73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Openmind]

If that unequal treatment resulted in no harm then there is no need for regulations. But if it did result in harm then the existing laws protecting the rights of citizens would be sufficient and there would be no need for regulations.



Agreed. The gov needs to stop giving special advantages to everyone.


A congressmen should accept money from anyone he wants to who wants to support his campaign - what he should not do is return it with any favors.



Agreed. Again if we do not give special favors o one group then we cannot give special favors to any group.



Me too. That kind of special treatment hurts those who do not have a mortgage. It hurts people with a mortgage too in more insidious ways - they look at the last line on their tax return and see that they have paid very little in tax (this time) and that lures them into thinking that the high tax rate they were subjected to is OK.

There is NO high tax rate! Only tax badly spent on huge military spending, corporate welfare, and on our Congress "special treatment."

 

[PLC1]

There is NO high tax rate! Only tax badly spent on huge military spending, corporate welfare, and on our Congress "special treatment."

among other things, yes. I wonder how that "supercommittee" is doing? I heard on the radio yesterday that there were no less than 200 lobbyists flocking to it like flies to a dungheap. Disgusting.

 

[A0220R]

Is is more complex. But not that much more.

yes coercing people is always immoral - but gov does need to do it. That is why "the gov that governs the least governs best."

Well, we should qualify taxation by pointing out that taxes are not all paid unwillingly - in which case we would not be talking about coercion. Instead, it would be the people electing to pay the government for a service the people wish the government to provide. But in most cases you have a certain proportion of people paying willingly, and a proportion who pay because they will face unwanted repercussions if they refuse. In general, hence the title of this thread, it is a majority consenting to a certain degree of taxation, and a minority dissenting.
To continue the discussion we'd have to determine where the rights of a majority and the rights of a minority ought to respectively outweigh one-another; and whether that ought to be a pragmatic matter of utility, or an idealistic matter. In either case we have to define how to measure utility and how to assess morality - given the wide variety of quite well argued opinions on both subjects.

What we need is rules to limit how much that coercion is used so that it does not become intolerable. And sure enough we have such limits.

Intolerability is an awfully subjective and fickle measure to use in determining complex government legislation and policy. How should we measure it? To what degree of intolerability; inconvenience or something more substantial? Certainly, humans are able to tolerate quite a bit. Should it be emotionally intolerable or financially intolerable? Should it be morally intolerable? If so, whose moral code gets to form the litmus test?

A theory of taxation is that the gov needs to tax in order to operate? That is a reason why the const lists the things gov is authorized to do - so that we know what operations are to be supported with tax money. And when a program falls outside of the role of gov - why then that is exactly when taxation is not justified. Should the gov take money from everone's income and give it to a particular bank on Wall street? NO. That is clear as the nose on all of our faces. The gov does not need fat cats to be fatter in order to do its job - a job that in no way includes keeping fat cats rich. Neither does that job include keeping poor people from having one tv instead of two. Or in making sure that middle class people pay less in taxes due to mortgage interest.

Government shouldn't take personal income and give it, without good reason, to a particular bank on Wall Street because it is arbitrary and serves no purpose. Not because of some moral imperative.

The life blood theory of taxation says that taxes are the life blood of gov and without it the gov could not do its job. Therefore taxes must be levied.

But you will note that the purpose is for gov to do its job. We always must return the authorized role of gov. What is the job of gov? In this country the job of gov IS NOT to reduce the wealth gap or to feed the poor - that is the job of the citizens.

You are defending your theory by repeating it. The purpose of government is to do its job, certainly, but that doesn't help you if we hold a different conception of the role of government. Providing for the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty are fundamental functions of our government, and social programs, including both public education and redistributive taxation, are valid expressions of these prerogatives.

 

[A0220R]

So do you oppose the gov redistribution?

(I have not addressedd you much because, 1. I was not sure you would stick around and 2. I am worried that your posts are so long it will take me forever to get through them. Hopefully this will be a beginning of good exchanges.)

I'll probably appear and disappear as my studies dictate, but I absolutely hope to have some fun and productive discussions with you. I will try to work on my length. I like to try to address every point in a discussion, because it is easy (I have certainly been guilty of this at different times) to only address weaknesses in others' posts and ignore valid points. But, of course, that makes my responses at least twice as long as every response to me, and that gets out of hand pretty quickly.

I don't oppose government redistribution; though I don't necessarily endorse it, nor do I endorse any manner in which it may be carried out. And certainly, I would prefer societies ills be solved without government intervention.
In the quote you referenced, I had made a comment concerning the sentiment behind a famous Marx quote but had wanted to be clear that an endorsement of the sentiment behind the quote was not an endorsement of marxism.
I share certain views with marxists, but I share certain views with conservatives as well (though not many with neoliberals), especially when it comes to cultural issues - but all my views derive from my own independent belief set, so although they may converge at times with other ideologies, you shouldn't assume that they will hold across the board.

Why cannot taxation be both immoral, because it is coercive, and necessary because gov cannot operate without it?

I addressed this in my other response to you, so I won't be redundant, except to say that taxation isn't inherently coercive - it is only coercive when it forces individuals to act against their will. While many give taxes begrudgingly, they accept the premise behind taxation and willfully stifle their reluctance. Coercion only applies for individuals who only contribute because of tax laws. There are both types in this country, which makes the issue more complex.

Taxations to accomplish things that are not within the scope of gov would be immoral but not have the redeeming trait of being used only for the operation of the gov.

Arbitrary taxation and taxation without representation in some form may certainly be considered immoral, as it was when Jefferson signed the declaration, but the scope of government may be very broad depending on your interpretation of the constitution or normative beliefs on the matter.

It certainly could be true that some taxation has redeeming value but that other supports of the collective do not have any redeeming value at all. How would we know when to support one tax but not another? We would read the rule book.

It certainly could be true. It depends on what you consider to be 'redeeming'.

Two men go into a field. Each wants the last apple on the tree. One, with no malice gets there first and his need is satisfied. He has not harmed the other while the other is clearly hungry. Now if he had obstructed the other guy in order to get that apple he would have harmed the other guy. Just being wiser or faster or more diligent or more talented or just lucky, is not harm.

HOw do we know when a persons rights have been violated? We could consult the rule book and have judges help us decide.

Unfortunately, we have no rule book - or rather, we have too many conflicting rule books. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't still be having this debate that has been going on since at least 300 BC.
Your analogy is accurate insofar as it represents a generally accepted view on fairness in a constrained context. However, if they both came upon the tree at the same time, and one man had been born two feet shorter than the other (and thus could not reach the apple) it would certainly seem immoral for the taller man to grab the apple and not give his dwarf friend a more-or-less equal share.

Neither of our analogies represent the reality of inequality in America and the dearth of opportunity. My point is simply to show you that the morality of the situation changes when you alter any variable. And in the inequality debate, there are many variables. So it can't really be simplified into an anecdote or metaphor.

 

[Dr.Who]

There is NO high tax rate! Only tax badly spent on huge military spending, corporate welfare, and on our Congress "special treatment."

Separating the tax rates from the misuse of funds I would have to say that there are several rates that are too high.

The rates we have are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. Each one of those is too high for the people paying them. Too high because the gov does not need that much moolah and too high because it is a burden for each payer. Thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Openmind]

Separating the tax rates from the misuse of funds I would have to say that there are several rates that are too high.

The rates we have are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. Each one of those is too high for the people paying them. Too high because the gov does not need that much moolah and too high because it is a burden for each payer. Thats my opinion anyway.

So we'll have to disagree on this!

I certainly do not think that 35 % on income above $350,000 is too high. . .but I would be fine with leaving it there, IF a additional rate is added (like 45%) for income ABOVE $2 million. AND if all tax loop holes were cancelled.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, we should qualify taxation by pointing out that taxes are not all paid unwillingly - in which case we would not be talking about coercion. Instead, it would be the people electing to pay the government for a service the people wish the government to provide.

You are right that when people pay willingly it is not coercive. lets try to make taxes that people would be willing to pay. For example when taxes go into a huge slush fund that gets abused that makes people less willing, but when a tax is for a particular constitutional purpose and only for that purpose then people become more willing.

Though the fact that some are willing does in no way change the fact the gov can always resort to force to collect. The intent of my original statement is that there need to be limits on what kinds of force can be used when and why. The const does a pretty good job of saying what the money can be used for though too many times that is just ignored.

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
What we need is rules to limit how much that coercion is used so that it does not become intolerable. And sure enough we have such limits.

Intolerability is an awfully subjective and fickle measure to use in determining complex government legislation and policy. How should we measure it? To what degree of intolerability; inconvenience or something more substantial? Certainly, humans are able to tolerate quite a bit. Should it be emotionally intolerable or financially intolerable? Should it be morally intolerable? If so, whose moral code gets to form the litmus test?

Your great learning has driven you mad. (funny and not insulting if you know the history of that statement) No need to focus on the one word that can be debated when there were so many others that could be discussed.

It does not matter if we can define intolerable or not or if we can even agree. As I said: we have rules that already define what the gov can do. We just need to follow those.

 

[Openmind]

You are right that when people pay willingly it is not coercive. lets try to make taxes that people would be willing to pay. For example when taxes go into a huge slush fund that gets abused that makes people less willing, but when a tax is for a particular constitutional purpose and only for that purpose then people become more willing.

