The casual attitude towards income taxation

[onlykelsey]

You know what I really miss?  Freshman year philosophy classes.  This thread really brings me back.

[arebelspy]

It's also frustrating that you just ignore posts you have no response to.  You pick and choose what you feel are the "weakest" posts, and try to nitpick on them.

That's not a style of discussion, that's trying to "win."

If you make a point, someone responds, and you completely drop that line of the argument, it's pretty telling for how strong your argument is though.

[GuitarStv]

... If the private doctor agreed to treat you without charging you, you should not have to pay a mandatory fee to the government. Obviously. How is that not obvious to you?

This your example, not mine!  You're the one that said that under this completely hypothetical situation the government had levied a mandatory fee.  YOu appear to want to come up with some far-fetched example in order to prove your point that taxation is unethical. There is no $1k government fee for treating patients, but there *are* fees at low-cost clinics where doctors volunteer their time because a LOT goes into medical care besides just the time for the doctor you see.  I speak as someone who's spent a lot of time in the health-care industry.  Maybe come up with another random hypothetical?

The problem here is we are apparently so far apart on the basics that we cant see eye to eye.

If I agree to give you a massage in exchange for $5, that's between you and me. The government has nothing to do with it, no say in it. Or if it does, the government better have a REALLY goddamn good reason to justify getting involved. That is glaringly obvious to me. It's the natural order of things. Suggesting otherwise... confuses me.

You on the other hand seem to think that the government should naturally be involved in that $5 massage. It should, at the very least take one of the dollars that I earned as it's due. It is natural to you to see that part of the labor I am undertaking to give you that massage belongs to the government. That seems to be glaringly obvious to you, the natural order of things. Me suggesting otherwise leaves you confused.

So it is very hard for us to see eye to eye.

I agree that we are very far from seeing eye to eye on this.  What bothers me is your continual insistence that you are the sole determinant of what is and isn't ethical, what is and isn't morally wrong. Perhaps that is just the nature of your writing style, but you have left behind a string of definitive statements that, frankly, many of us completely disagree with. 
For example, saying "I believe out current income tax is unethical" is different from "I believe an income tax is inherently unethical" which in turn is also different from saying "An income tax IS unethical".  We can have a discussion about the first two statements, but not the third.

However, you've repeatedly said that you started this thread to get people to see that it is unethical.  In other words, either we accept your premise or we don't.  I don't. We can discuss the reasons for our disagreement, but you don't seem interested in doing this.

I have had this conversation with people before. On the internet, in person. Most of the time people disagree with me. Some people agree with me from the get-go. Sometimes, I change people's minds. Here is how it happens.

Frank holds the same basic assumptions as me. He believes that people have natural, inherent rights due to their Creator or their simple nature as human beings.

However, Frank has never applied these ideals to the concept of income taxation. Frank is an educated, professional adult. He is smart but spends most of his time thinking about his job, his retirement, his family. The big game on Sunday. He doesn't have a big problem with income taxes. They are mildly annoying, he sees the need for them, and an accountant does his taxes every April.

I describe to Frank more or less what I wrote in my first post. A discussion ensues. But in the end, he agrees with me because we hold the same core principles to be true. Frank has been conditioned to think about income taxes a certain way. When he applies his core principles to the topic, he sees through that lens that income taxes are indeed wrong and unethical when held up to his own already-held beliefs. "Wow, I never looked at it that way. Income taxes are really fucked up!"

I hoped that there would be some Franks on this board. Maybe there isn't. Maybe I did get some people to take a closer look at their regard for income taxes. Maybe there is a Frank reading this thread but not commenting.

I guess that hypothetical Frank is my audience. The non-Franks who reject the basic premise due to holding different core assumptions about the nature of man... I don't really expect those folks to change their deeply held core beliefs based on my postings on an Internet forum.

Got it.  You were hoping for a bunch of people who hadn't thought about this ever before and generally agreed with everything you said.  You were totally unprepared to respond to people who had thought about this (in some detail), and had differing opinions.

[arebelspy]

You know what I really miss?  Freshman year philosophy classes.  This thread really brings me back.

Nah, there was a lot more genuine openness and willingness to actually engage and learn from each other there.  No one was stubborn/refusing to concede points, or be "right."  Just discussing ideas.

[nereo]

ok - so in the interest of actually having a discussion, what 'lens' would you like to present that might have Frank agreeing that an income tax is unethical.

As I can see, you have already brought up the idea of it being involuntary, and there has been three core responses:
i) you can choose whether to earn income or not
ii) there is a very high initial level when you have no income tax
iii) it's not involuntary because we have voted and reaffirmed this for over a century.

besides that, what argument do you wish to make that an income tax is unethical?

[onlykelsey]

You know what I really miss?  Freshman year philosophy classes.  This thread really brings me back.

Nah, there was a lot more genuine openness and willingness to actually engage and learn from each other there.  No one was stubborn/refusing to concede points, or be "right."  Just discussing ideas.

Plus, they at least had the excuse of being teenagers.

[winkeyman]

If I agree to give you a massage in exchange for $5, that's between you and me. The government has nothing to do with it, no say in it. Or if it does, the government better have a REALLY goddamn good reason to justify getting involved. That is glaringly obvious to me. It's the natural order of things. Suggesting otherwise... confuses me.

It may confuse you, but that's the way society works.  It's the natural order of things.

If that massage place wants the protection of police, wants firefighters to come if it catches fire, wants roads maintained so clients can come to it, etc., then yes, they need to pay part of that money they make from massages to the government.  Nothing is unethical about this.

They are free to not offer massages if they don't want to pay that.

If the government forced them to give massages, yes, that's unethical.  Them voluntarily deciding "I'm going to make money, in a society, and I know that in doing so, I will need to pay part of that money to support that society" isn't unethical in any way.

