I really don't know why you got the idea that I don't think government should be under democratic control. That certainly is not what I believe, and was not what I intended to express. If the phrase "allowed to keep" bothers you, then by all means, let's use the phrase "allowed to take". I don't think I read as much into them as you do. I was simply attempting to describe the problem in a neutral way, and certainly didn't intend to imply all the democratic elitist ideology you seem to have read into it.
That said, I don't really know that you've answered the question I was trying to pose. The issue that interests me here is your claim that people are "entitled" to their money. The problem I was trying to identify is that if people are entitled to all the money that they earn, then there would be no taxes and no government. Obviously, that doesn't seem like an acceptable position. It doesn't seem like we can realistically claim that people are entitled to all the money that they earn. The entitlement should be limited. So the question is, how should we as voting citizens, or how should our representatives in congress morally justify limiting an individual's entitlement to their income, and by what standard should we determine the percentage of their earnings to which they are entitled.
tax cuts for the rich
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Again, it's not a question of limiting the amount to which they are entitled, is a question of the people determining how much they are willing to give up. If the people got together and decided "let's end the income tax altogether, and go back to how it was prior to WWII", than that would mean they keep all their income (except for what the government collected in sales taxes), and that's how it would be. Nobody would then come along and say "but you aren't entitled to all that", and if they did, the correct response would be "says who? It's our money. We can keep it all if we want to. We have right to decide not to let the government have an income tax if that's what we want, and through our elected representatives, that's what we've decided to do. If we decide we are willing to give up some of that money in exchange for certain services from the government than we can do that. If we decide we are not willing to give up some of that money then we can do that too."
Now of course, this is not about to happen, but if it did, how would argue that the government, rather than the people, can decide what part of their income they are entitled to keep?
People are entitled to all of their money. We, collectively as a society got together and decided that it would be for the greater good to have a tax that would support a government and allow it to perform certain functions, just as we got together collectively as a society and decided it would be for the greater good to have laws that help maintain order in society. Now these decisions are taken on behalf of society as a whole, and individuals are not allowed simply to opt out (which is why you and I can't simply withold our tax money if we don't feel like paying it, or knock over a liquor store if we decide we want to - these decisions taken by society as a whole are binding on all its members). But the whole idea of our government is that the government only has the rights and powers we allow it to have. That includes the power of taxation. If we, collectively as a society, decided we would rather not have an income tax at all, and could live with a smaller government as a result then that's the way it would be, and there is no inherent right of government to buck that decision.
You are still looking at this from the point of view that there is some authority outside the will of the people that has the right to decide what it will allow them to keep. You are asking how we should determine what percentage of people's income to which they are entitled, when you should be asking how we will decide what percentage of our incomes we are willing to give up. The way you put it carries the presupposition that people are not entitled to all they earn, and that the government has some moral right not only to take it, but also to be the agency that determines how much it will take. The way I put it carries the presupposition that the government has no right to any of it, it merely has what we the people decide it is in our best interests to let it have. This, incidentally, is the principle upon which our country was founded, which seems to escape you.
Now of course, this is not about to happen, but if it did, how would argue that the government, rather than the people, can decide what part of their income they are entitled to keep?
People are entitled to all of their money. We, collectively as a society got together and decided that it would be for the greater good to have a tax that would support a government and allow it to perform certain functions, just as we got together collectively as a society and decided it would be for the greater good to have laws that help maintain order in society. Now these decisions are taken on behalf of society as a whole, and individuals are not allowed simply to opt out (which is why you and I can't simply withold our tax money if we don't feel like paying it, or knock over a liquor store if we decide we want to - these decisions taken by society as a whole are binding on all its members). But the whole idea of our government is that the government only has the rights and powers we allow it to have. That includes the power of taxation. If we, collectively as a society, decided we would rather not have an income tax at all, and could live with a smaller government as a result then that's the way it would be, and there is no inherent right of government to buck that decision.
You are still looking at this from the point of view that there is some authority outside the will of the people that has the right to decide what it will allow them to keep. You are asking how we should determine what percentage of people's income to which they are entitled, when you should be asking how we will decide what percentage of our incomes we are willing to give up. The way you put it carries the presupposition that people are not entitled to all they earn, and that the government has some moral right not only to take it, but also to be the agency that determines how much it will take. The way I put it carries the presupposition that the government has no right to any of it, it merely has what we the people decide it is in our best interests to let it have. This, incidentally, is the principle upon which our country was founded, which seems to escape you.
The 'P' man answered it pretty good, but I thought I'd throw a few thoughts in too.Vercingetorix wrote:I really don't know why you got the idea that I don't think government should be under democratic control. That certainly is not what I believe, and was not what I intended to express. If the phrase "allowed to keep" bothers you, then by all means, let's use the phrase "allowed to take". I don't think I read as much into them as you do. I was simply attempting to describe the problem in a neutral way, and certainly didn't intend to imply all the democratic elitist ideology you seem to have read into it.
That said, I don't really know that you've answered the question I was trying to pose. The issue that interests me here is your claim that people are "entitled" to their money. The problem I was trying to identify is that if people are entitled to all the money that they earn, then there would be no taxes and no government. Obviously, that doesn't seem like an acceptable position. It doesn't seem like we can realistically claim that people are entitled to all the money that they earn. The entitlement should be limited. So the question is, how should we as voting citizens, or how should our representatives in congress morally justify limiting an individual's entitlement to their income, and by what standard should we determine the percentage of their earnings to which they are entitled.
People are too complacent these days with the waste, fruad, and abuse of federal or even state tax dollars. Its only tax $. Fuck that, its OUR $. If they can't spend it properly, give it back and I'll spend it.
You see, that is the problem with some social programes (IMO) and it is a critical flaw. The goverment (or certain political ideologies) want the people to give up a chunk of cash and then they dole it back out to you as a program as they see fit. Instead, I'd rather have my own cash and dole it out to the goverment as I see fit. Health care comes to mind.
Bottom line, nobody is entitled to my money except for me. As a citizen, it is my responsibility to support my goverment by paying taxes, but in theory, I can manipulate how much taxes I donate with my vote. In fact, if you notice, durring an election year, tax cuts are popular with both major parties in the US. In off year elections, those who are up for election but are usualy against tax cuts tend to support them while their berthen who are not up for election are against them as usual.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
-
Next of Kin
- Rabid Monkey
- Posts: 2230
- Joined: 2002-07-20 06:49pm
- Location: too close to home
-
KrauserKrauser
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: 2002-12-15 01:49am
- Location: Richmond, VA
It's good to see there are some sane people on this thread lol.
I pay taxes. This is MY money. I EARNED it. It's not yours, it's mine.
I allow the government to take some of it for the provision of security, travel and other services that a government is better prepared to provide. They have no right to say that that money suddenly has become their money and forget the fact that I was the one that earned it. The day that the people claiming that someone else has a higher moral right to my money is the day I move out of this newly formed 'Atlas Shrugged' society.
Sure, increase taxes on the rich hell why not just take all their money, take control of their businesses and run them yourselves. Because God knows everyone has the skills and capabilities to found and run corporations. Oh that to harsh for you? Well your current statements are just incremental steps leading to that.
It's sad that the providers and producers of this country are guilted into thinking that working hard for their own gain is EVIL and horrible. It's these people that create jobs and products. Punishing them for hard work is not the answer.
I pay taxes. This is MY money. I EARNED it. It's not yours, it's mine.
I allow the government to take some of it for the provision of security, travel and other services that a government is better prepared to provide. They have no right to say that that money suddenly has become their money and forget the fact that I was the one that earned it. The day that the people claiming that someone else has a higher moral right to my money is the day I move out of this newly formed 'Atlas Shrugged' society.