Though the fact that some are willing does in no way change the fact the gov can always resort to force to collect. The intent of my original statement is that there need to be limits on what kinds of force can be used when and why. The const does a pretty good job of saying what the money can be used for though too many times that is just ignored.

Do you think that, when you go to a theatre to watch a movie, you are being COERCED in purchasing a ticket?

Do you think that, when you enter a toll road you are being coerced into paying the toll fee?

Well, living in this country, crossing the bridges (if they don't fall down!), hiring workers who have been educated (at their expenses and at the tax payers expenses through subsidies for higher education) in State College or Stat University does have a price tag: TAXES.

By living here. . .you agree not only to respect the freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms (whether you like it or not!), but also to participate in the development and maintenance of infrastructure, education, and the care of the disenfranchise.

Another solution is to leave the country, and move to a country that doesn't require you to pay tax, but lets you enjoy relatively good infrastructure, educaion, and safety net for your old age. . .

Problem is. . .I'm not sure WHERE that country is hiding! And whether or not they would ALLOW you to live there tax free!

 

[Dr.Who]

Government shouldn't take personal income and give it, without good reason, to a particular bank on Wall Street because it is arbitrary and serves no purpose. Not because of some moral imperative.

I believe that is exactly what I said. In addition to that I would add that it is also immoral when gov does that. We cant very well make laws that say congress cannot tax in immoral ways but what we can do is persuade each other of various positions by appealing to each others sense of morality.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are defending your theory by repeating it. The purpose of government is to do its job, certainly, but that doesn't help you if we hold a different conception of the role of government. Providing for the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty are fundamental functions of our government, and social programs, including both public education and redistributive taxation, are valid expressions of these prerogatives.

The role of gov is well defined even if we disagree on some points. The biggest problem is that too many simply ignore the rule book.

Sometimes people have genuine differences of interpretation but with debate we can work some of those out. For example the general welfare clause is a minor statement meant to reassert previous powers that were well spelled out. It was never meant to give congress the power to do any and all things that it deemed to be for the general welfare - that would not be a limited gov which is what we were given. It would be an unlimited one. Additionally today it is used for programs that are neither general nor a matter of benefit. Kind of silly to justify programs as being for the general welfare when in fact they are for specific special favors.

And no, social programs are not valid expressions of the purpose of our gov as spelled out. But feel free to start a thread on any one social program and we can debate if it is constitutional or not. Lets do public aid.

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't oppose government redistribution; though I don't necessarily endorse it, nor do I endorse any manner in which it may be carried out.

Apparently you don't oppose it because you think it is within the scope and role of gov.

So where in the const is it either given as a role of gov or prohibited? I can find no constitutional authority for it but can in fact find constitutional prohibitions.

 

[PLC1]

You are right that when people pay willingly it is not coercive. lets try to make taxes that people would be willing to pay. For example when taxes go into a huge slush fund that gets abused that makes people less willing, but when a tax is for a particular constitutional purpose and only for that purpose then people become more willing.

Though the fact that some are willing does in no way change the fact the gov can always resort to force to collect. The intent of my original statement is that there need to be limits on what kinds of force can be used when and why. The const does a pretty good job of saying what the money can be used for though too many times that is just ignored.

What tax is collected only for a particular purpose, constitutional or not? Doesn't it all go to a giant "slush fund" referred to as the "general fund"?

 

[Openmind]

Apparently you don't oppose it because you think it is within the scope and role of gov.

So where in the const is it either given as a role of gov or prohibited? I can find no constitutional authority for it but can in fact find constitutional prohibitions.

Exactly. . .nothing for or against it.

So. . .I guess our wise founders left that piece of information for us to figure out based on LOGICS and NEEDS.

And, when the redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is as evident as it has been for the last 10 years. . .it seems that, unless the government intervenes, the trend will continue and create an even greater income inequality. ..which is not good for anyone.

 

[Dr.Who]

Arbitrary taxation and taxation without representation in some form may certainly be considered immoral, as it was when Jefferson signed the declaration, but the scope of government may be very broad depending on your interpretation of the constitution or normative beliefs on the matter.

r.

If taxation cannot be considered immoral when it is coercive because it is not always coersive then certainly it cannot be considered immoral when it is arbitrary or without representation because at time it is indeed not arbitrary and not without representation.

But none of those are logical.

It is immoral because it is basically coersive even though it is often complied with willingly, it is immoral for being arbitrary even though often it is not arbitrary, and it is immoral for being non-representative even though more times than not it is representative.

The thing to do here is not to try to claim it is moral but to eliminate the coercive, abitrary and non-representative aspects.