3 ms·

Is it possible you've misread the article? As I read it, the supposition is that one's right to one's pre-tax income is either a legal or moral right. It's not

Is it possible you've misread the article? As I read it, the supposition is that one's right to one's pre-tax income is either a legal or moral right. It's not a legal right because of the argument you reference: if it were yours legally, why is paying taxes legally required? However, the articles goes on to argue against the moral right on different grounds. To say that your pre-tax income is morally yours is to argue that your current pre-tax income--as well as that of all others--is just. As they spell out, the idea of a legal right is incoherent, while the idea of a moral right is implausible.

slowmovintarget 7y ago
I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally required to pay taxes. The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money is yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion of it to the state. Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric. This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking", though, and that simply is not true. The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
benmmurphy 7y ago
the argument they use is a superweapon and can be applied to any distribution of resources including their preferred one. i guess if the takeaway is people having a moral right to some X% of their pre-tax income is implausible and government having a moral right to some X% of subject's pre-tax income is implausible then that would be coherent. but they don't seem to be biting the second bullet.

slowmovintarget 7y ago

I disagree that the argument against a legal right holds any water. Just because the text says it is incoherent, doesn't make it incoherent. The argument the text makes to claim it is incoherent is that you are legally required to pay taxes. The problem with that as the argument is that taxes are on income. Income has many forms, but is usually understood as wages paid for goods or services. The wages must be paid to you first, then taxes deducted. The exchange of money for value (as goods or services) is made first. At that point the money is yours. The exchange has completed. Therefore the taxation on income is taxing money that is already yours, irrespective of your obligation to pay a portion of it to the state. Taxation occurs by rule of law, therefore taxation most certainly is not theft. Use of the term "theft" is dramatic rhetoric. This argument attempts to construe taxation as something other than "taking", though, and that simply is not true. The moral stance put forth by the article is literally "you don't deserve the income you get, therefore the state is obligated to take it".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

benmmurphy 7y ago

the argument they use is a superweapon and can be applied to any distribution of resources including their preferred one. i guess if the takeaway is people having a moral right to some X% of their pre-tax income is implausible and government having a moral right to some X% of subject's pre-tax income is implausible then that would be coherent. but they don't seem to be biting the second bullet.