Why is nazism popular today?

[Gary Childress]

Since you are going to trivialise my argument down to one simplistic question, then I am going to do the same..

You mean a democracy like Zimbabwe?

Do you live in England? If so is England not a democracy? And if it is, how on Earth did so many people vote for such high taxes?

I'm pretty sure you don't live in the US, because almost no one anywhere near (or anywhere in close proximity above) the poverty line gets 70% of their income taken away in taxes.

Does it matter where I live?

Would you say that the argument (IF factual) it holds water towards "cheating" taxes?

Said differently: What would you deem to be a fair taxation bracket in exchange for absolutely-no-services being provided by government?

I would say that if you live in a democracy and the tax code was drawn up through popular vote, then it is unethical to cheat on your taxes, if others are paying their fair share.

[Gary Childress]

OK! I'll start cheating on my taxes. Sounds like the thing to do, right? I mean, if it's ok for each person to make that determination on their own whether or not they feel like they ought to cheat on their taxes, then by all means! I mean, I don't like paying for all that military hardware, since we seem to be using it in such atrocious ways.

What do you propose one ought to do when democracy fails to meet their basic needs?

Start a revolution or something. Get out and protest. And cheat on your taxes in the meantime.

[Logik]

I would say that if you live in a democracy and the tax code was drawn up through popular vote, then it is unethical to cheat on your taxes, if others are paying their fair share.

Start a revolution or something. Get out and protest. And cheat on your taxes in the meantime.

I don't understand. If "cheating on your taxes" is unethical, why are you encouraging unethical behaviour?

[Gary Childress]

I don't understand. If "cheating on your taxes" is unethical, why are you encouraging unethical behaviour?

So you can get locked up.

[Logik]

So you can get locked up.

And that's fair, ethical and wise then?

80% taxation. No services in return. Then get locked up for trying to make ends meet?

[Gary Childress]

So you can get locked up.

And that's fair then?

If others are paying their fair share and you cheat then wouldn't it be fair for you to get locked up?

[Logik]

If others are paying their fair share and you cheat then wouldn't it be fair for you to get locked up?

And who decided that 80% while getting absolutely no services in return is "fair" ?

I work January to October without anything to show for it! That sounds like slavery, not democracy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sorry, I thought I was on a philosophy forum. Philosophy means love of wisdom. So I was momentarily awestruck by the enormous wisdom of those advocating for "cheating" on taxes. I was mind blown by the philosophical prowess of comments like "As for the law abiders: pffftt!". I couldn't help the "childish" eyeroll, being surrounded by such prodigies. Please excuse my inferiority.

Okay, so I can consider that question fully answered at least.

Do you see any difference between an obligation imposed on a person with no regard for their choice, and one into which they have freely entered? Have you the imagination to come up with an example of the former which people are right to reject?

You have lots of valid options to tackle the argument that withholding taxes could be valid. Rolling your eyes and being a pissy old man-bitch isn't one of them.

OK! I'll start cheating on my taxes. Sounds like the thing to do, right? I mean, if it's ok for each person to make that determination on their own whether or not they feel like they ought to cheat on their taxes, then by all means! I mean, I don't like paying for all that military hardware, since we seem to be using it in such atrocious ways.

Ok, so you are sort of thinking at least now. Presumably you have some notion of why the obligation you are under to pay your taxes holds even though you don't agree with some of its uses.

Perhaps, instead of annoying me with you silly sulking, you could formulate an argument relating to why it is morally right to pay taxes that will be used to incarcerate particular races while allowing others to escape prison for similar offences. That would be useful for countering a position that evasion had some moral purpose, in a way that aren't.

You probably need to think first though about the general question of civil disobedience, the entire purpose of which is to ignore obligations in order to protest. I mean if you want to condemn Dr King, Gandhi, Rosa Parks etc then fine. Otherwise, you need to think like a philosopher instead of just posing on a forum like one.

[Gary Childress]

If others are paying their fair share and you cheat then wouldn't it be fair for you to get locked up?

And who decided 80% for zero services is "fair" ?

Apparently your fellow countrymen and women did. It does sound pretty ridiculous, though. Why would your people do that to the poor?

[Logik]

Apparently your fellow countrymen and women did. It does sound pretty ridiculous, though. Why would your people do that to the poor?

Because the majority voters are "the poor". And they are voting themselves into prosperity.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently your fellow countrymen and women did. It does sound pretty ridiculous, though. Why would your people do that to the poor?

Because the majority voters are "the poor". And they are voting themselves into prosperity.

Funny, if they are imposing a 70% tax on themselves and everyone is struggling like you are, then it doesn't sound like "prosperity".

[Logik]

Apparently your fellow countrymen and women did. It does sound pretty ridiculous, though. Why would your people do that to the poor?

Because the majority voters are "the poor". And they are voting themselves into prosperity.

Funny, if they are imposing a 70% tax on themselves and everyone is struggling like you are, then it doesn't sound like "prosperity".

Sure. Convince 35 million people to vote otherwise.

[Gary Childress]

Because the majority voters are "the poor". And they are voting themselves into prosperity.

Funny, if they are imposing a 70% tax on themselves and everyone is struggling like you are, then it doesn't sound like "prosperity".

Sure. Convince 35 million people to vote otherwise.

Do you mean, "sure" as in, "sure, it's prosperity" or "sure" as in "sure, it isn't prosperity"?

[Logik]

Funny, if they are imposing a 70% tax on themselves and everyone is struggling like you are, then it doesn't sound like "prosperity".

Sure. Convince 35 million people to vote otherwise.

Do you mean, "sure" as in, "sure, it's prosperity" or "sure" as in "sure, it isn't prosperity"?

Sure, as in - the narrative doesn't matter. The tax rate keeps climbing. Government institutions keep failing. The economy keeps stagnating. The voters keep voting how they vote.

If somebody is indeed prospering it sure as fuck isn't me.

[Gary Childress]

Sure. Convince 35 million people to vote otherwise.

Do you mean, "sure" as in, "sure, it's prosperity" or "sure" as in "sure, it isn't prosperity"?

Sure, as in - the narrative doesn't matter. The tax rate keeps climbing. The voters keep voting how they vote.

If somebody is prospering it sure as fuck isn't me.

OK. Well, you got me then. I guess I was wrong. Sounds like the ethical thing to do would be to cheat on your taxes.