+1 'rebs.  I was going to respond to this but I really couldn't say it any better.  Except to ask - does my $5 massage have a happy ending? (maybe not if the government is involved...)

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Even if that isn't a workable model, the NEED for these things doesn't make income taxes any more ethical. Force people to pay income taxes, but at least admit it is a shitty thing to do. At least that might discourage you from raising them unnecessarily or wasting the revenue.

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

[winkeyman]

It's also frustrating that you just ignore posts you have no response to.  You pick and choose what you feel are the "weakest" posts, and try to nitpick on them.

That's not a style of discussion, that's trying to "win."

If you make a point, someone responds, and you completely drop that line of the argument, it's pretty telling for how strong your argument is though.

Way too many posts and points for me to respond to all of them. If you re-state one such argument here, I will gladly respond.

[arebelspy]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Sure.  You could go do that.  That's not how our society works.  Societies set different rules, and you agree to them when you take actions in that society.

In ours, we've decided that we will give up part of our income (if we voluntarily decide to earn income) towards that society, to get various benefits.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to.

No.  The people agreed to give it up, by deciding to voluntarily take actions that are taxed.  If they didn't want to pay that tax, they could not do those actions, or they could leave.

TONS of people don't pay income taxes.  You could choose to be one of them, if you don't like to pay income taxes.  You know the cost of income taxes.  You know what earning various amounts of money will cost you.  If you voluntarily decide to do that, then yes, you owe the bill on it, just as if you voluntarily go to a store and buy something, you owe sales tax on it.  You could go to a place that HAS no sales tax.  Or you could not buy it.  But if you buy it in a place with a sales tax, yes, you need to pay that, and at that point it will be enforced.

[nereo]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Even if that isn't a workable model, the NEED for these things doesn't make income taxes any more ethical. Force people to pay income taxes, but at least admit it is a shitty thing to do. At least that might discourage you from raising them unnecessarily or wasting the revenue.

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

Paying for every service is not a workable model.  It's what caused us to create societies altogether.
Here your argument focuses on how wisely tax money is spent. I agree that we ought to spend our tax money better, but I also believe that waste and fraud are a proportionally small amount of the total, and that it's all too easy to arm-chair legislate and suggest that our country's problems could all be solved if we just appropriated money a little more efficiently.

Again, the government took the money because we gave them the authority to do so. I don't agree with everything we spend it on, but I know we all collectively get a say.

[GuitarStv]

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

I disagree with your assertion here.

I don't want to raise taxes unnecessarily, or waste the revenue from taxation.  I do fully see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the people, and the government is the representative of the people.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

Who has argued for frivolous tax and spending?

[Chris22]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Even if that isn't a workable model, the NEED for these things doesn't make income taxes any more ethical. Force people to pay income taxes, but at least admit it is a shitty thing to do. At least that might discourage you from raising them unnecessarily or wasting the revenue.

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

Paying for every service is not a workable model.  It's what caused us to create societies altogether.
Here your argument focuses on how wisely tax money is spent. I agree that we ought to spend our tax money better, but I also believe that waste and fraud are a proportionally small amount of the total, and that it's all too easy to arm-chair legislate and suggest that our country's problems could all be solved if we just appropriated money a little more efficiently.

Again, the government took the money because we gave them the authority to do so. I don't agree with everything we spend it on, but I know we all collectively get a say.

Depends on your definition of "waste and fraud".  Here in IL, we are drowning under A) public pensions and B) a massive number of government workers due our huge number of layers of government/taxing bodies.

I would say there is a HUGE amount "structural" waste in government, and that includes gold-plated public pensions. 

[winkeyman]

... If the private doctor agreed to treat you without charging you, you should not have to pay a mandatory fee to the government. Obviously. How is that not obvious to you?

This your example, not mine!  You're the one that said that under this completely hypothetical situation the government had levied a mandatory fee.  YOu appear to want to come up with some far-fetched example in order to prove your point that taxation is unethical. There is no $1k government fee for treating patients, but there *are* fees at low-cost clinics where doctors volunteer their time because a LOT goes into medical care besides just the time for the doctor you see.  I speak as someone who's spent a lot of time in the health-care industry.  Maybe come up with another random hypothetical?

The problem here is we are apparently so far apart on the basics that we cant see eye to eye.

If I agree to give you a massage in exchange for $5, that's between you and me. The government has nothing to do with it, no say in it. Or if it does, the government better have a REALLY goddamn good reason to justify getting involved. That is glaringly obvious to me. It's the natural order of things. Suggesting otherwise... confuses me.

You on the other hand seem to think that the government should naturally be involved in that $5 massage. It should, at the very least take one of the dollars that I earned as it's due. It is natural to you to see that part of the labor I am undertaking to give you that massage belongs to the government. That seems to be glaringly obvious to you, the natural order of things. Me suggesting otherwise leaves you confused.

So it is very hard for us to see eye to eye.

I agree that we are very far from seeing eye to eye on this.  What bothers me is your continual insistence that you are the sole determinant of what is and isn't ethical, what is and isn't morally wrong. Perhaps that is just the nature of your writing style, but you have left behind a string of definitive statements that, frankly, many of us completely disagree with. 
For example, saying "I believe out current income tax is unethical" is different from "I believe an income tax is inherently unethical" which in turn is also different from saying "An income tax IS unethical".  We can have a discussion about the first two statements, but not the third.

However, you've repeatedly said that you started this thread to get people to see that it is unethical.  In other words, either we accept your premise or we don't.  I don't. We can discuss the reasons for our disagreement, but you don't seem interested in doing this.

