6 ms·

This article has a fundamental flaw. It starts with the premise that some outrageous tax revenue level is necessary, and from that premise tries to analyze the

This article has a fundamental flaw. It starts with the premise that some outrageous tax revenue level is necessary, and from that premise tries to analyze the fairness of the existing tax code. There's one thing I would really like to understand. I've been mulling this over for a couple of months, and I'm coming to the conclusion that a vote in favor of ANY tax is immoral. If I cast a vote for a tax, I am voting in favor of taking money from someone else, with the force of gunpoint and the threat of prison. How can that be moral? Since coming to this conclusion, I have tried to find arguments, and they usually start with "well, we need to have a tax, or no one will pay." (Romney even said that in one of the debates.) But I can't find any proof to this statement, and I find lots of things that disprove it. 1) The United States was founded with a volunteer militia funded completely voluntarily. (And at the time, citizens had to pay tax to the enemy of the revolution, England.) 2) Numerous organizations ranging from charities, to huge churches that have survived several millenniums, to a complete country (Vatican City) are funded voluntarily, and do that quite successfully. 3) Free people freely give to causes that they believe in. And people believe in freedom. It would not be a hard sell. The whole argument that we have to get more from the rich (or more from anyone, for that matter) is standing on this shaky ground - that somehow it's moral for "the majority" to steal from others through a diffuse system of voting, representatives, laws and organizations like the IRS. But it's you and me, stealing from other people, and using organizations like the IRS and the police force as our weapons. And that can't be right. Honest question: Can someone convince me that it's not immoral to vote for a tax? Please don't down-vote me for asking a question, because I am honestly trying to understand. If you disagree, help persuade me. Edit: I WANT to pay for freedom. I DON'T want to FORCE someone else to pay for freedom (which has an obvious contradiction).

