LogFAQs > #893802809

DoomSwell posted...

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)

I do. Problem is, the government charges people more based on their income, whether they own a business, what kind of capital gains they've had, etc.

Joelypoely posted...

That's obviously not the main takeaway from my point but sure I'll bite. Well, when we tacitly agree to be a member of a democratic society we grant the legislative branch of the government power to create new statutes etc. (but with checks on power of course). Part of this process involves siphoning out unethical practices (although I see why you might question the legitimacy of different parts of the government deciding which practices are ethical), hence we have public opinion as another check on power. Theoretically when the public opinion on something like a certain taxation policy becomes too severe riots etc. may occur, provoking the government to change the policy as it is no longer in their best interest. Attempting to frame taxation as ethical/unethical and therefore not worthwhile is too simplistic (keep in mind the is/ought distinction), we need to account for practicability too.

That's a fair point, I guess. You could say that it's not unethical if people agree to it, but there's always going to be people who don't vote for a certain policy.

CommunismFTW posted...

Because contribution to society shouldn't be relied on by good samaritans alone, or else the entire world would be dug into the stone age with facebook style thoughts and prayers. There needs to be a collection of money to contribute to society, as most people won't get up to vote let alone chip in to the coffers for a fix-the-road budget when there's new toys to buy. People say that taxation is a representation of greed; I view it as humanity's subtle realization that if left to our own devices, we'd treat ourselves dry.

The only thing that will cause what you're describing is a system where everyone is entitled to things and therefore has no incentive to work.

the_rowan posted...

It's not theft because it's payment for services rendered. Like, this should be obvious? I mean, you are argue about specific details like whether the cost of the things taxes are used for are inflated, but unless you're going to say you literally don't need roads (both the roads themselves and services like plowing), police, public education, or national defense altogether, and you also don't believe that you benefit from other people having access to any of these and other government-funded benefits while living in the same society as you, then you're just whining.

See my earlier post about the government charging rent solely on the land that people own. Technically, this would still be called a "tax" but it's the one kind of "tax" that doesn't involve any kind of theft, since nobody truly owns the land that we live on. Also, there's a case to be made for privatized roads, as well as completely private education.

PhilKenSebben posted...

I feel like you're not quite getting my point. Which is, if there weren't taxes you would probably still be spending this money on the same things.

Okay, but my only thing is...people can pay for those things voluntarily based on how much they actually use them. Redistributing wealth is literally just taking from one person to give to another.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong