3 ms·

> Any state? Any due process outcome? Any percentage? My original comment does not state my opinions on these parameters of the taxation process. I was comment

> Any state? Any due process outcome? Any percentage? My original comment does not state my opinions on these parameters of the taxation process. I was commenting on how I felt the act of moving to a new state, just to get out of paying taxes in the state you currently live in (and earned that money in), is, in general, immoral. I could have spent several paragraphs going over every possible exception to this viewpoint, and hedge every assertion with "in general", "except when", etc., but that tends to be tedious to both read and write. > Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create? > Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools Could you restate these sentences? I can't quite understand them.

vmception 6y ago
I understand, and I didn't mean to come across like I wanted you to write a dissertation on the topic. I do find all of these issues related though, and that your comment is only naive because it isn't nuanced enough. Naive wouldn't have been the word I would have led with, as it is your word for yourself willing to be open to another perspective. I don't find that action immoral because I don't find the state's goal grounded in morality. I find both agents to be amoral, with the individual's amorality being both compliant and reactionary to the state's amoral aggregate legislative process where the legislatures are inattentive and misguided and misled.
- Varriount 6y ago
  I agree that a state (or country, etc.) will nearly always have a certain amount of amorality (or immorality, for that matter). However most legislatures have at least some morality as well. Taxes aren't always used to incentivize/disincentivize, sometimes they are gathered for public works or services, such as roadways, healthcare*, and unemployement benefits. I know that an individual may not always view those things as something the government should be taking a hand in, but I would like to think that, even if someone doesn't agree with the action, they can at least agree with the intention. *the current state of the US healthcare system notwithstanding.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > I would like to think that, even if someone doesn't agree with the action, they can at least agree with the intention. right, and I find that unrelated to being obligated to pay it. its more like "way to go, guys!" buys gas across the county line "that's a great cause!" buys property in another state "yes, build that park Leslie Knope!" moves if I didn't do any of those things then I would pay it. if I wanted 1% - 50% more money to do a different thing and there was a legally compliant way to do so (enabled by the same authorities, mind you), I would consider it

vmception 6y ago

I understand, and I didn't mean to come across like I wanted you to write a dissertation on the topic. I do find all of these issues related though, and that your comment is only naive because it isn't nuanced enough. Naive wouldn't have been the word I would have led with, as it is your word for yourself willing to be open to another perspective. I don't find that action immoral because I don't find the state's goal grounded in morality. I find both agents to be amoral, with the individual's amorality being both compliant and reactionary to the state's amoral aggregate legislative process where the legislatures are inattentive and misguided and misled.

Varriount 6y ago
I agree that a state (or country, etc.) will nearly always have a certain amount of amorality (or immorality, for that matter). However most legislatures have at least some morality as well. Taxes aren't always used to incentivize/disincentivize, sometimes they are gathered for public works or services, such as roadways, healthcare*, and unemployement benefits. I know that an individual may not always view those things as something the government should be taking a hand in, but I would like to think that, even if someone doesn't agree with the action, they can at least agree with the intention. *the current state of the US healthcare system notwithstanding.
- vmception 6y ago
  > I would like to think that, even if someone doesn't agree with the action, they can at least agree with the intention. right, and I find that unrelated to being obligated to pay it. its more like "way to go, guys!" buys gas across the county line "that's a great cause!" buys property in another state "yes, build that park Leslie Knope!" moves if I didn't do any of those things then I would pay it. if I wanted 1% - 50% more money to do a different thing and there was a legally compliant way to do so (enabled by the same authorities, mind you), I would consider it