2 ms·

"The modern employment social contract is in no way, shape or form anything like actual slavery, to call it such is to misrepresent both employment and slavery.

"The modern employment social contract is in no way, shape or form anything like actual slavery, to call it such is to misrepresent both employment and slavery." I'm in complete agreement with you, until you introduce compulsory taxation. That is morally equivalent to slavery: your time is being literally taken from you by others, for their own reasons. Sure, it might also buy you healthcare and so forth, but the same argument could be made in defense of historical slavery too.

vinceguidry 11y ago
> your time is being literally taken from you by others, for their own reasons. That is not slavery, it's not even close to slavery. And it is not your time being taken away from you, it's your money. One can figure out how to earn money less onerously, then taxation becomes less onerous. Arguments that modern institutions are basically slavery cannot simply boil down to "the lives of poor people suck". That's always been true, your argument is so general it's meaningless. States have always survived on institutionalized violence towards its citizens. The question is not of whether, but of what kind. There is no way around violence, we can only try to get by with less of it. Taxation is much, much, much less onerous these days than slavery was. In fact, Taxation, in the agrarian empires of antiquity, was one step removed from slavery. Ancient peoples had to be coerced to produce an agricultural surplus. It was basically like the mob. Produce as much as you can and give us 95% of it and we'll protect you from other bands of marauding barbarians. You wanted the people you gave that surplus to to be well-organized and powerful, because that had knock-on benefits. It was better than slavery because your masters only showed up during harvest. They didn't take your kids and trade them away for a profit. They didn't kill you if you couldn't make quota, otherwise who would work the farm. Slowly things like social contracts and human rights evolved. Taxation became less onerous.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  "And it is not your time being taken away from you, it's your money." Do you not see the connection between those things, especially in the case of income tax? And especially in the case of progressive taxation, which punishes people in proportion to their productive virtue?
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    You're not understanding these things in their proper historical context. We have to have a state, the state has to get funded somehow. The question is how. Progressive taxation is the product of tens of thousands of years of civic development, a process that started with gangs of armed men raiding your farm taking whatever the hell they wanted. Yes there is a connection between time and money. But they are not the same. A person can, throughout their life, learn how to trade less of their time for more money. That makes taxation far less of a burden than slavery. The two are not equatable in the slightest. And progressive taxation does not tax innovation and growth as much as you might think it does. In the United States, it is often thought that getting "bumped into another tax bracket" has you paying a larger percentage of your income as taxes in very non-smooth way. But it is smooth, you only pay a greater percentage of money you make in excess of the 'dividing line'. This year, the cutoff between 15% and 25% is $37,450. If you make $37,451, then you do not pay 25% of $37,451. You pay an amount somewhat less than 15% of $37,450, (to account for the lower tax brackets) plus 25% of one dollar. You keep less of your earned income, but there is never a disincentive to keep improving and growing. Compared to alternative ways of funding the state, progressive income tax regimes have proven their worth in many countries. The US is the most economically powerful nation on Earth, so if a progressive taxation regime is bad, it must not be that bad.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      "A person can, throughout their life, learn how to trade less of their time for more money. That makes taxation far less of a burden than slavery." I keep reading this as "there's this field of cotton you need to pick; if you get done early, have some time off." I'll grant you that progressive taxation in the context of an objective tax law is significantly better than roving bands of armed thugs. But that's not a very high bar; surely we can do better from a moral perspective?
      - vinceguidry 11y ago
        > I keep reading this as "there's this field of cotton you need to pick; if you get done early, have some time off." You shouldn't. It's more like, "Here's a field of cotton you could pick, if you want to, we'll give you these pieces of paper with which you can buy whatever you want. Don't want to pick cotton but still want money? Here's a cotton-picking machine you could learn how to use, we'll pay you twice as much if you can figure it out. Your moral argument seems to boil down to "give me what I want for free or I'm going to call you an enslaving bastard."

vinceguidry 11y ago

> your time is being literally taken from you by others, for their own reasons. That is not slavery, it's not even close to slavery. And it is not your time being taken away from you, it's your money. One can figure out how to earn money less onerously, then taxation becomes less onerous. Arguments that modern institutions are basically slavery cannot simply boil down to "the lives of poor people suck". That's always been true, your argument is so general it's meaningless. States have always survived on institutionalized violence towards its citizens. The question is not of whether, but of what kind. There is no way around violence, we can only try to get by with less of it. Taxation is much, much, much less onerous these days than slavery was. In fact, Taxation, in the agrarian empires of antiquity, was one step removed from slavery. Ancient peoples had to be coerced to produce an agricultural surplus. It was basically like the mob. Produce as much as you can and give us 95% of it and we'll protect you from other bands of marauding barbarians. You wanted the people you gave that surplus to to be well-organized and powerful, because that had knock-on benefits. It was better than slavery because your masters only showed up during harvest. They didn't take your kids and trade them away for a profit. They didn't kill you if you couldn't make quota, otherwise who would work the farm. Slowly things like social contracts and human rights evolved. Taxation became less onerous.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
"And it is not your time being taken away from you, it's your money." Do you not see the connection between those things, especially in the case of income tax? And especially in the case of progressive taxation, which punishes people in proportion to their productive virtue?
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  You're not understanding these things in their proper historical context. We have to have a state, the state has to get funded somehow. The question is how. Progressive taxation is the product of tens of thousands of years of civic development, a process that started with gangs of armed men raiding your farm taking whatever the hell they wanted. Yes there is a connection between time and money. But they are not the same. A person can, throughout their life, learn how to trade less of their time for more money. That makes taxation far less of a burden than slavery. The two are not equatable in the slightest. And progressive taxation does not tax innovation and growth as much as you might think it does. In the United States, it is often thought that getting "bumped into another tax bracket" has you paying a larger percentage of your income as taxes in very non-smooth way. But it is smooth, you only pay a greater percentage of money you make in excess of the 'dividing line'. This year, the cutoff between 15% and 25% is $37,450. If you make $37,451, then you do not pay 25% of $37,451. You pay an amount somewhat less than 15% of $37,450, (to account for the lower tax brackets) plus 25% of one dollar. You keep less of your earned income, but there is never a disincentive to keep improving and growing. Compared to alternative ways of funding the state, progressive income tax regimes have proven their worth in many countries. The US is the most economically powerful nation on Earth, so if a progressive taxation regime is bad, it must not be that bad.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    "A person can, throughout their life, learn how to trade less of their time for more money. That makes taxation far less of a burden than slavery." I keep reading this as "there's this field of cotton you need to pick; if you get done early, have some time off." I'll grant you that progressive taxation in the context of an objective tax law is significantly better than roving bands of armed thugs. But that's not a very high bar; surely we can do better from a moral perspective?
    - vinceguidry 11y ago
      > I keep reading this as "there's this field of cotton you need to pick; if you get done early, have some time off." You shouldn't. It's more like, "Here's a field of cotton you could pick, if you want to, we'll give you these pieces of paper with which you can buy whatever you want. Don't want to pick cotton but still want money? Here's a cotton-picking machine you could learn how to use, we'll pay you twice as much if you can figure it out. Your moral argument seems to boil down to "give me what I want for free or I'm going to call you an enslaving bastard."