- This topic has 5 voices and 39 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm in the same line as Donnie's thinking. In a nutshell: The way I consider it, as many political issues – set aside everything we know about laws, taxes, etc. If a group of people were to move to a deserted chunk of wilderness away from civilized society, what would they do? They would be forced to find work for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Those who were good at one form of labor would do it, while those who were good at another would do that. A natural market for the exchange of goods and services would emerge.These people would have no roads, no protection, etc. unless they provided it for themselves. Because they recognized the communal interest in sharing such things, they chip in together to produce and maintain these. The money would be a good investment because it was done to clearly benefit all of the parties involved. This benefit would then allow them to better conduct the more important things of their lives - living in safety, and conducting their trades so they could provide for their families.Along the way, government is born to administer such a program, and the "chipping in" becomes a form of taxation in which each person doesn't give voluntarily, but is required to give a portion of his money. This is done because the group of community members realizes that certain things need to be collectively paid for because they are collectively used. If everyone chipped in voluntarily a satisfactory amount, I think taxation would be a moot point.I could go on, but this is the essence. Notice how the taxation is used in order to support the loftier levels of the community - namely, families (including commercial efforts to survive) who form the basis of the community. It is not used in order to deprive money from some people to give to others. It is not used as a means of "wealth redistribution" in the sense of robbing Peter to give to Paul.
I reiterate, taxes are a necessary evil, as is government. Why evil? Because man should be independent and free to his own devises. However, because of the corrupt nature of man, and the complexity of civilization (primarily due to the corruption of man), government is necessary so that goods and services can be rendered equitably (in theory anyway). That being said, taxes and government must be designed to not over burden or intrude in the pursuit of man's happiness. Taxes should be cut wherever and whenever possible, and not levied at all if can be avoided. Ideally, if man were perfect, he would need neither taxes or government....alas, this is not the case....I am cursed by my inability to communicate clearly. You say man should be independent and free to follow his own path. I say that this is your opinion and not a fact or practice during all the years man has been on earth. You contend that man is corrupt, but you fail to say whether this is due to his nature (Calvin) or society (Rousseau). Unless all men are to live lives as a solitary beast like a male polar bear, we must live in groups and by doing so build a society and a civilization. Because we are hierarchal creatures, we accept the idea that someone or something has to be in charge because we seem to know through experience that in this way we stave off anarchy, chaos and other social horrors.This is what William Golding was telling us In Lord of the Flies.To the man in charge falls the duty of deciding how to pay for the services required or desired for thegroup. Specialists such as soldiers, craftsmen, priests etc. must be fed, clothed and housed. There isno such mandate to treat people equal--women, slaves, lower orders or aliens with equity and nolimits to the power of the man in charge to extract taxes in kind or labour. He is limited only by what the group will accept and the loyalty of his armed retainers. He makes the laws--we obey them.You say taxes should be cut and in some cases I would agree--but it is not an imperative. In fact, inthe case I outlined a really astute ruler would strike the perfect balance and extract, either by reason,religion or force--it really does not matter--those taxes that will provide him with a maximum of income and yet be bearable and perhaps even acceptable to those that pay. If he is lucky, he gets it right andlives to die in bed having avoided a revolt of the proles.In your last sentence you hit upon a major Marxist flaw. Government could wither away, taxes would not be necessary at all--if only man were perfect or at least perfectible. Alas he is not--ergo--wewill pay and pay and pay until death--and in some cases thereafter.