grecy 15y ago
I think your idea that people will pay for something they believe in really only works out in fantasy land, not the real world. In fact, your sentiment is the exact case study that shows how horribly this would fail. You are saying that a vote in favor of any tax is immoral - therefore promoting a "more for me" attitude. Just imagine if everyone thought like that. Your utopia will quickly crumble. I think fantastic cases in point are Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. These are massive corporations making billions in profit, and paying less tax than you and I do. Sure, they could pay more if they wanted to, but are they? Why not? Because they (or the shareholders) have a "more for me" attitude. (On a side note, I can't believe Google are doing that and still get away with their "Don't be Evil" line. Everyday Google use simple public services (Police, Fire, road, courts, judges) and don't pay for it. That looks evil to me.)
- jerfelix 15y ago
  I cited several examples where this works in the "real world" and not fantasy land. You cited zero. I NEVER advocated not paying taxes - I pay my taxes as I am forced to do, and I do it "honestly". So your second paragraph is simply inaccurate. I would also give to an organization, if there was one (maybe there is), IN ADDITION to paying my taxes, that promoted the establishment of such a system of FREE choice in government. I also give to charities. Each of these points disproves your second paragraph where you claim that this is just a "more for me" attitude. Your point that corporations not paying tax somehow disproves my point is a red herring. Corporations are structured with charters which dictate objectives, which are often to maximize shareholder value. I am talking about people, humans, not corporations. People give to causes that they believe in, and people believe in freedom. So I appreciate the reply, but you really didn't say anything to persuade me. You just went back to the "it wouldn't work" argument, without shooting down the MANY examples where it DOES work.
  - grecy 15y ago
    Sorry, I didn't understand your stance. I'd like to clarify: You don't advocate not paying taxes[1]. (so you advocate paying taxes) You think a vote in favor of ANY tax is immoral[2]. Is that right? [1] quote from your second comment. [2] quote from your first comment.
    - jerfelix 15y ago
      I am not trying to start a rally to get people to quit paying their taxes. I am trying to ask the question as to whether voting for a tax is moral. I have come to the conclusion that it is not, and am asking for some reasons why that might be an incorrect conclusion. I believe in freedom and supporting freedom financially. If I had a choice of paying my taxes, or paying 10% more to an organization that supported a system of government with no taxes, I would choose the latter. But I am not aware of any such choice, so I naturally pay my taxes, which is the closest thing that there is. Let me say that again: I WANT to pay for freedom. I DON'T want to FORCE someone else to pay for freedom (which has an obvious contradiction).
cecilpl 15y ago
If taxes weren't mandatory, I wouldn't pay them. Most people I know wouldn't either. Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run. Do you honestly believe that you could run a major developed country on donations? The Vatican doesn't count because it has a population of 800 and is run by the church.
- project25o1 15y ago
  >Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run. Exactly. And people would no longer be using Facebook. Citizens who personally benefit the most from this great society are, similarly, the most indebted to it. While certainly morally just, this is beside the point: It is imperative that such a society continues to exist so that the _next_ Zuckerberg/Jobs/Gates has the opportunity to advance our species further.
- mike_esspe 15y ago
  My country for a long time believed, that you even can't run a shoes store without government owning it. Why private roads, hospitals, schools, police, water and sewer systems can't exist?
andrewflnr 15y ago
I doubt people would donate enough to support a modern military, but maybe we could get by with a smaller one (personally, I wouldn't count on it). Overall, it would at least take a pretty radical change in our culture, which has gotten used to receiving from the government. I would definitely like to see people having more direct control over which projects their money goes to, though, like earmarking some of your (already mandatory in my scenario) money for street repairs near your house. Projects people care about get funded. Bridges to nowhere... less so. What in your view is the threshold for government action? Is it only to prevent violence, or similar violations of person and property?
- jerfelix 15y ago
  > What in your view is the threshold for government action? Is it only to prevent violence, or similar violations of person and property? My views are evolving, which is why I asked the question in this forum, which I consider to be pretty sharp and left-leaning. I think government could extend beyond what you suggest. Public works projects are not out of the question. Establishment of just laws seems reasonable. Protecting the country from the tyranny of other nations seems necessary. I think the US Constitution is a good place to start, to determine the threshold. I actually have little doubt that we could raise enough money through donations to support a modern military. The people who have a great deal of wealth have reason to protect the system; many have a strong desire to make a difference.
pyre 15y ago
> If I cast a vote for a tax, I am voting in favor > of taking money from someone else, with the force > of gunpoint and the threat of prison. How can that > be moral? How can you run a government without revenue of some sort? You suggest donations, but I seriously do not believe that it would be possible to get enough money to run a government based entirely on that. Even with a 'trimming of the fat' in government, there would be too many people willing to try and 'game' the system. (I guess it would possible to cut the required money even further by making government offices on a volunteer basis, but that would setup a bad set of incentives. It would only attract rich people that could afford to do something like that on a volunteer basis and/or people that are power-hunger/power-seeking.) > 2) Numerous organizations ranging from charities, to > huge churches that have survived several millenniums, > to a complete country (Vatican City) are funded > voluntarily, and do that quite successfully. You're ignoring: 1) For several hundred years some of those religions were the official religions of several counties, and 'donations' were compulsory[1]. 2) The Vatican is not completely funded voluntarily[2]: The Holy See, which depends largely on investments for its annual income, had income of about $326 million and expenses of about $313 million. There's also tourism, in addition to "Peter's Pence" (donations to the Holy See, Vatican's governing body). I tried looking for actual numbers, but didn't find anything in the little bit of looking that I did. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes [2] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-2010-worldwide-giving-down http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-201...
- jerfelix 15y ago
  > How can you run a government without revenue of some sort? How does the Mormon Church work? They have no tax. Don't tell me tithe. There's no threat of jail time and income confiscation for not tithing.
  - libcee 15y ago
    social pressure can be incredibly effective, especially when you can make people feel like the world is empty without the impact the "inside group" you think you belong to is making. they make people think their only choice is remain "accepted" or be cast out among filth. mormons are good at it, but the catholic church perfected it centuries before, and it isn't limited to christianity or even to religion. heck, political parties do it, too-- no law making you join a party.
bentlegen 15y ago
I guess that would depend on an individual's moral code. I, personally, would argue that it's immoral to vote against a tax.
- jerfelix 15y ago
  Interesting. Is there any logic behind that?
entangld 15y ago
It's almost impossible to make major decisions without being unfair to some people. Ask any manager. Voting requires the voter to make decisions, hard decisions. Even decisions about other people's money. Sometimes the status quo is unbearable and something has to be done. Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I'm pro capitalism, but the argument that capital gains taxes need to be lower than income is a separate argument. There are probably great reasons for capital gains taxes to be much lower than income, but fairness isn't one of those reasons. 1. Volunteerism doesn't scale. 2. Charity doesn't support everything. I've done non-profit fundraising and rich people like to give money to put their names on buildings a lot more than they like to fund operating expenses in local charities. 3. People like roads and bridges and such, but a lot of services require people and salaries and it's much harder to raise money for things like that. It's not immoral to vote for taxes. People vote for taxes that they pay and they vote for taxes that they'll never pay, but when individuals in the government don't act, the responsibility to do the difficult lies with the voters.
- jerfelix 15y ago
  People thought something as complicated as an Operating System couldn't be written by volunteers also, because volunteerism doesn't scale. > Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I have no issue with cutting the middle class tax. The false premise in the article leads people to the false conclusion that the only solution is to raise the tax on the wealthy.
rayiner 15y ago
> This article has a fundamental flaw. It starts with the premise that some outrageous tax revenue level is necessary, and from that premise tries to analyze the fairness of the existing tax code. It's really not. The proposal in the article has a strong theoretical basis. Read the chapter on realization in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Taxation-Concepts-Insights-ebook/dp/B002TKP7HU http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Taxation-Concepts-Insight.... > Honest question: Can someone convince me that it's not immoral to vote for a tax? Please don't down-vote me for asking a question, because I am honestly trying to understand. If you disagree, help persuade me. Taxation is only "immoral" if you believe in radical individualistic libertarianism. That is not the only tenable view of the world (and I'd argue it's not even a tenable view of the world). Alternatively: 1) Human beings are inherently social, communal creatures. 2) Division of labor requires social organization. 3) Without division of labor, you can't create wealth. 4) Government is created by groups of humans to implement social organization and facilitate division of labor. 