In favor of taxation

zoogs

zoogs

New member
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/04/tax-the-rich-capitalism-marx-socialism/

The total income generated in a capitalist society is the result of a collective social effort, made possible by a specific social and legal architecture, and channeled through both publicly funded and privately controlled and financed institutions.
Click to expand...
This was a fascinating read and I think it raises a very important point. When we talk about taxes, most of us understand the argument laid out in the 2012 election by the Obama campaign. It was something along the lines of "roads, bridges...you didn't build that." But largely it's still an argument that is fundamentally grounded in the idea that all taxation is theft, even if some measure of it is either benevolent or necessary. This cripples the public case for taxation and ignores the merits of the roads-and-bridges argument, which was poorly articulated anyway.

Instead, this article beseeches us to center around the question of individual (not corporate) liberty. It makes an emphatic argument for using taxation-mediated redistribution as a way to extend liberties and protect those who otherwise wouldn't, couldn't have access to it. The best counter, I think, is the notion that maybe the massive concentration of capital in a few hands is utterly necessary for the global economy to function at all. That's a tough sell, and moreover, it only makes it more urgent that measures of redress are needed to counter the ill effects of the necessary evil. The greatest and most wondrous things can be created when private companies don't have to bother with even basic things like non-enslavement of their workers, but this is no way for a society built upon the idea of freedom to function.

 
It was a good read and case study on "true" socialism, as it posits more than once. But it completely misses what I think is the bigger issue of contention, which is the inefficiency and inability of the state to successfully redistribute or to manage those systems.

 
Governments in the US and Europe have built pretty effective redistribution systems, which hasn't stopped attempts to curb or roll them back. I would contend that what is lacking here is will, not way.

 
^Even among the most reasonable conservatives, who would skewer the current tax bill, this seems to be what "I'm no longer a Republican" boils down to.

Still very much old guard GOP. Similarly, something I could never be.

Take out the bad legislative behavior and the current bad PR of the GOP in other areas: would you still oppose Paul Ryan's tax bill?

 
Three core beliefs guide me in this. 

1). The government has certain things is has to do that are paid for by taxes. It’s main job is to provide a safe and orderly society where everyone has an opportunity at happiness. 

2). As your income goes up, the higher percentage should be paid in taxes. 

3). There are some people in society that can not take care of themselves and society should provide a certain base level of care. 

Now,  all three of those are important and social debate is needed constantly as to what level each exists. That’s healthy. 

For instance, some times higher taxes are needed. Sometimes lower taxes are better. 

Where I have a real problem is in the idea that society owns everything and government decides what you get to keep and use. I’m sorry that simple thought process is so far beyond my beliefs that I can’t get past it. 

Personal property ownership is a staple of our country and freedoms.

 
Whose freedoms are those if the ownership of the means to produce is restricted to the hands of the very few?

I don't think your disagreement is as pronounced as you think. "Society owns everything" wasn't an argument so much as "taxation is not fundamentally theft, some of which must be tolerated." We, collectively, decide how much to apportion to the public domain versus the private and there's a balance that is necessary there. Where exactly it should be, and how the public resources should be used, are a matter of healthy debate. 

 
Yea, it is a big disagreement. 

There is is a big difference between:

a). Public owns everything and we will decide what you get. 

And. 

B). People have personal ownership that you can work towards owning more and that you use as you want to. Some of what you earn needs to be paid in so the government can do what it needs to do. 

This is a very basic view that causes me to not be able to get behind very liberal politicians. 

And, to your first statement, that’s just a load of BS to use to justify society owning everything and having the complete power to redistribute it as it sees fit. 

Just because Bill Gates owns way more than me, doesn’t mean I have less freedom. I still have the ability to live my life as I see fit. 

Just because I own my house, doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t own a house has less freedom. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You lost me at "public owns everything". I suppose if you imagine every liberal as basically Mao, ...

Someone who doesn't own the means to produce capital absolutely has less freedom. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Three core beliefs guide me in this. 

1). The government has certain things is has to do that are paid for by taxes. It’s main job is to provide a safe and orderly society where everyone has an opportunity at happiness. 

2). As your income goes up, the higher percentage should be paid in taxes. 

3). There are some people in society that can not take care of themselves and society should provide a certain base level of care. 

Now,  all three of those are important and social debate is needed constantly as to what level each exists. That’s healthy. 

For instance, some times higher taxes are needed. Sometimes lower taxes are better. 

Where I have a real problem is in the idea that society owns everything and government decides what you get to keep and use. I’m sorry that simple thought process is so far beyond my beliefs that I can’t get past it. 

Personal property ownership is a staple of our country and freedoms.
Click to expand...
These 3 are what most normal people believe, no matter if they want to admit it or not.  Now, on #2 I am more of a "everyone should pay a flat tax" but really other than that this is a A+ post.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Yea, it is a big disagreement. 

There is is a big difference between:

a). Public owns everything and we will decide what you get. 

And. 

B). People have personal ownership that you can work towards owning more and that you use as you want to. Some of what you earn needs to be paid in so the government can do what it needs to do. 

This is a very basic view that causes me to not be able to get behind very liberal politicians. 

And, to your first statement, that’s just a load of BS to use to justify society owning everything and having the complete power to redistribute it as it sees fit. 

Just because Bill Gates owns way more than me, doesn’t mean I have less freedom. I still have the ability to live my life as I see fit. 

Just because I own my house, doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t own a house has less freedom. 
Click to expand...


I mean it does ultimately mean you have more freedom if you have more money and can afford things like healthcare, emergency or otherwise, college without a half a lifetime of debt etc.  Nobody on the left is arguing for communism, and pretending they are is plain old hyperbole.  I think the main thing here is a difference in opinion, I'd consider myself about bernie sanders left and the reason is simple.  Things like universal healthcare will result in a healthier population that will ultimately be more productive for the country, for employers, and wouldn't saddle people and their families with crippling debt if they happen to win the crippling disease lottery. It would also provide more stability for people and families when they leave a job to advance their career or get laid off so people would be more able to leave crappy jobs for better jobs.  Things like education provide a better overall national workforce, more innovation, higher productivity, which increases GDP and tax revenue for the country, etc.  Things like these are investments in the future welfare of the country as a whole, long term.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Yea, it is a big disagreement. 

There is is a big difference between:

a). Public owns everything and we will decide what you get. 

And. 

B). People have personal ownership that you can work towards owning more and that you use as you want to. Some of what you earn needs to be paid in so the government can do what it needs to do. 

This is a very basic view that causes me to not be able to get behind very liberal politicians. 

And, to your first statement, that’s just a load of BS to use to justify society owning everything and having the complete power to redistribute it as it sees fit. 

Just because Bill Gates owns way more than me, doesn’t mean I have less freedom. I still have the ability to live my life as I see fit. 

Just because I own my house, doesn’t mean someone who doesn’t own a house has less freedom. 
Click to expand...
I think the word "own" in "society owns everything" is not the right word. I'd say that "society apportions everything". We collectively decide what can and cannot be owned by individuals, corporations, governments, etc. And we collectively decide how to allow transfers of ownership. And we collectively decide how to apportion common/joint ownership (parks, roads, corporations, etc.). We've primarily done this by laws and regulations in America.

We also collectively decide how to mediate disputes of ownership. We've primarily done this through the civil court system in America.

The bottom line is that anything you own is because society has agreed that you own it.

 
Back
Top