Author Topic: The casual attitude towards income taxation  (Read 174452 times)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
The casual attitude towards income taxation
« on: April 07, 2016, 11:52:55 AM »
It is my belief that the MMM community has a disconnected and casual attitude towards taxation The reason I say disconnected is because the Mustachian community has an awesomely rational view on the relationship between time, money, and your life. In may posts, MMM himself describes thinking of hours worked in terms of a portion of your life you can never get back, and to take a balanced view making sure you NEED the money you get for selling the hours of your life.

It is curious to me why that attitude does not translate to opinions on taxation. People on this board speak very casually of maintaining or increases taxes. I believe that if taxation is considered  through the same lens described above, those attitudes should be adjusted.

I have a life. That life is make up of a finite amount of time, measured in (for example) hours. I can provide labor, which is a combination of my time and creativity to produce value to a customer or employer. In this interaction, I am exchanging a part of my life for money. By levying a tax on that exchange, some other party is laying claim to a portion of my life. I reject that, on the basis that my life belongs to me, and no-one else.

Lets say I want to build up my 'stache so I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for a year. I am trading half of my life over that timeline for money. If I am taxed at a rate of %50, that means that "they" (other people, government, society, whoever) are asserting that 1/4 of my life over that year does not in fact belong to me, it belongs to "them." We should find this disturbing. Another lens to view this through is conscription. Forcing a person into military servitude is making the assertion that their life does not belong to that person, it belongs to some other party. For this reason, conscription should be rejected as well.

Lets say "they" decide that my entire life, 100 percent of it, belongs to them. We call that slavery and reject it as morally reprehensible. But the question is, when does it stop being slavery? If they only lay claim to 99 percent of it? 60? 50? 10?

The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

I know some people will evade the real question by saying "How will we pay for the social programs that I like?"

That is not the question at hand. It is a terrible cop-out and tacit admission of guilt.

Abolitionist: Slavery is wrong. How can you possibly justify it?
Plantation Owner: How will we harvest the cotton?

Hippie: Conscription is wrong. How can you possibly justify it?
Hawk: How will we defend the country?

Me: Taxing income is wrong. How can you possibly justify it.
You: How will we pave the roads?

None of these things is even an attempt to answer the question at hand.

Now, lets "get real." If you insist that taxation of income is necessary, lets at least agree that it is a necessary evil. And if that is the case, shouldn't we be more hesitant to increase income taxes? Shouldn't we always be looking for ways to decrease them, with the intent to someday eliminate them if possible?

I see the opposite on this forum. I see tons of statements like "we should increase taxes to pay for program XYZ." I think if people were honest about the nature of income taxation, they would be less flippant about it.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2016, 11:58:43 AM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

aFrugalFather

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
    • Life/Finance Blog
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2016, 12:03:20 PM »
"if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil."

You are always free to leave your country and pursue any percentage distribution you like.  You have the freedom to do that.  You don't have a moral right to take advantage of social programs (roads, emergency roods, fire department, schools etc) and not contribute money for that benefit. 

Until I see a solution with benefits provided for the entire society (rich and poor, the healthy and the disabled) that is paid for with voluntary donations by a small percentage of the population I am ok with the system as it is and am free to vote against or protest any particular problems that I see.  You can choose to call the system "evil", while I see it as necessary albeit often inefficient and then I go about my day being happy and enjoying my public library.  The choice is yours as to how you want to see the world, but the outcome is the same.  There will likely always be a percentage of citizen's income directed to fund services for the good of all. 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 12:08:02 PM by aFrugalFather »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2016, 12:08:42 PM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Response to your first paragraph: First, we can have a government without income taxes. Second, look at the end of my post. Even if we end up agreeing that we do "need" income taxes, shouldn't we treat them as a necessary evil? Instead of just acting like the income of people (and hence portions of their life) belong to some other party, as long as we can get enough votes?

Response to your second paragraph: As I expected, you are not responding to the question at hand. You are basically saying that you like income taxes because you, and others, benefit from them. That does not make income taxes the right thing to do. Lets say a banker has a tendency to steal from his company. You ask him how he justifies it, and he responds by saying it is justified because it benefits him and his family.

Your response is that of someone who is unwilling to confront the nature of a concept because you believe you and/or others benefit from that concept and aren't willing to lose that benefit.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2016, 12:17:43 PM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Response to your first paragraph: First, we can have a government without income taxes. Second, look at the end of my post. Even if we end up agreeing that we do "need" income taxes, shouldn't we treat them as a necessary evil? Instead of just acting like the income of people (and hence portions of their life) belong to some other party, as long as we can get enough votes?

Response to your second paragraph: As I expected, you are not responding to the question at hand. You are basically saying that you like income taxes because you, and others, benefit from them. That does not make income taxes the right thing to do. Lets say a banker has a tendency to steal from his company. You ask him how he justifies it, and he responds by saying it is justified because it benefits him and his family.

Your response is that of someone who is unwilling to confront the nature of a concept because you believe you and/or others benefit from that concept and aren't willing to lose that benefit.

Sure, we can treat them as a necessary evil.  I think we have lots of unnecessary taxation, and I wonder whether the tax code is the place to incentivize/disincentivize certain types of behavior (ie child tax credits. I'd rather just flat out subsidize families in an open way if that's what we're doing).  But I have never seen a functioning modern society that works without them.  I don't want to turn the US in to Scandinavia (and hate the trope that Sweden is somehow a paradise, having lived and worked there myself), but I sure as hell don't want to turn it in to Russia, which is alow-tax country I'm familiar with and have worked in.

I'm not saying I like the tax code because I personally benefit from it.  Hell, if I helped vote Cruz in to office I may end up owing 30K less in taxes if there's a friendly Congress.  Living in Cruz's vision of America is not worth 30K to me.  Especially because I have many other opportunities for tax optimization.  I could be less lazy and tax loss harvest, I could move abroad, I could find a job with more tax-sheltered savings options.  I have all sorts of freedom to minimize the taxes I pay.  Personally, I haven't found that tradeoff worth it yet, and morally, I feel an obligation to help other people who haven't had the luck I have in life.  I know full well it's not always the most efficient solution, but I haven't seen another one that works.

I guess I don't find the tax code to be as moral of an issue as you do.  Maybe if I could see other societies that work in the 21st century without mandatory taxation, I'd be more willing to worry about taxation being theft somehow. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2016, 12:17:58 PM »
"if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil."

You are always free to leave your country and pursue any percentage distribution you like.  You have the freedom to do that.  You don't have a moral right to take advantage of social programs (roads, emergency roods, fire department, schools etc) and not contribute money for that benefit. 

