|
| Thread: Taxes and morality |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:39 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
@ mvass: good idea. abolish unemployment benefits? unemployment "benefits" prevent rampant robberies.
That's an empirical question. Do you have a source for that assertion?
Also, you have to compare the cost of benefits with other costs. Perhaps it's more effective to spend that money on the police instead - or maybe it's better to let the robberies happen, if they're not too bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 07:36 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
fred79 said:
@ mvass: good idea. abolish unemployment benefits? unemployment "benefits" prevent rampant robberies.
That's an empirical question. Do you have a source for that assertion?
Also, you have to compare the cost of benefits with other costs. Perhaps it's more effective to spend that money on the police instead - or maybe it's better to let the robberies happen, if they're not too bad.
simple. what are the motivations of robbery and theft? to name just one, acquiring something that otherwise cannot be acquired. why wouldn't these things be able to be acquired? lack of money or a job. unemployment "benefits" prevent a lot of this from happening. it's a logical assumption.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 07:40 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:45, 18 Aug 2013.
|
Living in a nation and refusing to pay taxes is like squatting in somebody's apartment, eating their food, taking advantage of their air conditioning, watching their TV, using their computer, showering in their shower, ect. And using as your excuse for not chiipping in with the expenses, "Oh, but you guys watch wrestling on Friday night when I want to watch Dancing with the Stars. So I'm not paying for anything."
If you don't want to be a part of the nation because you disagree with something the nation does then leave rather than be a moocher.
Edit:
Oh, unemployment benefits are not welfare. Employers are forced to buy unemployment insurance to cover their employees in the event the employees are laid off. If the employee is laid off the insurance pays them a percentage of what their weekly wages were as long as they are looking for work, and limited to a specific time period. If they are fired the insurance does not cover them.
So unemployment insurance is a forced benefit provided by employers.
Welfare is money stolen from one person and given to another and is not based on anything the recipient of the welfare has done.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 07:57 PM |
|
|
fred:
So people break into houses to make money? That also sounds like an empirical question. A quick glance at the literature on motivation behind robbery told me that money isn't a major factor.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 08:04 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:26, 18 Aug 2013.
|
Elodin, you can't compare the state to a household. As an adult, nobody's forcing you to be part of their household and submit to its norms. But as a resident on the soil that is under the cohesive jurisdiction of the US, you are forced to submit to its laws. With the state, you can't just open the door and the leave.
Now that I think about it, I don't think that states should have territorial jurisdiction. I want to be able to choose the state that governs me, no matter where I live. The state should have nothing to do with geography, anybody can create a new state. This makes the state a subject of competition.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 08:15 PM |
|
|
especially with the US government. try to leave, they'll soon find your new country, and force their laws on it. especially if it happens to be a socialist/communist country. 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 08:40 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
especially with the US government. try to leave, they'll soon find your new country, and force their laws on it. especially if it happens to be a socialist/communist country.
lol, so true. well, if it's muslim, anyway. russia, china, north korea, not so much.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 08:44 PM |
|
|
I heard a lot of people are moving from the US to North Korea.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
mvassilev said:
General Motors was going out of business because it couldn't be efficient. With the costs it was incurring, it couldn't sell enough cars to keep going. The right thing to do would have been to let GM die - but instead, the people who didn't want to pay for GM's cars were forced to pay for the continued operation of a company they don't want. Businesses exist to coordinate between those who can produce a good or service, and those who want to consume it. If not enough people want it, then it lost its purpose, and it's time to let the market adjust to new sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.
If you're worried about unemployment, abolish unemployment benefits, they increase the unemployment rate anyway.
All of this is relevant, by the way, because you said that taxes are "doing your part" - but if this is how they're used, that's definitely not true.
+1 to everything here, except I'd rather reform unemployment benefits than abolish them. Reduce fraud and eliminate long term programs (welfare, food stamps), that kind of thing. I don't have a problem with safety nets, but people shouldn't be pitching tents on them.
Except that it's complete bollocks. The government is representing the interest of the people. If GM or any other corp is finished, they are finished bacuse they have debts they cannot pay, or no one is giving them a loan anymore, respectively.
The correct solution in the capiotalist world is TAKING OVER the corp (by the government, if no other buyer is forthcoming, and the government can afford to buy CHEAPLY).
This is a kind of capitalist nationalization - nothing wrong with that one, since the government is representing the people.
The market and its workings is a fairy tale, because the players are not playing fair or by the rules. It makes no sense, just because the execs of a giant corp can't cope (and if you are a couple hundred billion turnover corp, a wrong decision may bring you down fast, while a good one may bring you up just as fast - car manufacturing is a pretty interesting industry - BANKS, as well, mind you), you don't have to let stuff like that die. With the structure corps have today the consequences may be quite stunning amd have a serious effect on a lot of economies. GM, for example owns QUITE a few manufacturers all ovber the world, and letting THEM die, means letting the rest die as well - except for a liquidation selling assets separately.
So WRONG is only to let the losers keep everything and just hand them over the money that actually is owned by the people. That's the bad thing, actually: If the Bank of the People, that is TAX MONEY, is handing out a loan to a corp in need, then the Bank of the People should get COMPENSATION!
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:12 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The government is representing the interest of the people.
by "the people", you obviously mean the governments, corporations, and their buddies, right? if not, however... LOL.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:22 PM |
|
|
Dude, PER CONSTITUTION. You see, you have to take all that crap AT FACE VALUE, because that's the only way you can get to them.
So, PER CONSTITUTION the government IS AND HAS TO represent the interest OF THE PEOPLE.
High time, they are reminded to actually do it - in a CAPITALIST WAY, not in a WELFARE way.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:27 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Dude, PER CONSTITUTION. You see, you have to take all that crap AT FACE VALUE, because that's the only way you can get to them.
So, PER CONSTITUTION the government IS AND HAS TO represent the interest OF THE PEOPLE.
High time, they are reminded to actually do it - in a CAPITALIST WAY, not in a WELFARE way.
wow, i read this wrong the first time, and subsequently, your previous post.
regardless, real life is calling me out to frolic. until tomorrow, hc. 
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:27 PM |
|
|
If you think the purpose of government is to represent the interests of the people then that doesn't actually mean that's what the governments does, even when it tries. Governments just aren't institutions that are very good at doing that. They are short-sighted and not any way near as flexible or adaptable as the market. Also a prone subject to populism and corruption. More often than not, a government trying to act in the interest of the people will do the opposite of that.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:31 PM |
|
|
|
What has that to do with taxes? It's a political question, and if you think so wou should be an ANARCHIST, supporting living in non-governed anarchy.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:34 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:35, 18 Aug 2013.
|
I disagreed with your notion that government acts in the interest of the people. I think it's very bad at doing that, if acting in the interest of a collective is even feasible.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 11:22 PM |
|
|
That's what your problem then: Sue your country at your country's SUPREME COURT. Fairly easy, actually.
See, the constitution says, that ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE!
If the people think that the government abuses that power - SUE THEM! Found a party if necessary - but SUE them. Bring them to court.
But don't withhold the taxes.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2013 12:09 AM |
|
|
And if the Supreme Court no longer acknowledges the Constitution as a source of law? (As in the United States.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 19, 2013 07:27 AM |
|
|
Since in the free healthcare thread I already objected to mvass's notion of perfect sync between the tax payer and the expenses in detail, I won't repeat that. Let me just briefly rephrase, in such scales (populations of millions and modern infrastructure for them to benefit), to expect such accuracy is idealistic to the point of unrealistic.
However, I don't think the answer should be, if you don't agree with that get more politically active OR LEAVE COUNTRY. The answer should be, if you don't agree, live in a cabin in the woods. Or should it?
Let's say I do live in a cabin in the woods, I feed myself by growing my own vegetables, fishing, hunting rabbits etc etc. I bath in the river, I also get my drinking water from it. You get the point. Now, is it okay for me to refuse to pay taxes at all under such conditions? Because this time, the question gets really philosophical in the technical sense:
- Are we born into a piece of the earth or are we born into a state?
That is, as long as I don't interact with other citizens by any means (so we'll take criminal law out of the equation for the sake of simplicity) and I don't use the infrastructure at all, does the state still has a right to tax me or even treat me like its subject at all?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 19, 2013 03:26 PM |
|
|
is it a right or is it the condition to its existence? if there are no subjects, there is no state. and no power for the people who run it.
and I'm not sure you can just live in the woods like that. For example, if I'm not mistaken, in Brazil they are trying to take back the lands of the Guaranis.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 19, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
|
Well, you or I probably can't live like that. I mean, we'll need our toilet paper! It would take too much adjustment. But people, if they are raised into that, can very well live like that, and they had lived like that and in some parts of the world they still live like that. So it's not a question of capability. But what's in the labyrinth of my mind is not exactly that right now:
To contemplate society "in taxes" seems interesting (as in observable) to me in this way:
Most nationalists I've met from the East build the argument of their nationalism like this:
We are special people, we have great history, we will never define ourselves upon money like those degenerates!
Most nationalists I've met from the West build the argument of their nationalism like this:
Why on earth should I pay more taxes for those immigrants?
|
| |
|
|
