Taxation

[imperistan]

You said something about an essential invasion, I took that to mean that the selfish people with their resources that they keep to themselves would be invaded because they have enough wealth or resource that the proletariat would want it, then invade them to take their stuff. I admit you confused me what you were on about with paragraph.

 

I admit it was my mistake. I didn't fully explain myself because I was thinking at a mile a minute. I do that on occasion. If these sorts of people come into this society and start to become a detriment with their selfishness (namely by abusing their freedom to the detriment of the society. Like for instance drawing attention from the other statist countries who will be coming down hard on the society because the selfish dillweed up the hill decided to start running weapons through his house) then they do become a problem that has to be dealt with. And if that requires forcibly removing them then so be it.

 

So basically you have a choice to be selfless, and give freely of your own volition, or else you will not be eligible to any/all the benefits that a society would otherwise have granted you. there is a clear 'or else' to me. For there are reprocussions, which amount to class division, by not donating of your own freewill you become a lesser citizen with less rights than other who do.

 

Gaining the benefits of a group requires participation in that group. Otherwise, you are a moocher, and rightfully don't deserve whatever benefits you are receiving. Being physically unable to participate is one thing. Plainly refusing, due to no other cause than one's own choice, is another.

 

You still retain all of your freedoms. But you receive no help from anyone else (and especially from the government) for free, unless they choose to help you for free. Freedom does not include the right to be detrimental to anyone else (your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins). And in this case, you're a parasite if you don't participate yet still try to reap the benefits you would otherwise have.

 

it is buying into a service. It sounds neat saying it's unselfish and what not, at the end of the day it is not a voluntary gesture or selfless act, it sounds like insurance. You don't pay, you don't get. It's buying

 

That's exactly what it is. You are free to do as you please. You are not free from the consequences (be they good or bad) of what you choose to do, and that's something no one can really change.

 

If you refuse to help society out in what way you can (say you're a farmer or a mechanic or a doctor) then society will not extend a formal hand of help to you, free of any cost, if you need it, unless by the free will of its citizens, which the government wouldn't be controlling.

 

The worst part is the option to not buy in, is not really much of an option. The option is being made out to be so bad that anyone not buying the service is ostracised.

 

No, not really. Because in practice not all those who wouldn't participate would actually be selfish. Take me for instance. I'd refuse, but only because I'm such a hardcore individualist (and this is ultimately why I refuse this system in its entirety anyway. I argue it not only because it interests me but also because there are so few who actually know anything about it. Most anarchists, sadly, are retarded and don't know much about what they're talking about, if they're even talking about anything). I know that I can support myself well enough that if, on the off chance I ever needed help beyond what I could provide for myself that I'd be able to purchase it, or call on the help of friends if truly desperate. So I see little reason to participate (though I would anyway, but not in the sense that I'd be receiving government benefits) when I don't actually need any of the benefits.

 

Most who would refuse (and aren't just being selfish) are doing so because they acknowledge that they don't need what participation would provide as well as their own belief that they'll be able to sustain themselves without the greater societies help.

 

I drew the same conclusion as Ghogiel, this is not a voluntary system but rather an enforced mandate with attached penalties for non compliance.It strikes me as forced social engineering at it's most meddlesome and intrusive (which is my view ). The soviets attempted to reform human nature and failed miserably, this is just another version of trying to mandate class interactions.

 

Those who would actually have real reason to oppose anything this society would be doing would be the sort that wouldn't need to participate anyway. The rich, the self-reliant, etc all don't need to participate in such a society and have no need to even worry about it unless they want to live within that societies borders, which they'd be perfectly free to do. From then on they need not concern themselves. They won't be bothered less they become detrimental. Those that would participate regardless, the selfless and such, would well participate regardless.

 

Its those in-between that are the problem. Those that refuse will need to be weeded out (if only for them to be pushed out of receiving benefits) for the good of maintaining such a free society. Those who will accept it will accept it and there will be no problems.

 

That's what I think the two of you are missing. This society would grant its citizens the closest thing to absolute freedom possible. In order for that to be sustained, selflessness needs to be adopted by its citizens. Voluntary action needs to take precedence. Otherwise, the society will fall apart because its citizens refused to be better human beings.

 

Not at one single point did I ever suggest otherwise. That such a free society could be maintained without holding the citizens to a higher standard of human behavior. Ideally none of these systems of participation and benefits would need to exist, because it would already be understood that the entire species should be acting within this higher standard because the species will have already accepted that standard of its own free will. Ideally, people would just give and give back. Without regulation, without even having to really talk about it.

 

The point in these systems is to defend the well-being of that society against those who haven't accepted that standard. Its a safeguard meant to maintain such a society in the event that that society is established before the vast majority of the human race has evolved to such a point. IE, its a safeguard meant to protect against the present state of mankind. The only way such a society would be able to exist in the present without such a safeguard if it was completely isolated from the rest of the planet, and I think I only need point to the city of Rapture to see how those sorts of societies tend to turn out.

