A difference in values?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In a representative democracy everyone has an opportunity to elect legislators who will represent their districts.

Those who have the most to lose in the way of taxes usually have a disproportionate voice because of their ability to make campaign contributions and lobby and attend expensive fundraisers where they gain access to the decision makers.

One cannot say he or she is being robbed because everyone has a part in electing the decision makers.

Is this an argument for why taxes are a moral good?

 

[o_mlly]

I realized that for some taxation is "stealing" ...

Define "stealing" and you'll have the answer. Stealing is taking the property of another, the owner being unwilling and justly possessing.

 

[SongOnTheWind]

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Governments need to put in place things that make provision for all of their citizens, otherwise there will be those who have literally nothing.

On the other hand, there was a point amidst the brethren when they had no poor among them, but all shared equally.

When we pray God's kingdom to come and will to be done, what is is that we are really praying?

Not only were they not poor, they were not greedy. Not only were they sustained, they had health and healing, provision, and many saw the miraculous signs and wonders following them as they believed, on the daily.

Would we need tax in the new heaven and earth, when Christ's Kingdom is made fully manifest on earth? Of course not. But if we could get it now as close as close as it has the potential to be on this side of His coming, would tax be necessary? Because not all believe, and not all have received, I would say yes.

Could we get it there? I believe so. I believe that there is nothing to difficult for God to accomplish, whatever point in time in history.

Depends on our faith. And if we have the faith for it, even as small as a mustard seed, dare we pray and ask and seek and knock?

I didn't expect this subject to be so far reaching, but there we have it, lol.

Also, if Jesus could eat with tax collectors, I don't think He was all that threatened or offended by the concept of tax. But then, He would never need to employ such a tool, as He is more than able to provide, and to do exceedingly and abundantly more then we dare ask or think.

 

[Robban]

I am taking refuge from the political forum for a second.

My ethics and morals give priority to the common good.

I just had an a ha (more like an oy-vey) moment where I realized that for some taxation is "stealing" and no matter how urgent and heartbreaking a situation is, or how many people are suffering, some people's ethics will inform their consciences that taxation (stealing) is a greater moral evil than alleviating hunger, or homelessness, for example.

Just curious as to what the ethics of posters here are.

And if any of you could help me understand this point of view.

I think being unwilling to pay tax is stealing,

there are those who know how to wriggle around the paragraphs and end up paying 0 in tax.

But as the saying goes;
"It is not the mouse who is the thief,
it's the mousehole."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just as an example of the different views and different perceptions, consider one of Obama's speeches that caused such a furore. This ties in to what someone said earlier about 'rugged individualism'.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

Some people were primed by the words in red to think a certain way, and took 'you didn't build that' to refer to them. Others saw that phrase being connected to the things in blue.

It's very clear in the context of the final paragraph that he's talking about things (like fighting fires) that We The People do collectively through our government and paid for by taxes. Obama also gives credit to individual initiative, but too many people had blown their stack at paragraph two to pay attention.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not to be disparaging. But some of our very conservative friends seem to be living 200 years in the past. They still have this nostalgic idea of the hardy pioneer--staking his claim, clearing his land, digging his well, building his home, plowing his field, raising his livestock, and planting and harvesting his crops. He defends and takes care of his family and himself. He's self-assured, self-sufficient, and self-reliant. Of course, good neighbors help each other in hard times. And charity is righteous, but that's what churches do. The government is for protection from evil-doers. Handouts aren't wanted or expected. If this romanticized notion of society ever really existed, it's long gone. In the 21st century, we are an urbanized, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, technology-dependent country. We must have--at the very least--a reliable, adequately funded social safety net. Which can be only be done collectively. Without this, a modern society will descend into bedlam. Think of Dickensian London magnified 1,000 times.

I'm not sure how that follows: Technological, therefore Government Welfare (instead of neighborliness and generosity of the individual or neighborhood church?)

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure how that follows: Technological, therefore Government Welfare (instead of neighborliness and generosity of the individual or neighborhood church?)

I think it's more that most people aren't subsistence farmers. They depend on the complex social network providing employment and business opportunities, and most will go through some period in their lives when that network won't deliver those in a timely way. And when we have so many people concentrated in an urban environment, "neighbourliness" doesn't always assure that people are seen or known or their needs are met. And not everyone is plugged into a church community.

I think, for example, of my own context - and I'm in a biggish country town, not even a real big city - and I have never spoken to the neighbours on one side, and would struggle to remember the names of the neighbours on the other. The relational network that would see me carried through, say, a job loss isn't necessarily there. I was very fortunate, last year, when Covid meant a four-month break between jobs, that the government provided a safety net, because the church sure wasn't doing that in any meaningful way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think it's more that most people aren't subsistence farmers. They depend on the complex social network providing employment and business opportunities, and most will go through some period in their lives when that network won't deliver those in a timely way. And when we have so many people concentrated in an urban environment, "neighbourliness" doesn't always assure that people are seen or known or their needs are met. And not everyone is plugged into a church community.

