell is all the freaking debt we're heaping upon our children. I can't think of anything more immoral we could be doing than saddling future generations with our debt burden simply because we've fallen in love with big government and little taxes.

I'd definitely say that's a good tangent. After all, if we're born as citizens, then we are born into paying taxes. Now, children not only have to pay taxes for things that they need/want, but they're paying taxes on the things their parents and grandparents need/want.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh, definitely. Also, horrifying.

I'd say we could provide a liberal or conservative argument here, but those tend to amount to "Let's do X plan because Republicans/Democrats don't agree with it!" :lol

[Duff McCartney]

On a somewhat related yet slightly tangential note to taxation, I will say that one thing that is immoral as hell is all the freaking debt we're heaping upon our children. I can't think of anything more immoral we could be doing than saddling future generations with our debt burden simply because we've fallen in love with big government and little taxes.

I place the blame solely on all the generations that came before I was old enough to vote. If the national debt only started from when I was 18 then I place the blame on anyone a year older than me and above.

[LnGrrrR]

LnG, I suggest reading on some of the philosophers that came up with the roots for modern political theory such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. I pretty much think the idea of a social contract includes taxation.

Oh yeah, I've read up on them, though it has been awhile. Probably could use a refresher. I enjoy Locke a great deal, Hobbes... eh, not as much. (It seems to be that Hobbes and Neitzche would've been great friends... and if they lived nowadays, they'd probably both be emo's.)

I'm curious to see what the board thinks of this issue though. I agree that real-world, a social contract must involve some form of taxation. However, I don't think said social contract immediately grants morality to taxation.

[LnGrrrR]

Is there a word for when the mafia offers you protection as long as you pay their protection fee?

Uhm... it's either called "protection money" or, if you're feeling euphemistic (which I'm pretty sure isn't a real word), you could call it "insurance". :lol

[Blake]

Source?


Don't be ridiculous.



:lol

:lol:lol:lol

[Blake]

Uhm... it's either called "protection money" or, if you're feeling euphemistic (which I'm pretty sure isn't a real word), you could call it "insurance". :lol

involuntary insurance

[Blake]

Is profit immoral?

http://www.colbycolb.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/joel-osteen11.jpg

"lol.......good one"

[DMX7]

Joel Osteen looks like a used car salesman, and is reality, he is.

[Mikesatx]

The government and the way it does business is arcane. Have you ever heard the phrase "the government got a good deal on that?" If the government focussed on the will of the people and then as its primary role emphasized competitive bidding and effective regulation vs. implemenation we as taxpayers would save a fortune.

The argument that profit is bad and the rich are evil is just tired. The irony is those that espouse those views are living off the tax dollars provided by the rich. Welfare should provide enough to have shelter and food. If your on welfare and your kid is playing PS3 and your in designer clothes you are the problem. Get off your ass and instill in your kids a work ethic. If that is too inconvenient for you shut your mouth and be thankful for your handout.

[coyotes_geek]

For me, this points to the bigger moral question: Is it ethical to pay your taxes if you object to the way they are used?

I'd say it's certainly unethical to not pay your taxes.


I could see how this would work if all people that were taxed agreed to said taxation. But, of course, we don't require an agreement from the citizenry to be taxed.

If people agreed to the taxation, then I could understand that being moral.

Theoretically that's what we've done. We elect the representatives who levy the tax on us.


I'd definitely say that's a good tangent. After all, if we're born as citizens, then we are born into paying taxes. Now, children not only have to pay taxes for things that they need/want, but they're paying taxes on the things their parents and grandparents need/want.

Yep. We're basically stealing from our children and grandchildren.


I place the blame solely on all the generations that came before I was old enough to vote. If the national debt only started from when I was 18 then I place the blame on anyone a year older than me and above.

Fair enough. Of course the next guy in line probably feels the same way about you. The cycle continues.

[RandomGuy]

Figured I'd have fun with this topic; is taxation moral? Is it moral at any percentage to force others to provide money to the government?

Is it moral at a certain percentage level, and then anything about that is confiscatory?

I personally can't justify a MORAL reason for taxation. After all, it is an authorized form of theft with the seal of approval of the state. Of course, without it, running a nation would probably be next to impossible. But morally, I can't see a justification. Others can feel free to persuade me though.

As I have stated before on many occasions, the USA is only really possible because of a fairly strong federal government.

I would say taxes are moral, yes. At some point you are the beneficiary of what governments do, and as such have some obligation to pay into the system that benefits you.

This line of reasoning is consistant with progressive (i.e. higher percentages for higher earners) income taxes. If you benefit the most from a system, you are morally obligated to support that system.

[spurster]

More than 45% of tax filers either pay no taxes, or get money back they never paid in. I forget which table it is, but you can find it at the OMB historical numbers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) web page. When you add that to those who vote and file no taxes, we could already be past 50% of voters who don't give a damn about raising other people's tax obligations.

A big fat lie from a big fat liar.

If you look at the total tax burden, middle and lower income pay plenty of taxes.

I copied this stuff from posts about a year ago.

----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

Incomes and Federal, State & Local Taxes in 2008


Shares of TAXES AS A % OF INCOME
Average ------------- -----------------------------
cash Total Total Federal State & Total
income Income Taxes Taxes Local Taxes Taxes

Lowest 20% $ 12,000 3.2% 2.0% 6.8% 11.9% 18.7%
Second 20% 24,500 6.7% 5.0% 11.0% 11.2% 22.3%
Middle 20% 40,000 11.1% 10.1% 15.9% 11.1% 27.0%
Fourth 20% 66,100 18.4% 18.5% 18.9% 11.1% 30.0%
Next 10% 101,000 14.0% 14.8% 20.3% 11.1% 31.5%
Next 5% 144,000 10.1% 10.9% 21.4% 10.8% 32.2%
Next 4% 253,000 14.3%` 15.5% 22.0% 10.1% 32.1%
Top 1% 1,445,000 22.2% 23.0% 22.7% 8.2% 30.9%

ALL $ 70,400 100.0% 100.0% 19.4% 10.3% 29.8%


Notes:

1. Taxes include all federal, state & local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate etc.).

2. For calculations of income shares and taxes as a % of income, income includes employer-paid FICA taxes and corporate profits net of taxable dividends, neither of which is included in the average cash income figures shown.

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, April 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2282.html

From Figure 3 on p. 24.

Figure 3. Federal, State and Local Effective Tax Rates, Calendar Year 2004
Federal, State and Local Effective Tax Rates, 2004



Federal State and Total
Taxes Local Taxes Taxes

Bottom 20% 5.0% 7.9% 13.0%
Second 20% 12.9% 10.3% 23.2%
Third 20% 17.4% 10.9% 28.2%
Fourth 20% 20.2% 11.2% 31.3%
Top 20% 24.3% 10.3% 34.5%

Source: Tax Foundation

[Spurminator]

If not for the country to whom you pay taxes, you would not be making what you make. It would be immoral not to give back and help sustain the infrastructure that helped you earn and keep your wealth.

And no one is forced to pay a certain level of income tax. You have every right to make less money and pay a lower income tax rate.

[coyotes_geek]

This line of reasoning is consistant with progressive (i.e. higher percentages for higher earners) income taxes. If you benefit the most from a system, you are morally obligated to support that system.

Really? I suppose you could make that arguement for infrastructure. But who benefits the most from welfare? The person on it, or the person paying taxes to support it? For the person on welfare, what does their moral obligation to support that system look like?

[Blake]

Really? I suppose you could make that arguement for infrastructure. But who benefits the most from welfare? The person on it, or the person paying taxes to support it? For the person on welfare, what does their moral obligation to support that system look like?

I would say in a perfect world theory that the society as a whole that supports the welfare system benefits as much as than the individual......similar to our education system.

for the person on welfare, his moral obligation is to get himself back on his feet, get a job and put back into the system from which he just received support from.......again, in a perfect world theory.

[LnGrrrR]

This line of reasoning is consistant with progressive (i.e. higher percentages for higher earners) income taxes. If you benefit the most from a system, you are morally obligated to support that system.

But, if you don't request/ask for such assistance in the first place, are you really morally obligated?

For instance, take the idea of the people on a street corner who wash your windows. Is one morally obligated to pay them, because you have benefited from their services?

Maybe if you got to choose which services your tax dollars went to, it might be more moral. But take a pacifist, who is steadfastly against war. She is paying into taxes which support a military; one could argue that goes against her morals. She benefits from their service, but she does not morally agree with it.

[LnGrrrR]

If not for the country to whom you pay taxes, you would not be making what you make. It would be immoral not to give back and help sustain the infrastructure that helped you earn and keep your wealth.

Except for those who work for the government (like myself), how does the government any more responsible for what I make than any number of other entities? For instance, my parents gave birth to me; is it immoral if I don't give them a certain percentage of my paycheck each month?


And no one is forced to pay a certain level of income tax. You have every right to make less money and pay a lower income tax rate.

And no one is forced to have their emails read. They have every right to not use email.

And no one is forced to have their phone calls listened to. They have every right to talk face-to-face.

Etc etc. I don't think that's a very good argument.

