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.
I just can't find better words to use to say it, so I let his words say it for me.
A lot of people on the left insist that when society wants your paycheck, they have a moral right to take it. That "majority " makes things both right and moral, when it does not. That's why taxing to redistribute is theft. It's theft whether I take it at gunpoint and redistribute it, or the IRS takes it at gunpoint.
What would the effect be on "your paycheck" if the US stopped spending any money on naval assets? No more "soft guarantee" for the world's sea lanes. No more underpinning of the shipping routes that have made much of the modern economy possible. All of a sudden. It's gone. Heck; let's say we also sell off some weapons to various pirates and shoreside armed groups around the globe in order to raise quick cash and close the deficit a bit.
Your income would probably end up declining. Because the expenditure - financed out of your taxes - was actually an investment which made your accumulation of capital possible in the first place.
This is not the only case in which government spending ends up behaving like an investment in terms of the ability of citizens to accumulate and securely house capital.
Once you understand that one thing depends on the other, these questions of taxation and "distribution" become a lot more complicated.
What would the effect be on "your paycheck" if the US stopped spending any money on naval assets? No more "soft guarantee" for the world's sea lanes. No more underpinning of the shipping routes that have made much of the modern economy possible. All of a sudden. It's gone. Heck; let's say we also sell off some weapons to various pirates and shoreside armed groups around the globe in order to raise quick cash and close the deficit a bit.
Your income would probably end up declining. Because the expenditure - financed out of your taxes - was actually an investment which made your accumulation of capital possible in the first place.
This is not the only case in which government spending ends up behaving like an investment in terms of the ability of citizens to accumulate and securely house capital.
Once you understand that one thing depends on the other, these questions of taxation and "distribution" become a lot more complicated.
Not even slightly.
Weird... the image suddenly becomes unavailable, I'll see if I can fix it.
What would the effect be on "your paycheck" if the US stopped spending any money on naval assets? No more "soft guarantee" for the world's sea lanes. No more underpinning of the shipping routes that have made much of the modern economy possible. All of a sudden. It's gone. Heck; let's say we also sell off some weapons to various pirates and shoreside armed groups around the globe in order to raise quick cash and close the deficit a bit.
Your income would probably end up declining. Because the expenditure - financed out of your taxes - was actually an investment which made your accumulation of capital possible in the first place.
This is not the only case in which government spending ends up behaving like an investment in terms of the ability of citizens to accumulate and securely house capital.
Once you understand that one thing depends on the other, these questions of taxation and "distribution" become a lot more complicated.
This is not "redistribution".
"Redistribution" is to take money or property (same thing) from one person to give to another, simply because those in power think it should be done. It has nothing to do with legitimate functions of government, like courts, military, etc. Our federal and state governments only spend a small part of thier total tax burden on the "essential" and legitimate needs, the rest is taken simply to give to someone else they think should have it.
A lot of people on the left insist that when society wants your paycheck, they have a moral right to take it. That "majority " makes things both right and moral, when it does not. That's why taxing to redistribute is theft. It's theft whether I take it at gunpoint and redistribute it, or the IRS takes it at gunpoint.
It's immoral either way.
First, I do agree with you that just because something is legal it is not necessarily moral.
We see that millions of Americans regard abortion as immoral, yet it is legal. On the other hand, millions of American oppose that point of view and are pro-choice.
Heres my point: who decides what is moral? Religious leaders weigh on this topic, but we do not live in a theocracy and we have no state religion.
If you consider taxation as a form of theft, that is fine. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. But that is all it is: an opinion. If others believe that society - through it's institution of government - has a duty to protect it's citizens and lend a helping hand to the disabled, elderly and unemployed ... then that is an opinion as well. Just an opinion.
So we have two conflicting points of view ... what constitutes "morality?"
If folks who are anti-taxation gain enough support, then laws will be passed that will greatly diminish the services taxation pays for, and taxes will go down on the city, county, state, and federal levels.
It is my impression that the chief proponents of eliminating many government programs and significantly reducing the tax burden of all American citizens is the so-called Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. If this true, then the vision they have for America's future has not yet resonated with the majority of American voters. They have been losing the elections. In American politics, that is all that matters.
Do losing an election invalidate your point of view or make the other side more "moral" than you? No, of course not! No matter what happens many people will consider taxation an immoral theft of their money. They have a right to believe that. However, many more American citizens will have a different concept of morality and will want their country to be one that is reasonable and civilized and promotes domestic tranquility.
This debate has been going on since Hamilton versus Jefferson. It will not end soon.
I just can't find better words to use to say it, so I let his words say it for me.
A lot of people on the left insist that when society wants your paycheck, they have a moral right to take it. That "majority " makes things both right and moral, when it does not. That's why taxing to redistribute is theft. It's theft whether I take it at gunpoint and redistribute it, or the IRS takes it at gunpoint.
It's immoral either way.
I've never heard this argument before. Care to point out someone on the left who has made it? Any article from any liberal magazine will do.
"Redistribution" is to take money or property (same thing) from one person to give to another, simply because those in power think it should be done. It has nothing to do with legitimate functions of government, like courts, military, etc. Our federal and state governments only spend a small part of thier total tax burden on the "essential" and legitimate needs, the rest is taken simply to give to someone else they think should have it.
actually, paying for roads, courts, schools etc is redistribution. The majority of these things are paid for by higher tax earners. If you think the roads, courts, and schools in the ghetto are maintained by money only from the ghetto then you're dreaming.
If you consider taxation as a form of theft, that is fine. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. But that is all it is: an opinion. If others believe that society - through it's institution of government - has a duty to protect it's citizens and lend a helping hand to the disabled, elderly and unemployed ... then that is an opinion as well. Just an opinion.
No, it's not "just an opinion". I can demonstrate that taking what someone has is theft.
William's point is this: That just because government does it, or a majority votes for something, it's just as wrong as it ever was. You have not responded to that, other than to assert that might makes right.
Quote:
So we have two conflicting points of view ... what constitutes "morality?"
If folks who are anti-taxation gain enough support, then laws will be passed that will greatly diminish the services taxation pays for, and taxes will go down on the city, county, state, and federal levels.
This is totally unresponsive to the issue at hand.
Quote:
It is my impression that the chief proponents of eliminating many government programs and significantly reducing the tax burden of all American citizens is the so-called Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. If this true, then the vision they have for America's future has not yet resonated with the majority of American voters. They have been losing the elections. In American politics, that is all that matters.
Who "wins elections" does not change what's right and wrong.
Quote:
Do losing an election invalidate your point of view or make the other side more "moral" than you? No, of course not! No matter what happens many people will consider taxation an immoral theft of their money. They have a right to believe that. However, many more American citizens will have a different concept of morality and will want their country to be one that is reasonable and civilized and promotes domestic tranquility.
By commiting immoral acts of theft and violent confiscation?
Quote:
This debate has been going on since Hamilton versus Jefferson. It will not end soon.
Hardly. You're not debating, nor have you even addressed the question. I don't think you even understand what the question IS.
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.
