Tax = theft?


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I agree as a general principle; but what about the here-and-now?  To extend the hypothetical a bit:  What if the power's out, won't be back on for days, the local hospital NICU needs a generator to power its equipment, and Gates won't sell one of his fifty generators for under ten thousand dollars (which the hospital doesn't have)--what then? 

 

In the medium-run, the market stabilizes things as more goods come on line.  But in the short run (and, as Keynes infamously said, the long run)--people die.  At some point, in this hypothetical, Gates is just being a pig.  That doesn't necessarily justify forcing him to part with a generator--either by law or by mob action--but it seems patently clear to me that Gates is not acting altruistically by refusing to sell, in this particular instance, for under $10K.

 

 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!!

 

Well, let me clarify a bit:  I'm not advocating, at present, any particular law be enacted.  I'm saying that, as a moral principle, at some point gouging becomes immoral.  I agree that legislating is a fearful business, not to be lightly undertaken.

 

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.

If price is the sine qua non moral means of morally allocating resources in a crisis (and whoever doesn't have the required money must die in a matter of days, before more goods can be brought to market), then doesn't that naturally lead to the conclusion that the Law of Consecration--if and when implemented--is inherently morally inferior, since it at least partially allocates surplus resources by need rather than by ability to pay?

 

I think you and I would agree in saying that free markets are generally the best practical means of allocating resources; but let's not pretend that that makes them the most moral means that ever will be instituted. 

 

 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.

 

But in certain circumstances, by the time more goods hit the market--people are dead.  Bill Gates isn't hurting anyone by, during the zombie apocalypse, selling his generators to fifty people who all need them now as opposed to selling them all to one Larry Ellison who just wants them as an investment and plans to keep them, gathering dust, in a warehouse somewhere.  (Perhaps what I'm making isn't so much an "anti-gouging" argument as an "anti-hoarding (at least, in times of shortage)" argument.)

 

 

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.

 

I see where you're going; but I think it's possible to reinforce the sanctity of property rights in general--and the product of one's own labor in particular--without using the "theft" terminology. 

 

 

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 think it could, under certain circumstances.  It might exist in certain enclaves of small-town America today.  But good luck trying to make it work in--say--Ferguson, or New York City.

 

 

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%.

 

Thanks for the correction.  :)

 

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.

 

 

I don't know.  The rationale for the war in Europe was certainly stupid, stupid, stupid.  But Wilson (for all his failings) was a devoted pacificist, and I think German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram really forced his hand (I agree the peace should have been negotiated very, very differently; and Wilson probably should have threatened to make a separate peace with Germany if Lloyd George and Clemenceau didn't chill out).  As for the Ottoman Empire--it had been known as "the sick man of Europe" for decades before the war. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure how opinions on taxes apply to not being charitable. Taxes fund political endeavors, and often projects, some of which will be charitable some of which will not.

The first thing to understand is that from a conservative perspective it is not the role of government to take care of the poor and needy, it is each individual as a collective' s duty.

The more liberal mindset is that the government should take care of the poor and needy (and through taxes or other methods via government everyone contributes)

The statistics on charitable contributions is higher among conservatives than liberals. (My source is a freakanomics podcast). So even if there is disagreement about taxes it has little to do with if people are charitable or not.

Either political view is still concerned about the poor and needy and their fellow man. To state otherwise is to misrepresent both.

(Also appealing to law and/or majority as morally good are both logical fallacies)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend/acquaintance of mine, Dr Thomas Krannawitter, just wrote this on Facebook.
I think it fits, somewhat, within this discussion.

"There's a widespread notion today that financial success requires a deep and morally suspect kind of selfishness or greediness. There's an often unspoken corollary to this notion, that being poor is morally respectable or even noble. That is why many people feel morally right in demanding that government take from those who have more and give to those who have less. If the taking is from immoral people, and the giving is to moral people, then that redistribution of wealth must be morally right, yes?
 