Until I see a solution with benefits provided for the entire society (rich and poor, the healthy and the disabled) that is paid for with voluntary donations by a small percentage of the population I am ok with the system as it is and am free to vote against or protest any particular problems that I see.  You can choose to call the system "evil", while I see it as necessary albeit often inefficient and then I go about my day being happy and enjoying my public library.  The choice is yours as to how you want to see the world, but the outcome is the same.  There will likely always be a percentage of citizen's income directed to fund services for the good of all.

Response to first paragraph: Another evasion. "If you don't like the status quo, feel free to get the hell out." Classic defensive response. I am not talking about evading taxes to take advantage of anything. I am asking the MMM community if they can see the truth that income taxes are, when viewed rationally, a terrible evil. And if so, if we can't find a way to eliminate them, at least treat them like a necessary evil used only sparingly if at all?

Response to second paragraph: Just because you can't see another way, doesn't make the status quo right. Just because you are ok with the status quo, doesn't make it right. Vietnam Hawks couldn't see how to defend the country without conscription, that doesn't make conscription right. Plantation owners couldn't see how to harvest cotton without slaves, that doesn't make chattel slavery right. Income taxes are not as bad as conscription, and conscription isn't as bad as chattel slavery. But they are all similarly evil, if on different parts of the spectrum.

Again, let me be clear. Your inability to eliminate government programs, or to find moral ways to fund them, does not negate the evil of income taxes when viewed rationally as I described above.

I would like to point out nobody as of yet has even attempted to refute my rational view and description of income taxes.   

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2016, 12:18:26 PM »
Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend.  He made six figures, owned a house, truck, toys, boat.  Always complained about paying taxes (no state income tax).  He asked me how he could get away with paying less taxes.  I told him to go back to the factory job he had paying $10 per hour and living in a cheap apartment.

He never could connect the dots.

I find the people who complain the most about paying taxes are those with the most.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2016, 12:20:40 PM »
I don't think taxes are inherently evil.  I think you have to start from a fundamentally different premise than mine to get to your conclusion.  I don't think people who aren't starting from your premise are going to ever get to your conclusion. 

I think taxes could be evil under a few circumstances: you are not allowed to leave the jurisdiction (not true for anyone on this board), and/or you're not allowed to exercise some sort of influence in the process that determines the taxes (direct democracy, republic, whatever).  But we can both vote and leave the U.S. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2016, 12:22:11 PM »
"if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil."

You are always free to leave your country and pursue any percentage distribution you like.  You have the freedom to do that.  You don't have a moral right to take advantage of social programs (roads, emergency roods, fire department, schools etc) and not contribute money for that benefit. 

Until I see a solution with benefits provided for the entire society (rich and poor, the healthy and the disabled) that is paid for with voluntary donations by a small percentage of the population I am ok with the system as it is and am free to vote against or protest any particular problems that I see.  You can choose to call the system "evil", while I see it as necessary albeit often inefficient and then I go about my day being happy and enjoying my public library.  The choice is yours as to how you want to see the world, but the outcome is the same.  There will likely always be a percentage of citizen's income directed to fund services for the good of all.

This sums it up rather eloquently.

You don't live in a vacuum.  Public services and amenities are what make it possible to succeed in the way that we do.  If you don't like paying taxes for those services, you are free to opt out of the system by leaving . . . or vote against them and try to change the system from within.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2016, 12:23:16 PM »
I am one who supports keeping taxes as low as possible.

BUT.

I recognize that for some things, like roads, defense, police, even fire departments require the least effort and cost from me when paid for out of pooled money. Put another way, it seems like a bargain to me to have a reasonable portion of my income paid to the government to take care of these things for me.

Of course, I think taxes could be lower. For example, fire fighters could make do with a truck that, gasp, is more than 3 years old, instead of replacing it with the newest model way too often. And I do not support another red cent of my income going to our public schools, where it's syphoned off the top by administrators and is used more to push the social issue de jour than to educate the children in useful trades and skills... or going to providing a free college degrees. (Subject to requirements for teaching of metal and wood shops, among other things, I would support more spending for highschools. Germany has a good model for this, I think.)

So, I do agree that a healthy perception of taxes is 'necessary evil.'  What you see so many doing is supporting more taxes on other people, which is somehow, different.


Norioch

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2016, 12:25:05 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

If having a speed limit of 0mph on highways is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to have a speed limit of 60mph, or 300mph? Isn't any speed limit just lesser versions of a terrible evil?

Taxation to fund a democratic government isn't morally wrong, just as speed limits aren't morally wrong. 100% taxation would be incredibly stupid policy, just as a speed limit of 0mph would be incredibly stupid policy, but that doesn't mean the abstract concepts of taxes or speed limits are fundamentally evil.

I just filed my taxes. My total tax liability was absurdly high, higher than the median net household income in the US. But, I know my tax liability is only absurdly high because my income is also absurdly high, which is a good problem to have. I know I'm never going to be burdened by income taxes because I only have to pay income taxes when I already have the income to cover it.

Seriously, on the list of big concerns in my life, things that keep me up at night, "taxes" aren't anywhere on the list. They're an afterthought. In my opinion, people who claim that taxes are too high, and that this is morally wrong, are seriously lacking in perspective.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2016, 12:25:28 PM »
I am one who supports keeping taxes as low as possible.

BUT.

I recognize that for some things, like roads, defense, police, even fire departments require the least effort and cost from me when paid for out of pooled money. Put another way, it seems like a bargain to me to have a reasonable portion of my income paid to the government to take care of these things for me.

Of course, I think taxes could be lower. For example, fire fighters could make do with a truck that, gasp, is more than 3 years old, instead of replacing it with the newest model way too often. And I do not support another red cent of my income going to our public schools, where it's syphoned off the top by administrators and is used more to push the social issue de jour than to educate the children in useful trades and skills... or going to providing a free college degrees. (Subject to requirements for teaching of metal and wood shops, among other things, I would support more spending for highschools. Germany has a good model for this, I think.)

So, I do agree that a healthy perception of taxes is 'necessary evil.'  What you see so many doing is supporting more taxes on other people, which is somehow, different.

Yeah, the German model is pretty good.  Stop pretending 100% of citizens need to know medeival history, and teach them how to cut hair/fix engines/whatever.  That said, they make the division between college track and not so early that it seems a bit unfair to ten year olds of working class parents who only started school at 7 and haven't really had a chance to catch up by the time they're diagnosing their job aptitude.

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2016, 12:26:41 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

First answer: Because living under the protection of the body doing the taxing is the benefit exchanged for that % of your life. It is a free exchange, in that you are free to leave the country if you do not agree to the terms. Free exchange is not morally evil.

Second answer: No.

There, I've answered your questions.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2016, 12:28:43 PM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Response to your first paragraph: First, we can have a government without income taxes. Second, look at the end of my post. Even if we end up agreeing that we do "need" income taxes, shouldn't we treat them as a necessary evil? Instead of just acting like the income of people (and hence portions of their life) belong to some other party, as long as we can get enough votes?

Response to your second paragraph: As I expected, you are not responding to the question at hand. You are basically saying that you like income taxes because you, and others, benefit from them. That does not make income taxes the right thing to do. Lets say a banker has a tendency to steal from his company. You ask him how he justifies it, and he responds by saying it is justified because it benefits him and his family.

Your response is that of someone who is unwilling to confront the nature of a concept because you believe you and/or others benefit from that concept and aren't willing to lose that benefit.

Sure, we can treat them as a necessary evil.  I think we have lots of unnecessary taxation, and I wonder whether the tax code is the place to incentivize/disincentivize certain types of behavior (ie child tax credits. I'd rather just flat out subsidize families in an open way if that's what we're doing).  But I have never seen a functioning modern society that works without them.  I don't want to turn the US in to Scandinavia (and hate the trope that Sweden is somehow a paradise, having lived and worked there myself), but I sure as hell don't want to turn it in to Russia, which is alow-tax country I'm familiar with and have worked in.

I'm not saying I like the tax code because I personally benefit from it.  Hell, if I helped vote Cruz in to office I may end up owing 30K less in taxes if there's a friendly Congress.  Living in Cruz's vision of America is not worth 30K to me.  Especially because I have many other opportunities for tax optimization.  I could be less lazy and tax loss harvest, I could move abroad, I could find a job with more tax-sheltered savings options.  I have all sorts of freedom to minimize the taxes I pay.  Personally, I haven't found that tradeoff worth it yet, and morally, I feel an obligation to help other people who haven't had the luck I have in life.  I know full well it's not always the most efficient solution, but I haven't seen another one that works.

I guess I don't find the tax code to be as moral of an issue as you do. Maybe if I could see other societies that work in the 21st century without mandatory taxation, I'd be more willing to worry about taxation being theft somehow.

If an action is wrong, lack of an alternative action does not suddenly make it right. I am not saying there should be no mandatory taxation. Taxing income is morally wrong because you are laying claim to money that represents, directly, hours of someone's life and labor. Taxing investment income, while distasteful, is not morally wrong. You are taxing money that represents the workings of an abstract "market." The market is not a person, has no life, no time, has no agency and no rights. So by taxing investment income, you are taxing the theoretical "labor" of an abstract, and not the finite labor of a living human being with free agency, Similarly, taxing corporations does not carry the same moral implications as taxing people, for the same reason I described just now. Use taxes like those on toll roads also lack moral problems. Please note that I am not necessarily endorsing a tax plan, I am simply pointing out that there are ways for governments to raise money without laying claim of ownership on a portion of a human being's finite life and labor.


onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2016, 12:29:04 PM »
Seriously, on the list of big concerns in my life, things that keep me up at night, "taxes" aren't anywhere on the list. They're an afterthought. In my opinion, people who claim that taxes are too high, and that this is morally wrong, are seriously lacking in perspective.

Agreed.  It might be different if we had significantly higher rates or a broader base, so I can IMAGINE worrying about taxes, but given that I'll probably keep 200K-ish this year, I'll keep my mouth shut.  Also it could be different if we were in a place where they were clamping capital outflows or not letting people leave, but we aren't.  If slaves don't like having 100% of their time taken away, they can't do anything (short of violence, I suppose).  If we don't like 25% of our time being taken away, we can (i) vote to change the tax rates or (ii) leave, among many other more nuanced options.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2016, 12:33:47 PM »
I am simply pointing out that there are ways for governments to raise money without laying claim of ownership on a portion of a human being's finite life and labor.

Actually, I don't think you are, please clarify where you point out these ways for governments to raise money that align with your moral fabric. 

I'm also curious.  Issuing debt would only work if creditors found them credtiworthy, which is unlikely without guaranteed income from taxes.  Plus query whether you can have debt if you don't have the SEC registering it and the FDIC backing the banks and courts making debtors pay.  Any solution I can come up with requires a well-funded government behind the alternative means of getting money.

Louisville

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2016, 12:39:42 PM »
Your "they" is not "they". It's "we". "We" includes "you". You're part of a society, like it or not. It's just an inescapable fact that goes with existing on a planet with 7 billion other sentient beings. As horrible as it sounds, your life is not 100% yours. It's just not realistic to expect that. You may not want to be a part of the "we", but you don't have a choice, unless you go to your own planet.
I guess you could go somewhere on Earth with no taxes. Or you could work to abolish taxes here.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2016, 12:42:00 PM »
You're complaining  about taxation while at the same time using a currency that is printed and secured by the government, and you don't think that is worth something? Or is the government's inflation of money as de facto taxation also morally reprehensible? "You have no right to reduce the value of my money!" The maintenance of the banking system, regulation of our capitalistic society, and costs of voting. Are not all of these things that you are simply taking for granted and benefit from in your everyday life?

Just because an extreme is morally reprehensible, does not mean a lesser stance is only slightly less morally wrong. If a king can decide to execute someone we find that ethically wrong, but leaving him with the power to build a road has no moral or ethical standing in and of itself.

In fact there would be nothing morally wrong with 100% taxation given that you receive services worthy of that taxation, and you were compliant in that decision. In the same way, we have all decided that the society built by our forefathers is good enough to continue, and that society requires taxation to provide services that we have all agreed to. All parties have agreed on all terms of our government, and there is no one forcing you to continue to be a part of it.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2016, 12:47:40 PM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Response to your first paragraph: First, we can have a government without income taxes. Second, look at the end of my post. Even if we end up agreeing that we do "need" income taxes, shouldn't we treat them as a necessary evil? Instead of just acting like the income of people (and hence portions of their life) belong to some other party, as long as we can get enough votes?

Response to your second paragraph: As I expected, you are not responding to the question at hand. You are basically saying that you like income taxes because you, and others, benefit from them. That does not make income taxes the right thing to do. Lets say a banker has a tendency to steal from his company. You ask him how he justifies it, and he responds by saying it is justified because it benefits him and his family.

Your response is that of someone who is unwilling to confront the nature of a concept because you believe you and/or others benefit from that concept and aren't willing to lose that benefit.

Sure, we can treat them as a necessary evil.  I think we have lots of unnecessary taxation, and I wonder whether the tax code is the place to incentivize/disincentivize certain types of behavior (ie child tax credits. I'd rather just flat out subsidize families in an open way if that's what we're doing).  But I have never seen a functioning modern society that works without them.  I don't want to turn the US in to Scandinavia (and hate the trope that Sweden is somehow a paradise, having lived and worked there myself), but I sure as hell don't want to turn it in to Russia, which is alow-tax country I'm familiar with and have worked in.

I'm not saying I like the tax code because I personally benefit from it.  Hell, if I helped vote Cruz in to office I may end up owing 30K less in taxes if there's a friendly Congress.  Living in Cruz's vision of America is not worth 30K to me.  Especially because I have many other opportunities for tax optimization.  I could be less lazy and tax loss harvest, I could move abroad, I could find a job with more tax-sheltered savings options.  I have all sorts of freedom to minimize the taxes I pay.  Personally, I haven't found that tradeoff worth it yet, and morally, I feel an obligation to help other people who haven't had the luck I have in life.  I know full well it's not always the most efficient solution, but I haven't seen another one that works.

I guess I don't find the tax code to be as moral of an issue as you do. Maybe if I could see other societies that work in the 21st century without mandatory taxation, I'd be more willing to worry about taxation being theft somehow.

If an action is wrong, lack of an alternative action does not suddenly make it right. I am not saying there should be no mandatory taxation. Taxing income is morally wrong because you are laying claim to money that represents, directly, hours of someone's life and labor. Taxing investment income, while distasteful, is not morally wrong. You are taxing money that represents the workings of an abstract "market." The market is not a person, has no life, no time, has no agency and no rights. So by taxing investment income, you are taxing the theoretical "labor" of an abstract, and not the finite labor of a living human being with free agency, Similarly, taxing corporations does not carry the same moral implications as taxing people, for the same reason I described just now. Use taxes like those on toll roads also lack moral problems. Please note that I am not necessarily endorsing a tax plan, I am simply pointing out that there are ways for governments to raise money without laying claim of ownership on a portion of a human being's finite life and labor.

Interesting. I think if you had started a thread challenging ordinary income taxation, as opposed to capital, property, sales, etc taxes, you'd have gotten a very different discussion. So you're more okay with capital gains taxes and use taxes than ordinary income taxes?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but any investment income I have is because I worked and earned ordinary income and invested it.  Maybe I work a day for 1000 bucks, get 700 bucks, and invest 100 of that.  If that investment goes up 10% and I liquidate, I'd keep $101 and pay $9 in taxes.  I'm not bothered by that, but for most folks, capital gains also come indirectly from their job.  Obviously it's different if you inherit wealth or property.

How do you feel about estate taxes?  I am all for them being high, I don't think a dead person's wishes carry much weight, and they're very efficient taxation.  It sounds like you'd agree.

aFrugalFather

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
    • Life/Finance Blog
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2016, 12:47:46 PM »
If an action is wrong, lack of an alternative action does not suddenly make it right.

Life is not well separated into right and wrong and good vs. evil.  Instead, to have a worthwhile discussion and to make progress, worthwhile alternatives should be discussed to determine if they result in an improvement.  Otherwise what is the point.  Otherwise, your post comes off as "THIS IS EVIL, I DON"T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW IT CANNOT BE IMPROVED, OR THE MANY ADVANTAGES AND GOOD IT PROVIDES I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO AGREE THAT IT IS EVIL SO THAT WE CAN ALL HAVE SLEEPLESS NIGHTS TOGETHER."

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2016, 01:07:56 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

First answer: Because living under the protection of the body doing the taxing is the benefit exchanged for that % of your life. It is a free exchange, in that you are free to leave the country if you do not agree to the terms. Free exchange is not morally evil.

Second answer: No.

There, I've answered your questions.

Lets say that I live in a city with a powerful crime syndicate. This mafia extorts money from me every month and in response provides me with protection from petty criminals and other crime syndicates. I am free to ask them to stop. I am free to move. That does not make the extortion right. It is still wrong.

A slave owner provides food, shelter, education, and protection, does that make the relationship any less evil?

The wrong thing is often convenient, and the right thing is often inconvenient. That doesn't change the facts.

Philociraptor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 34
  • Location: NTX
  • Eat. Sleep. Invest. Repeat.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2016, 01:15:52 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

First answer: Because living under the protection of the body doing the taxing is the benefit exchanged for that % of your life. It is a free exchange, in that you are free to leave the country if you do not agree to the terms. Free exchange is not morally evil.

Second answer: No.

There, I've answered your questions.

Lets say that I live in a city with a powerful crime syndicate. This mafia extorts money from me every month and in response provides me with protection from petty criminals and other crime syndicates. I am free to ask them to stop. I am free to move. That does not make the extortion right. It is still wrong.

A slave owner provides food, shelter, education, and protection, does that make the relationship any less evil?

The wrong thing is often convenient, and the right thing is often inconvenient. That doesn't change the facts.

Extortion /= taxation. Extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. Taxation however is legal and enacted by representatives who have been voted on. It is a voluntary exchange.

Owning a person is wrong, regardless of how well they are treated. But slavery also /= taxation.

You are committing false equivalence.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 01:20:01 PM by Philociraptor »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2016, 01:16:35 PM »
I am simply pointing out that there are ways for governments to raise money without laying claim of ownership on a portion of a human being's finite life and labor.

Actually, I don't think you are, please clarify where you point out these ways for governments to raise money that align with your moral fabric. 

I'm also curious.  Issuing debt would only work if creditors found them credtiworthy, which is unlikely without guaranteed income from taxes.  Plus query whether you can have debt if you don't have the SEC registering it and the FDIC backing the banks and courts making debtors pay.  Any solution I can come up with requires a well-funded government behind the alternative means of getting money.

What...? Read 2 sentences above the bold. I suggested taxing investment income, corporations, and use taxes as alternatives. Here, I will quote myself for your convenience:

"Taxing investment income, while distasteful, is not morally wrong. You are taxing money that represents the workings of an abstract "market." The market is not a person, has no life, no time, has no agency and no rights. So by taxing investment income, you are taxing the theoretical "labor" of an abstract, and not the finite labor of a living human being with free agency, Similarly, taxing corporations does not carry the same moral implications as taxing people, for the same reason I described just now. Use taxes like those on toll roads also lack moral problems"

And this is not MY "moral fabric." This is the moral fabric of most people on the face of the world. Most people are simply not willing to apply their moral compass to this topic because they have been conditioned to think that income taxes and other functions of government are "different" or somehow exempt. Like ethics do not ally to government actions for some reason.

If it is unethical for me lay claim to 1/4 of your life, it is also unethical for me to get a bunch of people together to vote to lay claim to 1/4 of your life. The fact that you can ask us to stop doesn't change anything. The fact that you can try to leave doesn't change anything. Waving the magical government wand and calling it income tax doesn't change that.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2016, 01:20:30 PM »
It sounds like the discussion you want to have would require rethinking whether we should have any government, at all, which is not one I'm interested in joining or find particularly productive.

I will say that, for me, there's an element of nobless oblige.  I will make 300K pre-tax this year, and I'm 29. I know that I worked my ass off, but I also know I wouldn't have gotten here if my mother's union life insurance hadnt kept me out of foster care when I was orphaned, or if we didn't fund the courts that my clients use to defend their and their shareholders' interests, or didn't fund the NSF that has made so many huge technological advances and so much profit for me and our society, or I had been born to a minority teen mom, or or or.  I know it's basic, but I like the Rawlsian veil of ignorance perspective.  Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Response to your first paragraph: First, we can have a government without income taxes. Second, look at the end of my post. Even if we end up agreeing that we do "need" income taxes, shouldn't we treat them as a necessary evil? Instead of just acting like the income of people (and hence portions of their life) belong to some other party, as long as we can get enough votes?