[Ghogiel]

 

it is buying into a service. It sounds neat saying it's unselfish and what not, at the end of the day it is not a voluntary gesture or selfless act, it sounds like insurance. You don't pay, you don't get. It's buying

 

That's exactly what it is. You are free to do as you please. You are not free from the consequences (be they good or bad) of what you choose to do, and that's something no one can really change.

 

Stop calling it donations or unselfishness then. imo the best way to describe it is government insurance. You pay the government an insurance premium and they promise to grant you certain guarantees.

 

Any government would be rendered ineffective once enough people opt out of donating. It could not effectively calculate budgets because of the unknowns which would make it unstable. A feudal system might emerge, basically those with resource and wealth could form a co-op and in effect offer competing services in the local areas. If you 'opt out', is it strictly in the sense of opting out as in contributing what would be considered taxes? Do police respond to 911 calls of people who opted out? These other services like unemployment fund, retirement, sickness/health care actually already have competing insurance policies in the event of. It's called insurance, and you can be covered for just about everything, be it health, unemployment, etc. In effect rendering the services you have put forth thus far probably not worth getting from an unstable government.

 

If this service extends to police, fire, judicial services, infrastructure, and all the other things you pay taxes for. I see potential for great instability and undermining. All those things could be privatised actually. Yeah even courts could. Assuming the government still has any powers to enact Law after no one buys into it.

 

And lastly you think anyone is going to invest in a countries economic growth with that sort of instability? You bet it would lose most investment overnight, in effect crippling the country. and that would bounce back to the people, who would be left having to contribute even more greater 'donations' because they are all that is left to pick up the slack. Which would prompt people to try to source cheaper alternative insurance. The less people who pay into these services, the less viable the service is to those who do pay.

[Aurielius]

"The point in these systems is to defend the well-being of that society against those who haven't accepted that standard. Its a safeguard meant to maintain such a society in the event that that society is established before the vast majority of the human race has evolved to such a point. IE, its a safeguard meant to protect against the present state of mankind."

 

What you propose has more in common with The Committee of Public Safety in the height of the 'Terror' of the late portion of the first French Revolution than a democratic republic based on the English model of parliamentary democracy. Legislating a moral tone to a population has been tried since the days of Augustus Caesar and has never worked, at best it was ignored and at worst it lead to repression and civil collapse.

[grannywils]

If I am correctly understanding what Aurielius has said above, I am in total agreement. We cannot legislate morality. However, in my opinion as I said earlier, taxes have nothing to do with morality.

 

Since we live in a democracy (in the United States anyway), we require a means by which to sustain our government and our infrastructure. In spite of what many like to shout from time to time, we are not in fact a welfare state. We must pay our government officials, we must pay our police forces, we must pay to have our mail delivered, we must pay to have our roads built and maintained. If we are unhappy with programs instituted under said governments, we still have the right to vote and may request that our paid elected officials do as we ask. Our taxes are paying them to do just that.

 

If we lived in a monarchy or a socialist state, we would have a whole different set of rules, wouldn't we?

 

I simply find it ludicrous to equate taxes with morality.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I simply find it ludicrous to equate taxes with morality.

 

Would a 100% tax be moral?

[HeyYou]

I simply find it ludicrous to equate taxes with morality.

 

Would a 100% tax be moral?

 

Depends on what you get for your money.

 

If all my food/clothing/healthcare/transportation/entertainment/etc were taken care of by the government, (essentially, any product or service you wanted would be free of charge) then yeah, that would be perfectly acceptable.

[grannywils]

Thanks HY for answering what I considered to be a somewhat specious question for me. I believe that I have fairly clearly expressed my views on taxation now, and will leave further debate to others.

[HeyYou]

Thanks HY for answering what I considered to be a somewhat specious question for me. I believe that I have fairly clearly expressed my views on taxation now, and will leave further debate to others.

 

Always happy to be of service Ma'am. :D

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Nothing specious about it. You say the idea that taxation is in any way a moral issue is "ludicrous", yet you won't answer a simple yes or no question about a hypothetical tax. Or, rather, you are agreeing with HeyYou, whose answer is essentially "maybe". Which also implies "maybe not". So maybe it's not such a ludicrous idea after all?

 

HeyYou, you might also want to reassess your answer, or at least tell us your thoughts on the philosophy of communism. There is essentially no difference between communism and your "acceptable" 100% tax with all needs wants provided for.

[Nintii]

I simply find it ludicrous to equate taxes with morality.

 

Would a 100% tax be moral?

 

100% taxes would be theft, and theft is immoral ... remember the word morality has it's origins in the French language and it refers to a person's character or manner, the adjective being "goodness".

The initial fallacy of this thread that taxes are immoral is a confusion between the word or idea of ethics and the exercise of authority or should I say, the abuse of authority.

 

Therefore, the idea to both myself, Grannywils and many others of taxes being a "moral" issue is laughable as it simply points to the fact that it is an incorrect usuage of a word

born out of a lack of proper knowledge of the English language.

Now if it was "Are taxes right or wrong" ...that would be a big difference, because then you could argue for or against the system of taxation ... morality has nothing to do with it at all.