Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax.*SNIP*

Coerce means "to compel to an act or choice"

not "to encourage an act or choice"

There is no compulsion... you've stated its a choice on the individuals part, since another course could be taken.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I didn't say it didn't concern me. The point is that a decrease in value in something doesn't necessarily mean someone stole something from you.

If I have a lousy harvest because the weather was bad, the value of my harvest went down... I am concerned... but niothing was stolen. If I have a harvest and someone comes along and takes a portion of it against my will, now that's a different story.

Nature doesn't steal, but people do. If some one raises the price of something that I normally buy it's no more stealing than the govt taxing me. In both instances some one has something of mine and I did not recieve just compensation for. It doesn't matter if I've been obligated or if I decided. I've been coerced.

[Ramo]

Coerce means "to compel to an act or choice"

not "to encourage an act or choice"

There is no compulsion... you've stated its a choice on the individuals part, since another course could be taken.

Again, I can choose not to have a taxable income or to leave this country, so does that make the income tax voluntary?

You can still have plenty of choices with constraints.

[MrBaggins]

Its not voluntary if you are a US resident and earn income, but by that same token you could choose to cease to be a US resident... or... I guess... earn income.

[Ramo]

Sure. I can quit my job and stop earning income.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax. It's no different from being obligated to pay a tax.

No you are wrong.

Let's say a box of nails costs $2.00 and the box costs $0.12 and shipping is $0.40 and tax is $0.40 making the cost $2.92 and the store marks it up $0.50 for a price of $3.42 to the consumer. If the consumer buys it, saying he was coerced to pay the tax is like saying he was coerced to pay for the shipping. He wasn't coerced into paying for anything. He chose freely to pay $3.42 for the nails. The price of which was mad eup of multiple components. No one has forced him to buy anything them.

Now the seller has exchanged his nails for $3.42, which despite what some people say here, is now his $3.42. That $3.42 may be a promissary note from the government (currency), in older times it may have been pieces of gold, perhaps they strike a deal and the purchaser agrees to sweep the back room for the nails, either way, what he recieves is his. Now if somebody comes along and takes some of that money against his will, whether it be a thief, a charity that uses the money for a good purpose, or the government, they are still taking it from him against his will. Taking someone's property/rightful possession against thier will is stealing.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Nature doesn't steal, but people do. If some one raises the price of something that I normally buy it's no more stealing than the govt taxing me. In both instances some one has something of mine and I did not recieve just compensation for. It doesn't matter if I've been obligated or if I decided. I've been coerced.

Give me a break. Raising the price on a voluntary puchase is not stealing. Having your money taken from you without your consent is.

[Ramo]

No you are wrong.

Let's say a box of nails costs $2.00 and the box costs $0.12 and shipping is $0.40 and tax is $0.40 making the cost $2.92 and the store marks it up $0.50 for a price of $3.42 to the consumer. If the consumer buys it, saying he was coerced to pay the tax is like saying he was coerced to pay for the shipping. He wasn't coerced into paying for anything. He chose freely to pay $3.42 for the nails. The price of which was mad eup of multiple components. No one has forced him to buy anything them.

That's some great logic.

So let's say a person's income can be deducted through multiple things (for example, the amount of vacation, the amount of health care, taxes). Therefore saying that he was coerced into paying for an income tax is like saying he was coerced into paying for his vacation days. After all, he freely chose to take the job.

[Az]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I mean society should treat every citizen equally. That is never discriminate. What can I say? Only equal is truly equal. :

and why is that good?

I don't agree. You have to take each persons happiness into consideration.

I never claimed otherwise.

In my opinion it is unethical to force people to give up a kidney because there is no just compensation to that individual. Therefore the person who the kidney was taken from was treated unfairly - an injustice has occured, and I don't care if the recipient is happier than the victim is sad. Injustice is not ethical.

what's your definition of injustice? you say that something is wrong because it's injust. wtf is injust?

[Ramo]

Give me a break. Raising the price on a voluntary puchase is not stealing. Having your money taken from you without your consent is.

No, taking illegally is stealing. Income taxes are legal.

[MrBaggins]

You give your consent to taxation by participating in the US economy.

[Sava]

you are wrong... it is not involuntary... it is a social contract... you can always LEAVE AMERICA if you don't like it. Hence, taxation is voluntary because you are choosing to live in this country.