5) Fine-grained division of labor yields a huge surplus (i.e. the total production of society using socially-organized division of labor is far higher than the aggregate production of a group of unorganized individuals). 6) The proceeds of that surplus, which exist but-for the institution of social organization, don't morally have to be distributed in any specific way. 7) The rules underlying the social organization are there for utilitarian reasons, and taxation is just another rule that should be justified on utilitarian reasons. There are no God-given rights. "Rights" and "property" make no sense at all without society imposing, by the threat of force, certain rules on certain people for the greater good. "Theft" is different from "taxation" because the former is not sanctioned by society, for utilitarian reasons, while the latter is sanctioned, again for utilitarian reasons. Zuckerberg and Elison wouldn't be rich but for the existence of government. They'd be at the bottom of the pecking order, physically weak nerds that would be enslaved or killed by the physically strong. Indeed, "billionaires" on their scale would not exist without government--a society without an effective government can't create that kind of wealth! When society institutes a set of rules to create a net benefit from the combined productivity of a large number of people, why is it "immoral" for society to then decide how those proceeds are distributed?
- jerfelix 15y ago
  Maybe I am misreading what you are saying, but I didn't say taxation was immoral. I said it's immoral for me to vote to impose a tax on someone else. There's nothing inherently immoral about taxation, and certainly if I wanted to vote to impose a tax on myself, that wouldn't be immoral. You make some interesting points, but it's exactly the "sanctioning by society" that I am questioning. Actually, what you may mean by "society" is "the majority". If everyone in a society agreed to something, then fine, you are not forcing someone to do something. But if not, then it's not "sanctioned by society", but rather sanctioned by a subset of society. The US Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
chubot 15y ago
Well, for starters, where did you even get the concept of "money" from? That's not "yours"; you didn't invent it. Someone else gave it to you. It essentially came from the same place that gave us taxes. The premise that "taking money from someone else" is inherently immoral is trying to assume an impossible ideal that each person is an autonomous being, and that our lives aren't inextricably interwined with everything around us (or at least that's as much as I can gather from your reasoning). Would you also agree that a police officer arresting a citizen is immoral under any circumstances? Now I don't necessarily disagree with your notion that taxes are unnecessary (or at least some taxes). I'm sure that it's possible for the government to be at least an order of magnitude more efficient. One somewhat surprising thing I learned (from Ron Paul) is that the income tax didn't even exist until the 20th century. So it's far from clear that it's even necessary. But I would not start with the assumption that money is a inalienable right. And I don't really understand your alternative. Who is going to beg others to fund things like roads and sewers and subways and food inspection? Fund-raising costs money. Also, there are a few things that are most efficiently done by a government monolopy -- i.e. it's not practical to have 5 competing subway systems in NYC. So anyway, I think you're trying to come down too conclusively on one side, whereas the answer is probably more mundane and in between. (Also, I think you are being slightly dramatic in that in all likelihood no will point a gun at you if you don't pay your taxes. More likely you will get a bunch of letters from IRS over many years.)
- rayiner 15y ago
  > One somewhat surprising thing I learned (from Ron Paul) is that the income tax didn't even exist until the 20th century. Before the 20th century, the majority of Americans lived in rural areas working on small farms. Industrialization dramatically increased the level of division of labor in the society, and of course as you increase the degree of social inter-dependence, it's no surprise that your organization overhead increases, super-linearly. If we were talking about any system other than the political system, the proposition that bigger, more complicated systems have exponentially-increasing amounts of organizational overhead would be completely uncontroversial. It's a phenomenon that us engineers see in systems constantly. Yet, when we see it in the political system, we assume something is wrong. When I work on a small farm, and you work on a small farm, we don't need an EPA. When we live in a city and your factory dumps poisons into our shared river and makes my kids sick, we do. When we work on small farms, we don't need an SEC. When we work in the city and our savings consist of securities rather than silos full of grain, we do. When we make all our own clothes we don't need a Consumer Products Safety Commission, when we grow our own food we don't need an FDA, when we work for ourselves on our own farms we don't need an NLRB or an EEOC. When we ride horses to work we don't need an FAA. When we don't depend critically on Middle Eastern oil we don't need a very big Army. When people die naturally of old age at 45 we don't need Social Security. When small, stable, farming communities take care of their poor we don't need Medicaid.

