Is taxation moral?

[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 bull 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 -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]

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]

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

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)

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.

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 nigh chman 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 . I could see it being a total cluster , 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 mind ed.

[z0sa]

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.

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 . I could see it being a total cluster , 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 mind ed.

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 , well, that happens nowadays... and if said population supported the meaningless , well I guess meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

[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.