Deity Dude... there's my one sentence... well, it's not one sentence, but it's short, sweet, and proves you wrong. So far you haven't said didleyshit to repute it.

[Ramo]

You give your consent to taxation by participating in the US economy.

No I didn't. The gov't would prosecute anyone who doesn't collect sales taxes. Consent isn't gained by the threat of force.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


* MrBaggins chuckles

especially since the judge was adjudicating for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and against an individual making an argument such as you (and the libertarians) have made.

I would never make such an argument and do pay my income taxes. The law is the law and the state has the power to enforce it.

Even if the judge agred with my anaylsis he would still hae to find me guilty. I am not trying to amke a legal case. I am aware of the law.

I am making a moral case, that even though a law is passed and enforced it can still be immoral. (i.e. segregation, slavery, drug laws, sodomy laws etc etc)
And once again, just because I find a law immoral doesn't mean I hae an obligation to break it to prove so nor am I obligated to leave the country.

[MrBaggins]

The basis of some of the mentioned judgements that were adjudicated against were some of the same arguments that you've used...

That income you earn is your property, and hence the government taking it is theft.

These judges have unanimously said no... income is taxable, period. There is no precident for any judge, however liberal, ever adjudicating contrary to that.

If you want to state your opinion that you consider it personally immoral... then I guess thats up to you... but its not a socially or legally acceptable argument.

[Kidicious]

dp

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

and why is that good?

You're asking me why justice is good? Is that really subjective. Maybe you are asking why that is better than the most good for the most people. Perhaps that is subjective.

Originally posted by Azazel
I never claimed otherwise.

By claiming that an action which produces the most good for the most people you are allowing for an action that produces unfair treatment. Some people are made to pay a price for other peoples happiness.

Originally posted by Azazel


what's your definition of injustice? you say that something is wrong because it's injust. wtf is injust?

Justice is when people are treated equally. If I'm forced to give my kidney to you that is an injustice, because I've been treated unfairly. I've paid the price for your happiness and I haven't recieved just compensation (not that I believe there is just compensation for it).

[Sava]

If you want to state your opinion that you consider it personally immoral... then I guess thats up to you... but its not a socially or legally acceptable argument.

nor is it a sane argument

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Coerce means "to compel to an act or choice"

not "to encourage an act or choice"

There is no compulsion... you've stated its a choice on the individuals part, since another course could be taken.

And I will recognize that there is some small difference between the words 'compel' and 'encourage,' but it's significant that whether we are compelled of encouraged to do something we still make a choice. It is simply a matter of making the cost or not participating in the activity that I desire you to participate in greater than the cost of participating in said activity. If that cost is great I guess you can call it coerce, but in reality I've taxed you regardless and there is little difference to you. You are still out of the tax, aren't you. You don't have a choice but to pay the tax or hurt yourself more by not paying the tax.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Give me a break. Raising the price on a voluntary puchase is not stealing. Having your money taken from you without your consent is.

I no more consented to pay the higher price than you did to pay the income tax. I was taxed for my activity and so were you. You didn't have to earn money, and I didn't have to make the purchase. You earned money for the benefit of having the money, so you didn't choose to pay the tax. Likewise, I made the purchase for the benefit of the item, not to pay the tax. I never gave my consent to the tax.

[Az]

You're asking me why justice is good? Is that really subjective. Maybe you are asking why that is better than the most good for the most people. Perhaps that is subjective.

Yes, I am asking you why there should be no meritocracy, which isn't egalitarian.

By claiming that an action which produces the most good for the most people you are allowing for an action that produces unfair treatment. Some people are made to pay a price for other peoples happiness.

Yes. And the price one of them pays is equally important to the utility another recieves. Thus, through calculation of positive and negative utilities, and the number of people experiencing each, we get the utility of the entire action. Unless you say that you can NEVER harm ANYONE's interests, in an ethical behavior.

Justice is when people are treated equally.

That's not true.

for example, in a court, is the just solution to have everyone punished equally, no matter the case, and whether the person is guilty?

If I'm forced to give my kidney to you that is an injustice, because I've been treated unfairly. I've paid the price for your happiness and I haven't recieved just compensation (not that I believe there is just compensation for it).

No, this is injustice, because it's not ethical.

