Thread: taxes are theft Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023849
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I've got friends who keep saying that. And to me, it seems so ridiculous, so patently absurd that I don't even know how to begin talking with them about it. It's like people saying, "Marriage is rape." It's not. Part of me wants to say that people who say such things are too stupid to try to engage with -- but I don't believe that. These are people who are otherwise reasonable. It has to be possible to address their claims reasonably.

But I just end up sputtering.

So how do you address the argument? "It's mine, I earned it, and it belongs to me. Taking what belongs to someone else is theft. Taxes are the government taking what's mine. So it's just government-mandated theft."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Simply put, the government provides a framework withing which it is possible for them to make that money. Roads, sewers, police, fire fighters, etc.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Driving on our roads, sending your kids to our schools, drinking the clean water we paid to regulate, eating the safe food we paid to regulate, driving the safe cars we paid to regulate, taking advantage of our fire and police protection, USING OUR MONETARY SYSTEM,

without paying taxes,

is theft.

So fuck off, "taxes are theft" assholes, to some country where you don't have to pitch in with everybody else.
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
Government, money and taxes are part of civilisation as we know it. Not sure how you can do without these things to some extent. Take one away and the others disappear.

I agree with you Josephine. It is a bit silly to just say taxes are theft. We consent to them by reason of the existence of our society.

Question is surely what level of taxation should be? Should poor people pay lots of tax (as they do in the UK on fags, booze, petrol, National Lottery (a quasi tax))? Should rich pay more or less?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Yep - patently absurd, unless you want to bury your own trash, build your own roads, set up your own police force, provide your own doctors etc etc etc.

Tax is about living in society. Then again, those who don't believe in it probably prefer gated ghettos.


[Disappointed]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Money is gift.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Do they grasp the concept of paying someone else to do something? If they pay someone to come and clean their house, do they consider she is stealing the money they give her? Do they also realise that they are paying the person who cleans the street outside their house on the same basis - ie, it's not a job they want to do themselves?

They are probably confusing the State - which collects money from you to spend on services - with corporations, which collect money so that a few people can have much more than everyone else.

The US is a big country. Surely you could set aside an area where tax refuseniks can live together? In towns called Poor, Mean, Nasty, Brutish and Short.

[ 07. September 2012, 07:03: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I saw a programme ages ago about a street that voluntarily paid no council tax at all for two weeks, got all the money back, and had to decide what to do with it and how to pay for all the council services they weren't getting as a consequence. To say it was fractious would be an understatememt.

I think we're lucky to have taxes, it forces us to be socially responsible to others and have a society that actually rubs along okay (albeit with things that could be done very much better). I think if I got all my paycheck to myself I would never give the proportion I pay in tax as charitable contributions.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I'd suggest they took a trip to a country where there is no proper system of taxation but where bribery is a common feature of life. That really is theft because you don't even get the value of what you pay or a say in the running of the system.

Tax is a pretty inefficient system, just like representative democracy. In the latter, politicians say any-old-shit to get into power and then proceed to do whatever the fuck they like for 4 or 5 years. In the former, the politicians use the compulsory nature of taxation to take and spend our money in all kinds of ways.

I suspect this is mostly what the phrase is meaning. Well, other than the fact that the person saying it is relatively wealthy and wants to keep more of their money rather than spending it on roads and schools, of course..

[ 07. September 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Money is gift.
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Money is gift.
Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?
(getting in first)

Because proper tea is theft.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
Puh. That is nothing in terms of surplus value.

Is it robbery? Yes, of course it is. The capitalists have invested in terms of machinery and structures and innovation and whatnot, but they're profiting exponentially from each hour worked by the employees.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If taxes are theft then what is work that adds £10 value for a wage of £5. Don't enterprises rob workers in the same way?
Puh. That is nothing in terms of surplus value.

Is it robbery? Yes, of course it is. The capitalists have invested in terms of machinery and structures and innovation and whatnot, but they're profiting exponentially from each hour worked by the employees.
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Choice is a strange term when you're talking about surplus value. Theoretically, a worker could choose to work for someone else, set up their own business or co-operative. In practice, most of the time most people are forced to work to raise money for either their capitalist or another one.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Do they grasp the concept of paying someone else to do something? If they pay someone to come and clean their house, do they consider she is stealing the money they give her? Do they also realise that they are paying the person who cleans the street outside their house on the same basis - ie, it's not a job they want to do themselves?
I'd guess their argument would be that any arrangement such as this would be voluntary; they'd voluntarily agree to employ a cleaner at a rate of their choosing (or at least that has been negotiated with the cleaner... in theory). It was their choice. Whereas taxes ain't voluntary, they're imposed by the state and (in theory) you have no choice about paying them or not.

(I say in theory... in practice it seems the richer you get, the more ways around paying tax there are and the more willing the tax authorities seem to be to turn a blind eye to it).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This is as silly a statement as 'property is theft'.

Taxes are peoples' subscription to the world they live in.

There are issues about this that are legitimate matters for debate. The origin of representative government in the middle ages was a tool to get the three estates to buy into the taxes the king needed to collect/wanted to impose. If one believes representative government is a good thing, those who are elected do owe an obligation not to screw more out of the public than is necessary. This means not taking the line, 'You've voted us in. Now we are entitled to do what we like with you until the next election'.

That applies to grandiose public projects just as much as expenses scandals.

Taxes are part of the social contract unless you say people can opt out of it altogether. That might sound a nice idea in the abstract, but there isn't a stateless anarchistic place such people can go to, though by all reports, Somalia and the Republic of the Congo get fairly near it.

Again, it's a legitimate argument to say that because you can't opt out of the social contract, and because government has the whip hand of compulsion, in return for being given it, it has a greater than ordinary duty not to use that whip hand more than the minimum necessary. 'They' are trustees for power as well as money.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Every time they use something provided by a public authority, just politely tell them that if they don't pay for it, THEY are stealing.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Agree with most of what has been said so far in defence of taxation.
Basic point for me is that in pretty much any even moderately advanced society, property is distributed and held according to conventions and rules. In the absence of such conventions and ruiles- that is, the absence of a rule of law of some kind, whether fair or unfair- you can ultimately only hold onto your property if you, and maybe your mates, are prepared physically to defend it and are not overcome by someone else (and his/her mates) who is stronger than you are. So the first question is, are stejjie's freinds willing and able physically to defend their property against all comers, or do they want to have the forces of the courts, police, bailiffs,and so on to help them hold onto what they have and to enforce contracts and obligations against others?
If they do want to rely solely on themselves to protect their rights and property, I respectfully suggest that they sod off to Somalia and see how well they get on there. If they don't - and most people ultimately don't- then the question arises of how you maintain the wider social and institutional structure that maintains a rule of law. In small societies this may be done very cheaply, with unpaid magistrates and juries, ad hoc collections to build/ maintain the local pound or lock-up, and people willing to turn out for the posse or the watch or whatever you call it as and when needed (although you might consider jury duty or watch liability a form of taxation of time rather than money). But as societies grow and get more complex you pretty quickly get beyond the stage where you can rely on goodwill and voluntarism and you need to employ people and pay for things- which needs money- and unless you're in Brunei or one of those oil states where selling natural resources pays for everything, that pretty much means taxes.

This is true even if you are talking about a minimal 'nightwatchman' state. You can certainly argue about how heavy taxation should/ needs to be, but taxation of some kind is pretty much a given.

[ 07. September 2012, 09:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Sorry- I mean Josephine's friends, not stejjie's- I'd forgotten who the OP-er was.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
What Albertus said.

Ultimately, property can only exist in a system or structure that maintains and protects property rights.

This is true both philosophically and practically. Philosophically 'theft' is a legal concept and thus one must have some sort of state structure that creates and maintains the law. This has to be paid for. Historically, in pre-Democratic societies, everything was deemed to belong to the King and he had a right to give it to whomever he liked. The concept of land ownership is so critical, when you think about it. Why on earth should a piece of land belong to me? It is on this piece of land that I can grow the food I eat. But, by what right can I insist that the land is mine and not yours?

Once you start thinking these things through, it becomes clear that taxes are totally inescapable in some form if you want to have any sensible construct of laws and rules.

And, practically, as has been said before, there is a need to be able to defend one's property in the absence of a state to provide you with some protection.

Taxes are indeed compulsory. The state compels you to pay - because they have to use this power to generate revenue. This revenue is necessary for them to function and maintain a framework of laws that entitles you to view things as yours.

There is a big argument to be had about how states use this power and how much and what should be taxed. But to view taxes as inherently theft is a contradiction-in-terms.

AFZ
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Come to think of it, the very best response might be: "Yes, taxes are theft. Who are you going to report it to? The police?"
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Very nice! And thanks, AFZ, for putting my argument much more succinctly and clearly than I did.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
I think I semi-agree: I'd tend to see the distribution of property in general as a social contract, and taxes and the free market are the mechanisms by which it operates. But it's possible for the contract to be unfair, and for both the market and for taxes to work inefficiently or inequitably.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.

That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
quote:

originally posted by alienfromzog

Historically, in pre-Democratic societies, everything was deemed to belong to the King and he had a right to give it to whomever he liked.
What countries are you referring to here ? I don't think this has ever been true of England, and certainly not since long before England could be called a democratic society, though I have heard some people say it of France in the early middle ages.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
AIUI all land belonged to the king as paramount lord. Which may not be all property, but most property is dependent in some sense on land.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI all land belonged to the king as paramount lord. Which may not be all property, but most property is dependent in some sense on land.
AIUI it still does, to some degree, otherwise the state would have no jurisdiction over events on the land or in properties built on it. An Englishman's home may be his castle, but the law still applies within.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.

That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.

That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
Benefit fraud is estimated to be around the 1% mark. The Mail would like you to believe otherwise.

Tax evasion (that's the illegal bit, not counting tax avoidance, which according to our beloved PM is merely immoral) costs the country fifteen times as much. Avoidance tots up to being 70 times as much.

But clearly the unemployed and disabled are equally to blame for the nation's parlous tax receipts. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
Erm, James Watts, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton.. who else..
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It depends. There is I think a 'social contract' element to the tax system ie: if taxpayers perceive that they are being over-taxed and their hard-won earnings are overly going to those who they perceive as refusing to work, they view this social contract as being broken, which tends to lead to the development of a more cash-based payment system and black economy.
It does depend. When those who can't avoid taxes see very rich people and corporations paying little or no tax while availing themselves of all the regulatory benefits of the state, they are indeed going to view the social contract as broken.

That's the corrosive example: not the ones on benefits, but those who earn loads.
Er...it's both actually. Not an either/or. And it's the 'squeezed middle' beloved of Labour politicians (according to Nick Robinson the other day at least) who resent it the most.
Sure. And, to put it very crudely, the left tries to get the 'squeezed middle' to resent rich tax avoiders while the right tries to get them to resent (generally fairly) poor benefit claimants. So far the right have been rather more successful. if you look, for example, at the (utterly disgraceful IMO) Bluewater speech that David Cameron gave a couple of months ago, that's exactly what he's trying to do. A lot of people like to think that they might be rich one day (even though most of them won't be and the gap between the very rich and the comfortable is huge) but few can imagine themselves depending on benefits.

[ 07. September 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
Erm, James Watts, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton.. who else..
Florence Nightingale? Isaac Newton? if that's an indicator of when you last opened your wallet, chum, remind me never to go for a drink with you! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I'd give him a copy of Rouseeau's The Social Contact to read. Enoch beat me to my favourite response, Proudhon's "Property is theft."
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.

Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Driving on our roads, sending your kids to our schools, drinking the clean water we paid to regulate, eating the safe food we paid to regulate, driving the safe cars we paid to regulate, taking advantage of our fire and police protection, USING OUR MONETARY SYSTEM,

without paying taxes,

is theft.

So fuck off, "taxes are theft" assholes, to some country where you don't have to pitch in with everybody else.
Amen! You and I agree, Mousethief? Wow!

So let's find that large percentage of Americans not paying any income tax and beat the crap out of them!
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Simply put, the government provides a framework withing which it is possible for them to make that money. Roads, sewers, police, fire fighters, etc.
And don't forget handing out corporate charters.

The lights stay on late
In Delaware's Department of State--

so they can answer the phones when people ring them up on the west coast.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
If you're losing roughly 16% of your tax receipts through evasion/avoidance and a 0.2% overspend through fraud in the benefits system, I'm going to suggest us 'nice' people have a better grip of the facts.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.

Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
Pretty much any kind of government involves some compulsory redistribution of wealth, even if it's only levying a minimal rate of taxation to pay for judges and police. It's still taking money from my wage packet or taxing my spending (which amounts to the same thing) to put into someone else's pocket.We might agree that that person (the cop or whoever) is doing good work and delivering value for that money, but it's still money that has been taken from other people, under penalty.

So yes, if you're an anarchist, of left or right or if there is such a thing of the centre, this argument works. If you want any kind of government it doesn't. If you're an individualist anarchist you're down to 'what I have I hold', which must involve the corollary 'and if you can get it off me it's yours'. If you're a collectivist anarchist I would imagine that there would be some expectation that you take part in collective decision making and perhaps putting collective decisions into practice: where that differs from taxation is not entirely clear to me, though I can see there might be an argument.

[ 07. September 2012, 13:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
If you're losing roughly 16% of your tax receipts through evasion/avoidance and a 0.2% overspend through fraud in the benefits system, I'm going to suggest us 'nice' people have a better grip of the facts.
I suppose it depend on who puts your bread on your table. Matt and those in the professions depend for their living on what is left after people have paid tax, but it's as well to remember that none of the professions he mentions, with the possible exception of sales reps, create any wealth whatsoever! I wonder what proportion of GDP is spent on "professional services", and how much of it is mandated by law, so that the professions have the government to thank for a fair slice of their income!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Trying to draw away from people's general political views to the specifics of Josephine's question, the idea of a social contract where the state is given the right to redistribute wealth compulsorily is not the only model of society.

Some have viewed it as unnecessarily coercive, not only libertarians associated with the political right but also some anarchists. So there are genuine schools of thought associated with the idea that taxation is theft or slavery.
Genuine in that they are pretty, intellectual exercises, not in that they are valid. Stable society needs the state. The form and the size may be arguable, but the existence.

New Yorker, look to the Fortune 500 list. Should be a good place to start.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm in a distinctly middle class environment, with a strong professional class especially at work. I can't think of anyone who has expressed resentment about taxation used to provide welfare benefits to the poor, universal health care etc (though there are plenty of words spoken about the quality of the NHS!). On the otherhand, everytime there's something in the news about some rich celebrity or business man avoiding paying their full share of tax ... well, let's say there are some very unkind words said.
T'other way round in my environment, but as that's comprised of professions and jobs generally regarded as 'nasty' such as accountants, lawyers, estate agents, financial advisers, sales reps and bankers, as opposed to 'nice' people like doctors and teachers, maybe we're all just playing to the stereotypes...
Generally here there is a strong element of "but for the grace of God"; many people I work with, go to church with, or live near have the experience of spending short periods of time out of work (in my case, a few months after finishing university as I didn't get the first couple of jobs I applied for), or friends and family in that position. Or, where there's no long term job security and they could see themselves looking for work soon. Without job security, there's doubt about ability to put money towards a pension fund, so the level of the state pension becomes a matter of concern. We've all benefited from maternity and paternity leave, we've availed ourselves of the NHS when we've had children or for eye tests and dental checkups. Many of my colleagues benefited from grants to get us through university, and many of us consider the increasing financial burden on students to be a national shame. On the other hand, very few people earn the money needed to benefit from some of the tax breaks that seem to be available to others.

I'm surprised that even the "nasty professionals" (to use your phrase) don't at times think about the safety net provided by the welfare state. If not that they may need it, but maybe that their children might. No thoughts about children going through university into an insecure job market? No concerns about parents or other older relatives reliant on the state pension? No thoughts that they may need the NHS because of accident or illness, or even just because they might become parents?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I get frustrated by people who get booked for speeding and then claim it is just revenue raising and not fair. I counter with 'if you didn't speed you wouldn't be fined'. Such complainers are very egocentric which I think could be applied to the tax thief accusers. They want everything but won't take any personal responsibility.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
What's this 'paid into the system' bollocks? While National Insurance contributions were designed to fund unemployment benefit they have only ever been paid by working people and many of the professions you mention are self-employed so pay profit related NICs. Compared to salaried workers, they aren't not paying their full share! Not if they have a halfway competent accountant (ask your accountant how much NI he pays)!

Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed, they are for the benefit of society as a whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to think again.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Taxes are theft ..... Rob the rich to pay the poor .
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
Then your contacts have probably failed to recognise at least three things:
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
AS to your first bulleted point, what my contacts also fail to recognise is that all of us benefit before we 'pay in' eg: healthcare in hospital/ midwives etc at birth, schooling etc
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Plenty of societies have had taxes and not taken care of the poor.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
Like children. They are parasites. They never pay for anything, they whine, and they poop their pants. What could be worse? Maybe the elderly who have stopped paying, sometimes for decades, and just continue to take?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I've got friends who keep saying that. And to me, it seems so ridiculous, so patently absurd that I don't even know how to begin talking with them about it. It's like people saying, "Marriage is rape." It's not. Part of me wants to say that people who say such things are too stupid to try to engage with -- but I don't believe that. These are people who are otherwise reasonable. It has to be possible to address their claims reasonably. ...
I just always point out that Somalia and Afghanistan, for example, have minimal government and very low tax rates. Enjoy life in a libertarian paradise!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Excellent, New Yorker. Let's look for people not paying tax. Except, there aren't any. Only people claiming they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO pay tax, which is clearly what my statement was aimed at.

Wait, you think there are people who don't pay tax? You think it's the poor? Hahahahahah! Hahahahahaha! Hahahahaha! <inhale> Hahahahha!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Excellent, New Yorker. Let's look for people not paying tax. Except, there aren't any.
Maybe not, But there are plenty of people who exploit the loopholes to avoid as much tax as possible. Sometimes legally, often not.

The poor, on the other hand, are hammered from all sides...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So let's find that large percentage of Americans not paying any income tax and beat the crap out of them!
Why? They pay sales, payroll and property taxes.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So let's find that large percentage of Americans not paying any income tax and beat the crap out of them!
Why? The people with too little income to pay income tax pay sales, payroll and property taxes. The people with loads of income they manage not to pay taxes on will have your ass thrown in jail for assault and battery.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
The biggest lie of capitalism: that the worker has any power whatever to decide on the "agreed value of currency." In the absence of powerful unions and minimum wage laws, all the power is on the side of the employer. There is always a pool of unemployed who can be used to replace uppity workers who want to be paid a living wage. The system is rigged in favor of the very rich, always has been. The "invisible hand" of the market is the hand of the 0.1%.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
The biggest lie of capitalism: that the worker has any power whatever to decide on the "agreed value of currency." In the absence of powerful unions and minimum wage laws, all the power is on the side of the employer. There is always a pool of unemployed who can be used to replace uppity workers who want to be paid a living wage. The system is rigged in favor of the very rich, always has been. The "invisible hand" of the market is the hand of the 0.1%.
Oh please - I know you are relatively young and an American, who assumes that only what is presently happening in the USA is real, but this really is remarkably ignorant even so.

1) In the 1950s and 1960s, the West in general experienced a labour shortage; this resulted in the internal migration of African Americans from the south to the north, of West Indians and 'South Asians' to the UK, of Turks into Germany etc. THERE WAS NO POOL OF UNEMPLOYED LABOUR THEN.

2) Similarly the present experience of China is that the massive expansion of their industry has hoovered up vast numbers of poor people from rural areas to work in the new factories; one of the issues there has been recruitment and rapidly rising wages.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Tie me up and call me Nelson, but I've bugger all understanding of what you're talking about ES. I'm fairly sure you don't either.

In the 1970s there was a global movement of labour, today it is much more frequently a movement of capital, with the result that the productivity of work has massively increased whilst the real wages have flattened or even dropped. Hence the capitalists are making fuckloads more money out of the hours that people work than they were in the 1970s.

When surplus value is relatively low, the workers have much more bargaining power with the capitalists. When it is extremely large, they have very little - the capitalists threaten to move the whole enterprise offshore and the worker has no choice but to accept the wages and conditions offered.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I recognise what Ender's Shadow is talking about, in the British context anyway.

In the nineteen fifties there was low unemployment in the UK and this was driving wages up. Never mind that increased wages led to increased purchasing power and tax revenues, employers didn't like having to pay higher wages, so immigration was encouraged like never before. It pushed unemployment up a bit, putting employers in a stronger bargaining position (more chasing each vacancy) so wages stopped increasing so much.

I think this may have been what Harold Macmillan referred to in that 'Never had it so good' which warned of harder times.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Oh please - I know you are relatively young
That's a very sweet thing to say to a 50-year-old. You must have one foot in the grave.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Perhap, to quote Merry Brandybuck, "it was a compliment, and therefore not meant."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Perhap, to quote Merry Brandybuck, "it was a compliment, and therefore not meant."
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
AIUI it still does, to some degree, otherwise the state would have no jurisdiction over events on the land or in properties built on it. An Englishman's home may be his castle, but the law still applies within.
I have heard that argument elsewhere, mainly from sources on the other side of the Atlantic, but it's wrong. The state has jurisdiction and exercises its functions because it is the state. Whether land is held in some sort of tenure (as in England and Wales) or simply owned in the same way as a car (as under some foreign systems, and known as allodially) is irrelevant. Planning controls, compulsory purchase, search warrants etc etc all work just the same.

quote:
ditto
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed, they are for the benefit of society as a whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to think again.

One gets into very dangerous territory if one draws too much of a distinction between these. The taxed + those who manage not to pay taxes constitute society. It really is not possible to say honestly 'this benefits society, even though it doesn't benefit the individuals in it'. Trying to maintain such an argument will inevitably lead to governments that use this as a justification for putting their personal interests, priorities and beliefs above those to whom they should be accountable.

I am sure Mr Blair believed and still believes that invading Iraq was for the good of 'society as a whole'/'the country', and the taxpayers money spent on doing so was well spent. I happen not to.

Levying taxes is not theft, but that does not let the government off being accountable to those who pay them for how much they collect and what they use the money for.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Excellent, New Yorker. Let's look for people not paying tax.
Lousy freeloading orphans, getting a free ride!
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The problem is "allodial" title has a specific meaning in North America: land not covered by a First Nations Treaty, a land surrender.

In Canada and to a lesser extent the US, all territory not duly surrendered is generally First Nations property and outsiders cannot purchase it or settle on it at all, under the Royal Proclamation of 1763. British Columbia has had no end of legal troubles because it had a treaty-free "Land Grab" that was on its face illegal.

First Nations land, both surrendered and surrendered lands is also directly subject to the legislative authority of the Government of Canada, which can override any provincial law it likes on First Nations reserves. The same concept applies in the US, hence all the "Indian Casinos".

Allodial title = Indian Land = Special Rules, but not because it's allodial.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Until the 17th century the Christian answer - that we should obey the government because it is ordained by God, as asserted by Paul in Rom 13 was largely unquestioned. However the church had at times played at 'regime change' down the years in an attempt to claim that all kingdoms were held as feudal due to the Pope. There also emerged a 'just rebellion' theory at the time of the revolution, even endorsed by Luther when the ruler was totally overthrowing the moral order. The 17th century saw the emergence of 'social contract' theory, initially in Hobbes' Leviathan which argued that states were originally founded by the irreversible surrender of independence to the state. John Locke argued for the requirement of continuing consent, opening the door to the American Declaration of Independence.

A major conclusion of the social contract theory of states is that there is an absolute right to leave the territory of a government; if you don't do so, you are implicitly agreeing to the social contract of which you are a part; the failure of the Communist regimes of yore to allow such free travel is one of their many failings.

Modern political theory, following Locke and unlike Hobbes, argues that there are certain principles: 'Natural Laws' - that constrain the behaviour of a state, limiting the right of the majority to do whatever it likes. These were first codified in the 'Bill of Rights' to the US constitution. It is out of these than an argument that 'taxes are theft' can be constructed, and certainly a wealth tax, which is the majority telling the minority it's got to pay up, can be challenged on this basis. By contrast taxes which are in place at the time the transactions which cause them to be payable are clearly legitimate. Where the waters become muddy is where property is taxed; this does constitute a wealth tax at one level - presumably the motivation behind California's infamous Propostion 13 which enshrines in the state constitution a severe restriction on the raising of property taxes in the state.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
What if we turn this around a few times and cook it on all sides, and say things like: "profit is theft", "tax breaks is theft", "welfare is theft"?

