financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Broadly speaking, I agree with the above statement.
Can anyone provide arguments to the contrary?
Can anyone provide arguments to the contrary?
Broadly speaking, I agree with the above statement.
Can anyone provide arguments to the contrary?
i'm more intrested in your arguement.
How do all you no tax people propose the government is ran, highways are funded, military built, etc...
Disagree.
I would sooner see tax is just another form of a contract than theft. The taxpayer surrenders money and as consideration gets the provision of services.
Considering that most of us here take part in representative democracies with verifiably free and fair elections, taxation is not theft, because, as our elected representatives, we have given them the authority to tax us to fund the government's--and, by extension, our--institutional interests.
An Athenian-style direct democracy, where all legislation was voted on by directly by the public, is flat-out infeasible, not only because of the kind of people who would likely turn out to show up (special interest groups with a set personality type), but also because we have a hard enough time getting people to show up to vote in a representative democracy..
Taxation is essentially an unequal contract as regards the small amount of power of the private citizen vis-a-vis the overwhelming power of the state.
I know you're a conservative Financeguy, but I can't help thinking this thread is a little tongue in cheek.
Ho hum. This ignores the practical reality that the nature of bureacracy is to expand itself. When has a government ever voted for less power for itself? When have parliamentarians ever voted for a reduction in their salaries?
I think you are right in the sense that it's hard to argue that for every taxpayer, there is a meeting of the minds between him/her and the government.
But do you really believe that other contracts are equal? If I am applying for a mortgage, what is my bargaining power up against an entity like HSBC or Bank of America? In pretty much every instance where an individual customer is at the mercy of a large corporation, you will have unequal bargaining power. Do we consider that to be theft? Is it lesser theft?
The practical reality is that bureaucracy expands, due to the failure of the electorate to choose proper representatives or punish them for misrepresenting them. The practical reality is that, when polled, for instance, most Americans support any slew of social programs, transportation spending, and a strong national defense, and many elected representatives are judged, at the local level, on what they bring back to their district. And, in spite of "low approval ratings" for Congress and the President, very few incumbent representatives are ever ousted (most people support their local representatives, while they despise those outside, whom they have no choice over), and only a handful of states ever swing from one party to the other come presidential election time.
In other words, the bureaucracy is bloated, spends too much while cutting taxes, and adds on pork projects because that is exactly what their constituents want. Democracy is working, in theory; it is the voters who have failed. The voters have exactly the kind of government that they want, because actions speak much louder than words or polls.
I simply do not agree with the thesis that a well-informed electorate are going to vote for pork-belly type projects whatever happens. If the electorate were truly informed about the results of their political choices, then I believe they will vote in much greater numbers in favour of, for want of a better expression, politicians of an anti-statist or libertarian bent.
Well anyway, the argument about taxation greatly predates our modern 'retail democracy', and indeed democracy itself. I'd say the practical argument about taxation ended around the time that kings took upon themselves the right to make war, or indeed to do anything much. In Britain's case, about a millenium.