I think, for example, of my own context - and I'm in a biggish country town, not even a real big city - and I have never spoken to the neighbours on one side, and would struggle to remember the names of the neighbours on the other. The relational network that would see me carried through, say, a job loss isn't necessarily there. I was very fortunate, last year, when Covid meant a four-month break between jobs, that the government provided a safety net, because the church sure wasn't doing that in any meaningful way.

Yes, I understand the facts of the matter, but it galls me it has to be this way. Too many people depend on the Government, and that is dangerous.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I understand the facts of the matter, but it galls me it has to be this way. Too many people depend on the Government, and that is dangerous.

To a certain extent, we might have to accept that some people may - no, will take advantage of the system because of the way the system operates to ensure that those who genuinely need it are helped. But in general I won't disagree with you. I guess there are solutions. But we'd probably disagree on those.

 

[Fantine]

Mankind has lived on this planet for about 6,000 years, so we have had millenia to experiment with the idea of private charity and its total inadequacy in a world with 7 billion people.

Often those who can afford to help the most are safely cocooned in comfortable communities where we don't even see the needs.

Many societies have begun to build social safety nets and recognize a certain level of economic security as a human right, along with education and, everywhere but the US, healthcare.

They do this hand and hand with private charities who can reach out in a more personal and pastoral way.

There is no theft when members of a society jointly agree on a code of law for the common good. I supported schools before, during, and after raising children, my duty as a citizen.

We do not steal from the rich, as evidenced by the statistics showing their income levels have risen much more than society's as a whole. They are profiting, not suffering, from the American way of life.

I pray for their sense of balance, for it is our relationships with God and others that bring us true peace and fulfillment.

Our possessions can stand in the way of true joy.
The $100 we give away might give us more peace and joy than spending it on entertainment or material things.

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure how that follows: Technological, therefore Government Welfare (instead of neighborliness and generosity of the individual or neighborhood church?)

Technology is a 2 edged sword. In many ways it's made life better. But at a cost. My career was in health care. There's no better example of technology's upside and downside than its role in medicine.In the 1940s, if your kidneys were failing, you be put on a low sodium, low protein diet. And you might be prescribed one of the few medications available (and not very effective) to lower your blood pressure. Very simple and inexpensive treatment. And in 6-12 months, you'd be dead from uremic poisoning. Then in the 50s, the early attempts at dialysis came on the scene. And soon after came the first renal transplants. Over that last 60+ years, the technology has vastly improved. End- stage renal disease is no longer a death sentence in a few months. You can now live a productive life for years. But the yearly price of the usual 3 per week hemodialysis sessions is about $70,000. And about $50,000 annually for peritoneal dialysis. Or, with a good donor match, you may be a candidate for a kidney transplant. Upfront cost is about $100-$200K. And another $15-17K every year for anti-rejection medications. Yeah, these are sticker prices that hardly anyone pays. But dialysis is so expensive, that a patient who requires it automatically qualifies for Medicare, regardless of age. The cost is too much for private insurance. Although, private insurers may cover transplants. The negotiated price for the bundle (tissue matching, harvesting the donor kidney, the transplant surgery, post op care, etc.) is maybe $35K. And $2-3K/month for anti-rejection meds. But still, GoFundMe, church bake sales, and neighborhood garage sales can't begin to cover these costs. (And this is just the cost of treating ESRD. How many billions more are spend on heart and other vascular diseases, cancer treatment, stroke, COPD, and many others? The link is a report from last fall that estimated the total cost to payers of Covid-19 hospitalization and other care was $546 billion.) Public funding is the only way.

The average cost of hospital care for COVID-19 ranges from $51,000 to $78,000 based on age

 

[Astrid]

I am taking refuge from the political forum for a second.

My ethics and morals give priority to the common good.

I just had an a ha (more like an oy-vey) moment where I realized that for some taxation is "stealing" and no matter how urgent and heartbreaking a situation is, or how many people are suffering, some people's ethics will inform their consciences that taxation (stealing) is a greater moral evil than alleviating hunger, or homelessness, for example.

Just curious as to what the ethics of posters here are.

And if any of you could help me understand this point of view.

If taxes were used exclusively as you
say, for the common good then to call
taxation stealing is indefensible.
Such as think so should remove themselves
from society and all its benefits
There's still deep woods and isolated
islands.

If a person's taxes are being used to fund
immoral or illegal actions by the govt,
then there is a moral duty of civil disobedience.

Much tougher than just complaining.

Then too we ha ve corruption- money very
literally being stolen.
Politicians have a moral, ethical and legal
duty to be fiduciaries, with the highest duty
of care. And some money is well spent.

Some goes to reckless squandering.

Forcibly taking money that is wasted
or only to a chosen few who gain it unjustly
is indistinguishable from stealing.

As W Guthrie put it

As through this life you ramble
You will meet some funny men
Some rob you with a six gun
And some with a fountain pen.