Does it becomes meaningless? Personally, I feel paying for parking spaces, toll roads, airport improvement fees, fuel surcharges, and service fees on concert tickets are all theft and illegitimate.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Excellent, New Yorker. Let's look for people not paying tax.
Lousy freeloading orphans, getting a free ride!
I don't think my nephew has paid a cent of tax on his pocket money in his entire life. Talk about rorting the system!
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
His income was below the Basic Personal Exemption of the a few grand anyway.

[Snore]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Blah. We're not interested in WHY he doesn't pay taxes! Just in the fact that he doesn't!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
[orfeo's nephew's] income was below the Basic Personal Exemption of the a few grand anyway.
Deliberately, no doubt, in order to game the system! These pint-sized moochers go to schools at public expense, take advantage of publicly-funded vaccination programs, public parks and playgrounds, and a host of other benefits provided by hard-working citizens with jobs.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Taxes are theft ..... Rob the rich to pay the poor .
Except that most taxes take from the middle classes and most government spending gives to the middle classes (although not always the same individuals within the middle classes). . The rich can decide how much to pay, the poor get a few crumbs from the table.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
I agree with Ender's Shadow that Locke's concept of "the state of nature" has significantly influenced intellectual attitudes towards taxation and property, because for him individuals only consent to be governed in order to better protect "natural rights", of which the right to private property is central. The problem, of course, is that in recognising the need for (limited) government there is the implied necessary evil of taxation to sustain it, which involves the confiscation of private property (wealth or income). To such a way of thinking it is but a small step to regard taxation as theft because it compromises a natural right that government is supposed to protect. Seemingly for Locke the only acceptable tax is one that is freely entered into by all involved and is devoid of coercion, as in the case of a private contract between equals. Coercion is only legitimate to enforce a freely agreed contract not to determine its terms.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Whose picture is on the banknotes?
Erm, James Watts, Florence Nightingale, Isaac Newton.. who else..
It used to be John McEnroe if one folded a ten-pound note a certain way. Also, the Queen's bottom, but I never figured out how to do that.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I've got friends who keep saying that. And to me, it seems so ridiculous, so patently absurd that I don't even know how to begin talking with them about it. It's like people saying, "Marriage is rape." It's not. Part of me wants to say that people who say such things are too stupid to try to engage with -- but I don't believe that. These are people who are otherwise reasonable. It has to be possible to address their claims reasonably.

But I just end up sputtering.

So how do you address the argument? "It's mine, I earned it, and it belongs to me. Taking what belongs to someone else is theft. Taxes are the government taking what's mine. So it's just government-mandated theft."
Ask them who will employ air traffic controllers - that should shut them up.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) In the 1950s and 1960s, the West in general experienced a labour shortage; this resulted in the internal migration of African Americans from the south to the north, of West Indians and 'South Asians' to the UK, of Turks into Germany etc. THERE WAS NO POOL OF UNEMPLOYED LABOUR THEN.
Since you mention the "internal migration of African Americans from the south to the north," I'll nuance what you're saying here with the example of Detroit (where people were flocking during the postwar period from all over the world, not just the US South).

As people from all over the world arrived in Detroit, even though there were a lot of jobs - and well-paying jobs even - whites in Detroit felt their jobs were being taken by immigrants and, most notably, African-Americans. White Detroiters started a race riot in 1943 over that.

But the reality was that the African-Americans and other non-whites packing into the tiny areas where they could legally live under segregation tended to have trouble finding work. If they did, it tended to be the lowest-paying and dirtiest jobs. Many resorted to being day-laborers, often being hired by white workers (we're talking working-class workers) to do their jobs for them at a fraction of the pay - so the white workers could sit around doing nothing. The places where day laborers were hired were colloquially called the "slave markets."

The UAW wisely integrated early on, because they knew if they didn't, the car companies could break strikes by hiring non-whites who eagerly needed jobs. But other unions either excluded non-whites, or accepted them only for categories of work that paid less and involved harder, dirtier work.

All this comes from Thomas J. Sugrue's classic book, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Sugrue also notes that people who stood around at the "slave markets" hoping to be hired for the day were judged as being lazy 'cause they were just hanging around all day not working. And as you can imagine, whites folded that into their stereotype that non-whites were lazy.

Incidentally, the whites who hired non-whites to do their working-class jobs for them so they could lounge around all day didn't get a reputation for being lazy. And part of their motivation for doing it was the increasing association of dirty jobs with (underpaid) non-whites. It's turning up in a somewhat surprising place, but it's the same old tendency of people who have the least bit of money and power to want to look like they have even more than they do, and to have other people do the hard work for them.

Sound familiar?
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
As to the OP, I hear this from a lot of my conservative friends - good, intelligent Christians, even.

I think part of the problem is the expectation that you should only pay in what you get out and you should get out what you pay in, as if it were merely a service. You need a haircut, you pay someone to cut your hair. You don't expect someone else to pay for it, nor does anyone compel you to contribute to a fund to pay for other people's haircuts. Apparently they expect government services to work the same way.

And they seem to operate on the assumption/stereotype that all persons who receive welfare benefits are lazy people who don't do a bit of work and just sit around on their ass all day. The fact of the matter is that for many poor, just doing all the things they need to do to collect a few scraps that will help them not starve to death (or get evicted, or whatever) takes up all their time and energy, so the system is actually keeping them poor. And many others are "working poor," who work a full-time job or several part-time jobs and still don't earn enough to get by (especially if they have a family).

I even had a (Christian) friend tell me it is unethical that the government takes tax money from him to "give" to other people (meaning people who need social safety net services), because it's unethical to force him to give to others.

I really don't understand. If, as Plato said of the polis and St. Paul said of the Church, we're all a body (and, in St. Paul's words, when one part suffers, the whole suffers), why wouldn't we want to ensure that everyone gets some basic provision for their needs?

I'm also curious - does anyone know where the idea comes from that the (majority of the) beneficiaries of government welfare are unworthy of the aid? Do conservatives claim to have statistics on this?

I can understand a subjective feeling that one pays too much in taxes. What I don't get is mistaking that for, or using it as a basis for, a quasi-logical "argument" that one really shouldn't have to pay (as much in) taxes.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It used to be John McEnroe if one folded a ten-pound note a certain way.

You cannot be serious
---------------------------------------
Also, the Queen's bottom, but I never figured out how to do that.
Suppose one would have to had seen the Queen's bottom in order to accomplish such a feat of origami.
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
What gets me is these same folks who argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is going to help support "bums and degenerates who think they are ENTITLED to MY money!".

And, I know this isn't quite the same argument that you were talking about, Josephine but whenever I hear some right-wing loon going on about the evils of socialism or whining about how it's not fair, those homeless people are benefiting from MY hard work, MY labor, etc. etc, I always hit them right back with, "Oh, I see. So, it was by YOUR power that you were able to obtain a job, right? God didn't happen to... oh, I don't know, hmmmm.... maybe BLESS you with the ability to get a job?"

Or, I say to them, "Oh, okay. Well, if your car or house should ever catch fire, you should put it out yourself. And if a sink hole opens up on your street, be sure to fix it yourself because, after all, paying taxes is theft and theft is wrong! and with all the taxes you don't pay anymore, why, you can fix the whole damn street!"

What they really mean is, "My taxes should go for things that I deem are important and that doesn't include "enabling" the great unwashed! My taxes should go for unmanned drones to kill my enemies not some pinko commie faggot endowment for the arts!" [Killing me]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
What they really mean is, "My taxes should go for things that I deem are important and that doesn't include "enabling" the great unwashed! My taxes should go for unmanned drones to kill my enemies not some pinko commie faggot endowment for the arts!"
Yes, but if that is what they are saying, they cannot say 'all taxes are theft'. They are merely saying a different version of 'I think that because it's my money, the government should only spend it on the things I approve of'. For them it's drones. For you, it's homeless people and the arts, but not drones.

If it really means what it says, the statement 'taxes are theft', applies to all taxes. The government has no right to raise them. Probably, unless one finds some other way of endowing it, no right or ability to govern. The belief that government itself is an abuse, rather than an unfortunate necessity, is anarchism, which is odd when most modern anarchists are on the extreme left.

There was a view in the medieval and Tudor past that the king has his property, so as to fund his government, and should only be able to supplement that with taxes if he ran short or for some special expensive project, like a war.

I don't think anyone even advocates that at the moment. It would have an interesting corollary with 'no taxation without representation'. It would mean that most of the time people didn't need and weren't entitled to representation. Government would also be entitled to do what it liked as long as it could pay for itself out of the rents on government property.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If, as Plato said of the polis and St. Paul said of the Church, we're all a body (and, in St. Paul's words, when one part suffers, the whole suffers), why wouldn't we want to ensure that everyone gets some basic provision for their needs?
Well, that's the thing. Not everyone believes we are all one body, and they certainly don't see themselves suffering when someone else does. It's why there are so many gated communities these days.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If, as Plato said of the polis and St. Paul said of the Church, we're all a body (and, in St. Paul's words, when one part suffers, the whole suffers), why wouldn't we want to ensure that everyone gets some basic provision for their needs?
Well, that's the thing. Not everyone believes we are all one body, and they certainly don't see themselves suffering when someone else does. It's why there are so many gated communities these days.
Then let them fuck off and found some other country/society where they can all be little atoms and try to create the perfect libertarian society. But let the rest of us watch because it will be hilarious.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If, as Plato said of the polis and St. Paul said of the Church, we're all a body (and, in St. Paul's words, when one part suffers, the whole suffers), why wouldn't we want to ensure that everyone gets some basic provision for their needs?
Well, that's the thing. Not everyone believes we are all one body, and they certainly don't see themselves suffering when someone else does. It's why there are so many gated communities these days.
Gated communities are to the rest of us as those in motorcars are to other road users. Most us the resources used by both are shared: Do gated communities have their own, electricity, gas, water and sewage systems? When the drains back up, they back up for everyone.

(btw, there's a small gated estate within walking distance. It was built on a tidal flood plain [Devil] )

[ 08. September 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But let the rest of us watch because it will be hilarious.
This. Hardly any of the people who rabbit on about self-sufficiency could actually be truly, genuinely self-sufficient. Watching the meltdown as they realise this could be HIGHLY enjoyable.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm also curious - does anyone know where the idea comes from that the (majority of the) beneficiaries of government welfare are unworthy of the aid? Do conservatives claim to have statistics on this?
In the UK there has been a deliberate agenda of demonising the poor. This has been done for a long time by the print-media. And more recently HM Government have been partaking also.

Because if you can paint the poor and the disabled as unworthy then it becomes very easy to make cuts that harm them most.

And even if it were true that the majority of people were unworthy of support - from a Christian point of view demonising anyone is completely unacceptable.

AFZ

P.S. Examples of what I mean:
Link
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But let the rest of us watch because it will be hilarious.
This. Hardly any of the people who rabbit on about self-sufficiency could actually be truly, genuinely self-sufficient. Watching the meltdown as they realise this could be HIGHLY enjoyable.
Ah, gated communities. Welding can be such fun.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
And when the Revolution comes it'll be so easy to know which houses to visit with the torches and pitchforks.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You know, I don't even know if gated communities exist in this country. Pretty damn sure they don't in Canberra. You very, very occasionally get an 'estate' which was built as an upmarket area, but it sure as heck isn't gated.

I don't think I knew gated communities existed until one starred in an X-Files episode.

[ 08. September 2012, 12:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So how do you address the argument? "It's mine, I earned it, and it belongs to me. Taking what belongs to someone else is theft. Taxes are the government taking what's mine. So it's just government-mandated theft."
Ask them who will employ air traffic controllers - that should shut them up.
No, most of them respond with "user fees." People who fly should pay for the air traffic control system. Roads should be tolled so that people who drive on them pay for them. Schools should be privatized, so that parents pay for educating their own children. That sort of thing.

They totally miss out on the idea that good roads are good for all of us. Even if I don't drive, I might benefit from someone else being able to get to where I am -- an ambulance, a priest, family, friend. Even more so, an educated citizenry is good for all of us. And so on, with so many of the things that we all take for granted -- so much so that I think many people forget that they are government services.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we are living in one of the most self centered generations this country has ever seen. God forbid any tax dollars go to help anyone in need or that we don't get to pick and choose what each of us will pay for or that for once we at least try to ensure that every citizen has health coverage. "I got mine and screw everyone else" Top that off with politicians on both sides of the aisle who are only interested in their own power and have proven in the past couple of years they're willing to take the country down if they don't get their way. Compromise has become a dirty word. [Mad]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, I don't even know if gated communities exist in this country.
According to an article in The Australian, they are "flourishing on Queensland's Gold Coast".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
No, most of them respond with "user fees." People who fly should pay for the air traffic control system. Roads should be tolled so that people who drive on them pay for them. Schools should be privatized, so that parents pay for educating their own children. That sort of thing.
In many countries, including yours, roads are paid for primarily by those who use them. Vehicle taxes, petrol taxes, etc.

Originally posted by churchgeek
quote:
As to the OP, I hear this from a lot of my conservative friends - good, intelligent Christians, even.
Hmmm. Regarding the extreme stance in the OP, they are either actually stupid or willfully ignorant. (which is worse than stupid in my book)
People love to complain, but few seem to understand the distribution and source of taxes, for one.
For another, they haven't concept of what it takes to develop a massive system. (BTW, the development of this communication system with which we are discussing this was primarily government funded.)
Let us consider the road system, the maintenance of which is largely user funded. The development of road systems, the research in design, was conducted and paid for by government. Road design is not rocket science, but it took a fair bit of tax revenue to develop the standards.
The development of air travel was, in large part, paid for by government funding. The cost of air travel would be out of reach for most of the whingers if users freighted the cost of the building of airports, the development of air traffic control, etc.
Could continue at length, but intelligent people should be able to extrapolate on their own.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know, I don't even know if gated communities exist in this country.
According to an article in The Australian, they are "flourishing on Queensland's Gold Coast".
Figures.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm also curious - does anyone know where the idea comes from that the (majority of the) beneficiaries of government welfare are unworthy of the aid? Do conservatives claim to have statistics on this?
In the UK there has been a deliberate agenda of demonising the poor. This has been done for a long time by the print-media. And more recently HM Government have been partaking also.

Because if you can paint the poor and the disabled as unworthy then it becomes very easy to make cuts that harm them most.

And even if it were true that the majority of people were unworthy of support - from a Christian point of view demonising anyone is completely unacceptable.

AFZ

P.S. Examples of what I mean:
Link
And when the "undeserving poor" are not demonized, they're simply "disappeared." Poor? What poor? We have no poor here.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That link is so full of shit, even an optimist would stop looking for a pony.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
The biggest lie of capitalism: that the worker has any power whatever to decide on the "agreed value of currency." In the absence of powerful unions and minimum wage laws, all the power is on the side of the employer. There is always a pool of unemployed who can be used to replace uppity workers who want to be paid a living wage. The system is rigged in favor of the very rich, always has been. The "invisible hand" of the market is the hand of the 0.1%.
Oh please - I know you are relatively young and an American, who assumes that only what is presently happening in the USA is real, but this really is remarkably ignorant even so.

1) In the 1950s and 1960s, the West in general experienced a labour shortage; this resulted in the internal migration of African Americans from the south to the north, of West Indians and 'South Asians' to the UK, of Turks into Germany etc. THERE WAS NO POOL OF UNEMPLOYED LABOUR THEN.
Perhaps not, but it seems to me the question is, what did these conditions do for wages and wage-earners?

I remember a spell in the 1990s when jobs were going begging in the U.S. Everywhere there were signs offering “signing bonuses” to anyone willing to flip burgers, stock shelves, or ring up shirts or cheese or screwdrivers.

I do not, however, recall wages going up as a result of this demand. I was finishing a degree at the time and still taking on the odd McJob here and there to make ends meet. The signing bonuses were pretty generous, true, provided you could stick the job out for a minimum of 6 months (at least where I appplied). Several people who started when I did never made it; no signing bonus.

The wages were crap, though (so, very often, were the hours, benefits, and working conditions). Signing bonuses are a one-time deal, withdrawable at a moment's notice; wages last the life of the job. So I don’t see that labor shortages offer any real bargaining power or pay-upgrades for the laborers. Supply-and-demand doesn’t seem to operate in this corner of the *cough* free market. Maybe things were different in the U.S. than elsewhere, but I suspect wages began flatlining under Reagan, and workers have been losing real earning power ever since.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
That's stretching the definition ad absurdum. It's not theft - it's an agreed exchange of resources. The worker exchanges his labour for an agreed value of currency. Theft is taking something without the other person's choice.
The biggest lie of capitalism: that the worker has any power whatever to decide on the "agreed value of currency." In the absence of powerful unions and minimum wage laws, all the power is on the side of the employer. There is always a pool of unemployed who can be used to replace uppity workers who want to be paid a living wage. The system is rigged in favor of the very rich, always has been. The "invisible hand" of the market is the hand of the 0.1%.
Oh please - I know you are relatively young and an American, who assumes that only what is presently happening in the USA is real, but this really is remarkably ignorant even so.

1) In the 1950s and 1960s, the West in general experienced a labour shortage; this resulted in the internal migration of African Americans from the south to the north, of West Indians and 'South Asians' to the UK, of Turks into Germany etc. THERE WAS NO POOL OF UNEMPLOYED LABOUR THEN.
Perhaps not, but it seems to me the question is, what did these conditions do for wages and wage-earners?
I think I mentioned earlier that one effect of increasing the pool of available labour through immigration was to depress wages, which employers saw as being in their interest. Ender's Shadow doesn't agree, but that's no surprise.
quote:

I remember a spell in the 1990s when jobs were going begging in the U.S. Everywhere there were signs offering “signing bonuses” to anyone willing to flip burgers, stock shelves, or ring up shirts or cheese or screwdrivers.

I do not, however, recall wages going up as a result of this demand. I was finishing a degree at the time and still taking on the odd McJob here and there to make ends meet. The signing bonuses were pretty generous, true, provided you could stick the job out for a minimum of 6 months (at least where I appplied). Several people who started when I did never made it; no signing bonus.

The wages were crap, though (so, very often, were the hours, benefits, and working conditions). Signing bonuses are a one-time deal, withdrawable at a moment's notice; wages last the life of the job. So I don’t see that labor shortages offer any real bargaining power or pay-upgrades for the laborers. Supply-and-demand doesn’t seem to operate in this corner of the *cough* free market.
Too true. The moment upward wage pressure come along, the service or product is withdrawn or the work transferred overseas. By keeping a sizeable pool of labour those tasks that must be done at a particular place can be de-skilled, so almost anyone can do the job at a knock-down price.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree with Ender's Shadow that Locke's concept of "the state of nature" has significantly influenced intellectual attitudes towards taxation and property, because for him individuals only consent to be governed in order to better protect "natural rights", of which the right to private property is central.
I have never understood how on earth Locke or anyone else can think the right to private property is "natural," given that the very notion of private property is a product of culture.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think I mentioned earlier that one effect of increasing the pool of available labour through immigration was to depress wages, which employers saw as being in their interest. Ender's Shadow doesn't agree, but that's no surprise.
No - I entirely agree that immigration does indeed increase the pool of available labour in a way that is deeply unhelpful to the local workers; the damaging defence of immigration by elements on the left under the banner of 'racism' is one of their less wise moments. However this doesn't detract from the 'inconvenient truth' for those on the left that the rapid economic growth of China and India has reduced absolute poverty on the WORLD stage by hundreds of millions in the last 20 years. It is commonly claimed that the poor are getting poorer; on the whole that's simply not the truth. Of course there are pockets where this is the case, but generally it's not. The left should be celebrating this success - sadly as it challenges their theories, they want to ignore it.

But yes, this has come at a price in the West; the persistence of unemployment here is a continuing challenge that is not easily solved. Economic theory argues that taxes DO add to unemployment: if I am a manufacturer, I would sell more widgets, and therefore employ more people if they didn't have to pay sales tax on those widgets; if I have to pay social security charges above their wages to my workers, then I will employ less. Etc. Those issues provide a reason for seeing taxes as a problem, there is a valid debate about how much of a problem. Perhaps the libertarian may wish to argue that such taxes steal the workers' right to work - to return to the OP, but it's not usually what is meant by the aphorism 'taxation is theft'.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think I mentioned earlier that one effect of increasing the pool of available labour through immigration was to depress wages, which employers saw as being in their interest. Ender's Shadow doesn't agree, but that's no surprise.
No - I entirely agree that immigration does indeed increase the pool of available labour in a way that is deeply unhelpful to the local workers; the damaging defence of immigration by elements on the left under the banner of 'racism' is one of their less wise moments. However this doesn't detract from the 'inconvenient truth' for those on the left that the rapid economic growth of China and India has reduced absolute poverty on the WORLD stage by hundreds of millions in the last 20 years. It is commonly claimed that the poor are getting poorer; on the whole that's simply not the truth. Of course there are pockets where this is the case, but generally it's not. The left should be celebrating this success - sadly as it challenges their theories, they want to ignore it.

But yes, this has come at a price in the West; the persistence of unemployment here is a continuing challenge that is not easily solved. Economic theory argues that taxes DO add to unemployment: if I am a manufacturer, I would sell more widgets, and therefore employ more people if they didn't have to pay sales tax on those widgets; if I have to pay social security charges above their wages to my workers, then I will employ less. Etc. Those issues provide a reason for seeing taxes as a problem, there is a valid debate about how much of a problem. Perhaps the libertarian may wish to argue that such taxes steal the workers' right to work - to return to the OP, but it's not usually what is meant by the aphorism 'taxation is theft'.
Two comments.

Firstly, there is no 'free market' unless there is a free market in labour. The charge of racism against the right might be blunt, but it's also often true. You don't want Eastern Europeans, Africans and Asians coming over here and taking your grossly overpaid (how do we know they're overpaid? Simple: in their own countries the wages are very much less) jobs from your privileged white hands. This is Free Market 101. If you're against immigration, you're an old-school mercantile protectionist (at the very least...)

Secondly, I don't know of a single manufacturer or private provider of services who willingly over-employs so much as a single person. The idea that if labour costs were lower, capitalists would employ more people, is simply preposterous. There is no shortage of widgets in the shops, so it's safe to say there's no supply-side problems.

The economic problem we have is that very rich people and institutions socialised their losses and privatised their gains. If there is a issue of taxation, it is this: our taxes bailed them out, rather than paying for the services we need.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This thread seems to have got a long way from Josephine's original question. To try and return it there, and yet take into account what would otherwise be interesting - but irrelevant to the argument - discussion about exploitation of the poorly paid:-

Josephine. do your friends who tell you that 'tax is theft' think that poor migrant workers who come to the Pacific North West from Mexico and places south to better their chances in life should be free to do so? Or do they think the state is not doing enough to maintain an impenetrable border along the Rio Grande to protect their jobs from migrants who might undercut them?

The former view is compatible with claiming 'tax is theft' - however stupid that view might be. The latter isn't.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but of course all of those categories of people are 'deserving' to them, ie: to them, they've 'paid into the system' and so are morally entitled to be paid out of it. The people my contacts whinge about typically are those whom they deem never to have paid in; those whom one estate agent described to me as 'professional benefit claimants' or the 'Vicki Pollards' as another one put it.
I'm having trouble differentiating people who are perpetually on welfare and thus haven't 'paid into the system', and people who paid something into the system, but withdraw much more. The banker and car maker corporations come immediately to mind. Is there really an difference between "handouts" to deserving/undeserving poor and deserving/undeserving executives?

I've noted before that massive reductions in social programs in Canada pushed me from a middle class civil service job to a business owner situation, such that I save more in taxes than my annual salary would be had that job remained mine. The changes in taxation policy means my company pays about 1/3 the amount of tax on income than I would if I took it as income. Am I on welfare in addition to my business and personal income?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Briefly, yes you are. Low rates of business taxation are there either (i) to stimulate business formation and growth (if you are an optimist or (ii) to allow businesspeople to avoid paying tax on what is essentially personal income at the rate that their employees pay (if you are a cynic) or (iii) a bit of each. Whichever it is, you're effectively getting a subsidy from the state.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
More apposite, the company is having your employment subsidised. In the UK we have tax credits and such that are paid directly to low and medium paid workers (even up to those earning £40-50k a year) - tacitly acknowledging that the minimum wage is set at a level which is just too low.

[ 09. September 2012, 20:13: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Secondly, I don't know of a single manufacturer or private provider of services who willingly over-employs so much as a single person. The idea that if labour costs were lower, capitalists would employ more people, is simply preposterous. There is no shortage of widgets in the shops, so it's safe to say there's no supply-side problems.
Oh please, it is basic economics that if the price of an item is lower, then demand will be higher. Therefore if the cost of employing of people were less, and the lower cost was reflected in lower prices, then there would be more demand, more people employed etc. Now admittedly these are big assumptions, but they are not irrational, and the consumer electronics industry is a good example of where the consumer has benefited vastly from severe competition. Certainly your claim about there being 'no supply side problems' is totally irrelevant to this debate: the fact that something is costing twice as much as it needs to because of taxes (been on a plane recently? - it's scary how much taxes absorb) tells us nothing about 'supply side problems'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think you have that backwards. Demand drives price, not the other way.

Laws of supply and demand.

There's nothing there about a drop in price producing an increase in demand. You can sell something as cheaply as you please but if nobody wants it, nobody's going to buy it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Secondly, I don't know of a single manufacturer or private provider of services who willingly over-employs so much as a single person. The idea that if labour costs were lower, capitalists would employ more people, is simply preposterous. There is no shortage of widgets in the shops, so it's safe to say there's no supply-side problems.
Oh please, it is basic economics that if the price of an item is lower, then demand will be higher. Therefore if the cost of employing of people were less, and the lower cost was reflected in lower prices, then there would be more demand, more people employed etc. Now admittedly these are big assumptions, but they are not irrational, and the consumer electronics industry is a good example of where the consumer has benefited vastly from severe competition. Certainly your claim about there being 'no supply side problems' is totally irrelevant to this debate: the fact that something is costing twice as much as it needs to because of taxes (been on a plane recently? - it's scary how much taxes absorb) tells us nothing about 'supply side problems'.
What the mouse said. No company never knowingly under-prices anything they sell.

Supply-side? Irrelevant? I think not. If the shops are full of stuff, it's a clear indication that taxation rates on businesses are too low. When there are shortages, you can say the taxes are too high...

And as a corollary, perhaps you'd like to consider who it is who buys the widgets, and how they get the money to pay for one.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think you have that backwards. Demand drives price, not the other way.

Laws of supply and demand.

There's nothing there about a drop in price producing an increase in demand. You can sell something as cheaply as you please but if nobody wants it, nobody's going to buy it.
You've not absorbed the idea that a shift in the cost of production is a shift in the supply 'schedule' as shown in the graph in the Wikipedia article. So a shift of the supply curve to the right DOES increase demand... QED
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think you have that backwards. Demand drives price, not the other way.

Laws of supply and demand.

There's nothing there about a drop in price producing an increase in demand. You can sell something as cheaply as you please but if nobody wants it, nobody's going to buy it.
You've not absorbed the idea that a shift in the cost of production is a shift in the supply 'schedule' as shown in the graph in the Wikipedia article. So a shift of the supply curve to the right DOES increase demand... QED
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
My point is that there has been a massive experiment with big cutting of corporation income taxes and small cuts to individual income taxes. This has decreased social justice. I have been a direct beneficiary of the policy and I still say it is wrong.

The Canadian situation has also resulted in governments getting out of the running of companies, both utilities like electric, natural gas and telephones, and businesses like oil, mining, forestry, railways and others. The privatization of such companies resulted in theft from the average citizen. Companies now have profits at the expense of the average person rather than the profits going back to the public as service or as profit to the government-as-people. This would be definable as theft also wouldn't it?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
The issue really is whether that is what is experienced, not whether that is what the article says. In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand.

Given that a cut in the cost of production as a result of the taxes being paid (or wages [Frown] ) will result in a cut in the price, the demand will rise. Which is all that I'm arguing. Economics 101.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
The issue really is whether that is what is experienced, not whether that is what the article says. In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand.

Given that a cut in the cost of production as a result of the taxes being paid (or wages [Frown] ) will result in a cut in the price, the demand will rise. Which is all that I'm arguing. Economics 101.
Again, no. Sale prices do not generate additional demand. They are an indication of over-pricing and over-supply. Once the price is lowered, the demand (which may have always been there) can be now realised.

And the second part of your argument is wrong, too. A cut in the cost of production results in an increase in profit, and the cost of production is only tangentially related to the price in the market. The company will charge what the market will bear. Economics 101.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've noted before that massive reductions in social programs in Canada pushed me from a middle class civil service job to a business owner situation, such that I save more in taxes than my annual salary would be had that job remained mine. The changes in taxation policy means my company pays about 1/3 the amount of tax on income than I would if I took it as income. Am I on welfare in addition to my business and personal income?
No. You are only on welfare if the state is giving you money, not if it's taking less off you than other people who earn the same as you do.

Look at it another way. If the state taxes different taxpayers at different rates on the same level of income, that is obviously unfair. But why should that be unduly lenient to you, rather than unfair on the salariat, just because they are easier to collect from?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
The issue really is whether that is what is experienced, not whether that is what the article says. In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand.

Given that a cut in the cost of production as a result of the taxes being paid (or wages [Frown] ) will result in a cut in the price, the demand will rise. Which is all that I'm arguing. Economics 101.
Again, no. Sale prices do not generate additional demand. They are an indication of over-pricing and over-supply. Once the price is lowered, the demand (which may have always been there) can be now realised.
You're splitting hairs. I was using the reference to sale prices to indicate the existence of additional demand which is present, and is revealed by a cut in the price.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And the second part of your argument is wrong, too. A cut in the cost of production results in an increase in profit, and the cost of production is only tangentially related to the price in the market. The company will charge what the market will bear. Economics 101.
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition. If you are abandoning that assumption - as the left wing economists of the 40s and 50s did - you start to endorse the sort of attempts to control the market that tied India up in the red tape that kept its growth rate far lower than it needed to between 1948 and 1992, commonly known as the Hindu rate of growth. In reality perfect competition does accurately reflect the operation of Western economies in the medium term, as argued by Neo classical economics, despite short term experiences to the contrary.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition.
As the huge corporations take over more and more of the market, and merge into fewer and fewer "competitors," this will become less and less tenable. For example banks.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Not so fast, Ender's Shadow. We have alternatives like Monopolistic Competition.

Second, you are trying to generalize microeconomic results to the macro (nationwide) level, which doesn't work, we've known macro isn't micro since the 1930's. Because macro is a closed system and it for every buyer there has to be a seller, or there is no sale, and the amounts of both are limited.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition.
Since I see lots of profits being made, I can safely rest in the knowledge that either you are completely misrepresenting the field of economics, or economists are talking out of their arse.

Or more likely both.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
The issue really is whether that is what is experienced, not whether that is what the article says. In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand.
A few years ago, my father literally couldn't GIVE a set of encyclopaedias away.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition.
Since I see lots of profits being made, I can safely rest in the knowledge that either you are completely misrepresenting the field of economics, or economists are talking out of their arse.

Or more likely both.
I repeat - the Neo-classical model argues that in the long term the market does act as though it is perfectly competitive; however it is true to state that that equilibrium is never reached. The question is whether this model is a better approximation to the real world on the macro scale than the alternatives offered, however attractive and accurate monopolistic competition or whatever is as a reflection of what is seen in any particular market.

As far as the existence of 'profits' is concerned, it is crucial to understand the distinction between 'super-normal' profits, and the legitimate profits that will flow as a result of a reasonable rate of return on equities as against bonds. Given that equities are inherently less secure than bonds, it is inevitable that companies must make a rate of return on capital significantly greater than that offered by more secure alternatives, starting with government bonds as the base line. Without that return on capital, investment will not occur. The problem is that it is easy to miss this context; if a company makes a profit of £1m, that sounds impressive - until you realise that it has capital invested of £10bn, on which £1m is an unsustainable level of profits.

Capitalism is all about risk and reward; it's risking your own money to generate profits - which also provide employment, taxes and all the rest. If profits are denigrated too much, then less investment will occur, more and more jobs will go overseas etc. Yes, of course excess profits do happen - the problem is that any attempt to attack these profits directly is likely to cause collateral damage; the best solution is to enable lots of competition, and let the best producer make lots of profits. Thus Apple is doing a good job of providing what the market wants; Microsoft and Google by contrast are acting rather less honourably. Spotting price fixing and other anti-competitive behaviour is definitely one of the better activities of governments...
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand. ...
Not necessarily, and not for all classes of products. Sale prices can encourage people to buy more of something or try a different brand or buy a big item sooner or buy something small on impulse, but that doesn't necessarily mean they consume more in total. Examples: I buy toilet paper when it is on sale, but I don't wipe my ass twice just because it was cheaper. I'm more likely to have my pet's teeth cleaned when the vet is offering a discount, but I wouldn't get my teeth cleaned more often if my dentist held a sale.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand. ...
Not necessarily, and not for all classes of products. Sale prices can encourage people to buy more of something or try a different brand or buy a big item sooner or buy something small on impulse, but that doesn't necessarily mean they consume more in total. Examples: I buy toilet paper when it is on sale, but I don't wipe my ass twice just because it was cheaper. I'm more likely to have my pet's teeth cleaned when the vet is offering a discount, but I wouldn't get my teeth cleaned more often if my dentist held a sale.
Yes, demand curves can have some very different gradients; but even with toilet paper, if it is really cheap, you might substitute it for something else that you usually use that is similar. Similarly demand for some things can collapse when technology torpedoes their production; there's minimal demand for candles these days compared with 300 years ago.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The question is whether this model is a better approximation to the real world on the macro scale than the alternatives offered,
You know, I'm not entirely sure that WAS the question, until you decided it was a question that you could confidently answer.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thus Apple is doing a good job of providing what the market wants; Microsoft and Google by contrast are acting rather less honourably.
What? Apple's lawsuits against Samsung are about stifling competition, not protecting developed properties. How is this honourable? BTW, success in retail is not necessarily about fulfilling wants, but creating them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition.
Since I see lots of profits being made, I can safely rest in the knowledge that either you are completely misrepresenting the field of economics, or economists are talking out of their arse.

Or more likely both.
Probably the latter. It's the word 'assumption' that gives it away. Economists don't seem to realise that businesses- a lot of them, anyway, and especially the big ones- don't actually like competition: they'd rather corner the market, and will act accordingly.

Economics is an applied social science: it's about how some people under some given circumstances are likely to behave- nothing more.
Wise economists know this. Those who believe in e.g. the 'hidden hand' or self-correcting (whatever that means) markets don't.

[ 10. September 2012, 05:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Economics 101 assumes that profits will be competed away; the whole basis of supply / demand curves is the assumption of perfect competition.
Since I see lots of profits being made, I can safely rest in the knowledge that either you are completely misrepresenting the field of economics, or economists are talking out of their arse.

Or more likely both.
Probably the latter. It's the word 'assumption' that gives it away. Economists don't seem to realise that businesses- a lot of them, anyway, and especially the big ones- don't actually like competition: they'd rather corner the market, and will act accordingly.

Economics is an applied social science: it's about how some people under some given circumstances are likely to behave- nothing more.
Wise economists know this. Those who believe in e.g. the 'hidden hand' or self-correcting (whatever that means) markets don't.
Of course economists 'realise that businesses... don't like competition' - which is why a lot of micro Economics, which is concerned with the detail of how individual players in the market operate, doesn't assume perfect competition. But as a way of modelling economies at the macro level, it's the best model to assume. The proof of the success of economics is the massive increase in prosperity since WWII, and especially the completely astounding reduction in world poverty in the last 25 years. It's not perfect, but then Newtonian physics and the various other 19th century laws weren't perfect either, but they got us a very long way. The danger of the present attitude of many to economics, because of its failure in the present mess, is that we'll reject what it has established, which would be a far worse development. But for some special interest groups it is an attractive idea, because they benefit from the obfuscations to protect those interests.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If, as Plato said of the polis and St. Paul said of the Church, we're all a body (and, in St. Paul's words, when one part suffers, the whole suffers), why wouldn't we want to ensure that everyone gets some basic provision for their needs?
Well, that's the thing. Not everyone believes we are all one body, and they certainly don't see themselves suffering when someone else does. It's why there are so many gated communities these days.
Gated communities, almost by definition, also have lots and lots of wall for when the revolution comes [Snigger]

More seriously, in my albeit limited interactions referred to above, I drew a distinction between 'nice' and 'nasty' workers; perhaps a more telling distinction would be between public and private sector workers...

Another observation for people to perhaps tear apart: whilst large corporations don't necessarily give a stuff about how many jobs they might create based on tax levels, the same is not so true of SMEs. Again, the usual anecdotal evidence caveat applies here, but we would dearly love to take on an extra member of staff here: we are, thanks be to God, getting busier aftre five very lean years when we've had to fire most of our staff, and are consequently being stretched; however, we can't quite afford to recruit yet (hopefully we will soon if the trend continues [Votive] ) and redress the ills of yesteryear; salaries/ taxes form about one third of our turnover. If taxes were lower, the time lag between work pick-up and hiring would be shorter, resulting in more job creation and less stress for those of us here already!

ISTM, applying this across the board to SMEs in the economy - and picking up incidentally on Michael Fallon's contribution to the debate over the last few days - that if taxes and other burdens on SMEs were lowered, then overall employment would rise. Granted, if Fallon has his way, those jobs won't be as secure but, given the choice between jobs or no jobs, what would you choose?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
.... The proof of the success of economics is the massive increase in prosperity since WWII, and especially the completely astounding reduction in world poverty in the last 25 years...
Mostly not, of course, achieved through free-market economics, but through managed or social capitalism- e.g. Japan, Germany, S Korea, Sweden...Even in the USA an awful lot of economic growth and technological development came from taxpayer-funded defence and similar programmes.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I was thinking earlier that Plato/Socrates is not really the best example for trying to whip up neighbourly love of the Polis.

Socrates' vision of the perfect city in The Republic is not of a democracy, but an enforced form of caste system whereby the brightest and best (usually determined by their family pedigree) are selected and the trained to run the city. Other people have their place in society and if you happen to be a slave, your place is to sit down, shut up, and let the Philosopher-Kings get on with the ruling.

Moreover, it isn't even clear that Socrates believes all inhabitants of the city are equal members of the Polis. He seems to think that the plebs are unimportant, fodder for war and labour for the uplift of the aristocracy.

A gated community fits neatly into this narrative as the protection needed for those who are divinely ordained to rule.

It is by no means clear that Socrates would be at all bothered by the situation in some other Polis, nor that he would be looking for the protection and welfare of all inhabitants of the city. Some people just are not that important.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
You leave me out of this!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
What's all this economics got to do with whether "taxes are theft"?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The proof of the success of economics is the massive increase in prosperity since WWII, and especially the completely astounding reduction in world poverty in the last 25 years.
Actually it was a combination of science (the green revolution) and not blowing the crap out of each other. Economics as practiced by organisations like the World Bank and the IMF have retarded growth in many countries: those that have done well have ignored their advice.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Josephine. do your friends who tell you that 'tax is theft' think that poor migrant workers who come to the Pacific North West from Mexico and places south to better their chances in life should be free to do so? Or do they think the state is not doing enough to maintain an impenetrable border along the Rio Grande to protect their jobs from migrants who might undercut them?

The former view is compatible with claiming 'tax is theft' - however stupid that view might be. The latter isn't.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think that the friends who are anti-tax are also anti-immigration.

Do you see the two positions as incompatible solely because the state needs funds to guard the border, and the funds would have to come from taxes? Or are there other reasons you consider the two views incompatible?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. That's not what it says at all. You're no Marvin, that's for sure.
The issue really is whether that is what is experienced, not whether that is what the article says. In practice if the price of an item is reduced, the demand for it will rise; sale prices DO generate additional demand.

Given that a cut in the cost of production as a result of the taxes being paid (or wages [Frown] ) will result in a cut in the price, the demand will rise. Which is all that I'm arguing. Economics 101.
The classic example used in North America is buggy whips, which fell out of use soon after the popularization of the internal combustion engine.

You appear to be making a categorical and general statement, that reducing price will increase demand. That would suggest that demand for buggy whips could have been stimulated by lower prices. The total irrationality of that is, I think, obvious.

You seem to have ignored, in your construct, the impact of technology and innovation -- and probably a whole bunch of other factors which I, not being an economist, cannot identify. Your construct seems to me to be based precisely on what one learns in Economics 101 or any introductory course: Part of the truth, but not by any means all of it -- and usually not what matters in the real world.

I would instance (in areas with which I am familiar) the versions of how governments work presented in Politics 101, and the versions of the thought of "great philosophers" (John Locke, for example) as presented in Philosphy 101.

John
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Gated communities, almost by definition, also have lots and lots of wall for when the revolution comes [Snigger] ...
All it takes is a few bicycle locks to turn a gated community into a ghetto (in the "keeping a certain group of people in one place" sense, not in the neighbourhood sense). [Devil]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
All it takes is a few bicycle locks to turn a gated community into a ghetto (in the "keeping a certain group of people in one place" sense, not in the neighbourhood sense). [Devil]
I like how your mind works!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Josephine. do your friends who tell you that 'tax is theft' think that poor migrant workers who come to the Pacific North West from Mexico and places south to better their chances in life should be free to do so? Or do they think the state is not doing enough to maintain an impenetrable border along the Rio Grande to protect their jobs from migrants who might undercut them?

The former view is compatible with claiming 'tax is theft' - however stupid that view might be. The latter isn't.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think that the friends who are anti-tax are also anti-immigration.

Do you see the two positions as incompatible solely because the state needs funds to guard the border, and the funds would have to come from taxes? Or are there other reasons you consider the two views incompatible?
That discrepancy is so basic and so fundamental that I hadn't even thought to consider whether there are any other reasons.

To have a state, to deliver any sort of basic security or order, it has to have money. It has therefore to collect taxes.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To have a state, to deliver any sort of basic security or order, it has to have money. It has therefore to collect taxes.
One could, I suppose, argue in favour of local militia of private citizens serving on a voluntary basis (because, if not voluntary then it's another form of taxation). If this militia is to be armed then there also needs to be a right for private citizens to own firearms. Which probably appeals to the "taxes are theft" brigade.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
All it takes is a few bicycle locks to turn a gated community into a ghetto (in the "keeping a certain group of people in one place" sense, not in the neighbourhood sense). [Devil]
I like how your mind works!
What a good idea! [Big Grin]

Now how much should we charge them for keys to the locks?
[Snigger]

Supply and demand and all that... [Biased]

AFZ
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One could, I suppose, argue in favour of local militia of private citizens serving on a voluntary basis (because, if not voluntary then it's another form of taxation).
A paid militia could - in theory - be funded by voluntary donations, which would not be a form of taxation.

Whether that would work in practice is another question.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Surely you could also have an unpaid voluntary milita. What am I missing?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
All it takes is a few bicycle locks to turn a gated community into a ghetto (in the "keeping a certain group of people in one place" sense, not in the neighbourhood sense). [Devil]
I like how your mind works!
What a good idea! [Big Grin]

Now how much should we charge them for keys to the locks?
[Snigger]

Supply and demand and all that... [Biased]

AFZ
Ooh, you are naughty! But I like you.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Surely you could also have an unpaid voluntary milita. What am I missing?
Yes, of course you could. I was just pointing out that that's not the only possible option for the "tax is theft" brigade.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Seems to me there is no contradiction between 'tax is theft' and preventing immigration if you're prepared to do the protecting of the borders. Indeed, one could presumably argue that no taxes are necessary in the state/city where everyone voluntarily shoulders the jobs that need to be done.

More than slightly crazy in the context of a country the size of the USA, but not entirely contradictory.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well of course, that's a good old collectivist anarchist position, isn't it? As I said in an earlier post, though, I wonder whether en expectation that everyone should pitch in and perform specific tasks when required, either in perosn or by providing a substitute, might shade into a kind of taxation in kind?
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I'm not sure that it does. Taxation requires a political elite which has the authority to collect tax and decide how it is spent. It also requires this elite to have the moral authority to decide when to deprive people of liberty or send them to war. I think this is all part of a package and certainly how most of us understand society standing on a Socratic and Aristolian common heritage.

The objection of some is that these largely self-selecting elites are so self-serving and broken that they cannot be trusted with taxation. One might be philosophically inclined to agree that you should be prepared to pay your way whilst at the same time refusing to give money to any of those bastards.

Even if you believe that corporate community spending is necessary, it by no means follows that taxation is the way to do that - nor that the options are offered to participate in are the correct ones.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
But a lot of that is an argument about the nature of power structures and elites within your asaociety, not about the principles of taxation. Unsurprising that this 'tax is theft' position most often comes up in the USA, which is a country built on the principle that government is not to be trusted. Where does that come from? Well, maybe because government has an inconvenient habit of trying to tax you to e.g. pay for the soldiers who are defending your frontiers against the Indians- this is, after all, what lies behind the founding myth of the USA. So it's a circular argument: you can't trust the gummint 'cos they take your money and you shouldn't give your money to the gummint 'cos you can't trust them.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happened if the US disbanded its army, navy and airforce and relied solely on an unpaid volunteer citizen militia to protect its borders. The DoD has the largest discretionary budget of any government department.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
... Even if you believe that corporate community spending is necessary, it by no means follows that taxation is the way to do that - nor that the options are offered to participate in are the correct ones.
Who wouldn't rather spend a weekend building pyramids instead of fillilng out a tax return?

Edited to actually finish my post [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 11. September 2012, 15:23: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
One could, I suppose, argue in favour of local militia of private citizens serving on a voluntary basis (because, if not voluntary then it's another form of taxation).
A paid militia could - in theory - be funded by voluntary donations, which would not be a form of taxation.

Whether that would work in practice is another question.
This then gives rise to a "prisoner's dilemma" situation. Much cheaper and safer for me to let the other people in my neighborhood do the militia-ing for me. If it's truly voluntary I don't have to pitch in. Yet if everybody took that attitude, and there's no reason they shouldn't, then there is no protection at all.

The moment the others require me to pitch in, you have a de facto government.

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Taxation requires a political elite which has the authority to collect tax and decide how it is spent.
"Elite"? There's a meaningless weasel word intended into to provoke a negative emotional response. It requires a government. That doesn't even require a governing class; it could in fact be done by the entirety of the population sitting as a legislative body. Let alone an "elite" whatever the hell that means.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Suggest you read Plato, Mousethief. Elites rule, that is what happens.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Suggest you read Plato, Mousethief. Elites rule, that is what happens.
Have done. Have written long papers about various points in his dialogues, in fact.

The Republic is prescriptive, not descriptive; nor does Plato have anything like a large enough sampling to be able to have anything to say that's anything like definitive about the inevitability of elites ruling. Suggest you not make snarky suggestions about things I have more knowledge of than you.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I wasn't aware of being snarky and am interested to hear your thoughts on Plato. I believe all systems tend towards rule by elite, Plato seemed to think that was desirable, I think it is inevitable. That's all I'm saying.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I wasn't aware of being snarky and am interested to hear your thoughts on Plato. I believe all systems tend towards rule by elite, Plato seemed to think that was desirable, I think it is inevitable. That's all I'm saying.
It's not all you said, but I'll accept your word that you've accepted that Plato's position on governance by the elite is prescriptive and not descriptive.

As for Plato, he's a perfect example of a member of the elite preaching that his class should hold the reins. It's special pleading. Nor does it say anything about inevitability. Nor does it give any meaning to "elite" (which you also have failed to do).

Saying, "I suggest you read..." is in itself a snarky thing to say. It's saying "you're an ignoramus compared to me but you can heal yourself by reading things that I, who am more knowledgeable than you, have read."

[ 11. September 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
OK, I'm happy to give a meaning to the term elite - a small specialist class of people who hold political power.

Yes, I accept that Plato was speaking as part of that class. I don't think that makes him wrong though.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I also don't happen to think that is necessarily desirable. Plato's definitions of who is best suited to rule are pretty bizarre to me. But not so far from the characteristics of the aristocracy in England or membership of the Communist Party in China. Even in democracies, we're ruled by (largely self-selecting) elites.

They're certainly not best suited, but they always seem to end up ruling.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, I'm happy to give a meaning to the term elite - a small specialist class of people who hold political power.
Then you've created a tautologous definition -- the government is led by the group of people who lead the government. Which, although true, isn't terribly meaningful or useful.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
No, I think there are characteristics of those people (which may be different in different cultures) which define them outwith of whether they're the ones in power. Hence I described it as a class of people.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
No, I think there are characteristics of those people (which may be different in different cultures) which define them outwith of whether they're the ones in power. Hence I described it as a class of people.
You need to flesh that out, then, before we can agree or disagree with it. What characteristics? Is it people with these characteristics that always come to power, or does being in power give people these characteristics? (As someone more cynical than I might ask, Does power corrupt, or do the corrupt seek power?)
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Well, as I was indicating, Plato seemed to think that certain people are best suited for ruling and that the city should make every effort to train those who have the ability to make them good rulers.

I think that in almost any society, there are commonly held, and usually undiscussed, values about who is best suited to rule. By definition this means that the majority are not best suited and therefore have no access to power.

In answer to your question, I think politics in the Anglo-saxon West attracts the corruptible, because they have the valued attributes - they went to the right schools, they have the right contacts, they have the right amount of money, they have the right kind of rhetorical skills. Usually they don't have much of a criminal record and so forth.

The odd thing is that the systems seem to be set up to favour these kinds of people even though these are not necessarily the values that the population at large share or see as being important. Maybe it is just that the elites have read Plato and have set up the system to protect their own holding the reins of power.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe it is just that the elites have read Plato and have set up the system to protect their own holding the reins of power.
I think one needn't read Plato to want to hold on to power. As we've noted, power corrupts.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As for Plato, he's a perfect example of a member of the elite preaching that his class should hold the reins. It's special pleading. Nor does it say anything about inevitability. Nor does it give any meaning to "elite" (which you also have failed to do).
Someone in my college apparently once wrote a fairly earnest essay about The Republic, which came back with the comment: 'But don't you think Plato meant it as a joke?' I certainly think it isn't to be taken at face value.

If we want to know what Plato really thought about government, we should read Laws, not The Republic, because Laws, IIRC, was composed in response to an actual question 'How shall we govern this new colony?', whereas in The Republic the government of the city is basically a foil to allow Plato to discuss justice in the abstract.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
That could be! We didn't study Laws so I can't comment on it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happened if the US disbanded its army, navy and airforce and relied solely on an unpaid volunteer citizen militia to protect its borders.
What would happen? Do you mean before or after it was annexed by Mexico?

Sorry, that was disingenuous. There would not be a before.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happened if the US disbanded its army, navy and airforce and relied solely on an unpaid volunteer citizen militia to protect its borders.
What would happen? Do you mean before or after it was annexed by Mexico?

Sorry, that was disingenuous. There would not be a before.
I'm sorry. I'm having real problems parsing your comment.

Are you implying that the Government of Mexico have plans in place to invade and annex the continental United States, would do so in the face of a 300-million strong citizen militia, and expect to win?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
.... In answer to your question, I think politics in the Anglo-Saxon West attracts the corruptible, ....
So different, so very different from the civic life of one of our fellow-European Latin states.

Returning to the main theme, if citizens are required to turn out unpaid, to serve in the militia, watch the gates one night each week, or repair the roads under corvée, isn't that a form of taxation?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hyperbolic sarcasm more than a serious statement, Doc Tor.
However, I do think they would be considerable less effective than many of them think they would be.

A serious answer? I think there would be a serious decline in the equipment, and manpower, especially as the money ceased to flow. There would be an increase in terrorism, domestic and foreign. Just to start.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hyperbolic sarcasm more than a serious statement, Doc Tor.
However, I do think they would be considerable less effective than many of them think they would be.

A serious answer? I think there would be a serious decline in the equipment, and manpower, especially as the money ceased to flow. There would be an increase in terrorism, domestic and foreign. Just to start.
I can understand why citizen-militias wouldn't have heavy weapons beyond machine-guns and RPGs, few aircraft, and use converted pick-ups as APCs. But as has been shown the world over, it's boots on the ground that hold territory, no matter how fancy your drones are.

Also, why terrorism? You could reasonably argue that foreign terrorism against US assets is due to the US foreign and military policy, not despite of it.

And as a tangent to the OP, why is spending billions on the military not count when "taxes are theft" is mentioned?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But as has been shown the world over, it's boots on the ground that hold territory, no matter how fancy your drones are.
Held by boots, yes, but initially conquered by firepower. Hell of a mess, regardless of final outcome.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Also, why terrorism? You could reasonably argue that foreign terrorism against US assets is due to the US foreign and military policy, not despite of it.
Yes, but that horse has left the barn and I do not think it is going back in, even did America renounce Israel and wholesale convert to Islam.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

And as a tangent to the OP, why is spending billions on the military not count when "taxes are theft" is mentioned?
Because the "taxes are theft" people seem also to be pro-military. Yes, I know...
ISTM, "taxes are theft" is shorthand for "do not spend money on things of which I do not approve."
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Returning to the main theme, if citizens are required to turn out unpaid, to serve in the militia, watch the gates one night each week, or repair the roads under corvée, isn't that a form of taxation?
It's feudalism. Or it might be thought of "labour service" in lieu of, or in additional to military conscription.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A paid militia could - in theory - be funded by voluntary donations, which would not be a form of taxation.

Whether that would work in practice is another question.
This then gives rise to a "prisoner's dilemma" situation. Much cheaper and safer for me to let the other people in my neighborhood do the militia-ing for me. If it's truly voluntary I don't have to pitch in. Yet if everybody took that attitude, and there's no reason they shouldn't, then there is no protection at all.
Which would, in a way, be the correct democratically-chosen path to take. If nobody wants to pay for protection, then they don't get protection. That's what they have chosen, and they will have to face any consequences that may come along.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Returning to the main theme, if citizens are required to turn out unpaid, to serve in the militia, watch the gates one night each week, or repair the roads under corvée, isn't that a form of taxation?
It's feudalism. Or it might be thought of "labour service" in lieu of, or in additional to military conscription.
Ah, the corveé, IIRC.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, the corveé, IIRC.
"corvee", this must be a regional or rare usage. Never have seen this word before and I did take a series of history courses at univ. IIRC also had to be looked up. Perhaps we speak different Englishes. It would appear that corvee means the work itself, while feudalism means the whole system.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Wikipedia suggests that corvee in its earliest form was ' state-imposed forced labour on peasants too poor to pay other forms of taxation' and cites in its support Carolyn Webber and Aaron B. Wildavsky (1986). A History of Taxation and Expenditure in the Western World. p. 68 as stating that: "Corvée, the mandatory contribution of personal labor to the state, was the earliest form of taxation for which records exist; indeed, in the ancient Egyptian language the word "labor" was a synonym for taxes."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I believe it refers to the forced labour, particularly that in France, rather than the feudal system as a whole.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A paid militia could - in theory - be funded by voluntary donations, which would not be a form of taxation.

Whether that would work in practice is another question.
This then gives rise to a "prisoner's dilemma" situation. Much cheaper and safer for me to let the other people in my neighborhood do the militia-ing for me. If it's truly voluntary I don't have to pitch in. Yet if everybody took that attitude, and there's no reason they shouldn't, then there is no protection at all.
Which would, in a way, be the correct democratically-chosen path to take. If nobody wants to pay for protection, then they don't get protection. That's what they have chosen, and they will have to face any consequences that may come along.
But the militia don't protect parts of the polis; they protect the whole of the polis. What are they going to do, say, "no pasaran, except Bob's property; it's in the middle of the town but we'll let you through so you can burn his house since he doesn't contribute to the militia"? No. He's a freeloader on their protection.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
Yes that's true and he got what he deserved. But it's completely unlike a militia defending a polis, which can't pick and choose which parts of the polis to defend.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
That's how the first fire brigades worked in London. Paid for by insurance companies. They got taken over by the council and paid for by taxes because you don't want your neighbour's house to burn down either. Even if you don't care about the neighbours, it endangers you.

Same with rubbish. They collect it form everybody and are paid from taxes. Because even if you are willing to pay to have your won taken away, you don't want your neighbour's shit all over the streets.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes that's true and he got what he deserved. But it's completely unlike a militia defending a polis, which can't pick and choose which parts of the polis to defend.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's how the first fire brigades worked in London. Paid for by insurance companies. They got taken over by the council and paid for by taxes because you don't want your neighbour's house to burn down either. Even if you don't care about the neighbours, it endangers you.

Same with rubbish. They collect it form everybody and are paid from taxes. Because even if you are willing to pay to have your won taken away, you don't want your neighbour's shit all over the streets.
You, know, taxes sound like quite a good idea really...

[Razz]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
Yes that's true and he got what he deserved. But it's completely unlike a militia defending a polis, which can't pick and choose which parts of the polis to defend.
You really believe he got what he deserved? Really? And so does everyone else I suppose, and their children. Would it also be better to let the children burn to death? I'm not understanding this at all.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Clearly not if you're equating burning children with burning buildings. Either you have too high an opinion of buildings or too low an opinion of children.

Not paying dues in a dues-based volunteer fire district is gaming the system. It's expecting to skate by for free while everybody else saves your ass should you need it. Saying "I'll pay if my house catches on fire" doesn't work. If the only people who paid were people whose houses catch fire, WHEN they catch fire, then there is no fire department because there is no equipment. Equipment is a capital expenditure which requires people to pay up front.

In short this guy was playing prisoner's dilemma and lost. He got exactly what he asked for. He took the risk of his house burning down on himself, and paid the price. Where's the problem? That's what he wanted.

[ 12. September 2012, 18:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
Ah, but there are some cities who are now charging a yearly fee on top of the taxes that are supposed to go for their firefighters responding to non fire medical emergencies. Don't have insurance or your insurance won't pay? Too bad. Though some have seen where this can lead.

"Councilwoman Suzanne Tucker said residents are concerned about the new charges because they’re already paying taxes for city services. She said only some insurance companies will pick up the extra costs, and residents are worried how they’ll pay.

Tucker said one person joked if her husband has a heart attack, she’ll be tempted to light the kitchen table on fire to dodge the fees."
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
Yes that's true and he got what he deserved. But it's completely unlike a militia defending a polis, which can't pick and choose which parts of the polis to defend.
You really believe he got what he deserved? Really? And so does everyone else I suppose, and their children. Would it also be better to let the children burn to death? I'm not understanding this at all.
My father was a volunteer fireman. In the state he lived in, if the volunteer firefighters came to your house to fight a fire, they could put a lien on your property. It took priority over any other lien.

He liked that system a lot better than the system in states where the standard practice is for the volunteer firefighters to show up and contain the fire, so it doesn't spread. And to rescue people and animals -- they don't let people die, or animals either, if they can help it. But they don't try to save the property. Dues for a volunteer fire department are cheap, and most of them will let you pay your dues with labor if you don't have any cash. If you don't pay, you know exactly what the risk is, and exactly what the consequences are.

The volunteer firefighters hate to watch a house burn. But someone has to pay for the equipment, and the training, and everything else that goes into having firefighters at all. If there's no money, there's no fire department.

I really like taxes.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you implying that the Government of Mexico have plans in place to invade and annex the continental United States, would do so in the face of a 300-million strong citizen militia, and expect to win?
I'm having trouble with the further implication that you'd actually have 300 million in the militia. Far too many of them would be so busy watching reality television that they'd miss the actual invasion.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the militia don't protect parts of the polis; they protect the whole of the polis. What are they going to do, say, "no pasaran, except Bob's property; it's in the middle of the town but we'll let you through so you can burn his house since he doesn't contribute to the militia"? No. He's a freeloader on their protection.
This is what economists call the free rider problem which crops up for public goods (i.e. things which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous).


quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Sometimes that happens. Didn't we have a thread going several months back about a rural volunteer fire department that let a house burn because the owner hadn't paid the voluntary fee to provide fire fighting services? He didn't pay. He didn't get fire fighters.
Yes that's true and he got what he deserved. But it's completely unlike a militia defending a polis, which can't pick and choose which parts of the polis to defend.
Some of the details you've cited are a bit off. The fire department in South Fulton, TN is a professional, tax-supported service, not a volunteer unit. Residents of South Fulton enjoy the service (if having a house fire can said to be "enjoyed") as provided for by their taxes. The man in question lived outside the city of South Fulton. The South Fulton fire department offers fire service to surrounding rural areas on a subscription basis, for which they charge a fee ($75/year if I recall correctly).

In a lot of ways this is emblematic of the "taxes are theft" crowd. A lot of them will move to rural areas for the express purpose of avoiding local taxes/"theft", and yet they still expect to be provided with the services associated with modern society that are funded via taxation.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Mousethief: no-one wants their house to burn down. Maybe the guy should be sent a bill. There's something immoral about just watching it burn and standing by.

When my non-resident mother, and thus not eligible for the free health care we have as Canadians, had a stroke on a visit, she was seen in hospital and full services were provided. And of course that's the way it should be. She was not insured (not insurable from where my parents had lived) and she lived. If we parallel this to the house fire, they would have refused to treat her.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Some of the details you've cited are a bit off.
You're right; I apologize for my inaccuracies; they were not meant to deceive.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
When my non-resident mother, and thus not eligible for the free health care we have as Canadians, had a stroke on a visit, she was seen in hospital and full services were provided. And of course that's the way it should be. She was not insured (not insurable from where my parents had lived) and she lived. If we parallel this to the house fire, they would have refused to treat her.
But it's not parallel, as I have pointed out. People are not property and property isn't people.

They probably should have some kind of thing worked out. If you pay us in advance, it's $75 a year. If we have to come out and put out your house and you're not a member, it's $5,000. Maybe $10,000. But even doing that encourages people to opt out and put the burden on others. It's not so bad when, as in this case, it's an already-existing department that is not dependent on your dues for its very existence. Whereas if it is a department that simply wouldn't exist without people paying their dues, you really can't have a department that will put out fires for non-payers. That will reward nonpayment, leading to the "free rider problem" that Crœsos named.

And let's face it, this guy chose to not have his house protected. It was his choice. That's what he wanted. He WANTED his house not to be put out when it caught on fire. They gave him what he wanted. What does he have to complain about?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And let's face it, this guy chose to not have his house protected. It was his choice. That's what he wanted. He WANTED his house not to be put out when it caught on fire. They gave him what he wanted. What does he have to complain about?
I suspect his feelings were more along the lines of this quote taken at the time:

quote:
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
In short, Mr. Cranick's position seems to be that he expected to both receive fire protection service and to avoid paying for it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Granted that an argument can be made against paying fees for fire cover on the basis of "it's a risk I choose to make, and if I get it wrong my house burns down", where do you draw the line? Could residents in an apartment block choose to opt out, in which case if they have a fire then there's very little that can be done to prevent damage to other peoples property if it isn't put out quickly. My guess would be that they wouldn't get that option. How about someone in a relatively dense suburban housing estate where there's a few feet between each house - the chances of fire spreading to neighbouring property are high, and the difficulty of simple containment very high. Is this a case of the only people who have any moral right to avoid paying the $75 fee those who live in a sufficiently low housing density area that firefighters have a reasonable chance to simply contain the fire and watch the house burn? Because for anyone else to do that would result in unwarranted danger to other peoples property. If practically everyone would need to pay that fee then it looks awfully like a tax (and, a flat rate tax at that!) which only the very rich with their country houses and large grounds can avoid.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
One thing that looks really odd about the fire service story is that people have criticised the neighbouring local authority's fire service for not putting as fire out for someone who hadn't paid his subscription but nobody seems to be criticising the local authority where the fire actually was, for not having a fire service at all.

Also, should a fire service that is supposed to put out fires in the area of its own taxpayers be offering a service to somebody else's taxpayers for a subscription? What happens if there are two fires at once, one in their own area and one for an outside subscriber?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which would, in a way, be the correct democratically-chosen path to take. If nobody wants to pay for protection, then they don't get protection. That's what they have chosen, and they will have to face any consequences that may come along.
But the militia don't protect parts of the polis; they protect the whole of the polis. What are they going to do, say, "no pasaran, except Bob's property; it's in the middle of the town but we'll let you through so you can burn his house since he doesn't contribute to the militia"? No. He's a freeloader on their protection.
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which would, in a way, be the correct democratically-chosen path to take. If nobody wants to pay for protection, then they don't get protection. That's what they have chosen, and they will have to face any consequences that may come along.
But the militia don't protect parts of the polis; they protect the whole of the polis. What are they going to do, say, "no pasaran, except Bob's property; it's in the middle of the town but we'll let you through so you can burn his house since he doesn't contribute to the militia"? No. He's a freeloader on their protection.
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
There were many days I didn't want to go to school, eat my vegetables or clean my room. I have to come to work on days when I would rather stay at home. I want to read or watch the telly but the garden is calling. Simply because I don't want to do something does not mean there is not a good reason to do that thing.

For the most part we are motivated by our needs; our desires come afterwards. Anyone who enjoys paying taxes must be a bit weird, but that's part of living in a society, not on an island. If I looked hard enough I'm sure I could find a rational and reasonable case for taxes being levied for something nobody wants.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which would, in a way, be the correct democratically-chosen path to take. If nobody wants to pay for protection, then they don't get protection. That's what they have chosen, and they will have to face any consequences that may come along.
But the militia don't protect parts of the polis; they protect the whole of the polis. What are they going to do, say, "no pasaran, except Bob's property; it's in the middle of the town but we'll let you through so you can burn his house since he doesn't contribute to the militia"? No. He's a freeloader on their protection.
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
That's majority rule for you.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
Is it moral to not pay for a service that one will receive by default because one lives within a community?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
I presume you're happy with forcing people to follow laws they don't actually want, despite those laws having been put in place by a majority?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I wouldn't presume. Previous threads have indicated to me that Marvin has concerns about that.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I should have been more explicit. I'm sure Marvin doesn't have problems with laws that protect him and his property, that other people don't want or respect.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
Is it moral to not pay for a service that one will receive by default because one lives within a community?
Indeed, that is the heart of the problem. But so is the question of whether one wants to receive the service in the first place.

Garbage collection is a classic that's often rolled out, because the rhetorical "you" don't want your neighbour's garbage on the street any more than your own. It follows from that starting point that everybody's garbage should be collected, and therefore that the neighbour should be made to pay as well since he's receiving the same service. But is he receiving a service, or having it imposed on him against his will? And does the morality of the situation change at all depending on the answer to that question?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I should have been more explicit. I'm sure Marvin doesn't have problems with laws that protect him and his property, that other people don't want or respect.
If you can show me someone who genuinely thinks having legal protections for their person and property is wrong, I'll be very surprised.

Note that I'm talking about their own person and property, not anyone else's. It's just as wrong to forcibly deny someone a service that they want (protection, say) as it is to force them to accept one they don't.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
So how do you manage things in a way which is consistent with both those principles? Run the law and police as a subscription service, perhaps- subscribers can call upon the courts, police, etc to protect their property, uphold their contracts, etc, but non-subscribers can't?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
That might be one way. The free rider problem could be solved by maintaining a list of which people haven't subscribed, such that criminals could know exactly who who is protected and who they can attack with impunity.

Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I should have been more explicit. I'm sure Marvin doesn't have problems with laws that protect him and his property, that other people don't want or respect.
If you can show me someone who genuinely thinks having legal protections for their person and property is wrong, I'll be very surprised.
Which isn't what I said, but let's take a relatively benign example: speeding.

It's a law decided by the majority for their protection, yet a minority feels that it's an ass, and that they should be the ones who decide what speed they should drive at. As evidenced by the oft-heard cry of "you should be out catching real criminals".

Should we insist that everyone obeys the speed limit? By denying those who don't want to, we're stealing their time. And possibly their money too, if you take that equation literally.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I think a better example of what you are trying to illustrate, might be the police. The police are a necessity in large communities, but not everyone benefits equally. Generally, the closer one resembles the ruling class, the more one benefits. I could pay the same as you, but not receive the same level of service. Is this behaviour moral? No, IMO.
However, the existence of a police force is. The needs of the group outweigh the desires of the individual.

ETA: response to Marvin

[ 14. September 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

If we are to rely on a moral code then which moral code shall we use? Do you want a theocracy, a diverse and for the most part secular society, or a utilitarian dictatorship?

C'mon Marvin, morals can't be picked out of the ether.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That might be one way. The free rider problem could be solved by maintaining a list of which people haven't subscribed, such that criminals could know exactly who who is protected and who they can attack with impunity.

Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
If you had your own estate, with your own guards and guns, I can easily imagine non-subscription.

Likewise, if you were dirt poor and could only choose between food and police protection, food would be a priority. Do you think it should be open season on the homeless?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not denying the existence of the free rider problem. I'm just not convinced that forcing people to pay for things they don't actually want (or don't want enough to pay for) on the grounds that lots of other people want it is moral.
Is it moral to not pay for a service that one will receive by default because one lives within a community?
Indeed, that is the heart of the problem. But so is the question of whether one wants to receive the service in the first place.

Garbage collection is a classic that's often rolled out, because the rhetorical "you" don't want your neighbour's garbage on the street any more than your own. It follows from that starting point that everybody's garbage should be collected, and therefore that the neighbour should be made to pay as well since he's receiving the same service. But is he receiving a service, or having it imposed on him against his will? And does the morality of the situation change at all depending on the answer to that question?
Rubbish collection though is something that differs from country to country. In England, the local authority collects domestic refuse, with the main elements having to be covered from taxes, but some items charged for, e.g. sofas, garden waste. Commercial entities have to make their own arrangements and pay for them. I know of at least one country where this applies to all collection, where one chooses and pays ones supplier, much like milk delivery.

There's also ongoing debate about whether waste collection should be fixed price, as where it is paid for from taxes, or whether the collector should weigh each bin and bill by weight. Until recently this hasn't been technically realistic.

Police and armed services are probably a better example to use, though even there, the police are entitled to charge for some things. There's a row going on at the moment about over or under charging for crowd control at football matches.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That might be one way. The free rider problem could be solved by maintaining a list of which people haven't subscribed, such that criminals could know exactly who who is protected and who they can attack with impunity.

Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
Would you give a free pass to anyone- children,subsistence farmers with little or no cash income, those physically unable to work,pesnioners, members of religious communities under a vow of poverty? (I suppose in the last case the susbscription would be taken out by the religious community as a whole.) Or would everyone have to either subscribe, or have someone else (parent etc) pay a subscription on their behalf?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
Vested interest? What, you mean like all those people who want other people (i.e. the rich) to pay for the services they receive rather than doing so themselves? I'd say that's a vested interest masquerading as moral principle as well, wouldn't you*?

.

*= rhetorical question, as I already know you'd say it's different when you look at it that way round...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Would you give a free pass to anyone
I was just thinking of ways it could be possible to fund public services that don't require taxation. The details can be worked out later.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Vested interest? What, you mean like all those people who want other people (i.e. the rich) to pay for the services they receive rather than doing so themselves? I'd say that's a vested interest masquerading as moral principle as well, wouldn't you*?
Hang on. It's the rich who want other people to pay for the services they receive rather than doing so themselves, like an educated workforce and the rule of law in enforcing contracts, all the while shovelling their cash into off-shore tax havens. To the tune of £85 billion in lost revenue.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, but there's a point of principle here. Could anyone- doesn't matter precisely who at this level of argument- get a free pass? (Reply to Marvin)

[ 14. September 2012, 11:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
In which case it is far more efficient to skip the whole subscription bit, and presume it.

Unless you see the attractions of employing an entire bureaucracy to maintain the list of subscriptions.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
Vested interest? What, you mean like all those people who want other people (i.e. the rich) to pay for the services they receive rather than doing so themselves? I'd say that's a vested interest masquerading as moral principle as well, wouldn't you*?

.

*= rhetorical question, as I already know you'd say it's different when you look at it that way round...
You're quite right, it is a rhetorical device, but I'm not trying to take the moral high ground, merely asserting that it is legitimate to levy a tax on income, such that those who have more income can contribute a greater proportion.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
"Did you know that poor people invented ethics to control rich people?", asks the CEO in today's Dilbert cartoon.

And continues: "Nice try, poor people! It's not working!"
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
Vested interest? What, you mean like all those people who want other people (i.e. the rich) to pay for the services they receive rather than doing so themselves? I'd say that's a vested interest masquerading as moral principle as well, wouldn't you*?

.

*= rhetorical question, as I already know you'd say it's different when you look at it that way round...
You're quite right, it is a rhetorical device, but I'm not trying to take the moral high ground, merely asserting that it is legitimate to levy a tax on income, such that those who have more income can contribute a greater proportion.
Yes, but it's a leap from 'can' to 'should'.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
In which case it is far more efficient to skip the whole subscription bit, and presume it.
Only if you think there's no moral value in allowing people to opt out.

quote:
Unless you see the attractions of employing an entire bureaucracy to maintain the list of subscriptions.
Would it be any larger than the current bureaucracy that manages taxation?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
You could presume an opt-in and have a rather smaller organisation keeping a list of the presumably rather small number of opt-outs.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Personally, I doubt anyone would refuse to subscribe under such a system!
In which case it is far more efficient to skip the whole subscription bit, and presume it.
Only if you think there's no moral value in allowing people to opt out.
I think there's very little value indeed in creating a system just so people can say "I don't want to opt out, but it's great that I could if I wanted to". It's not the purpose of laws to allow people to give themselves a smug, self-satisfied pat on the back. Reminds me very much of the Protestant couple in Monty Python who can have sex with a condom anytime they want.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You could presume an opt-in and have a rather smaller organisation keeping a list of the presumably rather small number of opt-outs.
Yes, that works as well.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
So, without taxes, how are we going to fund prisons, criminal courts, and the like? Justice for sale isn't justice. And prosecutors can't hold bake sales, so maybe they take part in an extortion racket to fund their offices. Pay up, or go to jail.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0