Aurielius Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 That you even can link morality with taxation is to say the least is droll. You are of course entitled to your opinion and I for one would love to see you use that on your upcoming 1040. I am not sure which will be laughing harder me or the repossession dept of the IRS. I'm talking moral vs immoral, not legal vs illegal. Hardly the same discussion.That is precisely the Theater of the Absurd portion of your thesis..there is no such thing as a 'moral tax', since morality is subjective to the individual and taxation is universal to the mass of citizenry. We might as well discuss the morality of a beehive and why it's immoral to have worker bees collecting honey for the general use of the hive. I would be just as valid to object to the morality of paying tax on Scotch and cigars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Okay, let me make this as absolutely simple as possible: I give you $10,000. Through cunning investment, you turn it into $18,000 in a year. Am I not entitled to some interest on my $10,000 since I gave you the money in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) That is precisely the Theater of the Absurd portion of your thesis..there is no such thing as a 'moral tax', since morality is subjective to the individual and taxation is universal to the mass of citizenry. We might as well discuss the morality of a beehive and why it's immoral to have worker bees collecting honey for the general use of the hive. I would be just as valid to object to the morality of paying tax on Scotch and cigars. A bee, so far as I know, doesn't have the capacity to consent to the use of the products of his labor. Or to conceive of himself as an individual. Or to think of himself at all. And so on. Not a great analogy.Objecting to a (sales, I assume) tax on scotch, cigars, or anything else is perfectly valid, sure. Why wouldn't it be? Okay, let me make this as absolutely simple as possible: I give you $10,000. Through cunning investment, you turn it into $18,000 in a year. Am I not entitled to some interest on my $10,000 since I gave you the money in the first place? If you give it to me, it's mine. You give, I accept, consent on the part of both parties. *We agree*. Since you said "give", no you are not "entitled" to jack. If I'm your friend I would probably choose to give some anyway because I'm a nice guy. If you want to put some preconditions on it before you hand it over, and I agree to those conditions, then yes you might have something coming your way, depending on those conditions. Consent again. Very important. Coming in after the fact and wanting a cut of the money sounds like you want someone else to look after your bad decisions. I would rather be responsible for my own, but that's me. Edited February 16, 2012 by Quetzlsacatanango Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 My understanding is that the basis for this is that eventually there would be no need for currency as everything would be in effect, "free". So the above poster seems to be agreeing with the earlier poster who mentioned a 100% tax rate. It is far from being a tax, nor even resembling one. The fruits of labor are created, given, and taken freely by all. Everyone supports everyone else through labor they complete of their own will. The farmer comes out with his crops, and he takes from the carpenter, the tailor, etc etc and so on and so forth. Buying and selling become outdated, and along with it the concept of money. Wealth is made irrelevant due to the free use and giving of resources by all to all. money always exists. inventing facts doesnt make them factual.2+2=5? Silly quips do not make up for your ignorance of communism. Also, since some people seem to be confused on the point, and maybe don't want to read through all the previous pages, I have never stated that taxation, in itself, is theft, or immoral for that matter. I stated that *involuntary* taxation is theft, theft is immoral, therefore involuntary taxation is immoral. A voluntary tax, such as a sales tax, is perfectly fine with me. Others may disagree of course. There is no such thing as a "voluntary" tax. Taxation is by definition a coercive act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Objecting to a (sales, I assume) tax on scotch, cigars, or anything else is perfectly valid, sure. Why wouldn't it be? Because if I intend to enjoy either vice my objections are irrelevant when I reach the sales counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzlsacatanango Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Objecting to a (sales, I assume) tax on scotch, cigars, or anything else is perfectly valid, sure. Why wouldn't it be? Because if I intend to enjoy either vice my objections are irrelevant when I reach the sales counter. Those things still cost money, so you are just arguing over price. If you don't like the price, your objections would be irrelevant at the sales counter whether there is a tax or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Let's all keep it on topic please....don't make me come in there! :thumbsup: Thank you..that is all. ~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 @Imperistan, once again you have me caught up in this issue of Communism on this "taxation" thread. However, you seem quite knowledgeable, and I am curious. You said the following in a post above: "It is far from being a tax, nor even resembling one. The fruits of labor are created, given, and taken freely by all. Everyone supports everyone else through labor they complete of their own will. The farmer comes out with his crops, and he takes from the carpenter, the tailor, etc etc and so on and so forth. Buying and selling become outdated, and along with it the concept of money. Wealth is made irrelevant due to the free use and giving of resources by all to all. " I believe what you said is perfectly accurate in a perfect communal living society. In fact, I have personally seen it in action, working quite successfully. However, how would a Communist Government handle those citizens who had no talents or no desire to participate or nothing to offer? OOPS! Sorry LisnPuppy. I was posting before I saw your post reminding us to stay on topic. I actually have been trying to do just that. Won't go off topic anymore. I promise.:facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) The basic idea behind supply side economics is sound, but it doesn't always work out like it should on paper. I agree that at both 0% and at 100% tax rates, the government will generate no revenue. And that more revenue would be generated at 15% than at 75%. But people who are rich can afford to pay a higher % than someone who is barely making a humble wage. If someone making $25,000 a year pays next to nothing in income taxes while a millionaire pays 35% I think that is plenty fair. The fact is the millionaire is gonna be thinking about buying that new yacht while the guy making $25,000 is trying to figure out where he is gonna eat ramen noodles for dinner or canned soup. Edited February 16, 2012 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I believe what you said is perfectly accurate in a perfect communal living society. In fact, I have personally seen it in action, working quite successfully. However, how would a Communist Government handle those citizens who had no talents or no desire to participate or nothing to offer? As for having no talents, thats not possible. Everyone can offer something, presuming they are perfectly healthy, or reasonably healthy. If there is a true need, then they could be taught to do something (or educated to the point that they realize what they can do), but everyone does have a particular skill, talent, or ability that can provide a benefit to the greater whole. Whose who are not capable of participate (such as the mentally or physically handicapped, the very young and the very old, etc etc) will be provided for until such time that they can provide for themselves or they simply pass away. As for those having no desire to participate, it will depend. If they are just one person (or an extreme few) they will probably not be much of a concern to the society itself. There would generally be enough surplus to support these people. However, if these people are a relatively large group or if particular individuals begin to disrupt the system (by abusing it. Like say some guy constantly wrecking cars) then they'll either have to leave or begin to fend for themselves. And for the interests of keeping this whole thing on topic, I'll leave the whole communism bit alone. If the need be, a new topic can be started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts