5 ms·

Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" is why we are where we are. People who cannot fathom or refuse to accept some widespread op

by pard68 4y ago

Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" is why we are where we are. People who cannot fathom or refuse to accept some widespread opinion/view/belief of another is why we are mired in identity politics and are beholden to bands of 80 year old children yelling at one another between oxygen hits and running the country into the ground. I think you ought to be more charitable to the opinion expressed by others, it's far more constructive.

NegativeK 4y ago
Calling it stealing in the first place is inflammatory.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  Taxation by itself is inflammatory and has been the reason for most uprising, revolutions and wars since the beginning of history. Using a higher perspective it is easy to see that taxation is analogous to war.
tunesmith 4y ago
You are saying that half the US population views taxation as theft.
- pard68 4y ago
  Technically just the income tax, but yes somewhere between 40 and 55 percent view it that way, the exact number depends on who is asking. Pew number are more like 55%, MSNBC lower.
  - tunesmith 4y ago
    Come on, seriously. Show your source. I've got a Pew chart here that says 53% say they "pay the right amount" in taxes, while another 4% say they pay less than their fair share. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-... You're saying that half the population don't just say "more than my fair share", but that they view it as literal theft.
ddoolin 4y ago
It's certainly not half, and really how we get mired in these things is way more complex than what you mentioned; I'd argue a lot of getting bogged down and accomplishing nothing is people whose views are not worth consideration (not all of them are, shocker!) clamoring about how oppressed they are that their disingenuous positions are not being taken seriously. If someone really believes taxation is theft, that is past the point of consideration. That leaves little avenue for reconcile, makes the bias very clear, and puts on full display the lack of critical thinking.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  I get the sense this discussion has more to do with which team you play for than the substance of the policy. Team A will lean hard into it because Team B is hard against it, and vice-versa. Every year, we all have the option to donate more money to the government or related charities, voluntarily. That money could be put to good use on programs like this. How many people advocating for such policies do it? Probably very few. It's much easier to spend someone else's money than your own. Especially if we can convince ourselves that people with more money than us are bad people and don't deserve the same respect as we do. Where have we seen that play out before?
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    You can't seriously propose a solution for the tragedy of commons scenario. I wouldn't voluntarily donate money to the government because it is dumb to make your living worse for statistically zero gain (because a single donation is like that, and no one else would donate). But I fully support taxation (as a concept, current brackets and laws are very inefficient), exactly because it is enforced on all population at gunpoint. I would not join army voluntarily, but I actually was in one because we have a mandatory draft and unfortunately a reason for it now. The only way humans can function in communities bigger than 100 people is enforcement of resource sharing, or they will be expelled/punished. This doesn't mean that enforced sharing is bad in absolute terms. It is relatively "bad" and inefficient, but the only alternative is chaos and no sharing at all.
sumeno 4y ago
Not every opinion deserves consideration.
- pard68 4y ago
  Alas, that's the slippery slope that's led us here. In a conversation, all opinions have value.
nemothekid 4y ago
>Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" is why we are where we are. A large amount of people think the Earth is flat. Am I now supposed to consider flat-earthers a serious position? >People who cannot fathom or refuse to accept some widespread opinion/view/belief of another is why I can perfectly fathom it, much like I can understand why someone would believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't make the position any less serious. >I think you ought to be more charitable to the opinion expressed by others, it's far more constructive. Much like a flat-earther, I consider those who think the taxation is theft have not put any actual research or thought into their position, and have simply come to that position by naively interpreting the first experiences they have come to understand from their senses.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Straw_man
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    I'm not sure how this is a strawman. My point is simply that just because a large number of people believe something, it does automatically make it a serious position.
- pard68 4y ago
  And yet belittling still gets you no where. Sounds like you aren't interested in conversing with others and rather just want to garner votes from your tribe.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    If you found my comments belittling, then you should consider if you have a personal attachment to the idea that taxation is theft. If I thought 2+2=5, and someone called me out as wrong, I wouldn't take personal offense to it. If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership.
RestlessMind 4y ago
> Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" First, I don't think half the US population seriously thinks taxation is theft. Mainly because a vast majority of us support medicare and defense spending, which are funded out of tax. But this is where you get into "unserious" territory. Let's say everyone agrees to abolish taxation. That means no government, which means no government services, which leads to a lack of policing. In that world, who is going to enforce your property rights? Only thing ensuring things you consider yours stay yours is if you are stronger than everyone else. Are you saying that half the US population really want to go back to eras when you only trusted your own tribe, wars and pillaging were rampant and only the might was right? If you don't intend to say that, then please explain who will enforce property rights in a nation of 330M people without any services funded by taxes.
- pard68 4y ago
  I'm assuming OP meant income tax. Those who say "taxation is theft" (Ron Paul's tribe) are referring to the Federal income tax exclusively. It's a catchy phrase that isn't descriptive enough. But too be fair, "federal income taxation is theft" isn't going to make a nice t-shirt. Also, "half" doesn't matter and I shouldn't have mentioned it. What matters is OP made a serious statement and then the comment I replied to dismissed it out of hand. Regardless of total percent, its a view which you will encounter at a level high enough that this sort of dismissal has effectively shut you off to a very large group of people.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > I'm assuming OP meant income tax. What are the principled differences between income vs other (sales, property, inheritance) taxes? And why does it matter whether it is at a federal level? We still need services at federal level, eg. to run our armies who are essential to deter potential invaders.
    - pard68 4y ago
      Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. The other difference, as I understand (not well versed in this it's not my pet-problem, I just like to understand something of what drives others to think what they think) is that an income tax brings a double tax. Taxed on all incoming money and then taxed on nearly all out going money. Prior to the amendment that made the federal income tax, there was still a Federal government, they relied on tariffs and other such taxes instead.

by pard68 4y ago

NegativeK 4y ago

Calling it stealing in the first place is inflammatory.

carlosjobim 4y ago
Taxation by itself is inflammatory and has been the reason for most uprising, revolutions and wars since the beginning of history. Using a higher perspective it is easy to see that taxation is analogous to war.

tunesmith 4y ago

You are saying that half the US population views taxation as theft.

pard68 4y ago
Technically just the income tax, but yes somewhere between 40 and 55 percent view it that way, the exact number depends on who is asking. Pew number are more like 55%, MSNBC lower.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  Come on, seriously. Show your source. I've got a Pew chart here that says 53% say they "pay the right amount" in taxes, while another 4% say they pay less than their fair share. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-... You're saying that half the population don't just say "more than my fair share", but that they view it as literal theft.

ddoolin 4y ago

It's certainly not half, and really how we get mired in these things is way more complex than what you mentioned; I'd argue a lot of getting bogged down and accomplishing nothing is people whose views are not worth consideration (not all of them are, shocker!) clamoring about how oppressed they are that their disingenuous positions are not being taken seriously. If someone really believes taxation is theft, that is past the point of consideration. That leaves little avenue for reconcile, makes the bias very clear, and puts on full display the lack of critical thinking.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
I get the sense this discussion has more to do with which team you play for than the substance of the policy. Team A will lean hard into it because Team B is hard against it, and vice-versa. Every year, we all have the option to donate more money to the government or related charities, voluntarily. That money could be put to good use on programs like this. How many people advocating for such policies do it? Probably very few. It's much easier to spend someone else's money than your own. Especially if we can convince ourselves that people with more money than us are bad people and don't deserve the same respect as we do. Where have we seen that play out before?
- Yizahi 4y ago
  You can't seriously propose a solution for the tragedy of commons scenario. I wouldn't voluntarily donate money to the government because it is dumb to make your living worse for statistically zero gain (because a single donation is like that, and no one else would donate). But I fully support taxation (as a concept, current brackets and laws are very inefficient), exactly because it is enforced on all population at gunpoint. I would not join army voluntarily, but I actually was in one because we have a mandatory draft and unfortunately a reason for it now. The only way humans can function in communities bigger than 100 people is enforcement of resource sharing, or they will be expelled/punished. This doesn't mean that enforced sharing is bad in absolute terms. It is relatively "bad" and inefficient, but the only alternative is chaos and no sharing at all.

sumeno 4y ago

Not every opinion deserves consideration.

pard68 4y ago
Alas, that's the slippery slope that's led us here. In a conversation, all opinions have value.

nemothekid 4y ago

>Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" is why we are where we are. A large amount of people think the Earth is flat. Am I now supposed to consider flat-earthers a serious position? >People who cannot fathom or refuse to accept some widespread opinion/view/belief of another is why I can perfectly fathom it, much like I can understand why someone would believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't make the position any less serious. >I think you ought to be more charitable to the opinion expressed by others, it's far more constructive. Much like a flat-earther, I consider those who think the taxation is theft have not put any actual research or thought into their position, and have simply come to that position by naively interpreting the first experiences they have come to understand from their senses.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Straw_man
- nemothekid 4y ago
  I'm not sure how this is a strawman. My point is simply that just because a large number of people believe something, it does automatically make it a serious position.
pard68 4y ago
And yet belittling still gets you no where. Sounds like you aren't interested in conversing with others and rather just want to garner votes from your tribe.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  If you found my comments belittling, then you should consider if you have a personal attachment to the idea that taxation is theft. If I thought 2+2=5, and someone called me out as wrong, I wouldn't take personal offense to it. If you seriously think taxation is theft, I think the best I can offer is to think about how do you define ownership? Before you have theft, you must have ownership.

RestlessMind 4y ago

> Calling the view of approximately half the US population "unserious" First, I don't think half the US population seriously thinks taxation is theft. Mainly because a vast majority of us support medicare and defense spending, which are funded out of tax. But this is where you get into "unserious" territory. Let's say everyone agrees to abolish taxation. That means no government, which means no government services, which leads to a lack of policing. In that world, who is going to enforce your property rights? Only thing ensuring things you consider yours stay yours is if you are stronger than everyone else. Are you saying that half the US population really want to go back to eras when you only trusted your own tribe, wars and pillaging were rampant and only the might was right? If you don't intend to say that, then please explain who will enforce property rights in a nation of 330M people without any services funded by taxes.

pard68 4y ago
I'm assuming OP meant income tax. Those who say "taxation is theft" (Ron Paul's tribe) are referring to the Federal income tax exclusively. It's a catchy phrase that isn't descriptive enough. But too be fair, "federal income taxation is theft" isn't going to make a nice t-shirt. Also, "half" doesn't matter and I shouldn't have mentioned it. What matters is OP made a serious statement and then the comment I replied to dismissed it out of hand. Regardless of total percent, its a view which you will encounter at a level high enough that this sort of dismissal has effectively shut you off to a very large group of people.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > I'm assuming OP meant income tax. What are the principled differences between income vs other (sales, property, inheritance) taxes? And why does it matter whether it is at a federal level? We still need services at federal level, eg. to run our armies who are essential to deter potential invaders.
  - pard68 4y ago
    Mostly historic, federal income tax was illegal until the early 1900s. The other difference, as I understand (not well versed in this it's not my pet-problem, I just like to understand something of what drives others to think what they think) is that an income tax brings a double tax. Taxed on all incoming money and then taxed on nearly all out going money. Prior to the amendment that made the federal income tax, there was still a Federal government, they relied on tariffs and other such taxes instead.