I disagree, respectfully. In a free society, where people are free by law to keep what they produce, or the sale to others of what they produce, then there is nothing moral or noble about being poor. More, there's nothing intrinsically immoral or unjust about being wealthy. The wealthiest people are those who have figured out some way to make lots of people happy. Aside from parenthood, no human phenomenon combines self-interest and a selfless regard for the well-being of others more beautifully than entrepreneurship. Directly or indirectly -- through inventiveness, innovation, or choices about how capital is allocated -- wealthy entrepreneurs have provided things that many, many others want, need, or otherwise value. That is the source of all wealth.
 

Yet this simple moral, economic, and political self-evident truth is denied today by many people the world over, especially the most "educated" among us. In relatively free nations, we speak as if it's the fault of the wealthy that some people are poor, when in fact the burden should be on the poor: Why aren't more of the poor finding ways to make others happy while creating wealth for themselves in the process?
 

In relatively unfree nations, we speak as if its the moral duty of free, materially prosperous peoples to give aid to the poor living in unfree conditions. But this is not the first or even the most important question. Whatever burden free, materially prosperous peoples have toward those living poorly in unfree conditions, we might ask first: What is the duty of those living poorly in unfree conditions to change their conditions, perhaps even revolutionize their conditions, and turn unfreedom into freedom, poverty into the the creation of wealth? Why should people who have risked everything, including life itself, staged a revolution, and created a regime of freedom and prosperity have a duty to give aid to other nations, if the people of those other nations have no duty to improve their own conditions at their own risk? If X does not have a responsible duty for the well-being of X, then how can anyone suggest that Y has a responsible duty for X?
 

Unless and until we can talk frankly about these basic moral, economic, and political subjects, the problem of poverty will remain...a problem."

Edited by rfburn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree as a general principle; but what about the here-and-now?  To extend the hypothetical a bit:  What if the power's out, won't be back on for days, the local hospital NICU needs a generator to power its equipment, and Gates won't sell one of his fifty generators for under ten thousand dollars (which the hospital doesn't have)--what then? 

 

Well in this particular case one could make the claim that the hospital has a moral obligation to ensure that they already have back-ups prior to an emergency and that if they didn't have backup generators they should be morally culpable.  They have thousands of peoples lives at stake and they didn't conduct proper diligence to ensure the safety of those lives prior to an emergency, shame on them.

 

I agree as a general principle; but what about the here-and-now?  To extend the hypothetical a bit:  What if the power's out, won't be back on for days, the local hospital NICU needs a generator to power its equipment, and Gates won't sell one of his fifty generators for under ten thousand dollars (which the hospital doesn't have)--what then? 

 

And herein lies the crux, there is always someone else to blame rather than take personal or corporate responsibility. But if Gates is only about money and the hospital can't pay, indeed if no one can pay then he will have to lower his price or get nothing.  The laws of economics (which in reality is simply human action) is the same in an emergency and in real life, they don't change.  The same could be said about everyday life . . . people are dying and starving every day, it's life or death, Billy can't afford this medicine, or Molly doesn't have a good job and can't put food on the table.  

 

The exact same economic principles are at work whether it is a sudden emergency or it is normal life.  Based on that one could simply extrapolate and say, see you have 10k in the bank, you are hoarding money, shame on you- you evil immoral person who only thinks about money, give it all to the poor or you are immoral.  

 

I will not sit back on my throne and make claims that someone who doesn't give away all they have is immoral; let God be the judge and let each individual be their own judge according to the light they have received.

 

If price is the sine qua non moral means of morally allocating resources in a crisis (and whoever doesn't have the required money must die in a matter of days, before more goods can be brought to market), then doesn't that naturally lead to the conclusion that the Law of Consecration--if and when implemented--is inherently morally inferior, since it at least partially allocates surplus resources by need rather than by ability to pay?

 

I think you and I would agree in saying that free markets are generally the best practical means of allocating resources; but let's not pretend that that makes them the most moral means that ever will be instituted. 

To be honest, I've studied a lot of economics and personally I just don't see how a communal system can function over the long term.  I haven't studied the United Order in depth, so it's possible, but from what I've seen the vast, vast majority of them failed within a couple of years.  Simply because prices are signals to the market, they indicate what goods are valuable and what goods are not valuable (i.e. what goods to produce more of and what goods to produce less of). Unless you have an omnipotent ruler who completely 100% knows the future and the desires of each human being engaged in trade or there is such plenty that goods and services never have to be produced I just do not see a complex sustaining functioning economy. Even in primitive societies a form of barter with numbers is generated.  

