|
| Thread: Taxes and morality |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 17, 2013 12:25 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 12:26, 17 Aug 2013.
|
Mvass: I think as long as people feel that their taxes are put to good and efficient use, that will realistically be a non-issue. If it is an issue though, then I can imagine the state demanding fees for people staying within its geographic boundaries for X amount of time. Another alternative might be that as a non-citizens (problems can arise with the methods the state use to know how many months a non-citizen has stayed within its territory though), the state is not obliged to uphold your negative rights. It's all about the incentives.
Blizzardboy: I agree that the incentive to not pay taxes might not be as great in say the United States as in North Korea (if you have the possibility to do so). The actions of a state like North Korea are deeply immoral. But that's different from the state being immoral in it's current, widely applied construction.
Elodin: I believe there's a difference between nation and state. A nation is more of an abstract construct that only exists in the minds of people. A state is essentially an association that as we know it today, has a monopoly of violence applied through cohersion. I find any institutions based on cohersion deeply immoral.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted August 17, 2013 12:31 PM |
|
|
If the government is bleeding people dry with taxes like in Romania, I think it is right.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2013 12:33 PM |
|
|
Some people don't seem to realize that size makes indeed a difference, and that it's all about labor division.
I've been living in a couple of different "social associations", where I've been sharing costs and benefits of the private life with one or more other people. For example I've been sharing a big flat with 3 other people, including kitchen and a general amount of "public foodstuff". That meant, things had to organized: everyone paid the same share for rent and appliances, and everyone put the same amount of money into the "consumable pot", where public food, toilet paper, cleaner and so on would be bought from.
Now with 4 people we could really check things out in detail - whether it was ok to buy a certain foodstuff from public money, when not all would be eating it -, but we were quite lenient with that one, deciding that one eats this, but when he does that,he won't eat something else, so basically it amounted to while everyone may eat something different for breakfast, everyone eats basically the same amount of money.
Also, the "public work" had to be organized, shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, dish-washing, mostly on a rotation basis.
I also had a different model, living together with my first wife, when we had few money: we would calculate monthly standing costs, and calculate earnings, and would pay in relation to that: if we needed 500 per month, and one had 400 and the other 600, then the former would give 200 and the latter 300. We didn't organize work on a rotation basis either, but divided labor depending on available time, skills and likings.
And lastly I've been living in an association of complete trust, where only a certain amount of standing costs are shared and the rest is done willingly and without looking at who does what, execpt in a very general way, based on the individual feeling of fairness.
So why so we even live in communities? Simple answer: because it allows labor division and specialization, and that would seem to be quite effective when you want to "accomplish" something.
That means big communities like towns, cities and states are a necessity when you want progress - the only question would be: is there an optimum size for this? (Nowadays, countries try to regulate this by dividing things into smaller things and assign certain rights and tasks to smaller entities, so you can generally organize a country in a way that allows operating on maximum efficiency on each level of administration.)
If you think a couple of seconds, then you will see that for a community to work that allows labor division and specialization, everyone will somehow have to contribute to the "chores".
Example: the waste has to be "taken out". Is that something you will want to leave to the freedom of the individual (there is a dump somewhere, and everyone is trusted to bring their waste to it)?
Nope. There will be people living some way away from that and will put their waste somewhere, bringing it away only once every 3 months or so - or not at all, and rotting waste is a source of vermin and all kinds of deseases. Look at the Middle Ages for that one.
Does a rotation makes sense? Every day the people of one street have to go wround and clean the waste of the whole town?
Nope. Because it's too awkward. You may need your time elsewhere and can't just run around collecting waste when a plan says you have to - not to mention that collecting waste wouldn't be the only thing everyone had to do on a rotation basis, plus someone had to do the organizing of the rotation plan.
So in the end it amounts to a simple equation:
For a community to work, everyone has to put in some effort, and this effort is measured in worktime. Luckily enough this is interchangable with "money" as in, worktime IS money, and for a highly specialized and labor-divided society like ours, in theory "taxes" are exactly that - the worktime you would have to put in for society to make it function and in the end allows all the fine things you couldn't do if everyone was on its own.
Which means, taxes as a concept are not debatable.
Debatable, however, is the way a society taxes its members (but this is certainly not the thread to debate FAIR or even EFFICIENT taxing).
Going from theory to practise, this leaves basically these options:
a) You are ok with the way things are or, if you are not ok, things are bothering you not enough to consider "acting on it".
b) You are ok with your country, but not with the way they tax people: you can either try to become politically active in order to change things or you can
c) look for a country where things are organized better and move.