I have had this conversation with people before. On the internet, in person. Most of the time people disagree with me. Some people agree with me from the get-go. Sometimes, I change people's minds. Here is how it happens.

Frank holds the same basic assumptions as me. He believes that people have natural, inherent rights due to their Creator or their simple nature as human beings.

However, Frank has never applied these ideals to the concept of income taxation. Frank is an educated, professional adult. He is smart but spends most of his time thinking about his job, his retirement, his family. The big game on Sunday. He doesn't have a big problem with income taxes. They are mildly annoying, he sees the need for them, and an accountant does his taxes every April.

I describe to Frank more or less what I wrote in my first post. A discussion ensues. But in the end, he agrees with me because we hold the same core principles to be true. Frank has been conditioned to think about income taxes a certain way. When he applies his core principles to the topic, he sees through that lens that income taxes are indeed wrong and unethical when held up to his own already-held beliefs. "Wow, I never looked at it that way. Income taxes are really fucked up!"

I hoped that there would be some Franks on this board. Maybe there isn't. Maybe I did get some people to take a closer look at their regard for income taxes. Maybe there is a Frank reading this thread but not commenting.

I guess that hypothetical Frank is my audience. The non-Franks who reject the basic premise due to holding different core assumptions about the nature of man... I don't really expect those folks to change their deeply held core beliefs based on my postings on an Internet forum.

Got it.  You were hoping for a bunch of people who hadn't thought about this ever before and generally agreed with everything you said.  You were totally unprepared to respond to people who had thought about this (in some detail), and had differing opinions.

That's one-way to oversimplify it.

I have had this conversation many times before. I am fully prepared for most people to disagree. I can respond to differing opinions. What I cannot effectively respond to is differing core beliefs. Those come from upbringing and experience and are not changed unless through major life events.

Lets say I were to go to North Korea and have a conversation with a North Korean state party supporter:

Me: You are a free human being and you own your own life.
North Korean: No, my life belongs to the State and the Dear Leader.

How can I supposed to respond to that? That's not a political disagreement over zoning issues on where to build a city park. That is a fundamental clash of core beliefs. I am not going to try to change that North Korean's view, it would be futile.

Now maybe some North Korean dissident-in-waiting hears the conversation and start thinking about this idea that he owns his own life. That's great.

I was hoping some folks here would find this view on taxation interesting and provoke thought or discussion. A couple have chimed in. Maybe a few others are reading but not commenting.

But the majority of the folks responding disagree on a fundamental level with the core premises of my statements. We are not going to change each others minds.

[winkeyman]

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

I disagree with your assertion here.

I don't want to raise taxes unnecessarily, or waste the revenue from taxation. I do fully see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the people, and the government is the representative of the people.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

Who has argued for frivolous tax and spending?

Again, this statement demonstrates that our core principles are too far apart for us to have a meaningful conversation on the topic. We disagree on the fundamental principles at play, bickering about the details is silly.

[winkeyman]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Sure.  You could go do that.  That's not how our society works.  Societies set different rules, and you agree to them when you take actions in that society.

In ours, we've decided that we will give up part of our income (if we voluntarily decide to earn income) towards that society, to get various benefits.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to.

No.  The people agreed to give it up, by deciding to voluntarily take actions that are taxed.  If they didn't want to pay that tax, they could not do those actions, or they could leave.

TONS of people don't pay income taxes.  You could choose to be one of them, if you don't like to pay income taxes.  You know the cost of income taxes.  You know what earning various amounts of money will cost you.  If you voluntarily decide to do that, then yes, you owe the bill on it, just as if you voluntarily go to a store and buy something, you owe sales tax on it.  You could go to a place that HAS no sales tax.  Or you could not buy it.  But if you buy it in a place with a sales tax, yes, you need to pay that, and at that point it will be enforced.

I acknowledge that our society works that way.

I am saying that it should not work that way. We should change it.

I was/am trying to present a fundamentally different view of how society should work, specifically in regards to income taxes. If you disagree with that view, fine.

Since we fundamentally disagree with how the foundation should be built, what is the point or arguing over the color of the roof?

[nereo]

...
I was hoping some folks here would find this view on taxation interesting and provoke thought or discussion. A couple have chimed in. Maybe a few others are reading but not commenting.

But the majority of the folks responding disagree on a fundamental level with the core premises of my statements. We are not going to change each others minds.

Given that this thread has generated four pages of responses in about 6 hours I'd say there there is a lot of thought and discussion going on here. Maybe there are people reading whom you've convinced and aren't responding.  But why are all of the other responses seemingly invalid in your view? Your implication here is that the discussion is only worthwhile if people agree with you.

[nereo]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Sure.  You could go do that.  That's not how our society works.  Societies set different rules, and you agree to them when you take actions in that society.

In ours, we've decided that we will give up part of our income (if we voluntarily decide to earn income) towards that society, to get various benefits.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to.

No.  The people agreed to give it up, by deciding to voluntarily take actions that are taxed.  If they didn't want to pay that tax, they could not do those actions, or they could leave.

TONS of people don't pay income taxes.  You could choose to be one of them, if you don't like to pay income taxes.  You know the cost of income taxes.  You know what earning various amounts of money will cost you.  If you voluntarily decide to do that, then yes, you owe the bill on it, just as if you voluntarily go to a store and buy something, you owe sales tax on it.  You could go to a place that HAS no sales tax.  Or you could not buy it.  But if you buy it in a place with a sales tax, yes, you need to pay that, and at that point it will be enforced.

I acknowledge that our society works that way.

I am saying that it should not work that way. We should change it.

I was/am trying to present a fundamentally different view of how society should work, specifically in regards to income taxes. If you disagree with that view, fine.

Since we fundamentally disagree with how the foundation should be built, what is the point or arguing over the color of the roof?

