I should have asked this yesterday, but, that is just things go. Here is the question for the day:
Are tax rates a moral issue?
by John Cole| 18 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
I should have asked this yesterday, but, that is just things go. Here is the question for the day:
Are tax rates a moral issue?
Comments are closed.
Dan
Partially yes, although strict adherence to ‘morality’ in economics could make anyone broke! And, despite the recommendations of the Saints, you can’t help anyone being broke……..
Brandon
No. Taxes have to be collected. A moral issue would assume that it was possible that they not be collected. A 100% tax rate is impossible; so is a 0% tax rate. The rest is simply negotiation amomg people to achieve a compromise rate.
Steve Malynn
For the collector yes, for the payor no, for the spender of taxes yes. The idea of public service is devalued when every public servant does not begin and end his day with the thought that he is spending someone else’s money, for the supposed benefit of the public.
the talking dog
To the extent that morality is wonderfully subjective, the answer is “they are if you say they are”.
Taxation rates are a fundamentally political decision. How you feel about the taxation rates employed by the political system should reflect your feelings for the political system.
To the extent that the current chief executive of our political system, whose party is squarely in control of the other two branches of government as well, has, in the comfort of his golf cart, decided that tax rates are a “moral issue”, and is lowering them accordingly, good for him– he is following his “moral code”, and the polity should not be TOO offended insofar as he (and our other representatives) were legally (if controversially) elected.
To the extent, however that his moral imperative is to tax at no more than 33% of GDP while presiding over spending at a HIGHER level than that, he is little more than a fraud and a thief– stealing from future taxpayers (who may or may not get the bill while he is still in office.
To me– that is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT moral issue– which you seem to be leaving unaddressed, other than to tepidly say you “object to Republicans failure to control spending”.
John Cole
I am not tepid about it, I am actually quite angry. I voted for them to lower taxes and cut spending, and they seem to only understand half of the equation.
Dantheman
I thought you promised JKC that the question of the day was going to be the converse of the one you have been asking, i.e., which governmental spending which benefits you are you willing to see cut in order to reduce your taxes.
In answer to your other questions, tax rates are to me not a moral issue. I would object to tax rates over roughly 50% of total income as counterproductive, except in times of national emergency.
Dean Esmay
Taxes are a moral issue.
Taxes are, in fact, a human rights issue.
Yes, taxes have to be collected. We have to enforce laws too, but that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as an immoral law.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Moral questions should always be at the forefront of any decision to impose a tax.
John Yuda
I think they can be, but that there still isn’t a magic number above which they’re necessarily immoral.
The government should tax enough to pay for those social services the population wants provided. No less – I’m strongly opposed to deficit spending, and no less (not counting, say, paying off old debts).
Where it becomes immoral, to me, isn’t at a specific number, but where the tax collector starts collecting more so he, she, they, or it can skim off the top to fatten themselves up.
John Cole
Dantheman- I am trying to find an easy to comprehend list of what expenditures are what, down to what programs are what and how much. Once I have that, I intend to play the “Whose Ox Gets Gored” game.
Tony Hooker
Yes.
That doesn’t mean it is always a clear black and white answer, but excessive taxation is morally wrong, and tantamount to theft at the hands of the state.
Chris Van Dis
No, tax rates are not a moral issue. Paying or cheating when it comes time for their collection is a moral issue. Taxation is a necessary evil. A certain amout needs to be gathered for defense, maintanence of public properties ( national monuments, parks, roads, etc..) and other outlays per the Constitution. What is more likely a moral issue here is this: Is it a moral issue to use the weapon of governmental coersion to steal from the “rich” employed to give to the “poor” beneficiaries of various welfare programs ( whether personal welfare, or corporate/agricultural subsidies, and various “grants” for useless studies). Is it a moral issue to force, at the threat of jail, people to contribute to a failing pension fund? Social security tax is like a forced 401k with Enron and Kmart as your choice.
JKC
Always a wierd day when I find myself agreeing with Steve Malynn… :)
Chris- In debating Social Security we should remember that it’s more than just a pension program: it pays benefits to the disabled and to widows and orphans, regardless of their contribution to the plan.
90210
If you’re asking whether I get the same ‘gut feeling’ about tax rates that I get about murder or littering being wrong, then no.
M. Scott Eiland
Certainly taxes are a moral issue. Unfortunately, since the New Deal the morals in question have been those of Willie Sutton.
Watcher
Taxes are definitely a moral issue. Perhaps they are a necessary evil, but what form should they take and what impact will changes in the tax code have on the economy?
Nigel Kearney
Taking someone’s property without their consent is a violation of rights and therefore certainly raises moral issues. It’s not necessarily impermissible though, provided you have sufficient justification.
When the (U.S.) courts assess other rights violations, restrictions on freedom of speech for example, they employ a three part test:
1. Does the proposed law or regulation [e.g. censorship] further a compelling government objective?
2. Is there a rational connection between the proposed law and the desired objective?
3. Is the proposed law or regulation the least intrusive way [i.e. least impact on rights] that the desired objective can be achieved?
This seems to me to be an ideal test for taxation as well.
thomas
Yes tax rates are a moral issue. They are the taken by force theft of a persons work. But just as a steak lover has to except the killing of cattle for the steak , we have to accept taxes for the price of government services. For Dan, sweden once tried to tax a film director 110% of his income
RHJunior
“Does the proposed law or regulation further a compelling government objective?”
We forget that the only compelling objective any government has is the preservation of individual human rights and liberty. All else is self-serving and tyranny.
And to those who say morality is “subjective:” I note that without fail those who proclaim that morality is subjective, not objective, tend to object quite loudly to “subjective morality” when they are the subject in question.
Lemme back up and take another run at it:
on what grounds is the taking of an individual’s property or money considered moral?
1)when they have committed violence, fraud or theft– in which case it is a reclaiming of stolen goods, and not relevant to the question, or the application of punitive damages– “you broke it, you bought it.”
2)When the individual is a recipient of services or goods which have to be paid for.
To take money from someone and give them nothing in return is explicitly immoral, because it constitutes fraud and theft.
To give that money, goods or services to someone else who has not earned them is also immoral– because it constitutes plunder of the productive and subsidizing of the nonproductive.
If you, or your given social group, are the sole recipient of a service or product, you alone, or your group alone, are morally obligated to pay for it. Others may choose to help you pay for it out of charity, but it must be of their own individual free choice— if they are coerced by any means to pay for your individual debt, it is not charity but plunder.
So the conclusion is that the revenue generated by taxation must directly benefit every single person who is subjected to that tax. In short, porkbarrel projects, welfare, social security, government instituted monopolies (such as the US postal service and the government educational system) and other selective systems of taxation are explicitly immoral, because they take from one person and give them nothing in return, and give to someone else that which they have not earned. They constitute both theft, and fraud.
National Security and law enforcement are two areas for which taxation is moral— because every single person in the nation directly benefits from the application of these two services. Quite frankly, they are the only two areas that come to mind which are actual legitimate services of government and not served better by private industry and the marketplace.
Summation: **IF YOU TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEONE, YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DELIVER THE GOODS YOU PROMISED THEM.SO IF YOU TAKE MONEY FROM EVERYONE, YOU’D BETTER BE ABLE TO DELIVER A PRODUCT OR SERVICE THAT BENEFITS ALL OF THEM DIRECTLY. OTHERWISE, YOU ARE A THIEF.**