Is taxation moral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Well, here we're talking about real-world results rather than morality.

---

I mentioned both. One trumps the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Taxation a la carte? See above.

---

I wish cable TV was that way.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

---

We're allowed to vote, is essentially all this means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

+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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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.

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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.