 

It even happens in non-monetary situations, there is an accounting of sorts that occurs, if all one does is take favors eventually no favors are done.  In friendships it occurs, one is always performing acts of service for a friend but if favors are never returned the friendship eventually dies. Price is simply putting a number or an accounting on a transaction. 

 

 but I think it's possible to reinforce the sanctity of property rights in general--and the product of one's own labor in particular--without using the "theft" terminology. 

 

I don't think so, I personally think it is extremely important to understand what it is really doing.  One of the most hideous aspects about government is that it provides cover and legitimacy for acts that people would never do non-governmental environments.  The State provides cover but if in a small setting they tried to do the same thing, their conscious would prick them and they'd think . . . is what I'm doing moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in this particular case one could make the claim that the hospital has a moral obligation to ensure that they already have back-ups prior to an emergency and that if they didn't have backup generators they should be morally culpable.  They have thousands of peoples lives at stake and they didn't conduct proper diligence to ensure the safety of those lives prior to an emergency, shame on them.

Great. So you have somebody to blame and a lot of dead, formerly sick people. That's ideal.

He doesn't care about assigning blame. In fact, neither do I.

So: The answer to both your questions: "If there is a hospital and Bill Gates has 10 generators and the hospital none during a power outage and Bill refuses to part with any of his generators(Maybe he has a reason. I don't know), I would put out a general call. Maybe I have one. Maybe there's a family that doesn't care about being in the dark for 3 days to save a bunch of lives. I would go with them(Or give up my own), then refuse to buy any of Mr. Gates' products ever again. I would not invite him in to the community nor sell goods to him until I felt he learned his lesson, because he clearly isn't part of the community. If I had no other choice, I would take one of Mr. Gates' generators so the hospital had power, then turn myself over to police because what I did was essentially vigilanteism, which cannot be accepted in society."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had no other choice, I would take one of Mr. Gates' generators so the hospital had power, then turn myself over to police because what I did was essentially vigilanteism, which cannot be accepted in society."

And, if he shot you during your attempt, would he be justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, if he shot you during your attempt, would he be justified?

How would he know I was a Robin Hood-esque character trying to take the only generator for hundreds of miles around to rescue a bunch of sick people?

This is why God will be judging us. If I broke on to his property and he caught me, would he be justified?

If he was omniscient? No.

If he wasn't? Sure. I'm just some guy stealing stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would he know I was a Robin Hood-esque character trying to take the only generator for hundreds of miles around to rescue a bunch of sick people?

This is why God will be judging us. If I broke on to his property and he caught me, would he be justified?

If he was omniscient? No.

If he wasn't? Sure. I'm just some guy stealing stuff.

I have no idea what that means.

If he saw you taking something that belong to him, he certainly would not consider you anything other than a thief.

He may then choose to defend his property.

Would he be justified in defending his property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He already said yes...

I guess.

I was looking/hoping for an actual "yes" or "no".

Rather than an "if Bill Gates were or were not omniscient".

I could be slightly dense, but that does not seem to be much of an answer.

Edited by rfburn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess.

I was looking/hoping for an actual "yes" or "no".

Rather than an "if Bill Gates were or were not omniscient".

I could be slightly dense, but that does not seem to be much of an answer.

 

It was actually a very concise answer.  Omniscience makes it thievery because the omniscient person knows all of the impact such an action has on all parties concerned... whereas, not being Omniscient only shows you what is the impact to you.  We can't really make judgements (justifications) on something outside our sphere of knowledge.

 

And that's why... legally, you can't justify thievery by intent in the Rule of Law.  The law makes it very black and white because it is impossible to measure intent at the time of action.  But, what you may get leniency of judgement at the courts based on your intent.  Make sense?

 

Basically, Robin Hood may be stealing to feed the poor.  But he was still stealing and because of that, it can't simply be justified.  Jesus showed this clearly when he said give to Cesar what is Cesar's... so we may not agree with the law but doing good intentions through illegal means does not necessarily make it justifiable... there are always many ways to achieve one's intent through legal means... or, if there's really no recourse, then simply accept the consequence like jailtime or fines.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually a very concise answer.  Omniscience makes it thievery because the omniscient person knows all of the impact such an action has on all parties concerned... whereas, not being Omniscient only shows you what is the impact to you.  We can't really make judgements (justifications) on something outside our sphere of knowledge.

 

And that's why... legally, you can't justify thievery by intent in the Rule of Law.  The law makes it very black and white because it is impossible to measure intent at the time of action.  But, what you may get leniency of judgement at the courts based on your intent.  Make sense?

 

Basically, Robin Hood may be stealing to feed the poor.  But he was still stealing and because of that, it can't simply be justified.  Jesus showed this clearly when he said give to Cesar what is Cesar's... so we may not agree with the law but doing good intentions through illegal means does not necessarily make it justifiable... there are always many ways to achieve one's intent through legal means... or, if there's really no recourse, then simply accept the consequence like jailtime or fines.

As I said, I may be a little dense.

Your expansion makes more sense to me.

The original did not make much sense to me.

That does not mean that my not understanding is the fault of FunkyTown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I may be a little dense.

Your expansion makes more sense to me.

The original did not make much sense to me.

That does not mean that my not understanding is the fault of FunkyTown.

 

It's FunkyTown's fault for being too fancy.  He likes being fancy.  I mean... c'mon... he's about the only one on the planet that can come up with the phrase your face is as ugly as smashed buttocks...

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's FunkyTown's fault for being too fancy.  He likes being fancy.  I mean... c'mon... he's about the only one on the planet that can come up with the phrase your face is as ugly as smashed buttocks...

 

:D

Fancy, I am not.

However, if he enjoys fancy... I suppose it would still be my problem for asking a question and not recognizing the answer.

Smashed buttocks.

I'll keep my eye out for an opportunity to "borrow" this.

At any rate, I'll accept his answer as being a "yes".

Edited by rfburn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the seven sins of Cain, the invention of taxes is the one that the Jews hate him for most. You would think it would be for killing Abel, or lying to God, but no. For inventing taxes, they call him a Thief and a Robber, and any other dirty dog name they can think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, every so often, as I frequent this forum, I have come across this idea.

 

I'm a European, and, though I'm sure some hard right european extremists  would go along with the concept, most of us know that our taxes pay for defence, legal systems and the rule of law, civil infrastructure such as roads and railways, medical care, education, 'soft power' in the world, libraries, adoption services, and such myriad of facilities, and many other public goods as well.

 

Mostly, we do not regard tax as theft, but as the government sequestering the money it needs to run itself, and provide civil goods no individual could supply for themselves at an economic rate, and, mostly, we regard ourselves to be privileged if we are in a higher tax bracket than the majority of our compatriots.

 

So, how does the idea that tax = theft enter into the American consciousness?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

having something taken from you without consent = theft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda disappointing how derisive this discussion has been.  Not everybody thinks the same way.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

The crux of the tax = theft argument is the idea that because the Constitution doesn't impose taxes, any effort by the Government to collect taxes is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.  Of course that gets into the debate over how literally to interpret the Constitution, but that's another discussion.

 

Now, I think we mostly agree that unnecessary taxation is a problem.  To the extent that the Government is inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, then taxes go up when they shouldn't.  Whether that's theft or simply corruption is a matter of opinion, but I'm not prepared to cast aspersions on someone for calling it theft if that's how they feel about it.

 

Europeans are frequently coming from a very different perspective than Americans, and it isn't just about taxation.  Guns, cars, the level of media censorship, etc.  All different points of view, and that's okay.    From a European perspective, it may very well be that Americans who resent high taxes seem silly, since most European countries impose much higher tax rates on their people than the U.S. does.  

 

Personally, I think a Government that's too comfortable going back to the well of taxation to take more and more money from the citizenry is a Government that's in need of some serious trimming.  I feel the same way about a Government that is constantly having to borrow more and more money.  But that too is another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the taxation system in this country, if you don't pay your taxes, you suffer some kind of penalty. To me, extracting money from a less than willing giver under threat of penalty or punishment seems to have more in common with extortion than with theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share