Response to your second paragraph: As I expected, you are not responding to the question at hand. You are basically saying that you like income taxes because you, and others, benefit from them. That does not make income taxes the right thing to do. Lets say a banker has a tendency to steal from his company. You ask him how he justifies it, and he responds by saying it is justified because it benefits him and his family.

Your response is that of someone who is unwilling to confront the nature of a concept because you believe you and/or others benefit from that concept and aren't willing to lose that benefit.

Sure, we can treat them as a necessary evil.  I think we have lots of unnecessary taxation, and I wonder whether the tax code is the place to incentivize/disincentivize certain types of behavior (ie child tax credits. I'd rather just flat out subsidize families in an open way if that's what we're doing).  But I have never seen a functioning modern society that works without them.  I don't want to turn the US in to Scandinavia (and hate the trope that Sweden is somehow a paradise, having lived and worked there myself), but I sure as hell don't want to turn it in to Russia, which is alow-tax country I'm familiar with and have worked in.

I'm not saying I like the tax code because I personally benefit from it.  Hell, if I helped vote Cruz in to office I may end up owing 30K less in taxes if there's a friendly Congress.  Living in Cruz's vision of America is not worth 30K to me.  Especially because I have many other opportunities for tax optimization.  I could be less lazy and tax loss harvest, I could move abroad, I could find a job with more tax-sheltered savings options.  I have all sorts of freedom to minimize the taxes I pay.  Personally, I haven't found that tradeoff worth it yet, and morally, I feel an obligation to help other people who haven't had the luck I have in life.  I know full well it's not always the most efficient solution, but I haven't seen another one that works.

I guess I don't find the tax code to be as moral of an issue as you do. Maybe if I could see other societies that work in the 21st century without mandatory taxation, I'd be more willing to worry about taxation being theft somehow.

If an action is wrong, lack of an alternative action does not suddenly make it right. I am not saying there should be no mandatory taxation. Taxing income is morally wrong because you are laying claim to money that represents, directly, hours of someone's life and labor. Taxing investment income, while distasteful, is not morally wrong. You are taxing money that represents the workings of an abstract "market." The market is not a person, has no life, no time, has no agency and no rights. So by taxing investment income, you are taxing the theoretical "labor" of an abstract, and not the finite labor of a living human being with free agency, Similarly, taxing corporations does not carry the same moral implications as taxing people, for the same reason I described just now. Use taxes like those on toll roads also lack moral problems. Please note that I am not necessarily endorsing a tax plan, I am simply pointing out that there are ways for governments to raise money without laying claim of ownership on a portion of a human being's finite life and labor.

Interesting. I think if you had started a thread challenging ordinary income taxation, as opposed to capital, property, sales, etc taxes, you'd have gotten a very different discussion. So you're more okay with capital gains taxes and use taxes than ordinary income taxes?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but any investment income I have is because I worked and earned ordinary income and invested it.  Maybe I work a day for 1000 bucks, get 700 bucks, and invest 100 of that.  If that investment goes up 10% and I liquidate, I'd keep $101 and pay $9 in taxes.  I'm not bothered by that, but for most folks, capital gains also come indirectly from their job.  Obviously it's different if you inherit wealth or property.

How do you feel about estate taxes?  I am all for them being high, I don't think a dead person's wishes carry much weight, and they're very efficient taxation.  It sounds like you'd agree.

This thread IS about income taxes specifically. I thought that was clear from my description of taxing someone's labor=hours of time=life.

I think people are attacking what they wish or think I have said rather than what I have actually said.

I thought I was pretty clear we were talking about income taxes.

I am not arguing against roads, or services or government in general. I am saying that income taxes effectively confiscate hours of labor, which are hours of a person's life.

The thread title is "The casual attitude towards income taxation"

As for estate taxes: they are distasteful and I don't "like" them but they are not immoral as dead people are not people and hence have no rights as such.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 01:22:20 PM by winkeyman »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2016, 01:25:34 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

First answer: Because living under the protection of the body doing the taxing is the benefit exchanged for that % of your life. It is a free exchange, in that you are free to leave the country if you do not agree to the terms. Free exchange is not morally evil.

Second answer: No.

There, I've answered your questions.

Lets say that I live in a city with a powerful crime syndicate. This mafia extorts money from me every month and in response provides me with protection from petty criminals and other crime syndicates. I am free to ask them to stop. I am free to move. That does not make the extortion right. It is still wrong.

A slave owner provides food, shelter, education, and protection, does that make the relationship any less evil?

The wrong thing is often convenient, and the right thing is often inconvenient. That doesn't change the facts.

Extortion /= taxation. Extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. Taxation however is legal and enacted by representatives who have been voted on. It is a voluntary exchange.

Owning a person is wrong, regardless of how well they are treated. But slavery also /= taxation.

You are committing false equivalence.

Note the bolded part and the word "or."

Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.

I am not saying income taxes ARE extortion. But they are similar.

Indentured servitude is not literally slavery. Conscription is not literally slavery. Income taxes are not literally slavery. But they are all wrong, and for the same reasons.

Instead we could use investment income taxes, corporate taxes, use taxes, etc to fund government as necessary. We should use taxes that do not lay claim to a significant portion of a human being's life.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 01:28:49 PM by winkeyman »

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2016, 01:28:58 PM »
In a moral sense, how does taxing income differ from taxing, say, consumption?  One taxes the income when you get it, the other when you spend it.  I don't see a point differentiating between, say, a 10% income tax and a 10% sales tax – either way, for the money to actually be used you're paying 10% tax.

Louisville

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2016, 01:37:26 PM »
The question is this; if laying claim to 100 percent of my life is morally wrong, how can one say it is morally correct to lay claim to 25 percent, or 10 percent of it? Isn't any number from 100 percent to 1 percent is just lesser versions of a terrible evil.

First answer: Because living under the protection of the body doing the taxing is the benefit exchanged for that % of your life. It is a free exchange, in that you are free to leave the country if you do not agree to the terms. Free exchange is not morally evil.

Second answer: No.

There, I've answered your questions.

Lets say that I live in a city with a powerful crime syndicate. This mafia extorts money from me every month and in response provides me with protection from petty criminals and other crime syndicates. I am free to ask them to stop. I am free to move. That does not make the extortion right. It is still wrong.

A slave owner provides food, shelter, education, and protection, does that make the relationship any less evil?

The wrong thing is often convenient, and the right thing is often inconvenient. That doesn't change the facts.

Extortion /= taxation. Extort: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. Taxation however is legal and enacted by representatives who have been voted on. It is a voluntary exchange.