Sure, increase taxes on the rich hell why not just take all their money, take control of their businesses and run them yourselves. Because God knows everyone has the skills and capabilities to found and run corporations. Oh that to harsh for you? Well your current statements are just incremental steps leading to that.
It's sad that the providers and producers of this country are guilted into thinking that working hard for their own gain is EVIL and horrible. It's these people that create jobs and products. Punishing them for hard work is not the answer.
VRWC : Justice League : SDN Weight Watchers : BOTM : Former AYVB
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
Amen BrotherKrauserKrauser wrote:It's good to see there are some sane people on this thread lol.
I pay taxes. This is MY money. I EARNED it. It's not yours, it's mine.
I allow the government to take some of it for the provision of security, travel and other services that a government is better prepared to provide. They have no right to say that that money suddenly has become their money and forget the fact that I was the one that earned it. The day that the people claiming that someone else has a higher moral right to my money is the day I move out of this newly formed 'Atlas Shrugged' society.
Sure, increase taxes on the rich hell why not just take all their money, take control of their businesses and run them yourselves. Because God knows everyone has the skills and capabilities to found and run corporations. Oh that to harsh for you? Well your current statements are just incremental steps leading to that.
It's sad that the providers and producers of this country are guilted into thinking that working hard for their own gain is EVIL and horrible. It's these people that create jobs and products. Punishing them for hard work is not the answer.
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
-
Vercingetorix
- Redshirt
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 2003-05-23 05:54pm
Come on now, Perinquus! You're still arguing against arguments that I'm not even making. Let me be very clear: I agree with you that soveriegnty should rest with the citizenry, and that they should play an active roll in shaping the course of the nation. I don't think that they should be dictated to by the government. To claim that that is what I'm arguing is a wild misrepresentation. You seem to be fixated on little semantic distinctions between phrases like "allowed to keep" and "allowed to take". I think the mistake you're making is confusing fairly neutral descriptions of tax law with claims about who should define tax law. For example, I could describe the tax laws that cover capital gains by saying, "the government is allowed to take 30% of capital gains", or I could describe it just as accurately by saying "citizens are allowed to keep 70% of capital gains", or, since the two descriptions are by no means mutually exclusive, I could combine them and say, "the government is allowed to take 30% of capital gains, and citizens are allowed to keep 70% of capital gains."
All of those descriptions are essentially the same, and none of them make any implication about whether the people or the government should have ultimate soveriegn authority. Saying "allowed to keep" no more implies that tax laws should be written by a benevolent dictator than saying "allowed to take" implies that they should be decided democratically. I could just as easily say "The people or their duly elected representatives have written tax laws that allow citizens to keep 70% of capital gains" as I could say "the benevolent oligarchs have written tax laws that allow the government to take 30% of capital gains." They are completely interchangable phrases.
Furthermore, when I ask what standard we should use to decide the level of taxation, or how we how it can be justified, I'm not claiming that government should impose anything on anyone. I'm simply interested in the nomative determinations that we can make as citizens to guide our political choices. So I hope we've laid this issue to rest. It's rather silly for you to argue against a position that I'm not even taking, especially when I agree with you that government has no authority besides what it derives from a soveriegn citizenry.
But now on to the more interesting questions. I think your claim that people are entitled to all of their income is interesting in that it really highlights the different possible interpretations of what it means to be entitled to something. I think your conception of entitlement is flawed because you confuse can with ought. What you seem to be arguing is that people are entitled to all of their income because they would be within their rights to vote to do away with taxes (or more acurately, to vote for representatives that would vote to do away with taxes). Now, I agree that people should be able to make such a vote if they wanted to. It's essential to political freedom that individuals be allowed to vote for whatever policies they wish. However, I think the mistake you make is assuming that just because people can vote to do away with taxes, they are entitled to do so. I suppose that since you take this view, it makes sense that you would automatically assume that the only way I could argue that entitlement is limited would be to argue that political freedom is limited, and consequently accuse me of being undemocratic. However, what I'm going to suggest is that entitlement is not limited by limits on political freedom, but by moral obligations that act on each individual voter.
To understand this moral obligation, think for a moment about the consequences that would result if governments disappeared. Civil society would be replaced by an Anarchic order that would know no law and no stability. Economies would collapse and notions of human rights and political freedoms would give way to rule of the strongest. These conditions would make it impossible for civilization as we know it to survive. Cutural and artistic endeavors, the accumulation of scientific knowlegde and the pursuit of happiness in general would all be frustrated by the utter lack of basic law and order. Clearly, the consequences for all of humanity would be dire, and current and future generations would suffer greatly. Now, I would argue that each citizen has the moral obligation not to take actions that would cause such suffering. I think we can safely say that if the consequences of an action are incredibly harmful to large numbers of people, then the action itself is immoral. So we can see that people are morally obliged to give at least part of their income to sustain a government in order to prevent a calamitous disintegration of human civilization. I think this moral obligation limits the extent to which people are entitled to their own income.
Finally, I feel I should reiterate that I'm not making some silly deontological argument that government has some sort of right to violate political freedoms. I'm making a consequentialist argument about moral obligations that act on each individual.
All of those descriptions are essentially the same, and none of them make any implication about whether the people or the government should have ultimate soveriegn authority. Saying "allowed to keep" no more implies that tax laws should be written by a benevolent dictator than saying "allowed to take" implies that they should be decided democratically. I could just as easily say "The people or their duly elected representatives have written tax laws that allow citizens to keep 70% of capital gains" as I could say "the benevolent oligarchs have written tax laws that allow the government to take 30% of capital gains." They are completely interchangable phrases.
Furthermore, when I ask what standard we should use to decide the level of taxation, or how we how it can be justified, I'm not claiming that government should impose anything on anyone. I'm simply interested in the nomative determinations that we can make as citizens to guide our political choices. So I hope we've laid this issue to rest. It's rather silly for you to argue against a position that I'm not even taking, especially when I agree with you that government has no authority besides what it derives from a soveriegn citizenry.
But now on to the more interesting questions. I think your claim that people are entitled to all of their income is interesting in that it really highlights the different possible interpretations of what it means to be entitled to something. I think your conception of entitlement is flawed because you confuse can with ought. What you seem to be arguing is that people are entitled to all of their income because they would be within their rights to vote to do away with taxes (or more acurately, to vote for representatives that would vote to do away with taxes). Now, I agree that people should be able to make such a vote if they wanted to. It's essential to political freedom that individuals be allowed to vote for whatever policies they wish. However, I think the mistake you make is assuming that just because people can vote to do away with taxes, they are entitled to do so. I suppose that since you take this view, it makes sense that you would automatically assume that the only way I could argue that entitlement is limited would be to argue that political freedom is limited, and consequently accuse me of being undemocratic. However, what I'm going to suggest is that entitlement is not limited by limits on political freedom, but by moral obligations that act on each individual voter.
To understand this moral obligation, think for a moment about the consequences that would result if governments disappeared. Civil society would be replaced by an Anarchic order that would know no law and no stability. Economies would collapse and notions of human rights and political freedoms would give way to rule of the strongest. These conditions would make it impossible for civilization as we know it to survive. Cutural and artistic endeavors, the accumulation of scientific knowlegde and the pursuit of happiness in general would all be frustrated by the utter lack of basic law and order. Clearly, the consequences for all of humanity would be dire, and current and future generations would suffer greatly. Now, I would argue that each citizen has the moral obligation not to take actions that would cause such suffering. I think we can safely say that if the consequences of an action are incredibly harmful to large numbers of people, then the action itself is immoral. So we can see that people are morally obliged to give at least part of their income to sustain a government in order to prevent a calamitous disintegration of human civilization. I think this moral obligation limits the extent to which people are entitled to their own income.
Finally, I feel I should reiterate that I'm not making some silly deontological argument that government has some sort of right to violate political freedoms. I'm making a consequentialist argument about moral obligations that act on each individual.
