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.
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)
Political cons utions 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 mul ude 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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2010 at 04:43 PM.
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).
I mentioned both. One trumps the other.
Not at all.
Referendum process?
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.)
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 cons uents would want.
As is, cons uents 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.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that a ratified political cons ution 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.
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.
Taxation a la carte? See above.
To splithairs, the only citizens who "gave" the government power to tax us would be the people who originally signed off on the Cons ution. Everyone else just accepts it or moves.
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?
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.
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.
Nope.
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.
You did say that "a ratified political cons ution trumps private morality as it relates to taxation". But said ratified political cons ution 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 cons ution 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.
I wish cable TV was that way.
Don't need Oxygen. Don't want to pay for it.
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.Is it your belief that then taxation is moral, and can trump PRIVATE morality, but can't trump a collective-sort of 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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2010 at 05:07 PM. Reason: And their personal lives
+1
A la carte I could cut my cable channels down to about 10-15.
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.)
In essence though, a government is required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen, just "en masse".
Fair enough. I'm all ears. Can you imagine an instance?
We're allowed to vote, is essentially all this means.In essence though, a government is required to cede to the private scruples of every citizen, just "en masse".
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.
, I just gave Time ing 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.
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)
Glittering generalities. Do you like shiny things?
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.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2010 at 05:30 PM.
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 cons utional order no longer has any moral or political legitimacy. Correct?
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-17-2010 at 05:39 PM.
Line was so fine you didn't know which side you were on.
Anymore? When did Washington use to do these noble things? When did they stop?
Depends on who you ask, but it might have been right about...
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