Okay fair enough. Man is corrupt by nature. Out of the hearts of men come slanders, murderers, thieves etc…etc…etc…Priests don't need taxes, they need tithes.Kings don't need taxes, they need tribute....there is a difference.Craftsmen don't need taxes, they need to produce a product.Soldiers do need taxes to get paid, but they produce a product....security.Now as to the man as independent and free. Man has been given inalienable rights (well our governmental philosophy says so anyway), that boils down to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now having established this, man's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can and often is, threatened by tyranny. What greater form of tyranny is there than to forcefully extract wealth from someone? Taxation is a forceful extraction of wealth from an individual, however, in our nation's case, the people are the extractors since the people are the government. So we are extracting taxes from ourselves for our mutual benefit. This is fine, but when our elected representatives begin to arbitrarily raise our tax burden to offset budgetary blunders, prop up reckless entitlement programs, and bail out irresponsible businesses and banks because of cronyism and good ole boy networks, we have tyranny of the most pernicious kind. The ability to tax is the ability to enslave, and this is precisely the message we sent to King George III when Parliament began to levy excise taxes and other taxes without our direct representation. Okay, so I submit to you WillyD that our current Congress is beginning to go in the same direction as Parliament did in the 18th century. It is burdening the people with an ever increasing tax yoke because of utterly irresponsible spending practices due to the ever increasing size of government and the ever growing costs of being a global superpower. Finally, our taxes are collected by a bureaucracy that has little to no oversight by the people themselves, and this too is a vile form of tyranny. Once this form of tyranny is established, it is not easily removed, and I daresay it cannot be reformed without a serious contest of wills, which may ultimately end in bloodshed, or even worse, the destruction of this nation altogether.
Taxes are our payment for all those things that need to happen to promote society that we cannot or will not do for ourselves. No one on gov't cares if we agree or not the bills need to be paid (or put off for our posterity)… ;D
Priests don't need taxes, they need tithes.Kings don't need taxes, they need tribute....there is a difference.Craftsmen don't need taxes, they need to produce a product.Soldiers do need taxes to get paid, but they produce a product....security.Now as to the man as independent and free. Man has been given inalienable rights (well our governmental philosophy says so anyway), that boils down to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now having established this, man's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can and often is, threatened by tyranny. What greater form of tyranny is there than to forcefully extract wealth from someone? Taxation is a forceful extraction of wealth from an individual, however, in our nation's case, the people are the extractors since the people are the government. So we are extracting taxes from ourselves for our mutual benefit. This is fine, but when our elected representatives begin to arbitrarily raise our tax burden to offset budgetary blunders, prop up reckless entitlement programs, and bail out irresponsible businesses and banks because of cronyism and good ole boy networks, we have tyranny of the most pernicious kind. The ability to tax is the ability to enslave, and this is precisely the message we sent to King George III when Parliament began to levy excise taxes and other taxes without our direct representation. Okay, so I submit to you WillyD that our current Congress is beginning to go in the same direction as Parliament did in the 18th century. It is burdening the people with an ever increasing tax yoke because of utterly irresponsible spending practices due to the ever increasing size of government and the ever growing costs of being a global superpower. Finally, our taxes are collected by a bureaucracy that has little to no oversight by the people themselves, and this too is a vile form of tyranny. Once this form of tyranny is established, it is not easily removed, and I daresay it cannot be reformed without a serious contest of wills, which may ultimately end in bloodshed, or even worse, the destruction of this nation altogether.We are playing word games.Craftsmen who forge weapons for the ruler or build his walls or decorate his home are paid out of tax revenue.Priests-- if supported by the state--and many were--are paid out of tax revenue--still are in England.Soldiers salaries are drawn from the treasury--tax revenuesKings get both taxes and tribute--different--but both bring in revenueYes--it is ironic:We did not like taxes without representation and 1/3 of us were willing to go to war over it--a minority!Now we screech because we still pay taxes with representation.Who elected these dolts--we did. I say the problem is us. Vote them out they do not have sinecures!If the government is too big--elect people who will make it smaller or ala Ronnie--starve the beast.As to the Bureaucracy--I take umbrage at your comments. You must understand that Bureaucrats donot make policy--they carry out the orders of their political masters. If the head of the IRS is told toaudit a particular income group with fierce diligence then that is what his hordes of subordinates will do.It is not that they are evil, it is merely following orders and putting bread on the table for their kids ..People who get upset with the burrocrats (sic) are directing their anger in the wrong direction.One final point: You may believe that man has inalienable rights, I do not. The fate of most menthroughout recorded time is to be ruled by Chiefs, Kings, Despots, Emperors etc. who cared no more about the rights of the common man than we care about the price of puppies in Manilla.You are speaking as a child of the Enlightenment and that is a very good thing in my opinion. To mychagrin it is a minority view as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and many other leaders havedemonstrated time and time again.Sleep well:WillyD
Adolph Eichmann was a bureaucrat too. Hannah Arendt taught us about the banality of evil no? Oh nevermind, you're right, it's not the bureaucrat's fault. It's ours for letting him have a job in the first place. We deserve what we get.My bed awaits.