Owning a person is wrong, regardless of how well they are treated. But slavery also /= taxation.

You are committing false equivalence.

Note the bolded part and the word "or."

Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.

I am not saying income taxes ARE extortion. But they are similar.

Indentured servitude is not literally slavery. Conscription is not literally slavery. Income taxes are not literally slavery. But they are all wrong, and for the same reasons.

Instead we could use investment income taxes, corporate taxes, use taxes, etc to fund government as necessary. We should use taxes that do not lay claim to a significant portion of a human being's life.
But, isn't money fungible?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2016, 01:58:06 PM »
In a moral sense, how does taxing income differ from taxing, say, consumption?  One taxes the income when you get it, the other when you spend it.  I don't see a point differentiating between, say, a 10% income tax and a 10% sales tax – either way, for the money to actually be used you're paying 10% tax.

Good question.

Well, I think I have already articulated my view on income taxes. But just to clarify. I am a human being with rights. I have a moral right to use my life as I see fit, as long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. If I choose to trade a portion of my life for money, or for food, or for Pokémon cards, that is my right as a free human being. If some agent places a tax on the value of my labor/time/life, effectively some outside agent claiming a portion of my labor/time/life. Nobody owns my life, or any portion of it but me.

As for sales taxes. A sales tax is essentially a use tax, placed on the exchange of goods and services and is paid by the purchaser of said goods and services. Presumably it is levied to pay for the government services that facilitated the sale. It is a tax on goods. Goods and services are not people and have no innate rights or moral value. Maybe the best way to think of it is that taxing THINGS is morally different than taxing PEOPLE.

I know it may seem like a subtle or strange distinction. But it's not come concept that I just pulled out of thin air. It is why income taxes were generally avoided in America until the 20th century. It is an old fashioned moral view. But it did not fall out of fashion organically. It fell out of fashion because the American people were slowly socially conditioned to accept them and think about them in different terms.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 02:01:27 PM by winkeyman »

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2016, 02:18:03 PM »
Would I rather pay less in taxes? Yes.  Would I rather be in a different class in society where people like me are paying less taxes? Nope.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend.  He made six figures, owned a house, truck, toys, boat.  Always complained about paying taxes (no state income tax).  He asked me how he could get away with paying less taxes.  I told him to go back to the factory job he had paying $10 per hour and living in a cheap apartment.

He never could connect the dots.

I find the people who complain the most about paying taxes are those with the most.

hehehe.

The way I see it is that taxes are set at whatever rate they are and then the government places all these incentives in there for you. Under our current set of tax policies, the government wants to shape citizen's behavior. I will happily oblige.
What I would tell your friend is the government doesn't want you to pay that much in taxes. It's using income tax ation as a tool to get you to adopt certain practices (sin taxes are a great example). He is a fool for not connecting those dots. I'm paying 0% federal taxes in 2016 because I'm following their incentive structure (via retirement contributions). Robert Kiyosaki does the same through real estate investing.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2016, 02:19:15 PM »
In a moral sense, how does taxing income differ from taxing, say, consumption?  One taxes the income when you get it, the other when you spend it.  I don't see a point differentiating between, say, a 10% income tax and a 10% sales tax – either way, for the money to actually be used you're paying 10% tax.

Good question.

Well, I think I have already articulated my view on income taxes. But just to clarify. I am a human being with rights. I have a moral right to use my life as I see fit, as long as I am not infringing on the rights of others. If I choose to trade a portion of my life for money, or for food, or for Pokémon cards, that is my right as a free human being. If some agent places a tax on the value of my labor/time/life, effectively some outside agent claiming a portion of my labor/time/life. Nobody owns my life, or any portion of it but me.

But an income tax isn't a tax on your time or life, it's a tax on your wages.  Wages are just the amount of money paid for providing a service.  And plenty of services have sales taxes.  I don't think there's a moral distinction that you think there is.

Quote
As for sales taxes. A sales tax is essentially a use tax, placed on the exchange of goods and services and is paid by the purchaser of said goods and services. Presumably it is levied to pay for the government services that facilitated the sale. It is a tax on goods. Goods and services are not people and have no innate rights or moral value. Maybe the best way to think of it is that taxing THINGS is morally different than taxing PEOPLE.

I know it may seem like a subtle or strange distinction. But it's not come concept that I just pulled out of thin air. It is why income taxes were generally avoided in America until the 20th century. It is an old fashioned moral view. But it did not fall out of fashion organically. It fell out of fashion because the American people were slowly socially conditioned to accept them and think about them in different terms.

The only way to avoid a sales tax is to provide everything for yourself – farm your land, build your house, grow your food, etc — and never engage in commerce.  If you follow the exact same path, you would also avoid an income tax.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2016, 02:28:52 PM »
I think what maybe IS an evil tax is a head tax.  But I think they've been outlawed since the late 1800s.  Taxing your existence is definitely an extreme position (at least to us, although they were quite common historically).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2016, 02:50:47 PM »
Unlike slavery, all taxes are voluntary.  You choose to accept them when you choose to profit from living in a society supported by them.

There are lots of places with no taxes that you can choose to live.

The only morally reprehensible position in this debate is to protest taxes while simultaneously benefiting from them.  Either enjoy the benefits you pay for, or don't pay and don't enjoy.  Either way is cool with me.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2016, 02:57:09 PM »
Unlike slavery, all taxes are voluntary.  You choose to accept them when you choose to profit from living in a society supported by them.

There are lots of places with no taxes that you can choose to live.

The only morally reprehensible position in this debate is to protest taxes while simultaneously benefiting from them.  Either enjoy the benefits you pay for, or don't pay and don't enjoy.  Either way is cool with me.

hear, hear!

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2016, 03:03:11 PM »
So if I'm understanding correctly, you'd rather have a consumption tax than an income tax?  Is this correct?  Depending on how it was proposed I would be for that.

If that's not what you're saying, then please elaborate solutions.  I'm still unsure if this is meant to be a thread of thoughtful discussion or just anarchist bullshit.

woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2016, 03:06:18 PM »
You sound like me when I was sixteen years old and read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I hope you have the same glide path I do and resolve your differences with this country's evil taxation scheme ;)

Just as a specific example to work against your "taxation is immoral because it's taxing my TIME/LIFE/WHATEVER," I am making money now off of selling ebooks that I wrote years ago. I don't spend any more of my time or life making this money, it just keeps rolling in. I did have to spend some time initially writing the book, so is taxing my royalties now more or less immoral than during the initial release month? Or is royalty taxation one of the "moral" kinds from the getgo? This is just a specific example that breaks down the idiotic idea of income taxation being immoral.

If you want to talk about morality of taxes, talk about what happens to your taxes when they're being spent. That's where morality comes into play imo.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2016, 03:52:38 PM »
Well, I guess I was wrong.  I figured people on this forum would be more open to applying the same logic that drives them to FIRE on other areas of life (like taxation).

