3 ms·

Hey Thomas, I've been thinking about something philosophically for a while, and you're one of my favorite posters on the site and we agree on a heck of a lot o

Hey Thomas, I've been thinking about something philosophically for a while, and you're one of my favorite posters on the site and we agree on a heck of a lot of stuff, but we've got split opinions on taxation. Would it be alright to ask some kind of difficult questions philosophically on the matter? I want to understand what you think. These aren't easy questions: Would you willingly pay your taxes if you believed the money was going to an illegitimate government that is doing bad and destructive things with it? There's an easy answer to that that kind of avoids the question, which is, "Regardless of my personal feelings, governments can, will, and should go after people who try not to pay." And okay, sure, that's reality, I'm looking more philosophically. Going a little bit further, do you think it makes a difference whether the government is a democracy, as opposed to, say, a totalitarian state or a theocracy? And final question - what if you're in a democracy, but the people have been mis-educated as to what's actually happening by the official government? For instance, imagine North Korea switched to an actual, real, voting democracy tomorrow, no secret police, no Dear Leader any more. But they've still gotten mis-educated and brainwashed for all their formative years. Is their will morally binding on each other for setting state policy? Is it morally binding on you, no matter what, even if you disagree with it? I guess these are hard questions. I've thought about them. I've got my answers and am happy to share, and happy to answer hard questions in turn if you like. I think this could be a good discussion because you're bright and I respect you a hell of a lot and would like to hear what you think on this - our feelings on the matter seem to be far apart, and I'm kind of curious to figure out where our beliefs start diverging to get to the end conclusions. -Sebastian

tptacek 16y ago
I think the general principal in play here is fairness. I think fairness is orthogonal to the government's use of proceeds. If my best developer has to pay more taxes than me, simply by nature of not owning a portion of the company large enough to funnel her wages through, that situation seems prima facie unfair. The unfortunate fact is, that same unfairness is usually going to be compounded: my ownership of the company that developer works for probably means I'm not only paying relatively lower taxes, but also making more money. That's regressive. Regressive taxes are evil regardless of whether you think progressive taxes are good. Finally, I actually don't think the use of proceeds issue makes this a harder call. Forget totalitarian states for a second, and just think about Social Security. A rationale for not paying taxes is that they'll go to fund a sham Social Security system. But if Social Security is a sham, it's wrong that anybody should have to pay into it. Moreover, as long as most people are on the hook for it, shielding yourself (and the class of people like you) from its obligations is actually counterproductive. The more people (and the more influential the people) affected by FICA, the more pressure there will be to change that system to reflect the will of its stakeholders.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > A rationale for not paying taxes is that they'll go to fund a sham Social Security system. But if Social Security is a sham, it's wrong that anybody should have to pay into it. Moreover, as long as most people are on the hook for it, shielding yourself (and the class of people like you) from its obligations is actually counterproductive. The more people (and the more influential the people) affected by FICA, the more pressure there will be to change that system to reflect the will of its stakeholders. That's actually a very intelligent argument. For the record, I do pay my taxes and I'm not particularly creative or aggressive about it - but I do it with roughly the same feeling I give my wallet to a mugger if he's got a knife. The alternative argument is, "If something is bad, less of it is always good." Like, in a place that arrests people for free speech, should every free speaking person turn themselves in? But your position also makes sense as well, seems to be thought out, and part of a coherent worldview. I disagree, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cheers.
  - joelhaus 16y ago
    If something is bad, less of it is always good. The problem with this statement is that very few "things" are either all good or all bad. P.S. You both make good points and it's encouraging to see thoughtful discussions like this on what can be very divisive issues, so thanks.

tptacek 16y ago

I think the general principal in play here is fairness. I think fairness is orthogonal to the government's use of proceeds. If my best developer has to pay more taxes than me, simply by nature of not owning a portion of the company large enough to funnel her wages through, that situation seems prima facie unfair. The unfortunate fact is, that same unfairness is usually going to be compounded: my ownership of the company that developer works for probably means I'm not only paying relatively lower taxes, but also making more money. That's regressive. Regressive taxes are evil regardless of whether you think progressive taxes are good. Finally, I actually don't think the use of proceeds issue makes this a harder call. Forget totalitarian states for a second, and just think about Social Security. A rationale for not paying taxes is that they'll go to fund a sham Social Security system. But if Social Security is a sham, it's wrong that anybody should have to pay into it. Moreover, as long as most people are on the hook for it, shielding yourself (and the class of people like you) from its obligations is actually counterproductive. The more people (and the more influential the people) affected by FICA, the more pressure there will be to change that system to reflect the will of its stakeholders.

lionhearted 16y ago
> A rationale for not paying taxes is that they'll go to fund a sham Social Security system. But if Social Security is a sham, it's wrong that anybody should have to pay into it. Moreover, as long as most people are on the hook for it, shielding yourself (and the class of people like you) from its obligations is actually counterproductive. The more people (and the more influential the people) affected by FICA, the more pressure there will be to change that system to reflect the will of its stakeholders. That's actually a very intelligent argument. For the record, I do pay my taxes and I'm not particularly creative or aggressive about it - but I do it with roughly the same feeling I give my wallet to a mugger if he's got a knife. The alternative argument is, "If something is bad, less of it is always good." Like, in a place that arrests people for free speech, should every free speaking person turn themselves in? But your position also makes sense as well, seems to be thought out, and part of a coherent worldview. I disagree, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cheers.
- joelhaus 16y ago
  If something is bad, less of it is always good. The problem with this statement is that very few "things" are either all good or all bad. P.S. You both make good points and it's encouraging to see thoughtful discussions like this on what can be very divisive issues, so thanks.