My bed calls also, but let me clarify–there are various kinds of bureaucrats–Eichmann was not the best kind. There was one kind of bureaucrat that might be worthy of adulation–the Prussian civilservice prior to 1871 was apolitical, efficient, honest and well educated--the best in Europe at the time.Their concern was the welfare of the state and the military and the political sectors depended uponthem utterly. They were incorruptible.
I'm thinking this topic should be moved to another forum. Perhaps General History Chat? We've kinda strayed from the study of History I think.
Not going to touch this except to say taxes should be minimal and so should government. I am my brother's keeper, not the government on my behalf.
I'm in the same line as Donnie's thinking. In a nutshell: The way I consider it, as many political issues - set aside everything we know about laws, taxes, etc. If a group of people were to move to a deserted chunk of wilderness away from civilized society, what would they do? They would be forced to find work for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Those who were good at one form of labor would do it, while those who were good at another would do that. A natural market for the exchange of goods and services would emerge.These people would have no roads, no protection, etc. unless they provided it for themselves. Because they recognized the communal interest in sharing such things, they chip in together to produce and maintain these. The money would be a good investment because it was done to clearly benefit all of the parties involved. This benefit would then allow them to better conduct the more important things of their lives - living in safety, and conducting their trades so they could provide for their families.Along the way, government is born to administer such a program, and the "chipping in" becomes a form of taxation in which each person doesn't give voluntarily, but is required to give a portion of his money. This is done because the group of community members realizes that certain things need to be collectively paid for because they are collectively used. If everyone chipped in voluntarily a satisfactory amount, I think taxation would be a moot point.I could go on, but this is the essence. Notice how the taxation is used in order to support the loftier levels of the community - namely, families (including commercial efforts to survive) who form the basis of the community. It is not used in order to deprive money from some people to give to others. It is not used as a means of "wealth redistribution" in the sense of robbing Peter to give to Paul.Report to moderator Logged
y of History > Post reply ( Re: TAXES )Re: TAXESI'm in the same line as Donnie's thinking. In a nutshell: The way I consider it, as many political issues - set aside everything we know about laws, taxes, etc. If a group of people were to move to a deserted chunk of wilderness away from civilized society, what would they do? They would be forced to find work for themselves, provide for themselves, etc. Those who were good at one form of labor would do it, while those who were good at another would do that. A natural market for the exchange of goods and services would emerge.These people would have no roads, no protection, etc. unless they provided it for themselves. Because they recognized the communal interest in sharing such things, they chip in together to produce and maintain these. The money would be a good investment because it was done to clearly benefit all of the parties involved. This benefit would then allow them to better conduct the more important things of their lives - living in safety, and conducting their trades so they could provide for their families.Along the way, government is born to administer such a program, and the "chipping in" becomes a form of taxation in which each person doesn't give voluntarily, but is required to give a portion of his money. This is done because the group of community members realizes that certain things need to be collectively paid for because they are collectively used. If everyone chipped in voluntarily a satisfactory amount, I think taxation would be a moot point.I could go on, but this is the essence. Notice how the taxation is used in order to support the loftier levels of the community - namely, families (including commercial efforts to survive) who form the basis of the community. It is not used in order to deprive money from some people to give to others. It is not used as a means of "wealth redistribution" in the sense of robbing Peter to give to Paul.Report to moderator LoggedI have never lived in a commune and tend to avoid communal efforts as they do not pursue excellencein order to achieve harmony amongst the participants. However I agree with what you say. If we did not immediately slay each other in order to have access to the food, goods and female gene pool, we might well form some kind of self-sustaining commune wherein taxes would be of no concern. In my experience, however, someone or something has to be in charge as we are an unruly species thatneeds to be controlled by some sort of authority backed up by force.The wealth available to this central authority could be given out or not based on greed, altruism, a revealed religion, class distinctions, favoritism or anything else you might think of. The point is thatthere is no ONE way. It is up to the group and our little group has decided that taxes are a way ofredistributing the wealth--the more affluent are taxed to assist in the support of the less affluent. That is just the way it is--as repugnant as that may be.