[Parker2112]

As I have stated before on many occasions, the USA is only really possible because of a fairly strong federal government.

I would say taxes are moral, yes. At some point you are the beneficiary of what governments do, and as such have some obligation to pay into the system that benefits you.



horrendous logic.

This logic leads to:
1) belief that each and every man and woman UNQUESTIONABLY OWES into the current system, and more importantly and most dangerous...

2) this promotes the ballooning of the fed govt size/scope, until it reaches into every nook and cranny of our lives, to tell us what we can and cant do with our time/energy.

This is the dissolution of the freedoms that we were all given at the nations founding.

Its not a question of whether tax is moral IMHO, its a question of WHAT IS THE LINE WHERE THE SYSTEM BECOMES IMMORAL BECAUSE OF SCOPE/BURDEN/DE FACTO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS ON EVERYONE?

That line has long been crossed, and it was done so under the "social contract" theory stated above.

[Blake]

But, if you don't request/ask for such assistance in the first place, are you really morally obligated?

For instance, take the idea of the people on a street corner who wash your windows. Is one morally obligated to pay them, because you have benefited from their services?

what if you didn't ask to be born in the US?

I think when you are born, it is universally natural that you are in the care of your parents or guardians and all decisions regarding you are made by them.

So it goes back to the parents or your ancestors that ultimately made the decision to come or stay here, thus agreeing to the guidelines set by this society.

Long point short, your custodian(s) made the request for taxation/services for you in the beginning.

Once you are of age, you can choose to leave if you don't like the rules.


Maybe if you got to choose which services your tax dollars went to, it might be more moral. But take a pacifist, who is steadfastly against war. She is paying into taxes which support a military; one could argue that goes against her morals. She benefits from their service, but she does not morally agree with it.

That's when morality starts getting into that gray area.

If the society heads off to war with the idea of it being for the good of the society, then I don't see it being much of a moral dilemma. There is rarely 100% agreement in any group decision making.

My HOA has an annual fall BBQ for our neighborhood spending part of my forced annual HOA fees. I'm against paying HOA dues and further, against spending the money in this fashion on an event I will most likely never attend.

I don't see it being a moral problem though because they are doing it for the good of the neighborhood. I just think it's an utter waste of time and money.

[Blake]

horrendous logic.

This logic leads to:
1) belief that each and every man and woman UNQUESTIONABLY OWES into the current system, and more importantly and most dangerous...


In what instance should a man or woman not have to owe anything into the current system?

[Parker2112]

In what instance should a man or woman not have to owe anything into the current system?

You said that, I didnt. I dont need to prove your contention. Strawman attempt fail.

[Parker2112]

Somewhere right now a guy's own tax money is being used to take pictures of his young daughters genitalia, which is being veiwed by multiple govt agents, one or more of which may or not be a pedophile targeting this very scenario, and all of this happens because taxpayer is under contract with you and I.

Awaken.

[Duff McCartney]

Fair enough. Of course the next guy in line probably feels the same way about you. The cycle continues.

Which is why I think it's asinine for anyone to argue about burdening future generations with our debt. Every generation from the beginning of this nation has burdened the next with the debt. There's nothing new about what's going on now than what's been going on for the past 235 years. Government's have been accumulating debt that will have to be paid back. Whether it was from stuff 100 years ago..or stuff that we will do in 100 years.

[RandomGuy]

Really? I suppose you could make that arguement for infrastructure. But who benefits the most from welfare? The person on it, or the person paying taxes to support it? For the person on welfare, what does their moral obligation to support that system look like?

A very good and valid question.

At heart that moral obligation would be to work and contribute, if able to do so. It would also be to raise kids to be capable, responsible adults as well, if one were a single parent with children.

The actual data we have, not anecdotal bullshit mind you, but actual data, is that the vast majority of welfare recipients don't stay on welfare for long.

The real problem with our social safety net is not that there is too much, but there is too little.

Simply handing someone a check doesn't work well. The heart of welfare reform added work-training, and other sevices, and I am all for that. I think that adding daycare vouchers to that mix would help enormously.

Expensive? Yes. But less expensive than the alternative to letting poor parents flounder, which is that of kids we are then forced to incarcerate at an even greater expense.

Is the current system abused? Yes. Any system will be, public or private. That is simply the cost of doing what is right. A good system will seek some checks and audit systems to minimize that.

[Blake]

You said that, I didnt. I dont need to prove your contention. Strawman attempt fail.

wtf? it's a question, not an argument. Reading comprehension fail.

I'll try again though and ask as simple as possible:

"If a man or woman does not unquestionably owe into the system, then in what instance are they not obligated to owe into the system?"

I'm assuming "healthy" man/woman is understood.

No need to get riled up. Again, it's just a simple question that you should easily be able to answer based on what YOU said.

[Parker2112]

you guys are already conceding things we MUST pay for. You folks need to take a strong/honest/open look at the issue of whether anyone should have to give up what is theirs without consent.

Its not an easy question, but liberals need to think on this long and hard.

[Blake]

Somewhere right now a guy's own tax money is being used to take pictures of his young daughters genitalia, which is being veiwed by multiple govt agents, one or more of which may or not be a pedophile targeting this very scenario, and all of this happens because taxpayer is under contract with you and I.

Awaken.

Do you feel this guy should not have to pay taxes?

[Parker2112]

wtf? it's a question, not an argument. Reading comprehension fail.

I'll try again though and ask as simple as possible:

"If a man or woman does not unquestionably owe into the system, then in what instance are they not obligated to owe into the system?"

I'm assuming "healthy" man/woman is understood.

No need to get riled up. Again, it's just a simple question that you should easily be able to answer based on what YOU said.

OK, if its in good faith, then sorry...answer: I dont think there is a scenario where they dont have to contribute

[RandomGuy]

horrendous logic.

This logic leads to:
1) belief that each and every man and woman UNQUESTIONABLY OWES into the current system, and more importantly and most dangerous...

2) this promotes the ballooning of the fed govt size/scope, until it reaches into every nook and cranny of our lives, to tell us what we can and cant do with our time/energy.

This is the dissolution of the freedoms that we were all given at the nations founding.

Its not a question of whether tax is moral IMHO, its a question of WHAT IS THE LINE WHERE THE SYSTEM BECOMES IMMORAL BECAUSE OF SCOPE/BURDEN/DE FACTO INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS ON EVERYONE?

That line has long been crossed, and it was done so under the "social contract" theory stated above.

That is a logically fallacious "slippery slope" argument.

It is possible to strike a reasonable balance between obligation and freedom, and we have to a great deal kept to that balance.

To answer your question:
When it becomes more than we are willing to generally agree on.

Every system imposes a burden of one sort or another. I don't feel government is telling me much of anything, and don't feel government intrusion into my life. I am hard pressed to think of an example of such, other than the restrictions on certain narcotics.

[Blake]

OK, if its in good faith, then sorry...answer: I dont think their is a scenario where they dont have to contribute

k, me neither.

then why again is RG's post "horrendous logic"?

[RandomGuy]

The government and the way it does business is arcane. Have you ever heard the phrase "the government got a good deal on that?" If the government focussed on the will of the people and then as its primary role emphasized competitive bidding and effective regulation vs. implemenation we as taxpayers would save a fortune.

The argument that profit is bad and the rich are evil is just tired. The irony is those that espouse those views are living off the tax dollars provided by the rich. Welfare should provide enough to have shelter and food. If your on welfare and your kid is playing PS3 and your in designer clothes you are the problem. Get off your ass and instill in your kids a work ethic. If that is too inconvenient for you shut your mouth and be thankful for your handout.

We have been attempting to "privatize" certain functions of government under the theory that private enterprise can always do it better and cheaper.

Lo and behold that has not proven to be the case. The burden of "turning a profit" for private enterprise often more than makes up for any efficiencies, and often leads to some outrageous abuses. Private prisons in Texas and elsewhere are a good example of the kinds of corruption that ensue.

[Parker2112]

When it becomes more than we are willing to generally agree on.



who is we? popular vote? elected officials? the constitution? the framers intent? modern interpretation?

and will there ever be anything close to something "we" all "generally agree on?"

[Parker2112]

k, me neither.

then why again is RG's post "horrendous logic"?

because he essentially supports taxation without conscience, the limit of which (what we all agree is too much) will never exist. so taxation without conscience without limit.

When you focus on the individuals rights long enough, you realize (my view) that taxation needs to be done with the utmost care and concern for the rights of those same individuals.

This false "contract" scenario leads to a bloated govt that tramples all over the rights of the people.

The limit is the lynchpin. and if you implement big govt as the saviour, you will soon be walking on the bill of rights.

[Parker2112]

A very good and valid question.

At heart that moral obligation would be to work and contribute, if able to do so. It would also be to raise kids to be capable, responsible adults as well, if one were a single parent with children.

The actual data we have, not anecdotal bullshit mind you, but actual data, is that the vast majority of welfare recipients don't stay on welfare for long.

The real problem with our social safety net is not that there is too much, but there is too little.

Simply handing someone a check doesn't work well. The heart of welfare reform added work-training, and other sevices, and I am all for that. I think that adding daycare vouchers to that mix would help enormously.

Expensive? Yes. But less expensive than the alternative to letting poor parents flounder, which is that of kids we are then forced to incarcerate at an even greater expense.

Is the current system abused? Yes. Any system will be, public or private. That is simply the cost of doing what is right. A good system will seek some checks and audit systems to minimize that.


I think to be fair to LnG, we need to avoid corrupting the discussion with welfare, etc. and need to focus on the OP.

[Parker2112]

That is a logically fallacious "slippery slope" argument.



I dont think its slippery slope at all...your views lead to intrusive/oppressive govt as easy 1+1=2.

Its been proven. Because your views got us where we are, and that is big/oppressive/intrusive govt that trample on bill of rights every day

[Winehole23]

I think to be fair to LnG, we need to avoid corrupting the discussion with welfare, etc. and need to focus on the OP.Being that taxes will soon be rising for us all largely because of unfunded liabilities like SS/medicare/medicaid, trying to restrict the discussion to taxation in a vacuum seems academic and sterile.

Social entitlements and levels of taxation ARE linked to each other in the real world. And relatively fuzzy ideas about "fairness" and "social contract" do determine what levels of social spending are politically tolerable.

[Parker2112]

Somewhere right now a guy's own tax money is being used to take pictures of his young daughters genitalia, which is being veiwed by multiple govt agents, one or more of which may or not be a pedophile targeting this very scenario, and all of this happens because taxpayer is under contract with you and I.


Can a liberal minded poster deal with this scenario for me?

[Parker2112]

Being that taxes will soon be rising for us all largely because of unfunded liabilities like SS/medicare/medicaid, trying to restrict the discussion to taxation per se seems artificial.

If you pin down the "morality," everything else should begin to fit in place. when you try and dictate the morals by the circumstances, immoral can quickly become a false moral

[Parker2112]

social security is soon going to find its way into the hands of the same investment gurus who imploded the mortgage market anyway

[Parker2112]

Being that taxes will soon be rising for us all largely because of unfunded liabilities like SS/medicare/medicaid, trying to restrict the discussion to taxation in a vacuum seems academic and sterile.

Social entitlements and levels of taxation ARE linked to each other in the real world. And relatively fuzzy ideas about "fairness" and "social contract" do determine what levels of social spending are politically tolerable.

the govt is funding itself these days. the machine has become self aware through the fed and can spend as many billions as it wants. and govt legislators/officials are absolutely spending those billions to benefit themselves

its not about entitlements...that is a zit on the face of the issue. legislators can poy for whatever program they want without ever hitting you for a single tax dollar. they just reduce the value of the money you already have in your wallet..

its about shutting down the same monster that is gobbling up our civil rights and our childrens future more and more each day.

the plug has to be pulled.

[Winehole23]

If you pin down the "morality," everything else should begin to fit in place. when you try and dictate the morals by the circumstances, immoral can quickly become a false moralOnce you've isolated morality and nailed it down, virtue becomes concrete and universal. Automatically.

[Winehole23]

http://powet.tv/powetblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/laputa_and_balnibarbi.jpg

[Winehole23]

its about shutting down the same monster that is gobbling up our civil rights and our childrens future more and more each day.What monster is that?

[Parker2112]

when you spend decades dumming down the public, taking classical education out, and replacing it with standardized tests and kids who never learn to think for themselves, you get a tyrants paradise.

[Winehole23]

True as that may be, you seem to have wandered very far from the OP yourself.

[Parker2112]

What monster is that?

fed govt.

obama=bush is proof that our choice is nothing today. katrina=gulf spill. homeland security=homeland security. war=war. patriot act stranglehold=patriot act stranglehold. bailout=bailout. obama=bush. repub=dem.

new boss same as the old boss. the machine is overrun. time to shut it down.

[Parker2112]

True as that may be, you seem to have wandered very far from the OP yourself.

I am aware. I think this discussion between RG and LnG is going on on another thread actually.

[Winehole23]

new boss same as the old boss. the machine is overrun. time to shut it down.Lemme get this straight. You're against our Federal system as revealed in the US Constitution, and the rights/privileges it protects?

[Parker2112]

Lemme get this straight. You're against our Federal system as revealed in the US Constitution, and the rights/privileges it protects?

no. the size and scope of fed govt must be reduced drastically. by doing so we would actually be getting closer to the const and be able to do a better job of preserving those rights.

and by cutting bloodflow, we would necessarily support less ticks.

otherwise, Im not sure what your implying.

[Parker2112]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?



Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Winehole23]

"Shutting down" the Federal government seems to imply a break in the existing constitutional order.

[Parker2112]

and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[Parker2112]

"Shutting down" the Federal government seems to imply a break in the existing constitutional order.

not shutting down the federal govt. shutting down the corrupt machine at the helm.

fine line there.

[Parker2112]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?


and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[RandomGuy]

I dont think its slippery slope at all...your views lead to intrusive/oppressive govt as easy 1+1=2.

Its been proven. Because your views got us where we are, and that is big/oppressive/intrusive govt that trample on bill of rights every day

It fits exactly with the slippery slope fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html


The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
This "argument" has the following form:


1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. [emphasis mine-RG]

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

Per your post:

If people accept my logic, then
Therefore massive government oppresion will inevitably happen.

Logical fallacy. QED

[RandomGuy]

who is we? popular vote? elected officials? the constitution? the framers intent? modern interpretation?

and will there ever be anything close to something "we" all "generally agree on?"

We, through our elected governments.

We elect representatives, and they decide.

Choose well.

[Parker2112]

power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

therefore when you open the door with all this "gov as big brother talk" power and influence will walk right through. 2 steps by my count.

[Parker2112]

We, through our elected governments.

We elect representatives, and they decide.

Choose well.

there will never be agreement of the type you speak of. that said, its safe to say no tax is moral, by your logic.

[RandomGuy]

fed govt.

obama=bush is proof that our choice is nothing today. katrina=gulf spill. homeland security=homeland security. war=war. patriot act stranglehold=patriot act stranglehold. bailout=bailout. obama=bush. repub=dem.

new boss same as the old boss. the machine is overrun. time to shut it down.

libertarianism=fascism

vanilla=chocolate

farts=roses

I do not accept your equivalances, anymore than you would accept mine.

Both parties tend to rule from the center, and that is why many administrations policies tend to blend into each other.

Not that is any excuse for Obama's over-deference to established precedence, IMO.

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4747568#post4747568)
Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?



Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4747580#post4747580)
and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[RandomGuy]

there will never be agreement of the type you speak of. that said, its safe to say no tax is moral, by your logic.

Again false.

General agreement does not equal unanimous agreement.

If we were to wait for unanimity, we would never reach any decisions.

[RandomGuy]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?

All of them.

One of the finer moments of the original documents authorship.

[Parker2112]

Both parties tend to rule from the center, and that is why many administrations policies tend to blend into each other.



let me end this quick: war, bailouts, patriot act, failing the American people at Katrina and at Gulf Spill are not "governing from center."

they are governing FOR the elite, or in the case of Katrina not governing for the citizens.

[Winehole23]

That said, it's fairly safe to say Parker's mind is a procrustean bed. Every single post gets stretched/trimmed to fit his abstract preconceptions.

[Parker2112]

All of them.

One of the finer moments of the original documents authorship.

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

[Parker2112]

That said, it's fairly safe to say Parker's mind is a procrustean bed. Every single post gets stretched/trimmed to fit his abstract preconceptions.

Z_s-Qk07KxA

[Winehole23]

let me end this quick...
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/image.php?&aid=1374&shark.jpg

Don't worry. It'll be over quickly enough.

[RandomGuy]

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

I have never said government is "our friend". It needs to be kept at bay and should be accountable.

Goverment overreach is something that concerns me as well.

I just don't think we are quite at totalitarianism's door.

[Parker2112]

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

honestly, I would be more sympathetic to your take RG if there was even one ounce of caution when it came to placing more power in the hands of fed govt. even some lip service would be nice.

[Parker2112]

I have never said government is "our friend". It needs to be kept at bay and should be accountable.

Goverment overreach is something that concerns me as well.

I just don't think we are quite at totalitarianism's door.

maybe its the scanners and the dispersant and the big bank bailouts and the QEs that have me on edge. those things dont scream constitutional govt

[Parker2112]

government should be accountable.



accountability was a joke under bush admin and despite campaign platform to the contrary, its still a joke under Obama

[LnGrrrR]

I think when you are born, it is universally natural that you are in the care of your parents or guardians and all decisions regarding you are made by them.

This was actually one of the things I was thinking of. Most people will argue that you owe a "debt" of sorts to your parents for having birthed you. Of course, that's still up to the choice of the person. If there was a law mandating repayment of services rendered by your parents, I'm sure quite a few people would be ticked off. :lol


Long point short, your custodian(s) made the request for taxation/services for you in the beginning.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure it gets to the crux of the argument.


Once you are of age, you can choose to leave if you don't like the rules.

True, but every place on earth you'd wish to go that doesn't have taxation, probably has other issues.

As well, that doesn't confirm/deny the morality of a situation. After all, one could say that if you don't like X policy, you could move; that doesn't say whether or not X policy is moral.