-
Xisiqomelir
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: 2003-01-16 09:27am
- Location: Valuetown
- Contact:
-
KrauserKrauser
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: 2002-12-15 01:49am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Hmmmmm after reading Vercingetorix's last post I can see where he is coming from.
Ok, I also believe that yes while I am entitled to my money, I willingly (lol sometimes unwillingly) give it to the government so that they can keep society running. This is an understood factor required to run a modern civilization. Some degree of taxation is going to be required in one form or another.
The semantics of allowed to take and allowed to keep, however are quite significant. If I say you are allowed to keep your income then I am saying I am personally allowing you to keep and if I wanted to could come and claim it without recourse. In a sense I am saying in actuality is my money, not yours and I am letting you keep some of it. If you are allowing me to take the money, then it is your money that I am using, I have no further cplaim to the rest as I am allowed only the amount you provided me. Semantics are not always the most relevants of factors but in this case, they do hold some power.
The original argument of this thread was whether or not tax cuts to the rich are bad. The morality of tax cuts targetting only specific brackets of income levels can be argued but if it is a equal cut to the percentage of income taken then where is the injustice. Some in this thread have stated that not everyone will benefit. Well in all honesty most people don't have to pay all the taxes that exist in the US. A significant percentage of teh population does not pay any income taxes and whiones when they don't see any money from a cut to the income tax rates. Well, if you didn't put any money into the pot at the start why should you get to take some now? If you pay taxes, you should gain the benfits of a tax cut. And the simple fact is that if you pay more taxes you will get more money back than another person paying less, that is not a bad thing, that is a simple mathematical fact.
Ok, I also believe that yes while I am entitled to my money, I willingly (lol sometimes unwillingly) give it to the government so that they can keep society running. This is an understood factor required to run a modern civilization. Some degree of taxation is going to be required in one form or another.
The semantics of allowed to take and allowed to keep, however are quite significant. If I say you are allowed to keep your income then I am saying I am personally allowing you to keep and if I wanted to could come and claim it without recourse. In a sense I am saying in actuality is my money, not yours and I am letting you keep some of it. If you are allowing me to take the money, then it is your money that I am using, I have no further cplaim to the rest as I am allowed only the amount you provided me. Semantics are not always the most relevants of factors but in this case, they do hold some power.
The original argument of this thread was whether or not tax cuts to the rich are bad. The morality of tax cuts targetting only specific brackets of income levels can be argued but if it is a equal cut to the percentage of income taken then where is the injustice. Some in this thread have stated that not everyone will benefit. Well in all honesty most people don't have to pay all the taxes that exist in the US. A significant percentage of teh population does not pay any income taxes and whiones when they don't see any money from a cut to the income tax rates. Well, if you didn't put any money into the pot at the start why should you get to take some now? If you pay taxes, you should gain the benfits of a tax cut. And the simple fact is that if you pay more taxes you will get more money back than another person paying less, that is not a bad thing, that is a simple mathematical fact.
VRWC : Justice League : SDN Weight Watchers : BOTM : Former AYVB
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
The Department of Education (not exactly a huge and vast department) misplaced 1 Billion (thats with a B) in fiscal year 01 (IIRC). The Big Dig in Boston?, is over budget by millions, EIC is given to people who live in Mexico yet keep a mailbox in TX or Ca. and cost millions if not more per year.Ted wrote:If the USN cut 1 CVBG, it would save over a billion dollars each year just from the carrier not being in service. A Nimitz costs $6 billion, plus $1 billion each year, add in the escorts, and you save a lot of money each year.
It's easy to say, 'cut a carrier' or 'slash a division', but the truth is that we have shit loads of cash in the federal coffers. Waste, fraud, and abuse sucks up a shit load. Trim the fucking buerucrates and keep the carrier or the uber division or what ever. The defense budget is only a small part of the total federal budget, yet seems to be on the top of the list of cuts. Thats dumb. Cut the fat, not the muscle.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
It's not just a matter of semantics; as Xisiqomelir said, it's a critical distinction, and it betrays the presuppositions of the person posing the question. I do see where you are coming from, but I think maybe you don't quite get what I'm saying. It's easy to get too hung up on semantics, but it's also easy to dismiss semantics, which is equally wrong. Words mean things, and we choose our words to convey certain meanings. Language is flexible enough that sometimes the way you say things can carry as much meaning as what you are actually saying. Politicians, for example, use this to their advantage all the time, especially since it often works at a subconscious level.
Let's take a look at one of your statements:
Ought doesn't even enter into it. When somebody is "entitled" to do something, that means they have a right to do it. Period. The question of whether or not it is wise is a completely separate issue. Now you can argue whether or not it would be wise for the American people to rescind the income tax altogether, but to say that they are somehow not entitled to do so means, in essence that they have no right to do it. Than can only be the case if you consider that their money is not theirs to do with as they will. I refuse to accept that position.
You go on along this line:
But I still don't accept your premise. Nothing limits the degree to which people are entitled to their income. They voluntarily agree to bear the burden of a tax to support government, but if they were to elect not to bear that burden then it is their right to make that choice. They may suffer for it, but that does not affect their right to make the decision.
What you are essentially arguing for, is some outside moral control or obligation, above the will of the people to enforce a standard of behavior on them that you think should exist, in defiance of what they might want if necessary. And this is an idea which is fundamentally undemocratic.
I don't know what frustrates, and frankly frightens me more, the fact that you are advocating such a thing, or the fact that you don't seem to realize how at odds such an idea is with the core principles on which this country was founded. You say that you certainly do not dispute that ultimate soverieignty should rest with the citizenry, and at the same time assert that there is a moral obligation which trumps their basic right to keep what they've earned by their own labor, and determine how the fruits of their labors will be used. You remind me of Jesuits in a way. They are highly educated, trained in logic and critical thinking, and you will find noted scholars in many fields among the Jesuits. Yet being religious men, there are all kinds of illogical and frankly irrational beliefs that they hold as core values. These intelligent, educated men are able somehow to reconcile these irrationalies with their usually logical beliefs and thus are able to believe things that are at odds with other things they also believe. In this same way, you propose fundamentally undemocratic ideas while at the same time professing to believe wholeheartedly in a democratic form of government.
(Steps up on soapbox for a moment) This is the thing about people on the left that differentiates them from people in the center and moderately right of center. Leftists (especially in America) will claim - perhaps even sincerely - to believe in democracy, all the while championing causes and policies that are fundamentally undemocratic. They do this because at bottom, they don't trust people. They don't trust people to be intelligent enough or enlightened enough to do the right thing, and deep down, they believe that there needs to be some kind of mechanism, control, or obligation to make people do the right thing that kicks in when all the ignorant Joe Sixpacks out there seem inclined to do something else. Liberals also often carry around the assumption that they're the ones who are intelligent and enlightened enough to nudge, cajole, or if necessary compel people to do the right thing. Well the problem I have with that whole philosophy is that sooner or later there arises a person, or group who makes a living out of knowing what's good for you better than you are supposed to know it yourself.
Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand tend to trust people to do the right thing at least most of the time, and when they don't... well, that's a shame, but no system is perfect, and in the greater scheme of things, it is better that people have the freedom to make mistakes than to impose controls from above.
Let's take a look at one of your statements:
Vercingetorix wrote: I think your conception of entitlement is flawed because you confuse can with ought.
Ought doesn't even enter into it. When somebody is "entitled" to do something, that means they have a right to do it. Period. The question of whether or not it is wise is a completely separate issue. Now you can argue whether or not it would be wise for the American people to rescind the income tax altogether, but to say that they are somehow not entitled to do so means, in essence that they have no right to do it. Than can only be the case if you consider that their money is not theirs to do with as they will. I refuse to accept that position.
You go on along this line:
Of course they are entitled to do so. If they are not entitled to do so it is no different from saying they have no right to do so. If people decide to do so than that is their right, and it is also their right to suffer the consequences should that prove to be a poor decision.Vercingetorix wrote: However, I think the mistake you make is assuming that just because people can vote to do away with taxes, they are entitled to do so.
This is a false dillema fallacy. You are asserting that the consequences of reducing or eliminating the tax burden would be the total breakdown of government, and a subsequent collapse of civilization, when it may only be a reduction in the size and scope of government. Remember, there was a time in history when our government existed with no income tax to support it.Vercingetorix wrote: Clearly, the consequences for all of humanity would be dire, and current and future generations would suffer greatly. Now, I would argue that each citizen has the moral obligation not to take actions that would cause such suffering. I think we can safely say that if the consequences of an action are incredibly harmful to large numbers of people, then the action itself is immoral. So we can see that people are morally obliged to give at least part of their income to sustain a government in order to prevent a calamitous disintegration of human civilization. I think this moral obligation limits the extent to which people are entitled to their own income.
But I still don't accept your premise. Nothing limits the degree to which people are entitled to their income. They voluntarily agree to bear the burden of a tax to support government, but if they were to elect not to bear that burden then it is their right to make that choice. They may suffer for it, but that does not affect their right to make the decision.
What you are essentially arguing for, is some outside moral control or obligation, above the will of the people to enforce a standard of behavior on them that you think should exist, in defiance of what they might want if necessary. And this is an idea which is fundamentally undemocratic.
I don't know what frustrates, and frankly frightens me more, the fact that you are advocating such a thing, or the fact that you don't seem to realize how at odds such an idea is with the core principles on which this country was founded. You say that you certainly do not dispute that ultimate soverieignty should rest with the citizenry, and at the same time assert that there is a moral obligation which trumps their basic right to keep what they've earned by their own labor, and determine how the fruits of their labors will be used. You remind me of Jesuits in a way. They are highly educated, trained in logic and critical thinking, and you will find noted scholars in many fields among the Jesuits. Yet being religious men, there are all kinds of illogical and frankly irrational beliefs that they hold as core values. These intelligent, educated men are able somehow to reconcile these irrationalies with their usually logical beliefs and thus are able to believe things that are at odds with other things they also believe. In this same way, you propose fundamentally undemocratic ideas while at the same time professing to believe wholeheartedly in a democratic form of government.
(Steps up on soapbox for a moment) This is the thing about people on the left that differentiates them from people in the center and moderately right of center. Leftists (especially in America) will claim - perhaps even sincerely - to believe in democracy, all the while championing causes and policies that are fundamentally undemocratic. They do this because at bottom, they don't trust people. They don't trust people to be intelligent enough or enlightened enough to do the right thing, and deep down, they believe that there needs to be some kind of mechanism, control, or obligation to make people do the right thing that kicks in when all the ignorant Joe Sixpacks out there seem inclined to do something else. Liberals also often carry around the assumption that they're the ones who are intelligent and enlightened enough to nudge, cajole, or if necessary compel people to do the right thing. Well the problem I have with that whole philosophy is that sooner or later there arises a person, or group who makes a living out of knowing what's good for you better than you are supposed to know it yourself.
Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand tend to trust people to do the right thing at least most of the time, and when they don't... well, that's a shame, but no system is perfect, and in the greater scheme of things, it is better that people have the freedom to make mistakes than to impose controls from above.
-
Vercingetorix
- Redshirt
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 2003-05-23 05:54pm
This is really the crux of your failure to understand what I'm saying. The political right to do something is completely seperate from any moral obligations we might have. I have the political right to go out on a street corner and spout bigoted opinions about blacks or jews or whoever, but I think we could all agree that it would be morally reprehensible for me to do so. Along the same lines, we have the political right to leagalize murder, but it would be morally reprehensible for us to do so. We have the political right to pass a contitutional amendment that requires that every the first child born to every mother must be offered up as a pagan sacrifice, but it would be moraly reprehensible for us to do so. All I'm saying is that we have the political right to vote to do away with taxes, but it would be morally reprehensible for us to do so. I'm not saying that the political right should be taken away or limited in any way, I'm just saying that it would be immoral for us to exercise it. The best way to think about this is to consider how you personally would feel if you were faced with deciding deciding how to vote on a bill that would eliminate all taxes. Would you personally feel a moral obligation to prevent the destruction of civilization? If the answer is yes, then I think we agree. If the answer is no, then you are a very strange individual.What you are essentially arguing for, is some outside moral control or obligation, above the will of the people to enforce a standard of behavior on them that you think should exist, in defiance of what they might want if necessary. And this is an idea which is fundamentally undemocratic.
Perhaps the government would be able to survive if only the income tax were eliminated, but in my example, I'm talking about the complete elimination of all taxes of every sort. Government cannot survive without revenue. It is not a false choice.This is a false dillema fallacy. You are asserting that the consequences of reducing or eliminating the tax burden would be the total breakdown of government, and a subsequent collapse of civilization, when it may only be a reduction in the size and scope of government. Remember, there was a time in history when our government existed with no income tax to support it.
Re: tax cuts for the rich
I think the following is appropriate for this thread:Enforcer Talen wrote:are they a bad thing?
My thanks to Scott A. Hodge, executive director of the Tax Foundation, for passing along this little story.
Suppose that every day, 10 men went out for dinner. The bill for all 10 came to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so they divided the bill like this:
The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the 10th man - the wealthiest - would pay $59.
One day the restaurant owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).
``Since you are all such good customers,'' he said, ``I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.''
Continuing To Eat For Free
The group still wanted to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How would they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ``fair share''?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.
So at the restaurant owner's suggestion, they arrived at this new distribution: The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. ``I only got a dollar out of the $20,'' declared the sixth man, then, pointing to the 10th. ``But he got $7!'' ``Yeah, that's right,'' exclaimed the fifth man. ``I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that the wealthy get all the breaks!''
``Wait a minute,'' yelled the first four men in unison. ``We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!''
The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late, what was very important. They were $52 short of paying the bill.
The lesson here is one that congressional opponents of President Bush's efforts to reduce income taxes well understand. But for political reasons they have chosen to engage in class warfare, deliberately misleading their constituents with speeches decrying administration tax policies that ``favor the rich.''
A Generally Unspoken Aspect
But if we are to cut taxes and thereby stimulate the economy (as Kennedy and Reagan so successfully did), we must cut the taxes of the people who pay taxes in the first place. And this year 35.8 million tax filers (representing 69.6 million people) will pay no federal income taxes at all. That's 26.7 percent of the 133 million tax returns the government expects will be filed in 2003.
Ironically had Congress adopted the president's original tax-reduction plan, millions of additional Americans would have been freed of any and all income tax liability.
Surely lower federal taxes are welcomed by the majority of people who pay taxes, but most of the solons on Capitol Hill opposing the Bush plan are catering to folks who, perhaps because of adversity, don't pay their way. They rate kindly concern, even as those who pay the freight deserve a break.
-
Wicked Pilot
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 8972
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
I would say that the best solution out there is to abolish the income taxes and simply have a national sales tax. The rich still pay the majority, but they choose how much they pay by their level of spending. The tax would be one flat rate for all goods and services with only few expections such as medicine and medical care. No more of this bullshit buy a yacht and get a tax deduction.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
I like that idea.Wicked Pilot wrote:I would say that the best solution out there is to abolish the income taxes and simply have a national sales tax. The rich still pay the majority, but they choose how much they pay by their level of spending. The tax would be one flat rate for all goods and services with only few expections such as medicine and medical care. No more of this bullshit buy a yacht and get a tax deduction.
I doubt it will happen, too much alarmism abot decreased consumption (never mind that people will likely buy more normal good with more disposable income).
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.