Is taxation moral?

[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 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!"

[Duff McCartney]

On a somewhat related yet slightly tangential note to taxation, I will say that one thing that is immoral as 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".

[Blake]

Source?

Don't be ridiculous.

[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".

involuntary insurance

[Blake]

Is profit immoral?

"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 compe ive 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 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: Ins ute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, April 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...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 en ies? 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 ac ulating 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.