grecy 15y ago

I think your idea that people will pay for something they believe in really only works out in fantasy land, not the real world. In fact, your sentiment is the exact case study that shows how horribly this would fail. You are saying that a vote in favor of any tax is immoral - therefore promoting a "more for me" attitude. Just imagine if everyone thought like that. Your utopia will quickly crumble. I think fantastic cases in point are Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. These are massive corporations making billions in profit, and paying less tax than you and I do. Sure, they could pay more if they wanted to, but are they? Why not? Because they (or the shareholders) have a "more for me" attitude. (On a side note, I can't believe Google are doing that and still get away with their "Don't be Evil" line. Everyday Google use simple public services (Police, Fire, road, courts, judges) and don't pay for it. That looks evil to me.)

jerfelix 15y ago
I cited several examples where this works in the "real world" and not fantasy land. You cited zero. I NEVER advocated not paying taxes - I pay my taxes as I am forced to do, and I do it "honestly". So your second paragraph is simply inaccurate. I would also give to an organization, if there was one (maybe there is), IN ADDITION to paying my taxes, that promoted the establishment of such a system of FREE choice in government. I also give to charities. Each of these points disproves your second paragraph where you claim that this is just a "more for me" attitude. Your point that corporations not paying tax somehow disproves my point is a red herring. Corporations are structured with charters which dictate objectives, which are often to maximize shareholder value. I am talking about people, humans, not corporations. People give to causes that they believe in, and people believe in freedom. So I appreciate the reply, but you really didn't say anything to persuade me. You just went back to the "it wouldn't work" argument, without shooting down the MANY examples where it DOES work.
- grecy 15y ago
  Sorry, I didn't understand your stance. I'd like to clarify: You don't advocate not paying taxes[1]. (so you advocate paying taxes) You think a vote in favor of ANY tax is immoral[2]. Is that right? [1] quote from your second comment. [2] quote from your first comment.
  - jerfelix 15y ago
    I am not trying to start a rally to get people to quit paying their taxes. I am trying to ask the question as to whether voting for a tax is moral. I have come to the conclusion that it is not, and am asking for some reasons why that might be an incorrect conclusion. I believe in freedom and supporting freedom financially. If I had a choice of paying my taxes, or paying 10% more to an organization that supported a system of government with no taxes, I would choose the latter. But I am not aware of any such choice, so I naturally pay my taxes, which is the closest thing that there is. Let me say that again: I WANT to pay for freedom. I DON'T want to FORCE someone else to pay for freedom (which has an obvious contradiction).

cecilpl 15y ago

If taxes weren't mandatory, I wouldn't pay them. Most people I know wouldn't either. Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run. Do you honestly believe that you could run a major developed country on donations? The Vatican doesn't count because it has a population of 800 and is run by the church.

project25o1 15y ago
>Then suddenly things like road systems, hospitals, schools, police, water systems, sewer systems, and courts would no longer be able to run. Exactly. And people would no longer be using Facebook. Citizens who personally benefit the most from this great society are, similarly, the most indebted to it. While certainly morally just, this is beside the point: It is imperative that such a society continues to exist so that the _next_ Zuckerberg/Jobs/Gates has the opportunity to advance our species further.
mike_esspe 15y ago
My country for a long time believed, that you even can't run a shoes store without government owning it. Why private roads, hospitals, schools, police, water and sewer systems can't exist?

andrewflnr 15y ago

I doubt people would donate enough to support a modern military, but maybe we could get by with a smaller one (personally, I wouldn't count on it). Overall, it would at least take a pretty radical change in our culture, which has gotten used to receiving from the government. I would definitely like to see people having more direct control over which projects their money goes to, though, like earmarking some of your (already mandatory in my scenario) money for street repairs near your house. Projects people care about get funded. Bridges to nowhere... less so. What in your view is the threshold for government action? Is it only to prevent violence, or similar violations of person and property?

jerfelix 15y ago
> What in your view is the threshold for government action? Is it only to prevent violence, or similar violations of person and property? My views are evolving, which is why I asked the question in this forum, which I consider to be pretty sharp and left-leaning. I think government could extend beyond what you suggest. Public works projects are not out of the question. Establishment of just laws seems reasonable. Protecting the country from the tyranny of other nations seems necessary. I think the US Constitution is a good place to start, to determine the threshold. I actually have little doubt that we could raise enough money through donations to support a modern military. The people who have a great deal of wealth have reason to protect the system; many have a strong desire to make a difference.

