Tax = theft?

[2ndRateMind]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

Now I know this isn't an LDS thing, because I know you have many worthy projects that look after your poor and disadvantaged. And I know it isn't an American thing, because I know Americans to be amongst the most generous of those who benefact charities. So, I'm a quite a loss to explain it. Whence this distrust of national collaboration, this sense of wrongful activity of a rightful government, when it affects your wallet? Why this idea that I have the sole right to my earnings, when the nation as a whole, in a myriad ways, has contributed to what and who you are, and the extent of your earning power?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 11, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

Now I know this isn't an LDS thing, because I know you have many worthy projects that look after your poor and disadvantaged. And I know it isn't an American thing, because I know Americans to be amongst the most generous of those who benefact charities. So, I'm a quite a loss to explain it. Whence this distrust of national collaboration, this sense of wrongful activity of a rightful government, when it affects your wallet? Why this idea that I have the sole right to my earnings, when the nation as a whole, in a myriad ways, has contributed to what and who you are, and the extent of your earning power?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think you might be misinterpreting American Exceptionalism and Individualism.

Many in the US have a severe distrust of national leadership. In fact, their whole modern nation began with a cry of 'No taxation without representation'.

They aren't saying that they aren't their brothers' keeper: They're saying that the government isn't their brother's keeper.

They aren't saying(Or most aren't), "We want no plans to help people in need." but rather they're asking, "Who plans for who? Do I plan for myself or leave the planning to you?"

They might even say "We need plans by the many, not by the few."

Many on this board give a large portion of their income to charity - Not just the 10% tithing, but actual charitable donations. Many help their next door neighbors.

Their concern is not 'We should not help our worthless poor neighbors', but rather 'When centralized government controls the purse strings, it is inefficient and breeds corruption. By decentralizing solutions, you allow bespoke assistance to those in need. In theory.

In practice, the US has a lot of people fall through the cracks. The UK does as well, though certainly not as many.

However, as you have pointed out: They are the wealthiest nation on earth, so they must be doing something right.

[Just_A_Guy]

Share that popcorn.

 

I assume you meant that as a request, not a command.  Because a command would be . . . you know . . . theft. 

[jerome1232]

I assume you meant that as a request, not a command.  Because a command would be . . . you know . . . theft. 

But everyone has a right to popcorn! It's not *fair* that funkytown hogs all of the popcorn to himself! Redistribute the popcorn!

[Just_A_Guy]

It's life or death regardless, that's not the question, the question is how to best ensure that the maximum amount of resources get to people.  Some people are prepared some aren't that is the harsh reality of life.

 

True to a point, but how is it "best" to let Bill Gates buy fifty generators while John Q. Schmuck with eight kids isn't able to have any--leaving the Schmuck family of ten to die, and the Gates family of two to live?  I'm fine with price spikes to a point, but I think there's a theoretical line (and I don't profess to know where it is, exactly) where gouging becomes outright immoral.

 

No, I don't agree that all law is slavery, I think a significant portion of current law is immoral, unjust and wrong, but certainly not all law.  Laws that protect life, liberty and property are essential.  Natural law is law that is derived from the fact that we exist and that I own myself and that I own what I create.  Laws that ensure that I have the natural right to protect my own life, my own property and my own liberty are essential.

 

 

I would look at "taxes" the same way you look at "law"--that much of it is wrong, but not all.  You say that some laws actually protect life, liberty, and property--and I agree--but laws are enforced by government, and the enforcement of those laws relies on manpower.  So you're left with three options for law enforcement:

1)  An all-volunteer force;

2)  An unpaid, conscripted force; or

3)  A paid force, which is subsidized by some sort of excise or tax on the people.

 

1) may have been, to some degree, possible in times past; but given the degrading civic spirit of ordinary Americans I don't think it's possible in our day and age.  2) is a recipe for disaster; leaving us with 3).

 

 

 The US budget is one big blob, the revenue obtained is not earmarked for specific uses of resources.  Income tax pays about 1/3rd of the military budget, the rest comes from your future you in the form of higher inflation and additional taxes (i.e. US debt that will have to be paid at some point in the future).

 

Up until 1913 the US had no income tax, the government was extremely small, and very limited in power, it could fund itself on things like import taxes vs. income and massive debt.

 

I don't know that your figures are quite correct.  My understanding is that for the past few years, federal expenditures generally have been around $3 trillion and revenue has been around $2 trillion; raising to about $2.5 trillion or so in the last year or so.  So that would mean that, at the height of the annual deficit, revenues were subsidizing 2/3 of the military, not 1/3.

 

It's also worth noting that prior to the Civil War, the American standing army was almost laughably small.  Even after the Civil War (which was funded by massive borrowing) there was a dramatic reduction in the strength of the military, and it remained that way more or less until the turn of the twentieth century.  Absent additional borrowing (and I have no idea whether the US government would have been capable of getting the credit it needed to fully fund these conflicts), I strongly doubt the US could have gotten involved in the World Wars and the Cold War to the extent that it actually did--and I do believe that, overall, the world is a better place for our having gotten involved in those conflicts.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

2RM, I'm not sure you're going to like my response. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from reading your responses is that you are rigid, hidebound, and inflexible in your thinking. You have a model of Americans, or maybe of Mormons, that you are just so positive must be correct, that you are unwilling to see what is put in front of you. Like all of us, you are bound by your biases and prejudices; but unlike many of us, you seem either unwilling or unable to overcome your prejudices enough to understand what others are communicating.

 

Sorry that your views about us and our opinions are so permanently skewed. At this point, there is not much for any of us to do about it. Good luck with that; hope you can find a way to get past your limitations.

[Just_A_Guy]

Whence this distrust of national collaboration, this sense of wrongful activity of a rightful government, when it affects your wallet?

 

"Wallets" have little to do with it; it's a mistrust of government generally.  Our own government (well, New York's government), just killed a man for selling untaxed cigarettes.  It's looking an awful lot like our president, in the last couple of years, sicced the IRS on his political enemies and jailed an American filmmaker after the Benghazi attacks for his own political gain because he had to be seen as Doing Something™--never mind that he knew very well from the get-go that the attacks had virtually nothing to do with the film.  We're coming out of a scandal where our own Veterans Administration hospital system apparently let people die--and then lied about it--to save a few bucks.  Cripes, 2RM, as I understand it the popular perception in the UK is that you folks only joined us in our little Iraq misadventure because your own PM lied to Parliament about what the Iraqis were up to. 

 

Given all of this (and I'm not even going to bring up the actions of states present and past in Venezuela, in Cuba, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Libya, in Brazil, in Yugoslavia, in Spain, in Germany, in Russia, in France . . . ), how anyone can still buy into this innocuous "government is just a word for stuff we all do together" claptrap is beyond me.  Humans are naturally grasping, power-hungry, avaricious, and brutal; and governments are comprised of humans.  Why wouldn't governments tend to reflect those same human characteristics?  Democracy's strength isn't that it makes bad people good or inexorably brings the best and brightest into the halls of power; it's that democracy limits any single bad person''s ability to actually act on and implement his evil tendencies.

 

Moreover, if you've been paying attention, you'll note that the position that all tax is theft is a decidedly minority position here.  I think, with this thread, that you are (consciously or unconsciously) seeing what you want to see, and nothing more.  That is lamentable, but if it makes you feel morally superior . . . more power to you, I guess.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

2RM, I'm not sure you're going to like my response. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from reading your responses is that you are rigid, hidebound, and inflexible in your thinking. You have a model of Americans, or maybe of Mormons, that you are just so positive must be correct, that you are unwilling to see what is put in front of you. Like all of us, you are bound by your biases and prejudices; but unlike many of us, you seem either unwilling or unable to overcome your prejudices enough to understand what others are communicating.

Sorry that your views about us and our opinions are so permanently skewed. At this point, there is not much for any of us to do about it. Good luck with that; hope you can find a way to get past your limitations.

Hidebound? Maybe. However, many people see government's role as a protector and provider for the least fortunate in society.

He's British - That's a very British thing to think(Hence the NHS, which despite what a lot of American TV has said is actually pretty amazing).

What he's saying sounds more like this is a cutural misunderstanding than having any particular view of Americans/Mormons.

