Philosophy Now Forum

On tax discussions, I'm annoyed that those who complain against taxation as being 'fair' don't defend how 'fair' it is that anyone's wealth is determined by either (a) "ownership" derived by some original declaration of being first to pee on some fixed and limited property, (b) "ownership" derived by those by stealing it from another, or (c) "ownership" derived by the fortune to inherit this by a biased favoritism that (d) allows beneficial inheritance to be passed on thinks it alright to transfer inherited debt to the society at large!

Taxation exists for everyone. A 'tax' is merely an imposition upon anyone to have to contribute a share of responsibility for some public expense derived by the management of some power. But since "tax" is a term used preferentially adapted to government-only actions, it ignores the real 'taxation' that all people must endure due to any 'management' which includes anyone who has the power to impose a cost that 'taxes' or burdens you. Thus, when an "owner" uses their own power to impose a charge for rent, for instance, this too is a "tax". Yet, the benefit to society at large is what distinguishes the difference. If I had the option to pay a tax for society at large to do something over an individual, just as the "owners" who feel it more reasonable to distribute inherited debt, a 'tax', to society, how is it different that anyone else should differ? And, in similar by contrast, if the members of society should feel it 'fair' that they benefit from such 'taxes', this too is no different than the fortunate "owner" to believe it 'fair' for them to declare the benefits for simply laying a flag as in (a), by theft, as in (b), by luck, as in (c), or, as I've just mentioned, to accept only the beneficial inheritance personally but pass over the indebted inheritances!

So to those "owners" complaining such 'burden', I say shut up. You've still got the power on your side in a world that prefers those with capital over the democracy of the people. [Note to Bob: Totalitarianism is a product of one or few people to maintain total control over a populous in an extreme way. While a democratic majority may represent a type of "totalitarianism" by analogy with respect to the minority who doesn't benefit or is penalized, that term cannot be appropriated to those like "communists", "socialists", etc, because the distribution of "ownership" in those lack an ability as independent mechanisms to assert maximum (or total) control on the masses. If the "majority" acts totally upon the population, that very majority benefits from it even should a minority NOT. Where this could and does create trouble in actuality is where only a "plurality" that doesn't actually represent the majority does this potentially represent a problem. But in our so-called "democracies", this occurs because we only have a 'representative' type of system which only usually favors pluralities, of which the strongest ones in our capitalistic society are a severe minority! THIS acts with more potential to lead to Totalitarianism.]

EDIT: I recognize another factor, (e), "ownership" by 'earning' it through labor. However, since "earning" acts exponentially such that those on the bottom of the economic scale must sacrifice strong efforts to gain, while those nearer to the top gain exponentially more points of worth in terms of real dollars for the exact same effort, this cannot be appropriately be considered any fairer except for the winners nearer the top. Since non-owners are always certain to be on the bottom while the opposite is true of the biggest and strongest owners, AND it is to the 'tax' of the owners to which complainers come from, this still proves that the 'tax' complainers should shut up.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You have to re-distribute because unfettered capitalism will destroy itself.

Just ask the Chinese. An old mate of mine was always fond of saying that there's no such thing as a stupid Chinaman and although this is probably bullshit I reckon he had a point. Nowadays the entire focus for the Chinese model of state capitalism is aimed at elevating people off the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder and turning them into the mindless consumers of useless junk which the rest of the world has become. This doesn't actually make any sense but it's bloody good for the economy.

We live in a mad world with too many people in it.
Where it is all going to end I know not. But whilst they are all here I can't accept that a tiny minority get all the favours whilst the rest of the world go without.
It is interesting to note that the end result of unmodified capitalism is the same as the "state capitalism" of what the Chinese previously called "communism". That is a tiny minority control all the resources, and everyone else does all the work in a basically stagnant economy.
China hs figured out that if you let people have spending power and the you mobilise the state to build infrastructure and provide food security, then growth will occur.

Ned wrote:So, my question is: should bleeding-heart-liberals be allowed to FORCE others (by enacting progressive tax laws) to help those who need help?

The only proper function of government is defense and social integration. It is improper for the government to treat some people different than other people. It is OK to help the poor, but the rich must be helped equally. This expense must be covered by taxes, and the only proper form of taxation is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

What Bob does not realise is that he is so low rent that the pitiful amount he pays tax is much lower than the benefit he receives from it. Without the roads, defence, and other infrastructural benefits of taxation, Bob would be forced to pay foreach of them individually. This would lead to a situation where a trip to the shops would pretty much wipe out his wages,

Hobbes' Choice wrote:What Bob does not realise is that he is so low rent that the pitiful amount he pays tax is much lower than the benefit he receives from it. Without the roads, defence, and other infrastructural benefits of taxation, Bob would be forced to pay foreach of them individually. This would lead to a situation where a trip to the shops would pretty much wipe out his wages,

As a prophet, I can only speak on what is proper in spiritual, political and economic matters.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:What Bob does not realise is that he is so low rent that the pitiful amount he pays tax is much lower than the benefit he receives from it. Without the roads, defence, and other infrastructural benefits of taxation, Bob would be forced to pay foreach of them individually. This would lead to a situation where a trip to the shops would pretty much wipe out his wages,

As a prophet, I can only speak on what is proper in spiritual, political and economic matters.

Sadly you don't know what a prophet is.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:What Bob does not realise is that he is so low rent that the pitiful amount he pays tax is much lower than the benefit he receives from it. Without the roads, defence, and other infrastructural benefits of taxation, Bob would be forced to pay foreach of them individually. This would lead to a situation where a trip to the shops would pretty much wipe out his wages,

As a prophet, I can only speak on what is proper in spiritual, political and economic matters.

Sadly you don't know what a prophet is.

A prophet is somebody who speaks prophecy, divinely inspired utterances.

Bob. The little voices you're hearing in your head are your own. The smiling folk in the white coats should have told you that.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote: As a prophet, I can only speak on what is proper in spiritual, political and economic matters.

Sadly you don't know what a prophet is.

A prophet is somebody who speaks prophecy, divinely inspired utterances.

In that case, on the other thread, there is nothing you can do to make anyone think you are a prophet.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is nothing you can do to make anyone think you are a prophet.

You are obviously a nihilist.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is nothing you can do to make anyone think you are a prophet.

You are obviously a nihilist.

No it's just that you are a fantasist, and I am a realist.

"Do we have the right to tax people in order to help the poor?"

If you have the big stick, you can attempt just about anything (take people's shit and keep it, give it to the poor, give it to the rich, toss it in the ocean, etc.)...there's absolutely no need to appeal to 'rights' ('cept as a tool to convince the gullible to not defend themselves, to give over with the goods willingly...that is: convince a fool that it's 'right' he should support another and he will, without as much as a peep).

Again: 'right' or 'rights' got nuthin' to do with nuthin'.

The rich have the big stick and so can take money from the poor and middle class. They produce nothing. They merely bet on our productivity. As the proverb says, if it wasnt for the poor the rich would have to eat their money.

OK, lets not talk about rights. Lets stop complaining and take back what was stolen from us!
No moral judgement. Just the simple fact that we want what we created (the world"'s wealth)!