Stats on benefit fraud versus corporate tax evasion?
- Thread starter Kid_Eternity
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Kid_Eternity said:
Because it's taken from you under threat of imprisonment. I get no choice whether or not I pay tax, I am compelled to, and if I don't I get punished. Unless you think extortion is moral of course.
However, I think the balance that I get an NHS, a level of social stability, plenty of state services etc in return outweighs the moral hazard of the way taxes are charged on people.
Kyser, you are so iconoclastic!, tax is the bedrock of a decent social-democratic society, how else who would you pay for services, charity, rich philanthropists? Sometimes I wonder about your political trajectory, maybe abstract political philosophy isn't always a good thing,
After all, even the good old free market USA citizens pay tax, how else could they pay for that giant military?
After all, even the good old free market USA citizens pay tax, how else could they pay for that giant military?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, that's what law does. It compels under the threat of punishment. That's how a society works.kyser_soze said:
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
kyser_soze said:
If the ends justify the means is it truly immoral?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
treelover said:
Hello, is anyone actually listening?
Extracting cash under threat of punishment is called extortion, no matter who does it. However, the upside is that I get a reasonably well ordered society with healthcare etc, so it outweighs the moral hazard of the no-choice extortion. Doesn't stop it being extortion tho.
More to the point, tax is the bedrock of State and government, not necessarily a 'decent society'. How many of you on here complain about how your 'tax money' is spent on the war on Iraq? Is that a good, moral way to spend the money? Are you also implying that without compulsion, most people would opt NOT to pay tax? Why can't I exist in a society where I'm free to choose where my taxes are spent instead of relying on the State to do so?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
No it isn't. You call it that. Others would consider the term inflammatory and inaccurate.kyser_soze said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Because such a society would be no society at all. Because the whole point as to why tax is required is because individual spending decisions are highly unlikely to provide us with the things that we need in order to function properly.kyser_soze said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Donna Ferentes said:
Not to pay things. It compels me NOT to kill people, NOT to vadalise. Tax is the only area of the law which compels us to do something - I think education is the only other area that the law compels people to act in a certain way under threat of punishment.
The whole notion that because good comes from it that the actual process of extracting it is rubbish. What if you live in a state which is repressive and regressive - does that make a decent society, or would not paying taxes to support such a system an act of political rebellion? Study the history of the mafias - while they extort money, historically in many cases they were more effective at protecting people and property than the states which gathered legitimate taxes. Didn't stop them being bastards of course.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Fruitloop said:
True, but it would be my free choice to pay them, not legalised extortion. I don't see why some people have such difficulty seeing the difference...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Donna Ferentes said:
Why can't I make my own mind on that, and pay taxes as a free decision, not a compulsion? I'd sooner live in a society based on informed free choice - that I pay taxes because I choose to do so based on my awareness that not paying them would be worse, than being told to like some parent telling me I have to put 30p of my £1 a week pocket money into my piggy bank.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Not really, there are all sorts of obligations to provide things, if you're an employer. You must take action to prevent your tree falling on your neighbour's house. And so on.kyser_soze said:
it's not just that good comes out of tax. It's that you're only able to make the money you resent paying in tax, because previously-collected tax provides the revenue that enables the functions to take place that enables you to work. To fail to recognise that strkes me as being an evasion of critical responsibility.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Oh, why do you think? Because somne people would seek to avoid it and hope that other people would pay up instead. That's why.kyser_soze said:
Which is why the whole anti-tax position is an expression of personal irresponsibility.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
An employer isn't an individual, an employer is an institution.
Are you being blind to what I'm saying AFTER the point that taxation under compulsion is immoral?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Donna Ferentes said:
So you agree that state coercion is acceptable under certain circumstances then?
The fundamental mistake is to imagine that history starts from just now, as if you have sprung into being with all your productive capabilities fully formed, when in fact the social body has devoted a fair amount of energy to educating you, trying to mitigate threats like disease and war, crime, discouraging child labour etc etc. Of course these things are refracted through the medium of the State, which is unfortunate, but it doesn't alter the basic facts.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Er, no. Individuals within institutions have legal responsibilities to carry out given acts.kyser_soze said:
No, I'm saying you're wrong. I don't think it's immoral. I'm saying it is ethical and just. I'm saying your characterisation of it is tendentious.kyser_soze said:
Of course I am and of course it is.kyser_soze said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
You saying it doesn't make it so. You think it is ethical and just. I think it is immoral but that moral hazard is negated by the benefits. Do you think that moral use is made of our taxes for every bomb that falls in Iraq or Afghanistan? If you had the choice and could hypothecate your tax on a 5 years basis, would you choose not to contribute to defence spending, knowing that money is being spent in an illegal/immoral war?
Plus if you choose to pay for services, etc,only you approve of, then as i said before which would get priority, I agree with Donna(there's a first!), you are not a completely sovereign individual:, you were educated by the state, looked after by the NHS, your bins are emptied by the state, to an extent, you are protected by the police, the infrastructure around you which you need to work is largely provided by or funded by the state. Even with your nuances, your argument on tax, etc is a basic right wing libertarian view and it seems the one you are gong down...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Oh please get a grip. If you'd read any of my posts on alternative structures for taxation you'd know this isn't true.
kyser_soze said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well I know, but hey, dreams are important, no?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So, if the end justifies the means is it truly immoral?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
OO, ends justifying means...dodgy territory there...I believe in the case of taxation in a country like the UK on the whole it does...somewhere like Burma, or Saudi, or Kuwait or anywhere that the money is utilised to oppress the local population no I don't. The people of those nations might feel differently - I would imagine that Singaporeans would agree that paying tax to a deeply repressive state is worth it because the benefits they enjoy in that very strange micro-state outweigh the oppression!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Kyser is right that tax is technically legalised extortion, so much so that income tax never actually made it into law in the USA. (Another story).
Still the state has to be paid for, and there is no doubt that those who make money, in whatever way in society should pay a certain amount of their income to finance it.
There are many people who gain from the land, both as landowners and as income earners. The income tax is generally fair, though I would prefer a higher tax-free bracket. But the land owners are not paying their fair share due to the tax changes under the last Conservative government. I want to see a replacement for the council tax which is based on who owns the land. All land owners could pay by the square metre, and that would even up the situation. At the moment the land owners hardly pay anything, while the poor pay too much, see below.
Still the state has to be paid for, and there is no doubt that those who make money, in whatever way in society should pay a certain amount of their income to finance it.
There are many people who gain from the land, both as landowners and as income earners. The income tax is generally fair, though I would prefer a higher tax-free bracket. But the land owners are not paying their fair share due to the tax changes under the last Conservative government. I want to see a replacement for the council tax which is based on who owns the land. All land owners could pay by the square metre, and that would even up the situation. At the moment the land owners hardly pay anything, while the poor pay too much, see below.
Similar threads