American Exceptionalism and a rugged Individualism colors the perceptions of most Americans in certain geographical locations of the US. It's ingrained in to the psyche that many take those things associated with American Exceptionalism for granted.

I have a lot of respect for that philosophy. Regardless, I'm pretty sure his comments were colored by his cultural ideals - That everyone is responsible for everyone's well-being. Because the government is an existing infrastructure theoretically reigned in by 'Everyone', it's a useful tool for the distribution of needed goods and services to those least-fortunate people.

That's not a bad philosophy, either. It all comes down to how you view government, not Mormons OR Americans.

[Vort]

What he's saying sounds more like this is a cutural misunderstanding than having any particular view of Americans/Mormons.

 

As I wrote: Unwillingness or inability to see past current prejudices.

 

American Exceptionalism and a rugged Individualism colors the perceptions of most Americans in certain geographical locations of the US. It's ingrained in to the psyche that many take those things associated with American Exceptionalism for granted.

 

Perhaps. But the particular point is not about American shortcomings, but rather 2RM's inability or refusal to understand them correctly.

 

I have a lot of respect for that philosophy. Regardless, I'm pretty sure his comments were colored by his cultural ideals

 

Yes, of course. That was my point.

 

That's not a bad philosophy, either. It all comes down to how you view government, not Mormons OR Americans.

 

When you come on a Mormon, mostly American, discussion list and you start lecturing the mostly Mormon, mostly American list members on how uncharitable and greedy they are because you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words they have been writing you, then it very probably is a matter of how you view Mormons or Americans.

[2ndRateMind]

Vort, my friend. I have never felt the need to insult you, call you names, show anything other than respect for you. And that goes for everyone on this forum. If we have a difference of views, and if we have cultural perspectives that conflict, and if I am robust in defending my views, and attacking those that seem to me to be less than good, I have never felt the need to resort to personal attacks. If you do, well, I feel, that reflects worse on you and your position, than it does on me and mine.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

PS: By the way, the argument: X doesn't agree with me about Y; therefore X must be wrong, rigid, hidebound, inflexible, biased and prejudiced, is clearly an argument that won't win you the 'philosopher of the year 2014' award. Address yourself to the point at issue, Y, and you might find me more inclined to alter my stances. Or you might find that you are the one who needs to alter yours.

 

As for the thread, I suggest you review it again. There is little in it about a shared national project to make goodness manifest, it is all about my right to keep my property irrespective of communal needs, not to mention communal benefits, that, might just, have had some impact on the heft of my bill-fold.

Edited December 11, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

I have never felt the need to insult you, call you names, show anything other than respect for you. And that goes for everyone on this forum.

 

Really?

 

Really?

 

Really?!?

[Guest]

But if I came into your house and took your meth lab, you'd claim I stole your stuff and if I damaged your house in the process I would be prosecuted for it.  But if the cops do it is is okay?  No, it's still stealing it's just legalized.

 

Okay, I'll concede this point on the generality of the term "theft".  To me, in a country run by Rule of Law, it is only "theft" if it goes against that Rule of Law - not just prosecutable law, but also the intent of the law (which can be debated, I give you that).  So "legalized stealing" is very confusing... because Property Rights only exists when afforded to by Rule of Law.  So, in that case of you stealing my meth lab, nobody is stealing anything because NOBODY has the Property Rights to a Meth Lab.

 

But, that's okay... we'll say we don't go by Rule of Law... Taxes = Theft still does not compute.  Why?  Because Taxes encompasses everything that a Property Owner gives to fund the government.  United States of America exists because of its Sovereign and Autonomous Government controlling specific borders.  Without it, there's no USA.  Therefore, for the continued sovereignty and autonomy of the USA, you need to be able to defend those borders.  Therefore, your citizenship within these borders are secured by force imposed by that Government.  Now, you might believe that these forces can exist without resources... but I've never seen anybody successfully defend a border by Karate.  And even then, the guy doing the karate is still expending time.  Guess what... that time he spends to defend the US borders is time he gave to the government.  Which has value.  Which is then Tax (tax is not just financial, it can also be goods and services).  Now, you might think that a government can successfully defend the US borders completely by volunteer - that is, the government do not pay the volunteer money to defend the border, and the government cannot draft if there are not enough volunteers to defend the border... but, I'm 100% positive that you are not willing to risk the security of your American citizenship with that system.

 

In that case, I can logically extrapolate that you are willing to authorize the government to defend the borders through draft or paid forces.  That means that you would either give money or time to the government to do so.  In which case, the Tax was not stolen from you.  Rather you voluntarily gave it.  Hence, Tax does not equal Theft.

 

But really... this is a stupid round-about way of me just trying to tell you... saying Tax is Thievery is a very narrow minded, un-Patriotic thing to say.

[pam]

I've always loved when one from another country tries to tell us what we , as Americans, should be thinking. :)  I see it a lot on this site.  

[Vort]

 

Vort, my friend. I have never felt the need to insult you, call you names, show anything other than respect for you. And that goes for everyone on this forum.

Let's test this idea:

 

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

In fact, 2RM, I was attempting to use exactly the same voice and degree of bluntness that you were using. This was not done with intent to offend, but rather to communicate to you in a way I thought you were comfortable with by following your lead. My intent was to communicate, not to offend (though I obviously was willing to risk offending in the attempt to communicate).

 

I find it telling that you didn't respond to anything I wrote other than to tell me that I was offensive. Because people in this thread have taken great pains to explain to you their thinking on different matters, and those thoughts flatly contradict your insulting assertions. Yet you don't recognize them. How is this possible?

 

In fact, I have enjoyed many aspects of our conversations in the last few days or weeks. I would be disappointed to lose you as a conversationalist. But your deep prejudice on these particular issues blinds you, intentionally or otherwise, to what many people here have been saying in plain English. I thought, and think, it's worth pointing that out before we continue going in meaningless circles.

 

If we have a difference of views, and if we have cultural perspectives that conflict, and if I am robust in defending my views, and attacking those that seem to me to be less than good, I have never felt the need to resort to personal attacks. If you do, well, I feel, that reflects worse on you and your position, than it does on me and mine.

Again, my "attacks" on you were no more personal that yours on the list membership. Note further that said "attacks" were limited to (1) pointing out that we all have biases, and (2) asserting that, in this instance, you are unable or unwilling to look past your biases. Hardly a "your Mom goes to college" type of insult.

 

PS: By the way, the argument: X doesn't agree with me; therefore X must be wrong, rigid, hidebound, inflexible, biased and prejudiced, is clearly an argument that won't win you the 'philosopher of the year 2014' award.

2RM, I think you know perfectly well that wasn't the logic. I said you were rigid, hidebound, and prejudice based on the fact that you ignored what many people wrote and rendered summary judgment in blatant contradiction to the testimony already presented, not because you didn't agree with me.

 

Address yourself to the point at issue, and you might find me more inclined to alter my stances. Or you might find that you are the one who needs to alter yours.

Honestly, this is excellent advice. I will take it to heart if you will.

[NeuroTypical]

As an aside, if you want a fun exercise, have your Google news browser deliver results for the phrase "sovereign citizen".  It's always an entertaining and enlightening read.

 

(Until you've read about a dozen of them, then it becomes boring and repetitive.)

[estradling75]

As for the thread, I suggest you review it again. There is little in it about a shared national project to make goodness manifest, it is all about my right to keep my property irrespective of communal needs, not to mention communal benefits, that, might just, have had some impact on the heft of my bill-fold.

 

Because you started it with asking the question why Some People say Tax = Theft

 

You asked a leading question and then complain that you got exactly what you asked for

 

[estradling75]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

 

To expand on what I said...

 

Since the beginning of this thread to your rebuke.  There had been 14 different posters

 

Of those posters

1 was the OP

1 agreed that Tax = Theft

4 gave no opinion on the matter (that I could tell)

8 gave an opinion that it depended on context.

 

Yet you felt that we were all being selfish and greedy...  That my friend is a text book case of you reading only want you want to read and seeing only what you want to see.

[yjacket]

True to a point, but how is it "best" to let Bill Gates buy fifty generators while John Q. Schmuck with eight kids isn't able to have any--leaving the Schmuck family of ten to die, and the Gates family of two to live?  I'm fine with price spikes to a point, but I think there's a theoretical line (and I don't profess to know where it is, exactly) where gouging becomes outright immoral.

 

 

If Bill Gates buys fifty generators at 10k then the market will surely produce more of those to sell at 10k and as producers rush to market to make insane profits prices will drop.  The above line of reasoning can be used on a plethora of goods and services, i.e. as long as prices aren't above a certain point (which is ill-defined) then it's okay.  Not understanding the line is hardly a valid case for a law.  60 years ago AC was for only those who could afford it . . .how dare producers mark the price of AC above a certain price because during the summer time old ladies will die without it!!  

 

Have you ever been in an emergency situation?  There is only a finite amount of goods, how do you determine who gets it and who doesn't?  One either rations by price or rations by time.  The idea that it is immoral to charge above a certain price is completely illogical and will result in less of the desired outcome- which is that the maximum amount of people have access to that good or service.

 

This is the thing that is mind-boggling, both you and I want as many people as possible to have access to essential goods and services during an emergency.  I am telling you that it is a mathematical, economic, law and fact that by outlawing price gouging it will cause less people to receive those goods and services.  It is a law just as sure as 2+2=4.  In fact, I'll claim that outlawing it is actually the immoral evil thing to do.

 

 

I would look at "taxes" the same way you look at "law"--that much of it is wrong, but not all.  You say that some laws actually protect life, liberty, and property--and I agree--but laws are enforced by government, and the enforcement of those laws relies on manpower.  So you're left with three options for law enforcement:

1)  An all-volunteer force;

2)  An unpaid, conscripted force; or

3)  A paid force, which is subsidized by some sort of excise or tax on the people.

 

1) may have been, to some degree, possible in times past; but given the degrading civic spirit of ordinary Americans I don't think it's possible in our day and age.  2) is a recipe for disaster; leaving us with 3).

 

You make some good points, which is why I said a very minimal government, courts, police, etc. However, with the proper understanding that extorting money from my neighbor through taxes is theft I am much more apt to ensure that government is as small as possible and that if I vote for a tax it will be as minimal as possible.

 

Personally, I think a volunteer funding system could work (a different topic) but least anyone say it could never work.  The Church is funded by tithes and offerings . . . no jackbooted thug is going to break into my house if I don't pay a tithe, yet the Church has some manifest buildings all paid for by volunteer funding. And yes the free-riding problem exists in Church just as anywhere, but people don't really care. 

 

"I don't know that your figures are quite correct.  My understanding is that for the past few years, federal expenditures generally have been around $3 trillion and revenue has been around $2 trillion; raising to about $2.5 trillion or so in the last year or so.  So that would mean that, at the height of the annual deficit, revenues were subsidizing 2/3 of the military, not 1/3."

 

We are both wrong, personal income tax accounts for about 46% of revenue for 2014 is was ~3T so income tax is ~1.5T and budget is 3.5T so it's something like 40%.

 

"It's also worth noting that prior to the Civil War, the American standing army was almost laughably small.  Even after the Civil War (which was funded by massive borrowing) there was a dramatic reduction in the strength of the military, and it remained that way more or less until the turn of the twentieth century.  Absent additional borrowing (and I have no idea whether the US government would have been capable of getting the credit it needed to fully fund these conflicts), I strongly doubt the US could have gotten involved in the World Wars and the Cold War to the extent that it actually did--and I do believe that, overall, the world is a better place for our having gotten involved in those conflicts."

 

I'd argue the opposite, if we stay out of WWI the European countries negotiate a peace without punitive punishments on Germany, no punitive punishments on Germany = no Hitler, no Hitler = no WWII (a continuation of WWI), no WWII = no breakup of the middle east and carving it up like a roast, no breakup of the middle East (i.e. Ottoman Empire) = no Iraq = no war in Iraq, etc.

[rfburn]

So rfburn what would you propose we add an excise tax on to fund our military?  We already have it on gas, tobacco, alcohol, tires, phone usage.  

There is nothing that is not currently taxed at some point or another.

Everything produced or sold is taxed at some point.

Often taxed many times.

Perhaps if we had a responsible budget.