If the society heads off to war with the idea of it being for the good of the society, then I don't see it being much of a moral dilemma. There is rarely 100% agreement in any group decision making.

Using that logic, it's not a moral dilemma if a majority of our society decides to start outlawing votes for females, or enslaving certain members of society, etc etc. (Of course, then we're veering somewhat into the metaphysics idea of morality, ie. if 95% of people think slavery is moral, does that make it so? Or are 95% of people wrong? That's a whole different rabbit hole though, I think.)


I don't see it being a moral problem though because they are doing it for the good of the neighborhood. I just think it's an utter waste of time and money.

One could argue that you chose to be part of that organization, and if you knew in advance that they do these sorts of things, then you implicitly accepted it.

(Of course, if HOAs were so prevalent in your area that you couldn't buy a house without one, it would make the situation murky.)

[Parker2112]

more critical, does govt have a right to take your property without consent? is the individual truly too minor of a concept to stand up to the weight of govt?

wasnt this govt bound with the opposite principle to a huge extent? that in fact govt should yield to the individual?

[LnGrrrR]

Which is why I think it's asinine for anyone to argue about burdening future generations with our debt. Every generation from the beginning of this nation has burdened the next with the debt. There's nothing new about what's going on now than what's been going on for the past 235 years. Government's have been accumulating debt that will have to be paid back. Whether it was from stuff 100 years ago..or stuff that we will do in 100 years.

Just because it's been happening throughout history doesn't mean it's correct.

[Parker2112]

Just because it's been happening throughout history doesn't mean it's correct.

and the scale is now off the charts

[Parker2112]

should rick perry be able to take your land and sign it over to a foreign corp to manage?

[LnGrrrR]

I think to be fair to LnG, we need to avoid corrupting the discussion with welfare, etc. and need to focus on the OP.

Thanks Parker, but I'm ok with this thread wandering. I find wandering threads (that don't devolve into flame wars) lead to interesting places, as WH23 pointed out.

[Parker2112]

Thanks Parker, but I'm ok with this thread wandering. I find wandering threads (that don't devolve into flame wars) lead to interesting places, as WH23 pointed out.

then you may appreciate the fact that I wandered all of the damn place after I said that

[LnGrrrR]

We, through our elected governments.

We elect representatives, and they decide.

Choose well.

So, and please explain if I'm hearing you wrong, but you feel that however big government grows, and however much they take, is essentially moral. It is moral because a majority of citizens vote for it.

Is this correct?

If so, couldn't you say the same of other actions that seem immoral, ie. torture?

[Winehole23]

more critical, does govt have a right to take your property without consent? is the individual truly too minor of a concept to stand up to the weight of govt?

wasnt this govt bound with the opposite principle to a huge extent? that in fact govt should yield to the individual?Hand waving over more shopworn, uncontroversial political concerns?




(Sure, why not.)

[Parker2112]

Hand waving over more shopworn, uncontroversial political concerns?




(Sure, why not.)

MvJnFtBq8C0

[Winehole23]

Saying you've no time for certain posters, repeatedly, undermines not only your point but the false stoicism of your pose.

[Winehole23]

lol

[z0sa]

Is taxation moral? That is certainly an interesting question. In the end, ethics is heavily influenced by personal experience and values. So finding an objective answer to a question of morality could be impossible, and even that which is "established" is always highly debatable.

Let's narrow it down a bit: When I think of "taxation", I usually think of property taxes, income taxes, and the sales tax. Additionally, let's narrow it further and act like we're only talking American tax policies.

In general, I think taxation - when the money is used solely for its stated purposes - is moral. However, that line can be quite fine, and an inefficient, and/or corrupt system blurs said line.

There's the nature of demanding a tax "in the name of the people and country" that is definitely suspect. For example: When the mobster demands protection money from businesses, is it really so different than another form of taxation (provided said businesses are, indeed, "protected")? Yet I highly doubt anyone would readily justify that as "moral."

Where then, is that line established?

First, we have to agree taxation is necessary. If unnecessary, then this argument is a moot point. One thing most people agree on is a tax for the armed forces, or "defense." Yet this poses another tough problem: If one does not support the current war on terror, is it okay to keep allocating their taxes without even a thought?

Property taxes: support our entire local infrastructure. How important is a police force to keep the peace, or firefighters, or our local legislators? Is it moral to help protect your neighbors as well as yourself? I think so. However, there's the corrupt system one must think about. Will every penny of my property taxes go towards "what is advertised?"

The income tax is a much different topic. For the majority of this country's history, there was no income tax, or a low one (as in the Civil War era). Yet over the last few decades, we have seen a huge spike in the taxes on our wages.

In a "free, moral" country such as the USA, I believe the concept of an income tax is "immoral." A free market is comprised of individuals and corporations, with supposedly minimal government intervention. The government should not reap such a large amount of what Americans sow for themselves.

The sales tax is another kind tax I can't approve of, as a concept. The simple practice of doing business in America, a free market should not cost the consumer an extra 7-8%.

An interesting question, and I need to do more research on the various forms of taxation, especially abroad. I realize "in general" I believe taxation is moral, but the final word really comes down to what the logic is behind a certain tax. It seems many of our taxes have become "privilege" taxes - we pay them because we live in America, we love its society and relative freedoms, and of course, because we will be severely punished if we do not.

[Parker2112]

Saying you've no time for certain posters, repeatedly, undermines not only your point but the false stoicism of your pose.

actually, WH, Ive got time for your intelligent comment. I have a shitload of respect for what you bring to the table. No time for your bullshit however. And I dont give a shit if you agree with me or attack me. And I love the Guess Who. divvy up your energy as you will.

[Winehole23]

If one does not support the current war on terror, is it okay to keep allocating their taxes without even a thought? Too bad Congress no longer takes it's explicitly granted war powers seriously anymore.

There's the nature of demanding a tax "in the name of the people and country" that is definitely suspect. For example: When the mobster demands protection money from businesses, is it really so different than another form of taxation (provided said businesses are, indeed, "protected")? Yet I highly doubt anyone would readily justify that as "moral."Hello, national security state.

First, we have to agree taxation is necessary.Check. We did so when we ratified the US Constitution.

Is it moral to help protect your neighbors as well as yourself? I think so.More as to why would be helpful. You've suggested collective <self-care> is not just a moral obligation, but a positive moral good.

But it could also be a political good. Or an economic one. Or all of these. Maybe you had them all in mind.

Yet over the last few decades, we have seen a huge spike in the taxes on our wages.Hello, social insurance.

In a "free, moral" country such as the USA, I believe the concept of an income tax is "immoral." A free market is comprised of individuals and corporations, with supposedly minimal government intervention. The government should not reap such a large amount of what Americans sow for themselves.The question of how much taxation is immoral, would seem to recur here.

The sales tax is another kind tax I can't approve of, as a concept. The simple practice of doing business in America, a free market should not cost the consumer extra pennies on the dollar.Do you agree this is a legitimate function of government:


"…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Knock on: is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents US states from laying and collecting taxes to defray the costs of the common weal?

I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what kind of polity you have in mind here, z0sa.





Or was your post meant more in the spirit of:


if I were dictator of the free world.:lol

[Duff McCartney]

maybe its the scanners and the dispersant and the big bank bailouts and the QEs that have me on edge. those things dont scream constitutional govt

Don't worry you can still go to KFC and get your Double Down..the government isn't taking that right away.

[z0sa]

Let me start off by saying I "ain't no pro", WH. I am just beginning to really learn the intricacies of our system. So forgive my ignorance on some issues.


Too bad Congress no longer takes it's explicitly granted war powers seriously anymore.

America was founded in blood. It's too bad we have to keep wallowing in it.


Hello, national security state.

Certainly an interesting parallel. See the porno scanners and "resistance" searching of our beloved TSA.


More as to why would be helpful. You've suggested collective <self-care> is not just a moral obligation, but a positive moral good.

But it could also be a political good. Or an economic one. Or all of these. Maybe you had them all in mind.

I did have all in mind, at least to some extent. Something that harms our neighbors will probably harm us.

Oftentimes, especially for smaller locales, everyone's economic independence actually relies on the abilities of their neighbors, not their own hands.

And there is strength in numbers when our lawmakers do something we don't like.



Hello, social insurance.

Could you elaborate a bit further on this, within the context of income taxes?


The question of how much taxation is immoral, would seem to recur here.

It really all comes down to where the money is going, and whether one approves of that end for their hard earned pay. The "problem" is the system - it's not a direct line from my pocket to anywhere. There's no way I can be sure of where MY dollars, specifically, are headed. This is of course, discounting our gargantuan national debt.



Do you agree this is a legitimate function of government:

Absolutely. However, laying and collecting taxes is a very general term, of course. IMO, one must carefully consider the free market Americans rely on, and the principles behind that market, when considering the morality of its forms of taxation.


Knock on: is there anything in the US Constitution that prevents US states from laying and collecting taxes to defray the costs of the common weal?

I must admit, my opinion on the respective taxes' immorality is somewhat within a vacuum. Yet I can't find any actual logical reasoning for a sales tax, regardless of its benefits for the state.


I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what kind of polity you have in mind here, z0sa.

I'm a minarchist at heart, FWIW. And its from that position I'm arguing. But I also realize the necessities and benefits of "slightly" larger government.






Or was your post meant more in the spirit of...

Yes, it's somewhat "in a vacuum". And I'm not an expert. But still, a really fun topic to think about.

[Winehole23]

(I'm off to work, z0sa. Thx for the prompt and detailed reply. You'll get mine later on - wino)

[LnGrrrR]

Is taxation moral? That is certainly an interesting question. In the end, ethics is heavily influenced by personal experience and values. So finding an objective answer to a question of morality could be impossible, and even that which is "established" is always highly debatable.

Agreed, and figured with the diverse range of opinion on this board we could get some interesting conversation going.


Let's narrow it down a bit: When I think of "taxation", I usually think of property taxes, income taxes, and the sales tax. Additionally, let's narrow it further and act like we're only talking American tax policies.

I should have made this more clear, but you got the point of what I was getting at. Thanks for defining the conversation better. (One could throw in the "inheritance tax" as well; I don't particularly like that one.)


There's the nature of demanding a tax "in the name of the people and country" that is definitely suspect. For example: When the mobster demands protection money from businesses, is it really so different than another form of taxation (provided said businesses are, indeed, "protected")? Yet I highly doubt anyone would readily justify that as "moral."

Agreed.


In a "free, moral" country such as the USA, I believe the concept of an income tax is "immoral." A free market is comprised of individuals and corporations, with supposedly minimal government intervention. The government should not reap such a large amount of what Americans sow for themselves.

The sales tax is another kind tax I can't approve of, as a concept. The simple practice of doing business in America, a free market should not cost the consumer an extra 7-8%.

Thanks for sharing what you think is moral/immoral. I realize that the topic is very broad-minded, but I tried to leave it open so we could discuss these different nuances, applications, concepts, etc etc.


An interesting question, and I need to do more research on the various forms of taxation, especially abroad. I realize "in general" I believe taxation is moral, but the final word really comes down to what the logic is behind a certain tax. It seems many of our taxes have become "privilege" taxes - we pay them because we live in America, we love its society and relative freedoms, and of course, because we will be severely punished if we do not.

Thanks for the input zosa, hope you keep contributing to the thread.

[LnGrrrR]

It really all comes down to where the money is going, and whether one approves of that end for their hard earned pay. The "problem" is the system - it's not a direct line from my pocket to anywhere. There's no way I can be sure of where MY dollars, specifically, are headed. This is of course, discounting our gargantuan national debt.

I think this, really, is a key problem. My pipe dream would be for those paying taxes to be able to check off which items they'd like their taxes to contribute to. (ie, say you want half your taxes to go to defense, a quarter to medicare/medicaid and another quarter to education). It would give an idea as well of what items the public really wanted to spend taxes on, and which they thought should go away.

Probably not feasible, but it's somewhat of a "more perfect world" idea of mine.

[Wild Cobra]

A big fat lie from a big fat liar.

Bullshit.

You cannot take an average that includes SS/Medicare rates and include it in federal income tax rates. More than 45% of tax filers pay no federal income tax, or get more money back than they paid in.

SS/Medicare rates are 7.45%, so what does that tell you from your average 2% and 5% the bottom two quintiles pay?

If you subtract the 7.45%, then the bottom 20% gets 5.45% more, and the next 20% gets 2.45% more than they made.

I said taxes. Not mandatory insurance payments.

[Winehole23]

Let me start off by saying I "ain't no pro", WH. Relax. Around here, who is?

(Everybody and nobody)

America was founded in blood. It's too bad we have to keep wallowing in it.Preaching to the choir. All I meant was, Congress could be a brake on it.

But no, the US Congress is spineless and punted its expressly granted war powers to POTUS.

Could you elaborate a bit further on this, within the context of income taxes? My bad. I'm guessing now you meant the alternative minimum tax. That didn't occur to me at first. Apart from that, have income taxes been going up? I was under the opposite impression.

It really all comes down to where the money is going, and whether one approves of that end for their hard earned pay. The "problem" is the system - it's not a direct line from my pocket to anywhere. There's no way I can be sure of where MY dollars, specifically, are headed. This is of course, discounting our gargantuan national debt.Maybe strong Canadian federalism is for you. The provinces can opt out of some federal expenditures they don't like.

In my mind, apportioning tax contributions according to one's private conscience is alien to the very idea of politics: to see your own interests served, you must also serve the interests of others.

IMO, one must carefully consider the free market Americans rely on, and the principles behind that market, when considering the morality of its forms of taxation.What are those principles? I'm not too sure what you mean here.

Yet I can't find any actual logical reasoning for a sales tax, regardless of its benefits for the state. In the meantime, usage rules. According to the legitimate political order, the state can tax us.

I'm a minarchist at heart, FWIW. And its from that position I'm arguing. But I also realize the necessities and benefits of "slightly" larger government.I lean that direction, but a nightwatchman state is more or less helpless to keep the strong from trampling the weak.

I think the instinct behind TR style progressivism was correct but the ultimate results were bad. The activist state eventually killed off the old order.

The New Deal was the fateful turn from traditional republicanism to technocratic/bureaucratic administration of everyday life, and here we are 75 years later, pretending like the turning point was Obama. Unreal.

[spurster]

One expert's view on this issue is "Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

[scott]

Bullshit.

You cannot take an average that includes SS/Medicare rates and include it in federal income tax rates. More than 45% of tax filers pay no federal income tax, or get more money back than they paid in.

SS/Medicare rates are 7.45%, so what does that tell you from your average 2% and 5% the bottom two quintiles pay?

If you subtract the 7.45%, then the bottom 20% gets 5.45% more, and the next 20% gets 2.45% more than they made.

I said taxes. Not mandatory insurance payments.

Wrong. You said:


We are approaching that 50% point where more people benefit from other people's money than those who pay in to the system.

To which the facts said:


You're an idiot

[Blake]

One expert's view on this issue is "Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

he also said to sell what you have and give the money to the poor.

which is it?

[coyotes_geek]

he also said to sell what you have and give the money to the poor.

which is it?

Caesar was poor? :huh

[LnGrrrR]

In my mind, apportioning tax contributions according to one's private conscience is alien to the very idea of politics: to see your own interests served, you must also serve the interests of others.

Interesting take WH23. I would argue that you are serving the interests of others through taxation (after all, you're not keeping the money yourself), but you would be choosing to support others who share the same interests as yourself.

[coyotes_geek]

In a "free, moral" country such as the USA, I believe the concept of an income tax is "immoral." A free market is comprised of individuals and corporations, with supposedly minimal government intervention. The government should not reap such a large amount of what Americans sow for themselves.

The sales tax is another kind tax I can't approve of, as a concept. The simple practice of doing business in America, a free market should not cost the consumer an extra 7-8%.

These two paragraphs jumped out at me considering how they're the primary funding sources for nearly every federal, state or local government. What's the alternative? I think we're all in agreement that there needs to be a way for the government to collect revenue, but beyond that, the revenue stream at least needs to be somewhat reliable. You mentioned property taxes as a taxation vehicle that you are okay with, but payment of that tax requires an active response by the property owner to get off his duff and cut the check. Sales taxes and income taxes are passively collected, i.e. present a more reliable revenue stream.

[Winehole23]

I would argue that you are serving the interests of others through taxation (after all, you're not keeping the money yourself), but you would be choosing to support others who share the same interests as yourself.I was referring to political negotiation, which often involves ceding something to hostile/disagreeable interests in order to advance one's own. That means supporting others who do not share the same interests.

What context frames the bolded observation, LNGR? I'm not seeing it.

[LnGrrrR]

I was referring to political negotiation, which often involves ceding something to hostile/disagreeable interests in order to advance one's own. That means supporting others who do not share the same interests.

What context frames the bolded observation, LNGR? I'm not seeing it.

Ah, I thought you were referring to zosa and I talking about a way to tax people without having to deal with the moral hazard of forcing them to pay for things they might find immoral. (ie forcing pacifists to pay defense costs, forcing conservative religious to support things like Planned Parenthood, etc etc)

[Winehole23]

Ah, I thought you were referring to zosa and I talking about a way to tax people without having to deal with the moral hazard of forcing them to pay for things they might find immoral. (ie forcing pacifists to pay defense costs, forcing conservative religious to support things like Planned Parenthood, etc etc)Political constitutions trump private conscience.

If your conscience is more important to you, feel free to disobey your government or agitate for change. Free speech, free will(compliance or non-compliance), the courthouse and the franchise are our weapons against an arbitrary, immoral or overreaching political power.

Also, the nature of political accommodation and the multitude of contending interests means we'll always get a government we don't like, at least in part. I don't really see how that is avoidable.

[LnGrrrR]

Political constitutions trump private conscience.

Also, the nature of political accommodation and the multitude of contending interests means we'll always get a government we don't like, at least in part. I don't really see how that is avoidable.

Well, here we're talking about real-world results rather than morality. As I said at the beginning of this thread, taxation could be considered immoral AND necessary. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As well, limiting politicians from spending money on unwanted projects as determined by the population could be considered a good thing (even though the chances of it happening are miniscule at best).

[Winehole23]

Well, here we're talking about real-world results rather than morality.I mentioned both. One trumps the other.


As I said at the beginning of this thread, taxation could be considered immoral AND necessary. The two aren't mutually exclusive.Not at all.


As well, limiting politicians from spending money on unwanted projects as determined by the population could be considered a good thing (even though the chances of it happening are miniscule at best).Referendum process?

[LnGrrrR]

I mentioned both. One trumps the other.

Some would argue that the real-world necessity of "advanced interrogation" trumps the morality of it. I would argue otherwise. I don't think discussing the morality of taxation becomes useless/moot due to real-world concerns.

Our current systems isn't, after all, the only one that can be imagined, can it? Along with discussion of morality, I think it would be interesting if we could brainstorm a "better" way to be taxed. (I'm not silly enough to think it will ultimately go anywhere outside the boards, but it doesn't hurt to encounter new ideas.)


Referendum process?

My point was somewhat that, if there were a reliable way for people to spend taxes on items they agreed with morally, it might be a "better" form of taxation morally speaking. As well, it would give politicians a way to determine what their constituents would want.

As is, constituents already determine what their taxpayer dollars go to through the representatives they vote on. This is another (theoretical) way to gauge the funding wants of citizens besides a vote every two years.

[Winehole23]

Some would argue that the real-world necessity of "advanced interrogation" trumps the morality of it. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a ratified political constitution trumps private morality as it relates to taxation. We gave our government the power to tax us.

I would argue otherwise. I don't think discussing the morality of taxation becomes useless/moot due to real-world concerns. Well, it is very abstract.

Our current systems isn't, after all, the only one that can be imagined, can it? Along with discussion of morality, I think it would be interesting if we could brainstorm a "better" way to be taxed. (I'm not silly enough to think it will ultimately go anywhere outside the boards, but it doesn't hurt to encounter new ideas.)IMO Morality creates a muddle: everyone insists on conformity with his own mores.

I'd be interested to see if this brainstorming session can overcome the solipsistic trap ( if I were dictator of the free world) quasi-imposed by the frame. So far it hasn't.

My point was somewhat that, if there were a reliable way for people to spend taxes on items they agreed with morally, it might be a "better" form of taxation morally speaking. Taxation a la carte? See above.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a ratified political constitution trumps private morality as it relates to taxation. We gave our government the power to tax us.

To splithairs, the only citizens who "gave" the government power to tax us would be the people who originally signed off on the Constitution. Everyone else just accepts it or moves. :lol

I can see your argument though that we've agreed to taxation of some sort. Are you arguing/stating that any taxation that our representatives sign off on is, ipso facto, moral, because we the people elected them?


I'd be interested to see if this brainstorming session can overcome the solipsistic trap ( if I were dictator of the free world) quasi-imposed by the frame. So far it hasn't.

Well, everyone tends to argue what they think would be best, no? I believe Sartre said that everyone acts as they believe everyone else should act (ie. if I marry, I am stating to the world at large that marriage is a desirous thing). I can not argue viewpoints I haven't thought of yet. :)


Taxation a la carte? See above.

Are you arguing that our current form of taxation is impossible to change? That change is not desirous? That said taxation a la carte wouldn't help avoid moral hazards, or that those moral hazards would exist regardless?

When you say that taxation trumps morality, you seem to be dismissing any moral concerns. If I'm wrong please correct me.

[Winehole23]

Are you arguing/stating that any taxation that our representatives sign off on is, ipso facto, moral, because we the people elected them?Nope.

Well, everyone tends to argue what they think would be best, no? I believe Sartre said that everyone acts as they believe everyone else should act (ie. if I marry, I am stating to the world at large that marriage is a desirous thing).Kant said it as well. Everyone is a moral exemplar.

Cutting politics to the size of the individual conscience isn't inevitable. Indeed it might not be practicable at all, apart from brainstorming sessions like this one.

[LnGrrrR]

Nope.

You did say that "a ratified political constitution trumps private morality as it relates to taxation". But said ratified political constitution does not trump all morality then, given this comment.

Is it your belief that then taxation is moral, and can trump PRIVATE morality, but can't trump a collective-sort of morality?

I'm just wondering where you think the constitution can and can not trump morality. (Forgive me if I'm slow to discern your stance; I apologize in advance for dumbness on my part. :)

[Blake]

Taxation a la carte? See above.

I wish cable TV was that way.

Don't need Oxygen. Don't want to pay for it.

[Winehole23]

Is it your belief that then taxation is moral, and can trump PRIVATE morality, but can't trump a collective-sort of morality? No. I'm saying it doesn't much matter whether people think taxation is moral or not. Except in the voting booth. And their personal lives.

I'm just wondering where you think the constitution can and can not trump morality.I never thought about it in those terms, honestly.

Transposing politics wholesale to the realm of morality seems misguided and muddled to me . The moral unanimity aimed at is completely unrealistic, and I'm not too sure it would even be desirable from a purely political standpoint. A government that was required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen might not be able to get very much done.

[coyotes_geek]

I wish cable TV was that way.

Don't need Oxygen. Don't want to pay for it.

+1

A la carte I could cut my cable channels down to about 10-15.

[LnGrrrR]

Transposing politics wholesale to the realm of morality seems misguided and muddled to me . The moral unanimity aimed at is completely unrealistic, and I'm not too sure it would even be desirable from a purely political standpoint.

As we both agreed, it is somewhat a thought experiment. And I don't wish to transpose politics wholesale with morality, or eventhat moral unanimity is desirable/possible.

However, if you can imagine an instance in which taxation is immoral (say for instance, without representation), then I believe we can agree that SOME forms of taxation may be more "moral" than others. This discussion is aimed at determining what forms of taxation are more "moral" than others (at least, that's how I see it.)


A government that was required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen might not be able to get very much done.

In essence though, a government is required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen, just "en masse". :lol

[Winehole23]

However, if you can imagine an instance in which taxation is immoral (say for instance, without representation), then I believe we can agree that SOME forms of taxation may be more "moral" than others.Fair enough. I'm all ears. Can you imagine an instance?

In essence though, a government is required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen, just "en masse". :lolWe're allowed to vote, is essentially all this means.

[RandomGuy]

+1

A la carte I could cut my cable channels down to about 10-15.

I think it is going to move that way. Cable companies are starting to lose out to Hulu et al. and for the first time ever have had the number of subscribers DROP.

Hell, I just gave Time fucking Warner the boot. That felt goood. Switched to Grande, better package, better service already.

Probably make the leap to hulu or some internet based thing in the next year or two.

But that is another thread, I think.

[Parker2112]

Fair enough. I'm all ears. Can you imagine an instance?


our govt is supposed to be accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people. When it ceases to do that, any tax dollar collected for a purpose other than these is fraudulent and the dollar might as wel have been stolen out of the pocket of the citizen. When this becomes business as usual, taxation as a whole becmes immoral.

Can anyone honestly say that, on the whole, Washington does these things anymore? (accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people)

[Winehole23]

our govt is supposed to be accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people. When it ceases to do that, any tax dollar collected for a purpose other than these is fraudulent and the dollar might as wel have been stolen out of the pocket of the citizen. When this becomes business as usual, taxation as a whole becmes immoral.Glittering generalities. Do you like shiny things?


Can anyone honestly say that, on the whole, Washington does these things anymore? (accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people)On the whole, no; somewhat, yes.

[Winehole23]

It simply won't do to define all taxation as fraudulent or confiscatory. Without the power to raise taxes there is no state.

If you want to repeal the income tax, or other taxes, or limit the government more or less to the proceeds of customs house like we did in the 19th century, then please either make that argument, or address something that's already been said here.

Please progress past the full stop at your own peculiar set of abstractions and join the conversation. If you want others to bow to your mental icons, you'll need to explain them a little.

[Winehole23]

If you want to say the state has no legitimacy to tax, then you are basically in open revolt against that state.

You're basically saying the US constitutional order no longer has any moral or political legitimacy. Correct?

[Winehole23]

Line was so fine you didn't know which side you were on.

[SnakeBoy]

our govt is supposed to be accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people. When it ceases to do that, any tax dollar collected for a purpose other than these is fraudulent and the dollar might as wel have been stolen out of the pocket of the citizen. When this becomes business as usual, taxation as a whole becmes immoral.

Can anyone honestly say that, on the whole, Washington does these things anymore? (accountable to the electorate, to benefit our society for the greater good rather than the good of a few, to manifest the will of the people)

Anymore? When did Washington use to do these noble things? When did they stop?

[Parker2112]

When did they stop?

Depends on who you ask, but it might have been right about...

http://www.facts-are-facts.com/magazin/2-jfk.jpg

[Parker2112]

Glittering generalities. Do you like shiny things?

On the whole, no; somewhat, yes.

I didn't think I needed to support the contention that Washington is detached from the voting public these days.

And I think the degree of detachment is more than enough to warrant the "immoral" tag. And I am sure anyone reading can think of more than 4-5 great examples.

[Parker2112]

It simply won't do to define all taxation as fraudulent or confiscatory. Without the power to raise taxes there is no state.



and yet the power to tax is the power to destroy the subject.