Ok - this we can work with.  Winkeyman, HOW woudl you propose changing our society in regards to taxation, the government, and our role regarding both?

[captinsnow]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Even if that isn't a workable model, the NEED for these things doesn't make income taxes any more ethical. Force people to pay income taxes, but at least admit it is a shitty thing to do. At least that might discourage you from raising them unnecessarily or wasting the revenue.

As it stands, most people and the government see income tax revenue as rightly belonging to the government in the first place. As a result, they are careless about setting rates and spending the money wisely.

That money doesn't belong to the government. They took it, involuntarily, by force from the people it does belong to. So if you ABSOLUTELY have to do something so shitty, at least don't be smug about it, and don't tax/spend in frivolous ways.

Paying for every service is not a workable model.  It's what caused us to create societies altogether.
Here your argument focuses on how wisely tax money is spent. I agree that we ought to spend our tax money better, but I also believe that waste and fraud are a proportionally small amount of the total, and that it's all too easy to arm-chair legislate and suggest that our country's problems could all be solved if we just appropriated money a little more efficiently.

Again, the government took the money because we gave them the authority to do so. I don't agree with everything we spend it on, but I know we all collectively get a say.

Advocating living in an area without government is not a wrong platform to run on, even if I don't think it would work within current society. It is however something I think that would works much better in small populations. Decreasing taxes and allowing yourself to opt out of specific programs; you forfeit your benefit to the program in the process. This does occur is some more rural areas, an example of this and the fallout associate can be found here:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

Now you could shift the maintenance of roads to the private sector. Healthcare could also be purely private. Police forces could be privately paid for as well, all public programs could be monetized and turned into privately owned companies until you got to the point that there is no government. Rather private companies control how and when they operate. I personally think this would be a very corrupt system (History has examples: Las Vegas) and far worse than the current one but it is a model that could have some success if people would live less selfishly.

I don't think the argument that "but that's the way society works.  It's the natural order of things." is a valid one. Societies change how they operate and how they are currently run will not be how they are run 1000 years from now.

Moving to Antartica or the Western Sahara you could achieve a life without any government involvement currently. In the near future Mars or becoming the captain on the Enterprise might be an option as well.

[nereo]

Moving to Antartica or the Western Sahara you could achieve a life without any government involvement currently. In the near future Mars or becoming the captain on the Enterprise might be an option as well.

I always thought the captain of the Enterprise was a federal government employee paid for through taxation of its citizens. Am I wrong?  If so - how does the federation get all the money to build those fancy ships? Isn't gold-pressed latinum at least one of the currencies of the Federation?

[Tetsuya Hondo]

I was hoping some folks here would find this view on taxation interesting and provoke thought or discussion. A couple have chimed in. Maybe a few others are reading but not commenting.

Why do you assume we've never heard this line of thought before? You're not even the first person to make this line of argument on these forums. Do a quick search. We've done the whole taxation is theft argument before.

Now, if you have some novel ideas for other ways we can fund government or improve government efficiency or even live in post-government libertarian utopian society, I'm - and I'm sure others - are all ears. But, browbeating us into accepting a shaky premise and then not so subtly telling us we're stupid or unenlightened for not embracing it isn't a great way to generate a discussion.

[neo von retorch]

...proves my point that most people are not capable of applying logic and reason to the assumptions...

Always a good way to get a good discussion going!

This original post seems to hinge on at least one big assumption:

Wages are fixed and fully reflective of the value of a human life.

In other words, without taxes, and the things they are spent on, wages would be exactly the same, as would job opportunities. Shall we look at an extreme?

Let's say that we live in a fully communal state. (We know that human motivation would be a problem, but we're looking at extremes for a reason.) All that you earn (100%) is taxed. All that you need is provided for by that taxation. And government is just barely 100% efficient. If you decrease the amount you are taxed, your needs would not be met because government could not afford it. Ignoring this extreme for now, since I can't even wrap my head around it!

Let's say that we live in an anarchist state. 100% free market. Private individuals and companies form themselves to meet the needs of the communities. If your community wants a road, they hire one of these companies. They pool themselves together, and each give 5% of their income. If your community wants school, they pool their money to pay for the building, supplies and the educators. Maybe they each give 5% of their income. And so forth. The end result being that while you "keep" 100% of your income, you need give it up for these shared services.

Assuming the free market and the government were equally efficient, the net result might be the same. Of course, we know that the government is not equally as efficient as the free market, but we also know that the free market does not necessarily complete everything that might be useful as a shared cost, shared use service.

I think the overall argument, which sol hinted at, would be which of our needs should be handled by the federal government, where taxes pay for them? Once upon a time, protection from barbarians was sufficiently handled by volunteers, and we did not need that expense. Now we have an extreme in the opposite direction, where we've got what could arguably be an excess of defense (to the point of offense) and a large portion of our taxes pay for that (as well as debt.)

All of this is just to say that taxes are not "tax on a human life" - they are a way to pool resources (money) for collectively useful services, and that if the taxes and government did not exist, but you still wanted those things, assuming the "amount you were paid" was still the same, you'd likely still be paying out a decent portion of that anyway, for the collective useful services you still wished to exist so you could use them.

[winkeyman]

...
I was hoping some folks here would find this view on taxation interesting and provoke thought or discussion. A couple have chimed in. Maybe a few others are reading but not commenting.

But the majority of the folks responding disagree on a fundamental level with the core premises of my statements. We are not going to change each others minds.

Given that this thread has generated four pages of responses in about 6 hours I'd say there there is a lot of thought and discussion going on here. Maybe there are people reading whom you've convinced and aren't responding.  But why are all of the other responses seemingly invalid in your view? Your implication here is that the discussion is only worthwhile if people agree with you.

