I would like to have anyone reading this blog to pass this post around and invited comment and I will later give my own analysis (assuming I get more than one comment). The propositions I set forth for discussion are these : 1) it is immoral for the government to do what an individual can not, i.e., take money from you without express consent and give it to another, 2) it is the obligation of a wealthy society to give to those who cannot manage for themselves for reasons outside their control and taxation is the way to ensure that, 3) government funding includes such things as funding of planned parenthood and, through that organization, indirectly, abortion, and it is wrong to force a person to pay for a procedure they believe to be a sin by their religion, 4) taxpayer dollars are necessary to provide access to a right which only the wealthy have access to without it, which is control of their own bodies in terms of aborting an unwanted pregnancy, 5) if taxation were reduced local charity would increase due to the additional disposable income, 6) taxation is necessary because there is no social welfare network to ensure the safety of those who are downtrodden without the state and 7) government can operate without an income tax, and is, in fact a better government without it due to the limitations of expenditures or 8) government needs an income tax to operate and perform the functions set out for it by our Constitution.
The caveat on this post is that I know what the few people who comment on this blog think and I've no need to explain my position to them. The challenge is that I ask those readers to ask friends and associates to read this and comment. If I can't get more than ten opinions on the above subjects (and yes, I want people who dissent from my view), then there is little point in me going through this exercise.
too many questions at once.
ReplyDeleteYou really do need to try to find an outlet to publish some of your blogs as columns.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteI shared with a lib friend. This was his response. Kick his ass Seabass.
Ima gonna sidestep the abortion ones because I think it is a strawman, and such an absurdly small piece of the overall pie that constitutes "common welfare" that it doesn't merit consideration.
1) it is immoral for the government to do what an individual can not, i.e., take money from you without express consent and give it to another,
Assuming this is framed as a question, ie "Is it immoral for the government...."
Taxes are a part of civil society. Like it or not. And inasmuch as government-funded projects such as roads or the military take money from my pocket and give it to contractors, engineers, and steel factories, all taxes are fundamentally redistributive. So if I am opposed to the military, or if I have no need of roads, I can make the same case that it is immoral and/or a waste of my tax dollars to spend them on something that I don't use. And from one perspective I would be correct. If I don't USE roads, why should I have to pay for them? Unfortunately, in a complex society, we cannot make such a simple separation between benefit and cost. I might not use roads, but the guy that comes to my house to fix my roof will, so will the guy that delivers my pizza. So even for something that I don't directly use, I see a benefit because it benefits other members of the society. Likewise, Jeff might never be on welfare or medicaid, he might not have kids in public schools, but that does not mean he sees no benefits for helping finance all of those through his taxes. The schools that he doesn't use produce a (theoretically) educated society that will (again, theoretically) have the skills to earn money so they can buy custom-made guns and other stuff they don't need. Welfare and social security provide a nominal living standard to those that otherwise might be trapped in grinding poverty, which, frankly, improves his quality of life because he doesn't have homeless people constantly badgering him in the street. (Or at least not quite as many)
2) it is the obligation of a wealthy society to give to those who cannot manage for themselves for reasons outside their control and taxation is the way to ensure that,
It may not be the obligation, per se, but it is the way that wealthy society has evolved (been intelligently designed) in wealthy countries for the last 70 years. And you know, considering from where we have come, this isn't such a bad thing.
Consider a society where there was no social safety net...or better yet, go back a century to the glorious days of pure capitalism. No government regulation - and people died by the dozens in industrial accidents all the time. And your 100% pure canned beef was filled with sawdust. Life expectancy was far lower. Poverty was far higher. Old folks ate dog food. The mentally handicapped were institutionalized in dehumanizing environments. Which is not to say that life wasn't worth living, back then, but you simply cannot argue that our society has not advanced in almost every measurable respect in the last century. Meanwhile, government, taxes, and regulation simultaneously grew in almost every measurable respect. Which is not to say that one caused the other, because that would be a gross oversimplification.
ReplyDeleteBut we have come a long way, and I'd argue that the excesses of pure, unregulated capitalism as it existed in the late 19th century led to a society that was fundamentally less stable than what we have today. The only period of time that the Socialist party was a serious player in national politics was the early 20th century. A brooding, urban-industrial underclass was booming in the early 1900s, and the social safety net that arose in response to it during that period of time greatly contributed to the stability our society enjoys today. You know, the stability that allows you to confidently invest your time and energy into doing things like opening a business, among many other things.
The next several have this abortion fixation.
5) if taxation were reduced local charity would increase due to the additional disposable income,
A patently absurd assertion, not least because the areas in need of 'charity' - government provided or otherwise - are greatly separated from the source of that 'charity'. How many people in Highland Park truly give a flying fuck about the plight of South Dallas? Surely, some do, but for others, it is an 'out of sight, out of mind' proposition.
6) taxation is necessary because there is no social welfare network to ensure the safety of those who are downtrodden without the state
See #2.
7) government can operate without an income tax, and is, in fact a better government without it due to the limitations of expenditures
They'll getcha one way or the other, income tax, consumption tax, they're all the same.
8) government needs an income tax to operate and perform the functions set out for it by our Constitution.
Government needs taxes to "promote the common welfare". Income or otherwise, it makes no difference.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
I say all of that, not because I believe that government shits roses, has absolutely no waste, and can't be meaningfully improved. But the anti-tax rhetoric that has been so ubiquitous lately is fundamentally disingenuous. First because it ignores that which the government does that positively impacts our society, and second because it gives the impression that 92% of government spending is earmarks, foreign aid to ungrateful Africans, and studies of the habitat of the dust moth. Which is not even close to the actual case.
And I sympathize with people in the top tax bracket. They pay a shitload of money into the system and use practically no government services. But I have two responses to that. First, they are the beneficiaries of a society that is exceptionally stable, in the grand scheme of things, with a well-educated populace, good emergency services, and so forth. Second, I'll gladly trade paychecks with anyone that wants to pay less in taxes