And even more, who has the right to make their living off of anothers toil? How many career politicians do just that?

Its a two-sided coin with no clear answer, but one which should favor the state and the individual if the constitution is to have meaning

[Parker2112]

It simply won't do to define all taxation as fraudulent or confiscatory. Without the power to raise taxes there is no state.

If you want to repeal the income tax, or other taxes, or limit the government more or less to the proceeds of customs house like we did in the 19th century, then please either make that argument, or address something that's already been said here.



two things I like:

1) cap tax rates at the actual rate paid by the top 1%. (16.6% according to http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/17/a-look-at-the-tax-returns-of-the-top-400-taxpayers/)

And thats just on principle. It doesnt touch the moral aspect in question.

2) Consumption tax removes the link between one man's work-product and govt income. Sounds ideal really. Drawback: less predictable than income tax, and wont allow for the consistent operation of such a bloated entity as our fed gov. good thing IYAM

[Parker2112]

Please progress past the full stop at your own peculiar set of abstractions and join the conversation. If you want others to bow to your mental icons, you'll need to explain them a little.

Fair enough.

[Parker2112]

If you want to say the state has no legitimacy to tax, then you are basically in open revolt against that state.

You're basically saying the US constitutional order no longer has any moral or political legitimacy. Correct?

Actually, the constitution clearly limits the power to tax. The open revolt against the document has been waged and won by way of SC rulings on Commerce Clause and Nec and Proper Clause (as means of sidestepping limitations on the size/scope of fed govt.)

(it seems in my old age, me and Antonin are drawing closer by the day)

[Winehole23]

Actually, the constitution clearly limits the power to tax. Please give us your take on that.

The open revolt against the document has been waged and won by way of SC rulings on Commerce Clause and Nec and Proper Clause (as means of sidestepping limitations on the size/scope of fed govt.)Please name the relevant decisions and explain their importance.

(it seems in my old age, me and Antonin are drawing closer by the day) How'd you like his opinion in Raich?

[Winehole23]

two things I like:

1) cap tax rates at the actual rate paid by the top 1%. (16.6% according to http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/02/17/a-look-at-the-tax-returns-of-the-top-400-taxpayers/)

And thats just on principle. It doesnt touch the moral aspect in question.What principle?




("Be just and if you can't be just, be arbitrary." - Wm. S. Burroughs)


2) Consumption tax removes the link between one man's work-product and govt income. Sounds ideal really. Drawback: less predictable than income tax, and wont allow for the consistent operation of such a bloated entity as our fed gov. good thing IYAMDrown the baby in the bathtub.

[Winehole23]

The open revolt against the document has been waged and wonWhat a relief. The war is finally over.

[Winehole23]

I didn't think I needed to support the contention that Washington is detached from the voting public these days.You implied a bit more than that. You called taxation fraudulent per se, in the present context.

And I think the degree of detachment is more than enough to warrant the "immoral" tag. Who argued against it?

And I am sure anyone reading can think of more than 4-5 great examples. You cared so much you gave zero examples and I don't see any reinforcements yet.

[Winehole23]

didn't even know the war had started, much less that it was already over.

[Winehole23]

This oughta be a good one.

[LnGrrrR]

Fair enough. I'm all ears. Can you imagine an instance?

I already suggested the "people choose where their taxes go", but you seem to think that form of voting is improbable.

If you take the view that all citizens are born into a contract with government through birthright, and can then break that contract by renouncing citizenship, that certainly makes taxation more "moral" and is a viewpoint I didn't look at before.

Do you have any opinions on which forms of taxation are more morally amenable to you? Or does it not make a difference?

[RandomGuy]

honestly, I would be more sympathetic to your take RG if there was even one ounce of caution when it came to placing more power in the hands of fed govt. even some lip service would be nice.

The executive branch by-passing the wire-tap courts is one example that needs to stop.

The de facto death sentence versus the US citizen in Yemen who is recording rants for Al Qaeda is another.

The SC decision to open campaign spending by private groups scares the shit out of me.

There is a lot of stuff that I am concerned about to a good degree.

You just have a much lower "outrage" threshold.

[RandomGuy]

I already suggested the "people choose where their taxes go", but you seem to think that form of voting is improbable.

If you take the view that all citizens are born into a contract with government through birthright, and can then break that contract by renouncing citizenship, that certainly makes taxation more "moral" and is a viewpoint I didn't look at before.

Do you have any opinions on which forms of taxation are more morally amenable to you? Or does it not make a difference?

Argh. Lunch hour is up, but there is an interesting article in this weeks economist on just this topic (i.e. ideal tax system).

[LnGrrrR]

Argh. Lunch hour is up, but there is an interesting article in this weeks economist on just this topic (i.e. ideal tax system).

I'll take a look.

[Winehole23]

I already suggested the "people choose where their taxes go", but you seem to think that form of voting is improbable. Don't let me stop you. Run with that if the path seems to lead somewhere.

If you take the view that all citizens are born into a contract with government through birthright, and can then break that contract by renouncing citizenship, that certainly makes taxation more "moral" and is a viewpoint I didn't look at before.Not sure how it does. The responsibilities of citizenship go along with the rights/privileges. I see that as politically, not morally determined.

But I can see how the act of renouncing citizenship might have some moral element to it.

Do you have any opinions on which forms of taxation are more morally amenable to you? Or does it not make a difference?I'm not sure how I'd rank <forms of taxation>, but I'm pretty sure morality wouldn't be my criterion.

Conformity with the political constitution ranks way higher, but to be completely honest, I haven't done that analysis either nor do I consider myself very well suited to do it. I'm basically ignorant on the history/morphology of taxation.

To start with, a list of the <forms of taxation> to be evaluated, briefly defined, would be a help.

[LnGrrrR]

Don't let me stop you. Run with that if the path seems to lead somewhere.

I'm trying. :)


Not sure how it does. The responsibilities of citizenship go along with the rights/privileges. I see that as politically, not morally determined.

It certainly may be controlled by political bodies, but I think it does have some moral underpinnings, as many overtly political acts do (ie. going to war, wiretapping, etc etc).


I'm not sure how I'd rank <forms of taxation>, but I'm pretty sure morality wouldn't be my criterion.

Fair enough, but would you agree with the extremely generic statement that some taxation could be considered more moral than others?


To start with, a list of the <forms of taxation> to be evaluated, briefly defined, would be a help.

I think zosa gave a relatively good list to start from. (I'm no economist myself either; others who are better-versed can feel free to jump in!)

Income tax, inheritance tax, sales tax would be good starting points I guess.

Income tax - A tax on a citizen's work

Inheritance tax - A tax on money passed down through inheritance

Sales tax - A tax based on financial transactions/purchases

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, but would you agree with the extremely generic statement that some taxation could be considered more moral than others?Sure, why not? I don't really see how that could be avoided.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, why not? I don't really see how that could be avoided.

Thanks! That's pretty much the point of the thread; to determine which forms of taxation are more "moral" than others (while trying to acknowledge that they might be political impossibilities, but putting that off to the side. Take the discussion as a thought experiment if anything.)

[Winehole23]

Once you put the whole world and the history of the whole world off to one side in {brackets}, you basically drained the subject of any interest it may have held for me.

But hey, it's yer thread. Good luck with the more {philosophical} approach. I'll follow the thread and chime in if I have anything to say.

[Parker2112]

Thanks! That's pretty much the point of the thread; to determine which forms of taxation are more "moral" than others

you should have just asked. consumption taxes are best from a moral point of view. your welcome in advance :toast

[Winehole23]

consumption taxes are best from a moral point of view.Why?

You've shown neither that consumption taxes are moral in the first place, nor that they are morally superior to other schemes of taxation.

Instead you jumped to conclusions. Then you thanked yourself enthusiastically for being right.

[Winehole23]

Are you familiar with question-begging?

[Winehole23]

Or the basics of conversation?

[Winehole23]

BTW, did you ever Google the SC decisions that form the core of the "revolt" you said was already "waged and won" upstream, or was that more bullshit too?

[Parker2112]

Am I familiar with sarcasm?

I don't think so.

[Parker2112]

BTW, did you ever Google the SC decisions that form the core of the "revolt" you said was already "waged and won" upstream, or was that more bullshit too?

You sure that was me? there are a few revolts Ive been hoping for, but not sure what you are referring to here.

[Winehole23]

Just as I thought, it was more blind shit-slinging to cover your anarchocapitalist tracks. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Parker2112]

oh now I remember! It seems courts have stopped requiring legal authority for enforcing tax debts held by the IRS, last I remember. That was dealt with another thread.

There was a jury or two that found for the taxpayer on the basis that the IRS couldnt point to any valid legal authority to show that payment of taxes is required by law. Since those decisions, Judges have sent some former IRS agents using the same strategy to jail. It seems they are putting "prevention of chaos" ahead of "the rule of law."

Sounds alot like discussions about the Fed here.

[Winehole23]

(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4754979#post4754979)

Am I familiar with sarcasm?









I don't think so.Your self-congratulation was campy and stagy.

I got that. I think everybody got that.