pyre 15y ago

> If I cast a vote for a tax, I am voting in favor > of taking money from someone else, with the force > of gunpoint and the threat of prison. How can that > be moral? How can you run a government without revenue of some sort? You suggest donations, but I seriously do not believe that it would be possible to get enough money to run a government based entirely on that. Even with a 'trimming of the fat' in government, there would be too many people willing to try and 'game' the system. (I guess it would possible to cut the required money even further by making government offices on a volunteer basis, but that would setup a bad set of incentives. It would only attract rich people that could afford to do something like that on a volunteer basis and/or people that are power-hunger/power-seeking.) > 2) Numerous organizations ranging from charities, to > huge churches that have survived several millenniums, > to a complete country (Vatican City) are funded > voluntarily, and do that quite successfully. You're ignoring: 1) For several hundred years some of those religions were the official religions of several counties, and 'donations' were compulsory[1]. 2) The Vatican is not completely funded voluntarily[2]: The Holy See, which depends largely on investments for its annual income, had income of about $326 million and expenses of about $313 million. There's also tourism, in addition to "Peter's Pence" (donations to the Holy See, Vatican's governing body). I tried looking for actual numbers, but didn't find anything in the little bit of looking that I did. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithes [2] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-2010-worldwide-giving-down http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-budget-surplus-201...

jerfelix 15y ago
> How can you run a government without revenue of some sort? How does the Mormon Church work? They have no tax. Don't tell me tithe. There's no threat of jail time and income confiscation for not tithing.
- libcee 15y ago
  social pressure can be incredibly effective, especially when you can make people feel like the world is empty without the impact the "inside group" you think you belong to is making. they make people think their only choice is remain "accepted" or be cast out among filth. mormons are good at it, but the catholic church perfected it centuries before, and it isn't limited to christianity or even to religion. heck, political parties do it, too-- no law making you join a party.

bentlegen 15y ago

I guess that would depend on an individual's moral code. I, personally, would argue that it's immoral to vote against a tax.

jerfelix 15y ago
Interesting. Is there any logic behind that?

entangld 15y ago

It's almost impossible to make major decisions without being unfair to some people. Ask any manager. Voting requires the voter to make decisions, hard decisions. Even decisions about other people's money. Sometimes the status quo is unbearable and something has to be done. Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I'm pro capitalism, but the argument that capital gains taxes need to be lower than income is a separate argument. There are probably great reasons for capital gains taxes to be much lower than income, but fairness isn't one of those reasons. 1. Volunteerism doesn't scale. 2. Charity doesn't support everything. I've done non-profit fundraising and rich people like to give money to put their names on buildings a lot more than they like to fund operating expenses in local charities. 3. People like roads and bridges and such, but a lot of services require people and salaries and it's much harder to raise money for things like that. It's not immoral to vote for taxes. People vote for taxes that they pay and they vote for taxes that they'll never pay, but when individuals in the government don't act, the responsibility to do the difficult lies with the voters.

jerfelix 15y ago
People thought something as complicated as an Operating System couldn't be written by volunteers also, because volunteerism doesn't scale. > Where exactly is the unfairness in taxing wealthier people at the same percentage as middle class and others? I have no issue with cutting the middle class tax. The false premise in the article leads people to the false conclusion that the only solution is to raise the tax on the wealthy.

rayiner 15y ago

> This article has a fundamental flaw. It starts with the premise that some outrageous tax revenue level is necessary, and from that premise tries to analyze the fairness of the existing tax code. It's really not. The proposal in the article has a strong theoretical basis. Read the chapter on realization in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Taxation-Concepts-Insights-ebook/dp/B002TKP7HU http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Taxation-Concepts-Insight.... > Honest question: Can someone convince me that it's not immoral to vote for a tax? Please don't down-vote me for asking a question, because I am honestly trying to understand. If you disagree, help persuade me. Taxation is only "immoral" if you believe in radical individualistic libertarianism. That is not the only tenable view of the world (and I'd argue it's not even a tenable view of the world). Alternatively: 1) Human beings are inherently social, communal creatures. 2) Division of labor requires social organization. 3) Without division of labor, you can't create wealth. 4) Government is created by groups of humans to implement social organization and facilitate division of labor. 5) Fine-grained division of labor yields a huge surplus (i.e. the total production of society using socially-organized division of labor is far higher than the aggregate production of a group of unorganized individuals). 6) The proceeds of that surplus, which exist but-for the institution of social organization, don't morally have to be distributed in any specific way. 7) The rules underlying the social organization are there for utilitarian reasons, and taxation is just another rule that should be justified on utilitarian reasons. There are no God-given rights. "Rights" and "property" make no sense at all without society imposing, by the threat of force, certain rules on certain people for the greater good. "Theft" is different from "taxation" because the former is not sanctioned by society, for utilitarian reasons, while the latter is sanctioned, again for utilitarian reasons. Zuckerberg and Elison wouldn't be rich but for the existence of government. They'd be at the bottom of the pecking order, physically weak nerds that would be enslaved or killed by the physically strong. Indeed, "billionaires" on their scale would not exist without government--a society without an effective government can't create that kind of wealth! When society institutes a set of rules to create a net benefit from the combined productivity of a large number of people, why is it "immoral" for society to then decide how those proceeds are distributed?

jerfelix 15y ago
Maybe I am misreading what you are saying, but I didn't say taxation was immoral. I said it's immoral for me to vote to impose a tax on someone else. There's nothing inherently immoral about taxation, and certainly if I wanted to vote to impose a tax on myself, that wouldn't be immoral. You make some interesting points, but it's exactly the "sanctioning by society" that I am questioning. Actually, what you may mean by "society" is "the majority". If everyone in a society agreed to something, then fine, you are not forcing someone to do something. But if not, then it's not "sanctioned by society", but rather sanctioned by a subset of society. The US Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

chubot 15y ago

Well, for starters, where did you even get the concept of "money" from? That's not "yours"; you didn't invent it. Someone else gave it to you. It essentially came from the same place that gave us taxes. The premise that "taking money from someone else" is inherently immoral is trying to assume an impossible ideal that each person is an autonomous being, and that our lives aren't inextricably interwined with everything around us (or at least that's as much as I can gather from your reasoning). Would you also agree that a police officer arresting a citizen is immoral under any circumstances? Now I don't necessarily disagree with your notion that taxes are unnecessary (or at least some taxes). I'm sure that it's possible for the government to be at least an order of magnitude more efficient. One somewhat surprising thing I learned (from Ron Paul) is that the income tax didn't even exist until the 20th century. So it's far from clear that it's even necessary. But I would not start with the assumption that money is a inalienable right. And I don't really understand your alternative. Who is going to beg others to fund things like roads and sewers and subways and food inspection? Fund-raising costs money. Also, there are a few things that are most efficiently done by a government monolopy -- i.e. it's not practical to have 5 competing subway systems in NYC. So anyway, I think you're trying to come down too conclusively on one side, whereas the answer is probably more mundane and in between. (Also, I think you are being slightly dramatic in that in all likelihood no will point a gun at you if you don't pay your taxes. More likely you will get a bunch of letters from IRS over many years.)

rayiner 15y ago
> One somewhat surprising thing I learned (from Ron Paul) is that the income tax didn't even exist until the 20th century. Before the 20th century, the majority of Americans lived in rural areas working on small farms. Industrialization dramatically increased the level of division of labor in the society, and of course as you increase the degree of social inter-dependence, it's no surprise that your organization overhead increases, super-linearly. If we were talking about any system other than the political system, the proposition that bigger, more complicated systems have exponentially-increasing amounts of organizational overhead would be completely uncontroversial. It's a phenomenon that us engineers see in systems constantly. Yet, when we see it in the political system, we assume something is wrong. When I work on a small farm, and you work on a small farm, we don't need an EPA. When we live in a city and your factory dumps poisons into our shared river and makes my kids sick, we do. When we work on small farms, we don't need an SEC. When we work in the city and our savings consist of securities rather than silos full of grain, we do. When we make all our own clothes we don't need a Consumer Products Safety Commission, when we grow our own food we don't need an FDA, when we work for ourselves on our own farms we don't need an NLRB or an EEOC. When we ride horses to work we don't need an FAA. When we don't depend critically on Middle Eastern oil we don't need a very big Army. When people die naturally of old age at 45 we don't need Social Security. When small, stable, farming communities take care of their poor we don't need Medicaid.