Having established that "taxes" are the equivalent of the personal work people are putting into their society, the question whether not paying taxes is moral or immoral is pretty easy to answer. Can it be moral to NOT do your share of work when living in community with others?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2013 06:47 PM |
|
|
actually work time isn't literaly money. well, it isn't completely independant from money, since the total amount of money available will determine the amount of work available. more money is likely to mean more work (unless it ends in private pockets instead of being invested) less money means less work.
work doesn't create money. it causes exchanges and circulation of money. so the amount of money determines the amount of exchanges possible, which determines the amount of work.
there's also a large part of our taxes that just end up abroad. the debt mostly. talk about a huge waste. and it even comes with destruction of public services. so you pay taxes, and in return benefit from even less services than before...
actually, contrary to popular belief, (and government propaganda) the money doesn't go in poor's pockets. there are more or less 10% of poors in France, and they receive from the state less than 1% of the GDP.
taxes are less and less used for greater good. with more and more privatizations taking place, it makes less and less sense to have to pay taxes, but it is likely than when nothing will belong to the state anymore, we will still have to pay them, and it will all go in riches' pockets.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2013 07:28 PM |
|
|
Xerox:
If people's taxes aren't put to good use, in the missile shield example, they would prefer to not have taxes and not have the shield over paying taxes and having the shield, and they'd get what they want. The point is that even if people would prefer to pay taxes to receive certain benefits, they still have an incentive to not pay taxes if they can still receive those benefits - but if everyone does that, then no one gets those benefits. It's good if your taxes are being spent in a way that benefits you, but it's even better if only other people's taxes are being spent in a way that benefits you. Hence the incentive problem.
As for the state requiring people to pay to stay in its territory, how is that different from the status quo? And how does the state have the authority to force people to pay taxes simply for being on certain territory? It's not like the state owns the territory of the country, so where does its authority come from?
JJ:
Division of labor is important, but it's done in the market when people engage in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. It's useful when I can go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, because it means I don't have to grow it myself and can specialize in whatever my comparative advantage is.
But your waste example is flawed. If I only have a little waste, it only affects me - it's no one's business what I do with it unless I dump it on their property or something like that. If it starts to affect other people's property, then they can legitimately force me to dispose of it at my own expense. No need for taxes there.
Also, as Fauch rightly points out, the state often uses tax money to give privileges to the politically well-connected - see all the corporate subsidies, bailouts, etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 03:38 AM |
|
|
I was thinking about this a bit and to keep things simple I am just going to speak in reference to my own society.
People who sneak their way out of taxes may have the best intentions and feelings and justifications. But they are not much different from those who manipulate and take advantage of the system / taking directly from the resources provided by taxpayers.
These people who don't pay the tax have a very similar mentality to those who mess up stores they go to shop - dropping stuff on the ground and leaving things where they didn't find them because someone else else will come pick up. Someone else will fix it.
You might think, its okay to leave the taxes for everyone else to pay because of whatever rambling problems you have with the government. The only moral way there is to stick others with the responsibility is get out.
Unfortunately for them I don't think there are many places where they can go and not be obligated to share communal expenses.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 05:13 AM |
|
|
My mom's a certified public accountant and she made the observation once that the quickest and most reliable way to tell if somebody is an honest person is whether they try to cheat on their taxes. It's a solid principle really, if somebody tries to cheat the government then it's very likely they'll try to cheat you in any financial dealings you have with them.
It's kind of like religion really where people believe what they want (decide to cheat on their taxes) and then use their religion to justify it afterwards (use their philosophy to justify it)
Ha! thread officially derailed 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 05:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a solid principle really, if somebody tries to cheat the government then it's very likely they'll try to cheat you in any financial dealings you have with them.
It's a silly principle. It's like saying that people who lie to muggers are untrustworthy, because if they're willing to lie to a mugger, they're willing to lie to you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 05:29 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 05:35, 18 Aug 2013.
|
A vast organization of muggers I really doubt would provide health regulations, FDA, medical, food, checks and balances, schools and a wide variety of things that our tax dollars do in fact go towards however we look at it, however flawed the system is, that's the deal.
but I see your point Mvass, people who cheat the government aren't necessarily going to cheat their friends and neighbors. ....
But someone who will manipulate truth and numbers on purpose though to look out for themselves, whether or not they have the capability to see they are cheating society or not, it does show that they are out for themselves at the cost of dishonesty
____________
What are you up to
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 07:03 AM |
|
|
|
@Mvass, It's a principle backed up by 25 years experience. My dad's an accountant as well and he agrees wholeheartedly so add another 40 years.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 09:34 AM |
|
|
I suppurt that. I also think that people who cheat with their taxes will try and cheat everywhere, because they think only about themselves.
You have to keep in mind that the governmental offices cannot act with the tav money the way a private person would, since there are written rules HOW they have to do it and that they do not participate in any good deal or saved money, as it would be in private economy, which is both a way to avoid corruption and attract it.