A budget where the only things which were funded by Gov (funded by you and I) were those things that are necessary and proper for the Gov to do.

So, the tax on all those things is currently already there in some form.

We would not need to *find* more things to tax.

 

[yjacket]

 because Property Rights only exists when afforded to by Rule of Law. 

 

 

Negative.  Property rights exists because we exist, it is self-evident and doesn't require a law to prove it.  The law simply enforces it.  It is the answer to the question of were do rights come from.  Rights come from God, from our humanity, simply because we exist not because somebody passed a "law" claiming it is a right.  

 

Claiming that Rights come from the Rule of Law is basically saying that Rights come from Government.

Edited December 11, 2014 by yjacket

[Dravin]

Because you started it with asking the question why Some People say Tax = Theft

 

You asked a leading question and then complain that you got exactly what you asked for

 

 

Student asked what 1+1 equals, no mention of biology in answer. News at 11.

[yjacket]

In that case, I can logically extrapolate that you are willing to authorize the government to defend the borders through draft or paid forces.  That means that you would either give money or time to the government to do so.  In which case, the Tax was not stolen from you.  Rather you voluntarily gave it.  Hence, Tax does not equal Theft.

 

If I agree with the tax then to me it is not theft, however unless 100% of the people from whom it is taken agree with it the tax is still stealing from someone and if 100% of the people agree than it can simply go away and become a suggestion rather than force.

 

I never said I don't want to fund the government for a limited selection of items, however that limited selection of items is at best 1% of what government currently does.  We don't need a 600 billion+ yearly enterprise simply to protect our borders and ensure no one invades us.  Shoot, sure I'd be willing to voluntarily give some of my wages to support protection.  

 

You do realize that WWI and WWII were in large part funded by War bonds.  The heroes of Iwo Jima traveled across country, raising volunteer funds to fund the military.  Considering that we won the War, I'd say it worked out okay.

 

But I disagree with one forcing me at the point of robbing me of my life, my liberty, or my property simply because I refuse to fund a military empire.

 

"But really... this is a stupid round-about way of me just trying to tell you... saying Tax is Thievery is a very narrow minded, un-Patriotic thing to say."

 

Lol, good one . . . coming from one who isn't even an American calling me un-Patriotic.  If you can't beat 'em with logic beat 'em with rhetoric.

Edited December 11, 2014 by yjacket

[rfburn]

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't need the Gov to take my resources, and be charitable on my behalf.

I am charitable.

In that charity it is my preference that I make the decisions as to who, and for what cause, my charity goes.

The Gov being charitable on my behalf, takes away some measure of control from me in my charity.

The Gov being charitable on my behalf also takes away from me some measure of, what I believe to be a socialite duty, my ability to be charitable to the degree I might like. In that, I have fewer resources to be charitable with.

The Gov being charitable on my behalf also takes away some measure of my joy in being charitable.

The Gov, despite what many might wish you to believe, helps to fund Planned Parenthood.

It makes me absolutely ill to know some portion, even if a tiny portion, may be funding an organization that ends the life of an innocent child.

I have six children.

They are all homeschooled, yet I pay property tax to fund public school.

I believe that public schools battle parents in the task to mold and shape their children.

Yet I have to fund this.

America is not a hippie commune.

America was not intended to be a socialist nation... yet, here we are.

[yjacket]

repost

Edited December 11, 2014 by yjacket

[Vort]

As for the thread, I suggest you review it again. There is little in it about a shared national project to make goodness manifest, it is all about my right to keep my property irrespective of communal needs, not to mention communal benefits, that, might just, have had some impact on the heft of my bill-fold.

 

2RM, I don't understand. LOOK at the title of this thread (a thread that YOU STARTED and the title of which YOU CHOSE):

 

Tax = theft?

 

You set the parameters for the thread direction when you created the thread. The debate has centered around whether and in what circumstances taxation is theft.

 

And now you expect that everyone is instead going to talk about whether government is the appropriate vehicle for enacting social change?

 

There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this thread. It seems to me that it has almost all been from your position. You created the thread, you set the tenor, you defined the parameters of debate -- and then you criticize and complain because the discussion goes exactly along the lines you laid out. That's not our fault, 2RM.