They aren't invalid. Obviously they are valid as they are expressing a majority viewpoint, a viewpoint that reflects how most people think and describes how our society currently is run.

I guess I am not sure what you mean by invalid? I reject them out of hand because they fly in the face of my deeply held core principles and beliefs in regards to inherent human rights.

Maybe what you and others should take away from this is a better understanding that some people oppose income taxes because they conflict with their deeply help core principles. Not just dismiss them as greedy, self-absorbed assholes who hate poor people.

[arebelspy]

If it is a deeply held core principle, what are you doing to act on it?

[captinsnow]

I always thought the captain of the Enterprise was a federal government employee paid for through taxation of its citizens. Am I wrong?  If so - how does the federation get all the money to build those fancy ships? Isn't gold-pressed latinum at least one of the currencies of the Federation?

According to the star trek wiki on the topic: "A tax was a fee levied by a government that paid for public institutions and programs. It could be based on income, property ownership, purchases of goods or services, or licenses and permits. Although many civilizations levied taxes, there is no indication that it existed as part of the Federation's economy." Maybe the ships were donated.

I was referring to more to the bartering of goods and services that occurs. I was likening the ship itself to a small village, it isn't large enough where taxes provide a benefit. It also is probably similar to a non-profit... scientific discovery being the goal.

Maybe they should just alter the way people get paychecks. You could only display take home pay buy describing your employment contract like this: For the first x hours you work you will be paid x dollars per an hour(Up to the deduction you would be eligible for) and x * .84 between x hours and y hours and so on.... Taking the visibility out of how much you are paying in taxes and programs; I wonder if it would increase overall happiness. But that is probably trending a little off topic.

[woopwoop]

I have had this conversation many times before. I am fully prepared for most people to disagree. I can respond to differing opinions. What I cannot effectively respond to is differing core beliefs. Those come from upbringing and experience and are not changed unless through major life events.

Except I used to think exactly the same way you do, down to the morality chest-thumping libertarianism and self-righteous "I'm such a victim, why do people think my ideas are assholish?!". That was back in high school/college, and I've since changed my beliefs after engaging in productive discussions with people about my "core" beliefs and realizing I was very, very wrong. I wish someone had knocked some sense into me earlier, but what can you do. This is not to say that because I changed my mind, I'm inherently right, but you're dismissing the possibility of changing your mind at all. That's very closeminded.

[neo von retorch]

I reject them out of hand because they fly in the face of my deeply held core principles and beliefs in regards to inherent human rights.

This hinges upon these assumptions:
* We have a human right to earn money and keep all of it
* The amount of money we would earn if communal services, national defense, technological advancement, etc credited to government taxes would be identical (or better)

Can you argue the second assumption, in detail?

[nereo]

I always thought the captain of the Enterprise was a federal government employee paid for through taxation of its citizens. Am I wrong?  If so - how does the federation get all the money to build those fancy ships? Isn't gold-pressed latinum at least one of the currencies of the Federation?

According to the star trek wiki on the topic: "A tax was a fee levied by a government that paid for public institutions and programs. It could be based on income, property ownership, purchases of goods or services, or licenses and permits. Although many civilizations levied taxes, there is no indication that it existed as part of the Federation's economy." Maybe the ships were donated.

I was referring to more to the bartering of goods and services that occurs. I was likening the ship itself to a small village, it isn't large enough where taxes provide a benefit. It also is probably similar to a non-profit... scientific discovery being the goal.

Maybe they should just alter the way people get paychecks. For the first x hours you work you will be paid x dollars per an hour(Up to the deduction you would be eligible for) and x * .84 between x hours and y hours and so on.... Taking the visibility out of how much you are paying in taxes and programs; I wonder if it would increase overall happiness. But that is probably trending a little off topic. I've enjoyed the read overall.

How the economy worked in the StarTrek world was always a bit fuzzy to me.  On one hand there were certainly profits to be made (see the Ferengi) and a sprinkling of references about how the federation could not "afford" this or that, but the characters themselves never seem to mention their pay, having money problems etc (if you can find a reference, please tell me).  It always seemed to be some sort of mashup between socialism and capitolism, where you were rewarded for good work but those things didn't seem to be paid for with currency.

I'm not sure if your sliding scale of pay is a good idea or a bad idea, but I've had a similar thought regarding helath care.  With employers fitting so much of the bill for health care, lots of people are completely clueless about what their health care plan costs; they only see the portion they are required to pay. Recently I had one friend complain that her health-care costs had almost doubled because they went from $28 to $45 for her and her husband.  I tried to explain that the cost of her healthcare plan was much, much higher, but hidden because her employer was covering 80%+ of it... not sure she got it.  So it is with a lot of people. 

[arebelspy]

You all missed Picard's speech in First Contact about how they don't work for pay, but work to better themselves.

Money is pretty useless in a universe with replicators.

IDK how the Ferangi fit into that.

I'm sure Google has some good hits on Star Trek Economy.

[winkeyman]

If it is a deeply held core principle, what are you doing to act on it?

By trying to convince people to change their minds.

It usually doesn't work. Sometimes it does. So it goes.

[Philociraptor]

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

So, having failed to present a convincing logical argument, we should take up your inflexible position on faith? Like a missionary?

I don't care if you personally adopt the position. I'm not going to fight tooth and nail to change your mind.

Jon: Income taxes are perfectly ethical.
Kim: No they're not. Prove it.
Jon: Income taxes pay for the safety and services of society.
Kim: People didn't ask for safety and services. There is no proof of such a thing.
Jon: Well, I think people deserve to have safety and services, so income taxes are ethical.
Kim: What if government is taxing you 100% and you have a gun. Is it wrong to stop them?
Jon: No, that's different, obviously.
Kim: I don't see any difference. If it is ever unethical to tax people, it is unethical to tax people for any reason whatsoever as long as the majority agrees.
Jon: No.... no it's not.
Kim: Yes it is. You can't prove to me that income taxes are ethical. So they are unethical.
Jon: ...


How long do you think Jon should continue on with this "debate?" Without Kim sharing certain values and assumptions, Jon can't "demonstrate" why it is fine to tax people. Kim should have learned why taxation is ethical as an adolescent. Jon probably cannot effectively teach that lesson as an adult.

Above story modified to fit this conversation.

[neo von retorch]

It's also frustrating that you just ignore posts you have no response to.  You pick and choose what you feel are the "weakest" posts, and try to nitpick on them.

That's not a style of discussion, that's trying to "win."

If you make a point, someone responds, and you completely drop that line of the argument, it's pretty telling for how strong your argument is though.

Wish I'd read that before posting. Now I know my two posts will be ignored :)

[mrshudson]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" - James Madison.

That, and the fact of the matter is that at least a large portion of where people are in life, what they do and how much they make is attributable to chance so what you claim as your time and your money isn't in fact yours. Sorry to poop on all the libertarian fantasies.

Oh and I'm a pretty infrequent visitor to the forums, so don't bother looking to debate with me.

[Yaeger]

I think the ethical considerations of taxation is a separate topic from the casual use of taxation to chase after an idea of 'fairness'. Fair and ethical are used pretty interchangeably here but they're not the same. Fair is defined as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Ethical is pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

So no, our tax code isn't fair. It's progressive and the efforts to push it towards a more progressive slant indicate a bias like someone proclaiming the rich are 'not paying their fair share.' A fair tax code would be a flat tax, or an early Constitutional tax (all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States). It's really a subjective ethical discussion when you start talking about the 'burden' of taxation and divvying up tax rates by need and ability.

Also, we're using the idea of fair and ethical considerations to design and implement tax policy, without a focus on analyzing the results and the impacts of these programs. Milton Friedman once said "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." He's right, it's politically impossible to scale back a program once you've changed behaviors and told people that they can rely on this support. All government programs must be temporary. There is a stated goal, an objective to be obtained and the success of the program to be judged by. The Great Society programs were there to eliminate poverty.

I definitely think there's a casual attitude towards taxes, especially if you're suggesting raising taxes upon other people. I don't think people realize that increasing taxes on the rich, businesses, and trade can have a very serious long-term impact on everyone. There is always a negative impact, and usually with government the negatives tend to outweigh the positives. And that casual attitude towards increasing someone else's tax (hurting everyone to help yourself) is a very dangerous attitude to have.

[onlykelsey]

I think the ethical considerations of taxation is a separate topic from the casual use of taxation to chase after an idea of 'fairness'. Fair and ethical are used pretty interchangeably here but they're not the same. Fair is defined as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Ethical is pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

So no, our tax code isn't fair. It's progressive and the efforts to push it towards a more progressive slant indicate a bias like someone proclaiming the rich are 'not paying their fair share.' A fair tax code would be a flat tax, or an early Constitutional tax (all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States). It's really a subjective ethical discussion when you start talking about the 'burden' of taxation and divvying up tax rates by need and ability.

Also, we're using the idea of fair and ethical considerations to design and implement tax policy, without a focus on analyzing the results and the impacts of these programs. Milton Friedman once said "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." He's right, it's politically impossible to scale back a program once you've changed behaviors and told people that they can rely on this support. All government programs must be temporary. There is a stated goal, an objective to be obtained and the success of the program to be judged by. The Great Society programs were there to eliminate poverty.

I definitely think there's a casual attitude towards taxes, especially if you're suggesting raising taxes upon other people. I don't think people realize that increasing taxes on the rich, businesses, and trade can have a very serious long-term impact on everyone. There is always a negative impact, and usually with government the negatives tend to outweigh the positives. And that casual attitude towards increasing someone else's tax (hurting everyone to help yourself) is a very dangerous attitude to have.

This I'll agree with. I think lots of people want other people to be taxed for things they want to government to do (either out of self interest or a moral preference).

of course, it also works vice versa.  People think the programs THEY don't like should be defunded, and the ones they do should stay funded.

The actual effects of taxation on actors' behavior and the economy as a whole are pretty well-studied.  There's a lot of data about, for example, how flexible demand for cigarettes is (not very).  You can argue that taxing cigarettes is a good thing because it's easy income for the state and/or you want people to stop smoking and/or it's fair to make them pay in to the coffers as they will certainly cost the rest of us some money, or a bad thing because it's a consumption tax or regressive, but you can't really argue much about the documented EFFECTS of taxing cigarettes on demand.

[arebelspy]

If it is a deeply held core principle, what are you doing to act on it?

By trying to convince people to change their minds.

It usually doesn't work. Sometimes it does. So it goes.

Arguing with a few people about your radical ideas (with no idea on a better system) doesn't seem very effective. Especially based on the arguments you've put forth, which are just a stubborn "this is my core belief" with no reasoning behind it. I wouldn't be surprised if several of the people you've "convinced" just didn't want to argue with you about it.

And even if you did convince them..so what? You don't have an alternate plan to tell them to advocate for, so you've merely convinced them to be unhappy, with no alternative.  There's nothing for them to lobby for, and work towards changes.

Finally, participating in a system you find unethical, a system you can opt out of, seems unethical, to me.  It also seems hypocritical to me to call a system unethical and voluntarily participate in it.

It may be worthwhile for you, if this is a deeply held core belief, to:
1) Come up with an alternate you can work towards, and
2) Opt out of a system you find unethical

Or you can try to understand that others have different views than you on what is and isn't ethical, and try to live your life as best you can, within your ethical framework.

Good luck!

[winkeyman]

If it is a deeply held core principle, what are you doing to act on it?

By trying to convince people to change their minds.

It usually doesn't work. Sometimes it does. So it goes.

Arguing with a few people about your radical ideas (with no idea on a better system) doesn't seem very effective. Especially based on the arguments you've put forth, which are just a stubborn "this is my core belief" with no reasoning behind it. I wouldn't be surprised if several of the people you've "convinced" just didn't want to argue with you about it.

And even if you did convince them..so what? You don't have an alternate plan to tell them to advocate for, so you've merely convinced them to be unhappy, with no alternative.  There's nothing for them to lobby for, and work towards changes.

Finally, participating in a system you find unethical, a system you can opt out of, seems unethical, to me.  It also seems hypocritical to me to call a system unethical and voluntarily participate in it.

It may be worthwhile for you, if this is a deeply held core belief, to:
1) Come up with an alternate you can work towards, and
2) Opt out of a system you find unethical

Or you can try to understand that others have different views than you on what is and isn't ethical, and try to live your life as best you can, within your ethical framework.

Good luck!

I do have an alternative suggestion. Decrease income tax rates. Find a more ethical way to pay for programs. If no ethical method is available,  cut programs.  Limit spend in and limit taxation to the greatest extent possible. This is obviously not what we are doing right now. Right now our government spends as much money as is politically possible and taxes as much as is politically possible. This is the wrong track to be on.

[Jeremy E.]

Taxes are a way to pay for services provided by the government. Not paying for services provided to you is unethical, paying for services provided to you is ethical. Taxes are ethical.

[beltim]

It's also frustrating that you just ignore posts you have no response to.  You pick and choose what you feel are the "weakest" posts, and try to nitpick on them.

That's not a style of discussion, that's trying to "win."

If you make a point, someone responds, and you completely drop that line of the argument, it's pretty telling for how strong your argument is though.

Way too many posts and points for me to respond to all of them. If you re-state one such argument here, I will gladly respond.

I'll repeat myself again:

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.

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.

And I'm comfortable doing this because other people have also asked the same question:

I'm going to repeat this because you haven't responded to it, and I'm curious to figure out why you think an income tax is any different morally from a sales tax.

I'm curious about this too.

and

as for: That treatment of the topic doesn't even attempt to examine the moral or ethical problems with income taxation - I have two points
i) what about the moral or ethical implications of a system that the majority of individuals support
ii) what about Beltim's question: why you think an income tax is any different morally from a sales tax?

Fundamentally, there's no difference between taxing the income of a person and taxing the transaction in which someone buys a good produced by someone's labor.

[nereo]

I do have an alternative suggestion. Decrease income tax rates. Find a more ethical way to pay for programs. If no ethical method is available,  cut programs.  Limit spend in and limit taxation to the greatest extent possible. This is obviously not what we are doing right now. Right now our government spends as much money as is politically possible and taxes as much as is politically possible. This is the wrong track to be on.

This is a half-answer.  What would you consider a more ethical way to pay for programs? A federal VAT/Sales tax? Property taxes? Fees to use all public services?

I'd also like to point out that the top marginal tax rates have gone steadily down since WWII, and number and complexity of deductions has gone up. While I would agree with you that the government spends as much money as it receives (and a little more each year over the last 16 years) - I would argue that this is exactly what a government should do. To collect taxes just for the sake of hoarding money seems wrong to me.
I'd like us to return to balanced budgets, but I want all of my tax money being put to work by being spent in a timely manner.

[Tyson]

I'm curious too - what IS an ethical way to pay for the government in your opinion, winkeyman? 

[thepokercab]

If you want security, voluntarily pay for it. If you want fire services, pay for them voluntarily. If you want roads to bring clients, voluntarily pay for them or set up toll roads.

Even if that isn't a workable model, the NEED for these things doesn't make income taxes any more ethical. Force people to pay income taxes, but at least admit it is a shitty thing to do. At least that might discourage you from raising them unnecessarily or wasting the revenue.

Winkeyman, your issue seems to be more about the existence of government than anything else. Most people tend to have different views about what the size and scope of that government should be; and implied in that argument is that some amount of taxation is required in order to fund it.  You seem to be arguing that it shouldn't exist, and because you feel that way, you see taxation as unethical. 

As far as I know, throughout human history, we haven't come across a better way than taxes.  Its pretty clear that, humans are a social species, who tend to gather and live together in groups.  When you live in groups with people, generally rules and norms are established.  And once that happens you need some mechanism to enforce those rules and norms. Over time those norms have changed from "we need to fund spear making to protect our village" to "we should make sure all kids get an education" and so forth.

As others in this thread have pointed out though, if you disagree with the norms and rules you can simply opt out of them; in this context by not earning income which is taxed by a government that you clearly don't think should exist, at least in its current form. 

[NoraLenderbee]

 I think the argument has finally been boiled down by Winkeyman:

"I, as an individual, did not ask for an income tax. Hence, forcing me to pay one is NOT VOLUNTARY. It is MANDATORY. How hard is that to understand?"

Yep. Winkeyman did not get to vote on an income tax, therefore he should not be required to pay it. This is the philosophy that I am a free human being, therefore I should not ever have to do anything I do not want to do. I should be free to choose what laws I obey and get to vote on whether they should even be laws.

Galt's Gulch is a fictional place.

[Mathew675]

Interesting thread. Read the whole thing straight through and was very impressed with some of the arguments on both sides. I tend to agree with the OP that submitting the will of the individual to the will of the 50.1% is not in the best interest of a minority population. I think if we are honest with ourselves and consider a few instances which quickly come to mind we can imagine how bad that can become. (Or not the minority, perhaps a suppressed majority like we saw under the Baathist rule in Iraq) So in my view, holding to the idea that we have divine rights inherently granted to us is based on the sole fact that we are living human beings is a necessary step in the advancement of an enlightened civilization. Or at least that was my assumption and why I tended to agree with the OP.

I was taken aback by a post earlier which discussed the idea that this is not the case and we are only granted these rights based upon where we currently stand as a people. (I.e. Wealthy enough to fund a government to ensure that even the least able to defend themselves still enjoy the same rights as others) Very true and this is in fact funded by what my preconceived notion was, like the OP discussed, a necessary evil of taxing or seizing my productivity to achieve those goals we all decided (through voting etc) was important to us as a people. I suppose my view is in the middle ground.

I am certainly against seizing the fruit of ones productive labors for the benefit of another in some cases.  (Be that a well connected company, a tax cheat, or through simple waste) But at this point the benefits outweigh the costs in my humble opinion. Today, I drove to the airport on a road I did not fund and was searched by security to ensure my flight was safe by guards I did not pay. I do pay my fair share in taxes according to our society standards and fully appreciate the benefits of this. I think I echo the sentiments of many of the posters earlier that these taxes are necessary to achieve the ends that this society affords us.

However, I do think we can do better. Slavery was an institution which was viewed as acceptable and right to earlier generations across the entire world. It was not until there was enough wealth to sustain a quality of life which enabled a small group of British citizens in the early 1800's to question the morality of this institution before it was finally viewed as the evil for which we see it today. It is not surprising that England  was the wealthiest place on earth at the time. It's also not surprising that those who were heavily invested in this trade were vehemently opposed to any change in the status quo. I certainly do not want there to be a shift from the income tax to a consumption tax as i am heavily invested in this status quo. Also I think there would need to be a more honest discussion in how to fund our society which I do not see happening. At least not now. Our generation will be judged and found wanting as all previous ones were. "Surely we are smarter than them", they will say aloud because of glaring immoralities we display. I do not know what they are but I'm fairly sure I am as guilty as everyone else of these acts.

Again an interesting thread which I will need to put more thought into.

[arebelspy]

However, I do think we can do better.

Certainly we can do better than what we have currently.  That doesn't make what we have immoral.

And no one wants to waste money, or use it inefficiently.  That doesn't mean we don't want certain services, and are willing to pay more in taxes to get them.

[Cyaphas]

Certainly we can do better than what we have currently.  That doesn't make what we have immoral.

You really feel that the size and scope of the US Federal Government hasn't become immoral on a mass scale?

[arebelspy]

Certainly we can do better than what we have currently.  That doesn't make what we have immoral.

You really feel that the size and scope of the US Federal Government hasn't become immoral on a mass scale?

Uh, no.

I do think many of the activities perpetuated by the government may be immoral, by my ethical standards (certain wars, US citizen killings via drones, civil rights violations--ala NSA, TSA, etc., and so forth). 

But the mere existence of it being immoral because it's too big.

No, I really feel that isn't the case.  Size has no relation to morality.

[Cyaphas]

I meant a large size of the government has become immoral, not the size itself being immoral. Also, I'm glad you're on so late. Most of the debate that goes on here happens while I'm at home in bed.

[arebelspy]

I meant a large size of the government has become immoral, not the size itself being immoral. Also, I'm glad you're on so late. Most of the debate that goes on here happens while I'm at home in bed.

Sure, there are many behaviors of the government I find immoral.

We should work on fixing those.  I donate to the ACLU, EFF, etc. I also contact my congressmen and women about bills I feel are important (often asking them to vote against them).

Like I said, we can do better than what we have.  But what we have isn't immoral, by its nature.  An income tax funding immoral things doesn't make the income tax immoral, it makes those things immoral.  We should work to change those things, and use the income tax for the benefits it provides (many of which are very moral--caring for the sick and elderly, for example).

As for being on late... it's 9:22am where I'm at, at the moment.  :)

[Cyaphas]

We should work to change those things, and use the income tax for the benefits it provides (many of which are very moral--caring for the sick and elderly, for example).

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think this is where I have such a big problem with taxes in general, people feel entitled to other people's money. By adding the anonymity of taxes and the general feel goodie things people THINK are done with them, taking a portion of someone's life away from them seems so easy. As I said before, if these were such great causes than why do we have to forcibly take away from someone else. Isn't taking through force immoral or is it only moral if the government does it? 4 wolves and 2 sheep voting on whats for dinner?

[arebelspy]

Again, it's not unilaterally taking by force.  It's society agreeing this is how it should be, giving people chances to opt out if they don't agree (conscientious objector for wars, earning below a certain income threshold for income taxes, or just plain moving), and if they do agree, asking them to pay the costs of that, equally (or however the society has agreed it should be split up).

I don't feel entitled to anyone else's money.  I do, however, feel my money should be used to help others.  My money alone won't do much though, so I'd like it if others contributed.  If we could get a majority to agree on what should happen, that would be great.  And that's what we do--we have people who we've elected to represent us decide these things.  If we don't like it, we can throw the bums out.  Or we can opt out, in various ways.

If society decided that the programs I think are beneficial are not, and vote against it, I don't feel entitled to take their money for it.  That's what we, as a whole, have decided.

There's no entitlement at any point.  Just mutual agreement and cooperation among willing individuals.  And if they aren't willing, the time to do something is before the debt is incurred (before purchasing an item with sales tax, before earning income in a society that enables that earnings via the structures it provides, etc.).  Or to opt out later, by refusing to do it any more.

Taking through force isn't what happens.  Voluntary mutual cooperation is.