Guess I was wrong.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2016, 03:57:22 PM »
When faced with 20 similar opinions from a group of people who you generally consider rational, it might not be the 20 other peoples' whose thinking needs to be adjusted.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2016, 04:03:20 PM »
When faced with 20 similar opinions from a group of people who you generally consider rational, it might not be the 20 other peoples' whose thinking needs to be adjusted.

Touche. But this is a position resulting from my core ethical principles and not something an Internet discussion is going to influence.

This is not the first time I have been dog piled over this idea. I know it's a radical and unpopular position. That doesn't mean it is unethical.

I thought this crowd would appreciate the viewpoint. They dont. No big deal, can't win 'em all. I know when to quit.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2016, 04:10:53 PM »
TBH, I don't think it was framed well.  If you meant to have a debate about ordinary income taxation being replaced by other forms of consumption or estate taxes, I think people would be receptive. 

woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2016, 05:44:08 PM »
Touche. But this is a position resulting from my core ethical principles and not something an Internet discussion is going to influence.
So you're basically standing on a street corner yelling at people that their way of thinking is evil, you're not going to change your mind no matter what cogent arguments we put forward to the contrary, but we should all take time out of our day to discuss your thoughts seriously?

And you're saying that you're the rational one?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2016, 06:01:35 PM »
Touche. But this is a position resulting from my core ethical principles and not something an Internet discussion is going to influence.
So you're basically standing on a street corner yelling at people that their way of thinking is evil, you're not going to change your mind no matter what cogent arguments we put forward to the contrary, but we should all take time out of our day to discuss your thoughts seriously?

And you're saying that you're the rational one?

Hmm. Nope.

I hold a position that will not change. I presented my position. The audience didn't seem receptive so I'm bowing out.

Less like a crazy person yelling on a street corner and more like a polite Mormon missionary asking if you have considered the idea of the L D S church :p

Check2400

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2016, 06:05:36 PM »
Probing an argument is not the same as not appreciating the argument.  I think Kelsey is also right that framing an argument, especially one as attenuated as yours, is important.  Lastly, asking question to be answered, questioning the underlying basis, and providing similarly held but opposing beliefs is not being dismissive (although it can be), it is a debate.  Disagreeing and being irrational are not the same.  The civility of this debate already is exponentially higher than anywhere else on the interwebs, but it is still on the interwebs.  Rare indeed is the message board that serves as an all encompassing echo chamber of approval.

Because I can't help myself.

I think you are making quite a few presuppositions. 
1) You are empowered with rights simply by being a human being.
2) You have a moral right to use your life as you see fit.
3) Because you can provide labor, and that labor is taxed, that that tax is taking a part of your life against your will.   
4) Taxation of Income is Necessary.
5) Taxation is a Necessary Evil.
6) Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.

To go through these in reverse order.
Income taxes are enforced using force and intimidation.
Yes, not paying taxes can result in civil penalties and even jail time.  This is by agreement of the people in the land where you live.  Sure, it was decided a simple majority of votes cast from representatives, who were elected by a simply majority of votes cast from a gerrymandered electing population, that population making up an extreme minority of the population as a whole, but, hey, voter apathy amirite?  The point is that it has been put to a vote that the force and intimidation is agreed upon as appropriate.  Saying that "using force to enforce is wrong" is itself wrong on many levels, starting with the etymology of the words.  But You (the figurative you, I'm not attacking you personally) didn't vote for it!  You shouldn't be bound by it!  Perhaps, but I'll save that for the final point.

Taxation is a Necessary Evil.
This is an unsupported conclusion.  To pile on another example of why 100% of something can be wrong, but less than 100% of something can be great, I propose Oxygen.  I love the stuff.  Can't get enough of it--except that I can.  Because 100% pure oxygen is lethal.  But the oxygen I'm breathing now, that's the good stuff.  I'm willing to give up the pure goods for a solid hit of the dirty, because that's what I want.  What I need.  And because I want the benefits of some oxygen, it is not evil.  It is Good.  I want the benefits of some society (teaser trailer again for the end!) and I get a heck of deal by paying taxes as we have collectively agreed to.  Do I wish it was less?  Of course, I always want a deal, but I'm not finding anyone offering the product I desire--Apple Pie and Toby Keith--for a better cost.  So I'll take the good and not call it bad, because the mere existence of something that can be bad in excess does not make any amount of it bad. 

Taxation of Income is Necessary.   
*disclaimer, you (You you this time, not the figurative you) may not be making this argument, but were using it to present an example or further an argument. 
But in an abundance of caution...  No, Taxation of Income is not necessary.  It is an election, from an election (well, many elections, over time, by ourselves and those that have come before us, but you get what I'm saying).  To the opposite, we have not chosen to get rid of the taxation of Income tax, an option every election.  So we have made this choice.  Whether it is right, wrong, informed, or not, it is not necessary but instead a choice that we as a society have agreed upon.  Does that choice impede upon your rights as a human being (the suspense is killing me!).

Because you can provide labor, and that labor is taxed, that that tax is taking a part of your life against your will.
To use the verbatim language:  "I can provide labor," "Lets say I want to build up my 'stache," and "I am trading"
These are all choices.  You have the free will to not engage in any of these choices.  You knowingly enter into these choices, trading your time and toil for the known net prize at the end.  Not liking the taxation part of the deal doesn't mean that you are entering into the deal against your free will.  I don't like working out, and it takes up my time and makes me temporarily sore, but I do it for the end result. 
--To go down this rabbit hole even further, the first $10,300 of your income (just income taxes here, not payroll taxes, keep it on topic) are 100% tax free.  100%!!  That's $858.33 a month, slavery free.  Pretty nice, huh?  Also, of importance, I don't really work out.  I was just trying to impress whoever had read this far along.

You have a moral right to use your life as you see fit.
On this I suppose, on second reading, I agree.  You do have a moral right to use your life as you see fit.  It is a singular moral right, that you hold personally, that you can use your life as you see fit.  Your moral right is not the same as mine, hers, his, or ours.  If it is against your morals to do X, then you do not have to do X.  If it is against society's morals for you to do, or not do, X, and you break those morals, then society has a moral obligation to do as society sees fit.  I cannot disagree with you on a moral right, as that is an important part of what makes us who we are.  Because it is your morals, it is your right to hold those morals, and acting under your own morals is, truly, your inherent right.  But as you concede, you only get to assert that moral right consequence free only so long as you do not infringe upon the moral rights of others. 

