Is taxation moral?

[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 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.

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.)

[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 e 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 load of respect for what you bring to the table. No time for your bull however. And I dont give a 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."

o, national security state.

First, we have to agree taxation is necessary.

Check. We did so when we ratified the US Cons ution.

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 e in the taxes on our wages.

o, 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 Cons ution 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.

[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 cons utional 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.

o, 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.

o, 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 Cons ution 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.

Bull .

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 nigh chman 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]

Bull .

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?

[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.