But you didn't save your incredibly lame post by putting an <ironic> smilie in it. In fact, you made it appreciably worse.

(smarmy mofo)

[Winehole23]

oh now I remember! It seems courts have stopped requiring legal authority for enforcing tax debts held by the IRS, last I remember. That was dealt with another thread.

There was a jury or two that found for the taxpayer on the basis that the IRS couldnt point to any valid legal authority to show that payment of taxes is required by law. Since those decisions, Judges have sent some former IRS agents using the same strategy to jail. It seems they are putting "prevention of chaos" ahead of "the rule of law."

Sounds alot like discussions about the Fed here.Why do you like waving at the evidence from such a great distance? It's allowed to name the cases. Can you, or do you just prefer handwaving?

Thanks in advance for your lack of consideration.

[Parker2112]

:yield


Have a great night at work, bud.

[Parker2112]

Why do you like waving at the evidence from such a great distance? It's allowed to name the cases. Can you, or do you just prefer handwaving?

Thanks in advance for your lack of consideration.


That was dealt with another thread.

I know, I know...quoting myself is a cardinal sin....

[Winehole23]

Shameless self-caressing isn't a cardinal sin.

[Winehole23]

Also, the asked and answered gambit is incredibly lame, and you're givin it a workout.

[LnGrrrR]

Once you put the whole world and the history of the whole world off to one side in {brackets}, you basically drained the subject of any interest it may have held for me.

But hey, it's yer thread. Good luck with the more {philosophical} approach. I'll follow the thread and chime in if I have anything to say.

I'm not necessarily putting the whole political history aside, if it touches on moral ramifications. I'm just having the conversation focus on morality, just as one can argue that advanced interrogation is wrong MORALLY (in spite of whatever political or real-world effects it may produce).

Without setting some of that aside in brackets, I feel it clouds up the issue of the most "fair" way to collect taxes.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ah, the old 16th Amendment doesn't exist game, designed to hook the uncle of yours who's the king of email forwards.

Lemme guess, ol' Alex featured this on his show recently.

[LnGrrrR]

you should have just asked. consumption taxes are best from a moral point of view. your welcome in advance :toast

Why do you feel consumption taxes are more valid morally? Because people choose to partake of the items they are taxed on? zosa disagreed with you above, and thought that taxing free trade was relatively immoral.

As well, what about consumption taxes on staple items, like bread?

[z0sa]

Relax. Around here, who is?

(Everybody and nobody)

:toast

I'd like to state that a lot of what I'm saying exists in that vacuum of morality vs. immorality. Plausibility, practicality, both are taking a backseat here.



Preaching to the choir. All I meant was, Congress could be a brake on it.

I was simply agreeing, as well. Just in a descriptive manner. FWIW. :lol


But no, the US Congress is spineless and punted its expressly granted war powers to POTUS.

I'm not sure they're spineless as much as incredibly shrewd. Better to lay the blame of war at a president's (single person's) feet than spread it over our legislators.

That might convince people the current system is broken.. don't want that now, do they?


My bad. I'm guessing now you meant the alternative minimum tax.

you're fine, I'm entering the realm of ignorance here.


Maybe strong Canadian federalism is for you. The provinces can opt out of some federal expenditures they don't like.

I don't know about that. While I'm one for putting power into the hands of locals (or states, at least), uniformity of opinion is always a problem in a 2 party system such as this one. Of course, I'm only focusing on the morality of such a system, not its means or ends.

So, unless it's in my hands specifically, or at least my locale, I'm not sure it matters whether the central government decides, or the state, concerning the morality of me paying taxes to something which I do not support. Even my "locale" is probably too far, as millions live near each other nowadays. Diversity of opinion is rampant no matter where you go.


In my mind, apportioning tax contributions according to one's private conscience is alien to the very idea of politics: to see your own interests served, you must also serve the interests of others.

It's an interesting argument, and I'm forced to agree with you. Yet here's that question of morality again: how often should I put the good of the "people" before myself? What if my interests are never served, and that which I do not approve of consistently is? I am forced still, to keep paying my taxes. Not very fair, IMHO.


What are those principles? I'm not too sure what you mean here.

Political theory.. another fun debate in waiting.

When I said principles, I was speaking broadly about the free enterprise system. Continuing that broad line of thought, "undue" taxation and government intervention perverts free enterprise and IMO, tends to keep the market from running its course for the best of the people.

Obviously I think some government regulation is necessary - even more than we have now.

Taxation is another whole issue. The government may be able to legitimately tax us, but in terms of morality, I think almost any tax could be arguable. In fact, especially nowadays, I think almost all taxes could be construed as immoral since our representation for our tax dollars is so very little.

I very much dislike paying taxes when my voice can rarely or never be heard.


In the meantime, usage rules. According to the legitimate political order, the state can tax us.

Oh yes. But the types of taxation can be construed as immoral. And the state overtaxing in any degree, in any category is also immoral. Any wasted tax dollars are a slap in the face to Americans. Or "misused" tax dollars. Misused being based upon values and personal opinion most of the time.


I lean that direction, but a nightwatchman state is more or less helpless to keep the strong from trampling the weak.

Agreed. That's the biggest problem. People would rather live their lives protected by the state rather than be given the liberty to defend themselves. They don't want to. Americans at large have basically admitted they are too weak for that. They've been taught so long that if they pay our taxes and vote for the best candidate, the bureaucracy will have their best interests at heart.

[z0sa]

I think this, really, is a key problem. My pipe dream would be for those paying taxes to be able to check off which items they'd like their taxes to contribute to. (ie, say you want half your taxes to go to defense, a quarter to medicare/medicaid and another quarter to education). It would give an idea as well of what items the public really wanted to spend taxes on, and which they thought should go away.

Probably not feasible, but it's somewhat of a "more perfect world" idea of mine.

Yeah, that'd be great. But is that a liberty most Americans want? I don't think so.

But as for morality, that would definitely solve the problem. If I decided specifically where my tax dollars should go, then there could be no ethics issues.

The problem is feasibility, of course, like you say. In a country this large, this diverse, and in a bit of a trouble it's actually somewhat overwhelming to decide. And there would undoubtedly be a lot of losers in a system like this, and a lot of overspending on meaningless shit. I could see it being a total clusterfuck, actually, simply because even the educated American would be faced with some controversial ethical issues and a lack of necessary data for an educated allocation of their contribution. Joe the Plumber would be mindfucked.

[z0sa]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a ratified political constitution trumps private morality as it relates to taxation. We gave our government the power to tax us.
Well, it is very abstract.
IMO Morality creates a muddle: everyone insists on conformity with his own mores.

Therein lies the problem. We gave them the power, because the People are supposed to have all the "real" power in this country.

That's a flippin' joke if I ever heard one.

[Winehole23]

is the joke more apt to make you laugh or cry? just curious.

[LnGrrrR]

Taxation is another whole issue. The government may be able to legitimately tax us, but in terms of morality, I think almost any tax could be arguable. In fact, especially nowadays, I think almost all taxes could be construed as immoral since our representation for our tax dollars is so very little.

I very much dislike paying taxes when my voice can rarely or never be heard.

Another interesting point. Can representation be so diluted to the point where it is effectively taxation without representation?

[Winehole23]

If our representatives do it wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean we were deprived of their honest services.

OTOH, the perception that this is so can create a real political backlash.

[LnGrrrR]

The problem is feasibility, of course, like you say. In a country this large, this diverse, and in a bit of a trouble it's actually somewhat overwhelming to decide. And there would undoubtedly be a lot of losers in a system like this, and a lot of overspending on meaningless shit. I could see it being a total clusterfuck, actually, simply because even the educated American would be faced with some controversial ethical issues and a lack of necessary data for an educated allocation of their contribution. Joe the Plumber would be mindfucked.

Fair enough, but at least they'd be choosing where their tax dollars go, even if the decision is mindless. And of curse, there'd be lots of misinformation put out by various groups.

As far as overspending on meaningless shit, well, that happens nowadays... and if said population supported the meaningless shit, well I guess meaning is in the eye of the beholder. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

If our representatives do it wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean we were deprived of their honest services.

OTOH, the perception that this is so can create a real political backlash.

But is there a breaking point where diluation of representatives is effectively taxation without representation? Let's take the issue to a logical extreme; if there were, say, 3 representatives in the lower house to support the entire United States (one for the East, one for the West, and one for all the folks in between).

Could one say that they were truly being represented? Or is that nearly the same as taxation without representation? Is one body enough, no matter how many people they cover, to counter the claims of taxation without representation?

[Winehole23]

That's a lot of questions I never really pondered before right now. Have you come to any tentative conclusions about any of them, yet?

[LnGrrrR]

That's a lot of questions I never really pondered before right now. Have you come to any tentative conclusions about any of them, yet?

To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to the idea of diluted representation. In essence, you ARE represented, but does it matter if you are one of, say, a few million, or even a few hundred million?

[Winehole23]

To me the only line that's important is wherever legitimacy breaks down.

(I doubt that could ever be specified precisely in advance, philosophically or statistically.)

[Winehole23]

Proportionality sort of takes the conversation in a social studies direction. Maybe we should circle back to morality.