Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 9,065
- 4,766
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Define "stealing" and you'll have the answer. Stealing is taking the property of another, the owner being unwilling and justly possessing.I realized that for some taxation is "stealing" ...
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'm not sure how that follows: Technological, therefore Government Welfare (instead of neighborliness and generosity of the individual or neighborhood church?)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?)
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.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.
I'm not sure how that follows: Technological, therefore Government Welfare (instead of neighborliness and generosity of the individual or neighborhood church?)
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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?
Do you approve of everything your tax money is being spent on?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.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?