A certain level of corruption will be unavoidable, of course, plus a lot of people may have different ideas about how tax money should be used and so on, but that's not different from the personal level, where, for example, if you have a gaming group and play into a common pot, there will be long discussion what to do with the pot, when the time comes to spend it.
It's also not different from politics or ADMINISTRATION in general.
Also, there is not the slightest connection between millions of people paying their dues to keep society running and a couple of the people supposed to spend that money in a useful way will find a way to put a small part of that money into their own pockets. It's like finding out that a grocer manipulated the scales to his adfantage, people deciding to stop eating vegetables now.
|
|
VOKIALBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 03:07 PM |
|
|
Imagine a world without taxes... hahahahhaha!!! It would be a jungle, not a civilization!
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 03:08 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 03:22 PM |
|
|
|
Works a bit different, though, since they have extremely high social insurance taxes. So THAT means, that if you are rich, making money SOMEPLACE ELSE, you don't pay INCOME TAXES. But if you have a business there - let's say a resturant - you need to pay a ton for your workers. Which means that wages are still high (both workers and employers must pay), but also PRICES are high, which is no problem, though, since especially the wealthy are attracted to live there.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 05:43 PM |
|
|
Celfious:
The state uses those programs to signal that it cares about poor people, even though it doesn’t. It's like a man who breaks your legs, then gives you crutches. Welfare is a crutch the state gives you to placate you after it breaks your legs.
FoG:
Fair enough. Most people who evade taxes aren't doing it for ideological reasons.
JJ:
I'm not talking about corruption in the sense of bribery and such, things people have to keep secret. I'm talking about open corporatism. "What's good for General Motors is good for America", that sort of thing. Subsides to agribusiness and oil companies, bank bailouts, the military-industrial complex, the influence corporations have on foreign policy, the incestuous relationship between regulators and industry, etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:04 PM |
|
|
You are mixing a lot of things here, from lobbyism to correct intervention for the benefit of everyone.
If a big employer is liquidated, you suddenly have a lot of unemployed people, and one way or another the government/taxes will pay for them. So there IS a reason to at least check whether you can keep things going.
You know, Mvass, the economic system isn't holy in any way, and the government isn't obligated to play by the rules, if it's better for the people not to.
I would keep the businesses going as well - but I would have BOUGHT them for an apple and an egg, instead of pumping money into them and let them operate on their own.
But that's STILL got nothing to do with the question whether you should pay taxes or not, but only with the question what your government does and why.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:18 PM |
|
|
General Motors was going out of business because it couldn't be efficient. With the costs it was incurring, it couldn't sell enough cars to keep going. The right thing to do would have been to let GM die - but instead, the people who didn't want to pay for GM's cars were forced to pay for the continued operation of a company they don't want. Businesses exist to coordinate between those who can produce a good or service, and those who want to consume it. If not enough people want it, then it lost its purpose, and it's time to let the market adjust to new sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.
If you're worried about unemployment, abolish unemployment benefits, they increase the unemployment rate anyway.
All of this is relevant, by the way, because you said that taxes are "doing your part" - but if this is how they're used, that's definitely not true.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:26 PM |
|
|
judging someone so harshly for evading taxes... you know, just because someone does something to one, in no way means they will do it to all. there are plenty of things i would do to some, and not to all. there are plenty of reasons that i would be a dirty rotten scoundrel, but not to all. to put a blanket philosophy on such a thing is foolish. there are too many variables, too many different reasons and events to take into account.
that being said, human beings aren't honest in the first place. deceit is part of their nature, and so it is a part of society. deal with it. 
____________
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:29 PM |
|
|
@ mvass: good idea. abolish unemployment benefits? unemployment "benefits" prevent rampant robberies. better rethink that, man.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 18, 2013 06:36 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
General Motors was going out of business because it couldn't be efficient. With the costs it was incurring, it couldn't sell enough cars to keep going. The right thing to do would have been to let GM die - but instead, the people who didn't want to pay for GM's cars were forced to pay for the continued operation of a company they don't want. Businesses exist to coordinate between those who can produce a good or service, and those who want to consume it. If not enough people want it, then it lost its purpose, and it's time to let the market adjust to new sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.
If you're worried about unemployment, abolish unemployment benefits, they increase the unemployment rate anyway.
All of this is relevant, by the way, because you said that taxes are "doing your part" - but if this is how they're used, that's definitely not true.
+1 to everything here, except I'd rather reform unemployment benefits than abolish them. Reduce fraud and eliminate long term programs (welfare, food stamps), that kind of thing. I don't have a problem with safety nets, but people shouldn't be pitching tents on them.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