Ethical and just are the same thing. Just doesn't mean always equal.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You are still out of the tax, aren't you. You don't have a choice but to pay the tax or hurt yourself more by not paying the tax.

Not if you go to another country, with preferrable (to you) tax laws.

[Agathon]

How long will it take before some Apolytoners finally accept the fact that every rule, good or bad, is discriminatory.

Even natural rights attributions are discriminatory as they discriminate bearers (like people) from non-bearers (like rocks).

The problem is over whether it is wrongful discrimination or not.

If any male on Poly really believes that it's unjust to treat anyone differently in any way because of their race or sex, would they please report to their doctor for a breast examination or waste time being tested for sickle cell aenemia or Tay Sachs disease.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

taxes are just the price for living in America and in this society... don't like it? leave...

what sort of ****ed up thinking is this? if you dont like something leave? snce when is america not open to everyone?

hey sava, if you dont like pork barreling in congress, just leave.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


what sort of ****ed up thinking is this? if you dont like something leave? snce when is america not open to everyone?

hey sava, if you dont like pork barreling in congress, just leave.

Of course you take things in balance... if the taxes are a big enough problem for you to go, then you'd go... but you can't have it both ways, and say

"The taxation system is the worst insult ever... I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it."

because there IS something you can do about it... leave...

America is open to everyone, but its "The Land of the Free", not "The Free Land".

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The basis of some of the mentioned judgements that were adjudicated against were some of the same arguments that you've used...

That income you earn is your property, and hence the government taking it is theft.

These judges have unanimously said no... income is taxable, period. There is no precident for any judge, however liberal, ever adjudicating contrary to that.

If you want to state your opinion that you consider it personally immoral... then I guess thats up to you... but its not a socially or legally acceptable argument.

Again I am not making a legal case. But certain things are wrong no matter what. They are not personal opinions. I have given numerous examples of immoral laws that are/were still enforcible at the time. Let's take one; slavery.

If I were a slave in the south pre-civil war and went to court I would lose. Even if the case I made was morally correct, I would still lose. Now, if after I made the case the judge told me why I lost, and you quoted his words, that wouldn't change the fact that slavery is wrong. He might say things like 'we don't define involuntary servitude to your class of people as a crime so your case has no merit" he might say "we hear this kind of argument from people like you because it's in your own self-interest" You might even post his words and knowingly giggle afterwards. None of that would change the fact that slavery is wrong.

Stealing is wrong. If you are admitting that it is stealing but think the government has some special allowance to break a commonly accepted moral code (not to steal) then I would make the arguement that it is no different then the slavery example above.(i.e. legal immorality is still wrong) and like slavery - the government and the people were looking something obviously morally wrong straight in the eye and didn't either realize it or chose to ignore it.

If you are trying to say it isnt stealing, I make the following argument

Taking one's property/rightful possessions without thier approval is stealing. A rose by another name is still a rose. You can call it a "social contract" even though it doesn't meet the elements of a contract, you can call it voluntary even though my choices are "do it or else", but it doesn't change what it is. It is stealing.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


No you are wrong.

Let's say a box of nails costs $2.00 and the box costs $0.12 and shipping is $0.40 and tax is $0.40 making the cost $2.92 and the store marks it up $0.50 for a price of $3.42 to the consumer. If the consumer buys it, saying he was coerced to pay the tax is like saying he was coerced to pay for the shipping. He wasn't coerced into paying for anything. He chose freely to pay $3.42 for the nails. The price of which was mad eup of multiple components. No one has forced him to buy anything them.

Now the seller has exchanged his nails for $3.42, which despite what some people say here, is now his $3.42. That $3.42 may be a promissary note from the government (currency), in older times it may have been pieces of gold, perhaps they strike a deal and the purchaser agrees to sweep the back room for the nails, either way, what he recieves is his. Now if somebody comes along and takes some of that money against his will, whether it be a thief, a charity that uses the money for a good purpose, or the government, they are still taking it from him against his will. Taking someone's property/rightful possession against thier will is stealing.