You are empowered with rights simply by being a human being.
No.  No you are not.  You have one right, and that is the right to try and survive.  Our social constructs and communal living using our species' unique advantage of intelligence (no different than the superiority of the cheetah's speed or the tardigrades near invincibility) does not make that intelligence  come saddled with some inherent obligation of decency, respect, and deference to others.  We are still undoubtedly animals. It is only through society that we have these "inherent" rights.  And those rights do not come without strings.
 A good example of a source of inherent rights given by society is, conveniently enough, the Declaration of Independence. 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Pretty Cool, huh?  It even lends credence to your assertion that we are endowed by our Creator with these unalienable Rights-specifically Liberty, i.e. the right to work without that work propping up society.  And I would agree with you that that is a pretty good argument.  It makes it tough for me to swallow that pill, however, when this sentence created a nation that, nearly a century later, would have to take Life and Happiness from its own Countrymen in order to enforce that All Men Are Created Equal and deserving of Liberty.   

Going further, this Declaration was born from the American Colony's frustration of Britain's policy of Taxation Without Representation.  WHAT?  We asserted our inalienable rights, implemented the philosophies of such revolutionaries as Rosseau, Locke, and Voltaire, threw off the colonial patronage of the strongest nation in the western world to rise up to become the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, Birthplace of Baseball, Rock and Roll, Back to Back World War Champs, Where were you when the world stopped turning, Fried Macaroni and Cheese, Still the only Country to put a man on the Moon, God Bless 'MERICA RED WHITE AND BLUE.... because of taxation without representation? 

The Declaration bore the Constitution.  The Constitution governs our society, but "We the People" govern the Constitution.  The Constitution included Article V, allowing for Amendments.  Article V's allowance for Amendments led to the 16th Amendment.  The 16th Amendment allows for Federal Income Taxes.

You live in a place that was born from the very thing that you are protesting against.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

Maybe it sheds some light.  Maybe I just made you angry, which wasn't the intention (this was more engaging than working).  But at the very least, I hope that it shows you that your perspective of what is rational might not jive with others perspectives of what is rational.  And that is ok.  Different positions and different perspectives are what make things great. 

It just so happens that my perspective is the right one because I'm awesome.  ;)


woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2016, 06:13:07 PM »
Check, impressive post but you really should start working out. Drop and give us ten burpees!
Less like a crazy person yelling on a street corner and more like a polite Mormon missionary asking if you have considered the idea of the L D S church :p
Alright, no problem there. I hope eventually you see the light and come over to the One True Path (hail satan!)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2016, 06:30:38 PM »
Check, I will try to give your post the response it deserves tomorrow when I am a computer.

I have coincidentally been posting this evening between sets in my home gym lol. How mustachian.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2016, 06:35:21 PM »
Taxes are the price for living in a civilized society.  I'm happy to have them, every time I drive down the road, eat at a restaurant with safe food, drink my clean drinking water from the tap, or flush my toilet. 

With this level of enormous benefits, it would be pretty churlish of me to carp about paying my fair share.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2016, 06:42:52 PM »
Taxes are the price for living in a civilized society.  I'm happy to have them, every time I drive down the road, eat at a restaurant with safe food, drink my clean drinking water from the tap, or flush my toilet. 

I'm also really happy every time my home isn't invaded by barbarians, and when terrorists don't blow up the flight I'm on.  I mean toilets that flush are awesome, don't get me wrong, but keeping the barbarians out is really a higher priority for me.

There are some other benefits I appreciate.  I'm kind of proud that we put human footprints on the moon, and sequenced the human genome.  And I'm thrilled that my colleagues and neighbors were taught to read and write, so that they too can contribute to our GDP and help me pay for this stuff.

Stuff like humanitarian aid to disaster survivors (Indonesian tsunami, hurricane Katrina, etc) is a nice bonus, but I guess not strictly necessary.  All those folks in New Orleans could have just gone cannibal, if you're really going to stick with that whole "taxes are theft" argument.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2016, 06:48:44 PM »
Taxes are the price for living in a civilized society.  I'm happy to have them, every time I drive down the road, eat at a restaurant with safe food, drink my clean drinking water from the tap, or flush my toilet. 

I'm also really happy every time my home isn't invaded by barbarians, and when terrorists don't blow up the flight I'm on.  I mean toilets that flush are awesome, don't get me wrong, but keeping the barbarians out is really a higher priority for me.

There are some other benefits I appreciate.  I'm kind of proud that we put human footprints on the moon, and sequenced the human genome.  And I'm thrilled that my colleagues and neighbors were taught to read and write, so that they too can contribute to our GDP and help me pay for this stuff.

Stuff like humanitarian aid to disaster survivors (Indonesian tsunami, hurricane Katrina, etc) is a nice bonus, but I guess not strictly necessary.  All those folks in New Orleans could have just gone cannibal, if you're really going to stick with that whole "taxes are theft" argument.

Uh, right.  We are in agreement. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2016, 06:51:54 PM »
Taxes are the price for living in a civilized society.  I'm happy to have them, every time I drive down the road, eat at a restaurant with safe food, drink my clean drinking water from the tap, or flush my toilet. 

With this level of enormous benefits, it would be pretty churlish of me to carp about paying my fair share.

I'm not really interested in engaging the many responses that essentially say "we need income taxes I don't mind paying them you should pay your fair share."

That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm trying to say that income taxes present serious ethical problems and should be taken more seriously than they are by members of this community and the public at large.

This is not a very good example, I admit. It's more of an example about how I "feel" about the situation but here goes:

Lots of people have a flippant attitude towards animal euthanasia.  "Whatever, it's just a dog,. If it's leg is broke, just put it down. What's the big deal, get another one." I think that killing an animal, even one that is sick or injured has ethical implications. If it's absolutely necessary we and there is no other option, sure. But it shouldn't be our casual, go to option that is the first thing we turn to. We should treat income taxes the same way, and we shouldn't dismiss objections offhand with a callous "whatever you cheap skate, pay your fair share or get the he'll out!"

Does that make any sense at all?

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2016, 06:57:08 PM »
Taxes are the price for living in a civilized society.  I'm happy to have them, every time I drive down the road, eat at a restaurant with safe food, drink my clean drinking water from the tap, or flush my toilet. 

With this level of enormous benefits, it would be pretty churlish of me to carp about paying my fair share.

I'm not really interested in engaging the many responses that essentially say "we need income taxes I don't mind paying them you should pay your fair share."

That's not even what I'm talking about. I'm trying to say that income taxes present serious ethical problems and should be taken more seriously than they are by members of this community and the public at large.

This is not a very good example, I admit. It's more of an example about how I "feel" about the situation but here goes:

Lots of people have a flippant attitude towards animal euthanasia.  "Whatever, it's just a dog,. If it's leg is broke, just put it down. What's the big deal, get another one." I think that killing an animal, even one that is sick or injured has ethical implications. If it's absolutely necessary we and there is no other option, sure. But it shouldn't be our casual, go to option that is the first thing we turn to. We should treat income taxes the same way, and we shouldn't dismiss objections offhand with a callous "whatever you cheap skate, pay your fair share or get the he'll out!"

Does that make any sense at all?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with you.  Taxation is not theft.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike