Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When real estate here was skyrocketing a few years ago a lot of people got into buying houses to use as rentals. We're talking about double digit (20%+) yearly increases. MD does not shelter rental properties as Homestead exemptions so those increased assessments went right to the property taxes.
Funny thing happened, the market rents wouldn't cover the increased cost of the property purchases. Then the bottom fell out so all these very smart investors who had told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I warned them about a contraction coming are now all upside down. And the rents still don't cover their payments.
Having a balance between logic and compassion: One concept that comes to mind is ....
Yet that roaming off onto a tangent does nothing more than a deflection away from the very direct moral challenge I presented to you.
Quote:
The way to refute my comment, therefore, would be to outline all that which you believe in terms of fostering and furthering the connectedness between you and all people, rather than just those you want to care about; to outline how what you're saying (i.e., the nonsense about taxation being society "taking" your money) fits into concepts of connectedness with all people; how that comment demonstrates your respect and caring for them rather than just for you and what's yours; how it fits with the concept of avoiding self-centeredness; how it exhibits compassion; and most of all, how it fits with the idea of the Golden Rule - how refusing to acknowledge the critical, positive value of taxation supporting society's efforts to exhibit basic human decency to its most vulnerable members is a perspective that a reasonable person would prefer society hold to, if that person had no money to tax. That's the biggest part of your challenge - showing how the self-centeredness of opposing society fulfilling its obligations to its most vulnerable members isn't self-centeredness. If you find the challenge to be insurmountable, then that should help you understand that the perspective you prefer does indeed happen to be an antisocial one.
Answer the charge directly. Explain precisely how the nonsense about taxation being society "taking" your money exhibits conscientiousness toward society; explain how it abides the Golden Rule.
Or don't. The reality is that I didn't write what I wrote without a reasonable amount of assurance that my characterizations of the perspective you were expressing as antisocial. It is, even though it might ruin the narrative you were trying to craft around the rationalizations you preferred for your perspectives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I read over your response again and I believe I covered everything, but I apologize if I missed something.
I'm sure you read my response, but I'm also sure you know you didn't cover anything. You deflected onto a tangent. If you cannot admit at least that much, then we have no common basis on which to carry on a discussion about it.
Perspectives that are exclusively "logic"-based, such as those you've outlined, rather than reflecting a balance between "logic" and compassion for others, don't necessarily conflict with some of that. However, to understand what I've been saying to you, you should focus on the universal aspects of morality underlying the words "avoid selfishness or self-centeredness", and "recognize the connectedness between all people", and "to serve humankind", and "to be caring, respectful, compassionate, tolerant, and forgiving of others..."
I don't think logic isn't compassionate. I would go so far as to say that any logic which isn't compassionate isn't actually logic at all. Logic, at least when it comes to humanity, must always be rooted in "human reason". And humans by their nature are compassionate.
With that said, I hate people declaring that we need to do something for some supposed compassionate reason in which they have no clear principle. The problem with having an absence of principle, is that solutions tend to be completely arbitrary. Arbitrary solutions have a tendency to be wasteful, abusive, and ineffective. People of all political persuasions should always try to base any proposal on a principled ground.
I want to say, I'm actually a huge fan of "natural rights". The principle I tend to work off, are the principles of human nature itself. I think it is dangerous and unhealthy to try to create any society based on rules which stand in opposition to human reason.
Thus I must say, any system of taxation or government which actually disadvantages those who are less advantaged to begin with, is a system which cannot stand to human reason. The current system of property taxation puts an unfair burden on rental property in the name of "punishing wealthy landlords". But unlike many believe, the taxes on rental property are never paid for by the landlords, they are paid for by the tenants through higher rents. And since rental property tends to be inhabited by people from the lower income ranges. The current system of property taxation is most certainly a system of regressive-taxation.
If we also consider that property values have absolutely no direct correlation with either a persons wealth, nor a persons income. You will see how the end result, is that property taxes are actually a system of regressive-taxation practically "across the board".
Basically, just because I make 10 times as much as you every year, doesn't mean my home will be worth 10 times more than yours. In truth, the higher your income, usually the smaller the ratio of income to home value. For instance, here in Oklahoma, people with incomes of $20k a year tend to live in houses worth about $60k. But people with incomes of $100k a year tend to live in homes only worth about $200k or less. And as your income goes up, the ratio of income to housing tends to go down. For instance, Warren Buffett made $63 million last year. But his house is only worth around $700k. Which means as a percentage of his income, Warren Buffett paid about 1/270th as much in property taxes as the average renter making $20k a year.
The original "principle" behind the property tax was that 200 years ago, property was wealth. Thus, a property tax was really a "wealth tax". But since these days, most wealth is in the form of stocks and bonds. The property tax at best is a really terrible "user-fee" system for local services. And at worst, is the most evil, repressive, and counterproductive tax in the country. Whose only recognizable virtue is to force people to earn hundreds or thousands a year in the market to pay the tax man, or be forced out onto the street.
Yet that roaming off onto a tangent does nothing more than a deflection away from the very direct moral challenge I presented to you.Answer the charge directly. Explain precisely how the nonsense about taxation being society "taking" your money exhibits conscientiousness toward society; explain how it abides the Golden Rule.
Or don't. The reality is that I didn't write what I wrote without a reasonable amount of assurance that my characterizations of the perspective you were expressing as antisocial. It is, even though it might ruin the narrative you were trying to craft around the rationalizations you preferred for your perspectives.
I'm sure you read my response, but I'm also sure you know you didn't cover anything. You deflected onto a tangent. If you cannot admit at least that much, then we have no common basis on which to carry on a discussion about it.
First, how is taxation NOT other people taking your money? You alone earn your money, it is 100% your property, and others come along and claim a right to a certain percentage of it. If you refuse to acknowledge their "right" to your property, they will use force. That is theft. I'd like to hear your justification for that.
Onto the main question...you want me to explain how my belief that taxation is theft abides by the golden rule? I guess I would just say that I don't want others stealing my property, and I don't want to steal anyone else's property.
First, how is taxation NOT other people taking your money?
People don't tax. Society taxes, through its government, and what it taxes is the economic activity that society fosters and generates through its good offices, from which the taxpayer benefits. You are part of society - a member. And the tax itself was never yours. Until you accept those things you'll wallow in ignorance about what I've been saying to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Onto the main question...you want me to explain how my belief that taxation is theft abides by the golden rule? I guess I would just say that I don't want others stealing my property, and I don't want to steal anyone else's property.
I shouldn't be surprised that you failed to consider the impact of your perspective on yourself as the other person (a fundamental aspect of considering the Golden Rule), and instead you just fixated on thinking of yourself.
People don't tax. Society taxes, through its government, and what it taxes is the economic activity that society fosters and generates through its good offices, from which the taxpayer benefits. You are part of society - a member. And the tax itself was never yours. Until you accept those things you'll wallow in ignorance about what I've been saying to you.
I shouldn't be surprised that you failed to consider the impact of your perspective on yourself as the other person (a fundamental aspect of considering the Golden Rule), and instead you just fixated on thinking of yourself.
Should the bold be taken to mean that a person's money is not really his until taxes, at whatever level of government and assessment, have been paid? If so, that's a very unfortunate interpretation since the extended theory dictates that a tax rate which can be set anywhere from 0% to 100% without any oversight or logic.
Should the bold be taken to mean that a person's money is not really his until taxes, at whatever level of government and assessment, have been paid?
If you cannot come to grips with the reality, then you can think of it as rent for your space on the conceptual Main Street of the labor marketplace. Just find a way to abandon the ridiculously self-centered refusal to acknowledge civic responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
If so, that's a very unfortunate interpretation since the extended theory dictates that a tax rate which can be set anywhere from 0% to 100% without any oversight or logic.
No it doesn't. You're just trying to rationalize an antisocial perspective you prefer.
If you cannot come to grips with the reality, then you can think of it as rent for your space on the conceptual Main Street of the labor marketplace.
Why does your "reality" dictate that some people have to be the government's slaves for nearly 1/4 of the year, while others who have access to the exact same opportunities but don't utilize them effectively (to the detriment of society, no less) don't have to be the government's slaves at all? Case in point: federal income tax.
People don't tax. Society taxes, through its government, and what it taxes is the economic activity that society fosters and generates through its good offices, from which the taxpayer benefits. You are part of society - a member. And the tax itself was never yours. Until you accept those things you'll wallow in ignorance about what I've been saying to you.
Nobody should accept those things, because they are absolutely immoral. You hide behind a self-described mantle of goodness and compassion, while in reality promoting jackbooted dictatorship. You use the exact same rhetoric that authoritarian thugs have used for decades to justify their disregard for human rights.
The sublimation of individual human freedom to the good of the collective has been the driving force of countless amounts of misery and death from China's Cultural Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia to the forced labor camps of Stalin.
Quote:
I shouldn't be surprised that you failed to consider the impact of your perspective on yourself as the other person (a fundamental aspect of considering the Golden Rule), and instead you just fixated on thinking of yourself.
The golden rule is to treat others as you would have others treat you. The philosophy you espouse on this forum bears no discernable relationship to that whatsoever.
Nobody should accept those things, because they are absolutely immoral. You hide behind a self-described mantle of goodness and compassion, while in reality promoting jackbooted dictatorship.
It's worse than that. He's advocating selective slavery.
Quote:
The sublimation of individual human freedom to the good of the collective has been the driving force of countless amounts of misery and death from China's Cultural Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia to the forced labor camps of Stalin.
Exactly, but he and others like him don't understand that because they have so little knowledge of history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