 

[Astrid]

In a representative democracy everyone has an opportunity to elect legislators who will represent their districts.

Those who have the most to lose in the way of taxes usually have a disproportionate voice because of their ability to make campaign contributions and lobby and attend expensive fundraisers where they gain access to the decision makers.

One cannot say he or she is being robbed because everyone has a part in electing the decision makers.

So ifn ya marry someone who then drains the bank
account, sell the house and disappears with the car and dog,
nothing was stolen?

 

[Sketcher]

I am taking refuge from the political forum for a second.

My ethics and morals give priority to the common good.

I just had an a ha (more like an oy-vey) moment where I realized that for some taxation is "stealing" and no matter how urgent and heartbreaking a situation is, or how many people are suffering, some people's ethics will inform their consciences that taxation (stealing) is a greater moral evil than alleviating hunger, or homelessness, for example.

Just curious as to what the ethics of posters here are.

And if any of you could help me understand this point of view.

If I siphoned off let's say 10% of your income from your bank account every time you got paid without your consent, but used that money to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, I would still be a felon and I would be put in prison. If the government siphons off that money from your paycheck before it even hits your bank account and uses that money to among other things, go to war against people you have no quarrel with, it somehow isn't considered a felony - and if you give them information that causes them to siphon less of it than they feel entitled to, you go to prison. If I were to try to do that to you in the event that you fight off my siphoning, that would be another felony, kidnapping. But when the government does it, it's somehow A-OK.

 

[Bradskii]

If I siphoned off let's say 10% of your income from your bank account every time you got paid without your consent, but used that money to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, I would still be a felon and I would be put in prison. If the government siphons off that money from your paycheck before it even hits your bank account and uses that money to among other things, go to war against people you have no quarrel with, it somehow isn't considered a felony - and if you give them information that causes them to siphon less of it than they feel entitled to, you go to prison. If I were to try to do that to you in the event that you fight off my siphoning, that would be another felony, kidnapping. But when the government does it, it's somehow A-OK.

Democracy, eh? What's a guy to do.

 

[Astrid]

If I siphoned off let's say 10% of your income from your bank account every time you got paid without your consent, but used that money to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, I would still be a felon and I would be put in prison. If the government siphons off that money from your paycheck before it even hits your bank account and uses that money to among other things, go to war against people you have no quarrel with, it somehow isn't considered a felony - and if you give them information that causes them to siphon less of it than they feel entitled to, you go to prison. If I were to try to do that to you in the event that you fight off my siphoning, that would be another felony, kidnapping. But when the government does it, it's somehow A-OK.

I'd be so happy if the govt only took 10%

 

[Ken-1122]

Tax money can help us to have roads and police; and higher-up politicians and FBI deal with very dirty and dangerous people. You can deal with them, yourself, if you don't want to pay taxes.

And government people can use taxes to help people I can not reach to help them. Again, some of these might be not ones you would want to relate with, in person. But they need some sort of help . . . including prisoners. Would you rather keep a few of these in your home?

Those are things everybody approves of; nobody has a problem with taxes being used to pay for those things. Problem is, there are a lot of foolish things taxes are used that many people disagree with; that is where people disapprove how the tax money is spent.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not to be disparaging. But some of our very conservative friends seem to be living 200 years in the past. They still have this nostalgic idea of the hardy pioneer--staking his claim, clearing his land, digging his well, building his home, plowing his field, raising his livestock, and planting and harvesting his crops. He defends and takes care of his family and himself. He's self-assured, self-sufficient, and self-reliant. Of course, good neighbors help each other in hard times. And charity is righteous, but that's what churches do. The government is for protection from evil-doers. Handouts aren't wanted or expected. If this romanticized notion of society ever really existed, it's long gone. In the 21st century, we are an urbanized, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, technology-dependent country. We must have--at the very least--a reliable, adequately funded social safety net. Which can be only be done collectively. Without this, a modern society will descend into bedlam. Think of Dickensian London magnified 1,000 times.

Do you approve of everything your tax money is being spent on?

 

[FireDragon76]

But I never quite realized until tonight that there are people who actually believe that taxation is actually more morally evil than the human suffering adequate funding could alleviate.

I've realized this a long time. Usually, people that think like this are not "people persons", they are inwardly focused, narcissistic, and something like taxation is easy to understand as far as issues go (its concrete). Other peoples inner lives? Not so much.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see citizenship as a kind of social contract with both benefits and obligations. So part of the contract or agreement I make with the state by accepting citizenship is that I contribute in various ways (notably taxes) and I benefit in various ways (educational support, healthcare, etc etc).

So I don't see it as stealing, because a person is free to renounce their citizenship and leave that country. I understand there are some countries which do not tax their citizens. I have no idea how easy it is to move there and become a citizen, though.

Yeah, that's how most people see it. But of course some people object to that model because they themselves never individually "signed a contract". They have a purely voluntaristic understanding of society. It's a very American notion, but you find it in Australia and the UK among the fringe as well (the so-called "Freemen on the Land").