Do you have the slightest idea how sales taxes work? Are you at all aware that you didn't even put forth a scenario where sales taxes exists, or at the very least, you've just pushed the trasaction to a different stage? What you've desribed is more akin to a value added tax whereby the government is taxing something prior to its final sale to market (hence, not a sales tax). But even if you were just shifting the position of the transaction, you are still ignoring the tax altogether. The fact remains that government still expects to get its 40 cents. Who do you suppose actually passes that money along to the government? Look at it this way - if you bought the box of nails, would the government
send you a bill for the 40 cents? Maybe you just mail in a cheque? No, the government forces the seller to hand over the 40 cents, or the seller before that who sold the last retailer the box of nails in the first place. The government could care less whether the seller built that into the price or not, nor what the seller's profit margin is. It still wants the 40 cents, and isn't about to ask the vendor if they feel like having that item taxable in the first place.

Any way you slice it, the tax is equally coercive to income tax. The vendor, at whatever level, has to pony up the 40 cents to the government and has no choice as to what they will and will not charge tax on.

And let's not even get into the serious breakdowns in accounting.....

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I no more consented to pay the higher price than you did to pay the income tax. I was taxed for my activity and so were you. You didn't have to earn money, and I didn't have to make the purchase. You earned money for the benefit of having the money, so you didn't choose to pay the tax. Likewise, I made the purchase for the benefit of the item, not to pay the tax. I never gave my consent to the tax.

This has to be the weakest arguement yet.

If I own a good, I can sell it for whatever I want. Me selling it for a price higher then you want to pay might reduce your total net value (not your income), if you decide to buy it, but that is a choice for you to make. Do you want the good bad enough to pay the asking price. I am not forcing you to buy it, nor am I telling you you must take it and work for me for three months to pay for it.

That is different then someone taking something I already own away from me against my will.

What you are saying is that If I have sell somwthing at a price higher than you like that is the same as me stealing you car.

One is called the free market system. The other is called stealing.

Ridiculous.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Again I am not making a legal case. But certain things are wrong no matter what. They are not personal opinions. I have given numerous examples of immoral laws that are/were still enforcible at the time. Let's take one; slavery.

If I were a slave in the south pre-civil war and went to court I would lose. Even if the case I made was morally correct, I would still lose. Now, if after I made the case the judge told me why I lost, and you quoted his words, that wouldn't change the fact that slavery is wrong. He might say things like 'we don't define involuntary servitude to your class of people as a crime so your case has no merit" he might say "we hear this kind of argument from people like you because it's in your own self-interest" You might even post his words and knowingly giggle afterwards. None of that would change the fact that slavery is wrong.

Stealing is wrong. If you are admitting that it is stealing but think the government has some special allowance to break a commonly accepted moral code (not to steal) then I would make the arguement that it is no different then the slavery example above.(i.e. legal immorality is still wrong) and like slavery - the government and the people were looking something obviously morally wrong straight in the eye and didn't either realize it or chose to ignore it.

If you are trying to say it isnt stealing, I make the following argument

Taking one's property/rightful possessions without thier approval is stealing. A rose by another name is still a rose. You can call it a "social contract" even though it doesn't meet the elements of a contract, you can call it voluntary even though my choices are "do it or else", but it doesn't change what it is. It is stealing.

Slavery isn't analogus because slaves were actively stopped, caught and punished for leaving. No one would try and stop you if you left, because you were unhappy about paying taxes.

You keep on saying that taking property is wrong... that very well may be... but its not your property to begin with.

You may own some Federal Reserve notes, but the value that they have, and their taxable state is determined by congress, as per the Coinage Act.

The Government can't steal what was theirs in the first place.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Do you have the slightest idea how sales taxes work? Are you at all aware that you didn't even put forth a scenario where sales taxes exists, or at the very least, you've just pushed the trasaction to a different stage?

I was giving a quick example and the number were meant to be illustrative not necessarily accurate.

I own my own business in Michigan. We have a 6% sales tax in Michigan. You want a real example:

My cost of product 260.00
Shipping 10.60
---------
My Cost 270.60

My price for product 400.00
Sales Tax 24.00
----------
Amount consumer
must pay 424.00

Customer: "How much will that cost?"

Me: "424.00 including tax"

OUTCOME A:

Customer: "Nah $424.00 is too expensive I think I'll pass"

OUTCOME B:

Customer: "Thanks, I'll buy it"

Whether A or B the consumer decides what to do with his property. No one has forced him to pay for anything he doesn't want to. Tax, like profit and shipping and cost of goods is just another element making up the price.