CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 18
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

[16th Amendment]

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Does today's current income tax amount to modern day feudalism?  Has anyone stopped to think about how much power the gov't has when they can decide how much of your money they can take from you?  We survived until 1913 without and income tax until Socialists, Populists and Democrats thought it was a great idea to control the people.

The Price of Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ame...es_Constitution

Tax Protester Constitutional Arguments

The question asked should be:
Is the expenditure of collected taxation on things not in the interest of the Republic IMMORAL ? On this I say YES !!! Moral issues iclude protecting our borders and protecting against enemies foreign and domestic......enforcing our laws.Paying for public conveyances that benefit the vast majority(roads for instance) Easy enough for me !

 P.G.C.

My number one reason for voting yes is because it results in a GREAT loss of privacy. I also believe it to substantially limit personal freedom, and is therefore wrong, at least in one way by implementing social engineering policy through the use of the tax code.

The Left claims to promote personal freedom and privacy, but they are the first to take it away from you. And the tax code is a BIG way in which they do it.


 

Your question is too vague.

Is an income tax immoral?  

First, is there something essentially immoral about taxing one's gain in wealth -- income, as opposed to taxing one's actual wealth?

Second, what if every member of the society understood the nature of the tax, saw nothing immoral about it, and agreed to it?

Suppose the tax was some small fraction of one's income -- say .00000001% of income.  

Then the question becomes: How could anyone see this income tax as an immoral tax?

Thirdly, what in the world do you mean by 'immoral' in this context?  

No...the question is straight forward. You choose to split hairs.

This is fine -- now you're making your position clear -- you take a strict deontological approach to morality and to the question of the morality of taxes.

You see the income tax as intrinsically wrong. You might see murder this way. Nothing can justify murder or the income tax -- not even agreement among all of us that it is alright to kill someone even if the benefits far outweigh any costs (to us).

By the way, are you an anarchist? Do you reject government coercion in every form?
Is the formation of a government morally justifiable?

Any tax on wealth, income and labor is immoral, 

Btw, don't you mean to put 'or' here rather than 'and'?  

What about "national defense"? Taxation for national defense is immoral as well?

The gov't is not a charitable organization and thus, shouldn't be involved in half the matters it is.

Is this waffling?  Are half the things that government raises taxes for morally permissible?

If a majority of people decided one day that slavery wasn't that bad, would it make slavery o.k.?
...
Immoral: not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior

So, by your definition of immoral... if the commonly accepted principle was that slavery is ok, then it would be the case that if the vast majority of people accepted it then it wouldn't be immoral.

For your info: I reject this notion that what is immoral or moral is determined by acceptecd principles of right and wrong.

By all means, start your own poll

Spare me how incredibly ignorant that someone can't take criticism.

This will be one of the rare times I'll agree w/the IS.

My suggestion is that for someone who doesn't like how things are going I'll make the same offer that's been made before. Pick a country and I mean any country then notify me of your choice. Then I'll help raise money to help you get there since things are so bad in this country.

There is nothing worse than anyone believing the government shouldn't be able to collect money from it's taxpayers to help pay for services rendered which would include the military that protects us.

(1)
This will be one of the rare times I'll agree w/the IS.
(2)
There is nothing worse than anyone believing the government shouldn't be able to collect money from it's taxpayers to help pay for services rendered which would include the military that protects us.

(1) My mother always said, "Be careful who you climb in bed with." It was good advice then, and is good advice now.

(2) L5799 never said the government could not levy a tax, he simply said to do it based on wealth or earnings was not right. There are plenty of alternatives, and most of them are in use too. There are taxes based on sales, real estate, consumption, etc.

So, I agree with L57, taxes based on labor and wealth are wrong and counter-productive.

L5799 never said the government could not levy a tax, he simply said to do it based on wealth or earnings was not right. There are plenty of alternatives, and most of them are in use too. There are taxes based on sales, real estate, consumption, etc.

So, I agree with L57, taxes based on labor and wealth are wrong and counter-productive.

I agree with you completely L5799 never said the gov't couldn't levy a tax.

You're right about there being plenty of alternatives.

The original question was: is a tax on income immoral?

I think, on reflection, this is not a vague question. It's a good question because it is so basic.

If it is immoral, I would ask, why?  I don't so much expect a good answer. I really want everyone to think about the question.

You apparently think there is a salient difference between sales taxes (and other taxes and fees) and income tax. Sales taxes are morally permissible but the income tax is morally wrong.

I don't understand this. The end result could be the same amount of tax is paid and the consequences equally productive or counter-productive but the income tax is morally wrong and all other taxes are permissible.  It makes no sense to me.

What is the moral difference between between taxing the net profits of farmer brown's sale of milk and taxing the purchase of the cow, the purchase of the hay, the purchase of the bucket, the purchase of the milking machine and the customer's purchase of the cow's milk?

Could it be you simply do not like the use of the term, immoral?



 

IS,

I'm not an anarchist; there is a role for gov't, but their role in our lives today is too large and inappropriate.  The gov't is responsible for protecting our rights and providing public goods, nothing more.  If there is a market for the good in the private sector, the gov't shouldn't be providing it.  We don't have a right to health care and education, among other things.  There is room for the private sector to handle these far more efficiently.  Thus, when the gov't gets involved in these matters, the gov't is simply stealing jobs and money away from its people.

As for the morality question, please see the next post.

[Income taxes are immoral, economically unsound]

The Herald Journal

Income taxes are immoral, economically unsound

By Travis Lee Rubeck
Former Monticello resident

By taxing a person's income, the state is claiming ownership rights to the private wealth of its citizens. This claim is contrary to the moral philosophy on which America's political-economic system is based.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that Man should not live for the State; the State should exist to serve Man. The Constitution of the United States of America carries this philosophy into a practical outline for the just government of a free society.
Neither of these essential documents acknowledges the right of the state to seize any portion of a law-abiding citizen's wealth. Instead, emphasis is laboriously given to the means by which the state can protect the individual rights of its citizens. The only exception is the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution, which provides for "just compensation" whenever it is implemented.
The only moral justification for any form of government is the protection of individual rights. No individual has a right to another person's property. Income is wealth, and wealth is property. Since neither the state nor the individual has a right to the property of private law-abiding citizens, any income taxation is unjust and unconstitutional. To support income taxation is to acknowledge that citizens are not entirely private and must sacrifice their productivity to the "needs" of the state.
 This philosophy is not only unjust, it is economically unsound and detrimental to American prosperity.

Continued at link above

Could it be you simply do not like the use of the term, immoral?

Not at all, in fact I said I think the question: 'Is an income tax immoral?' is a good one because its so basic.

The basic argument that pure libertarians give is that the state and its monopoly on coercion has a fundamental problem with morally justifying its existence and practices.

I agree totally with this-- is taxation of any sort morally justifiable -- my god, it's litterally taking money from people who don't really want to give it up.

But why is an income tax thought to be immoral and not other taxes. This puzzles me.

Sure I can see all sorts of extrinsic components to an income tax that might make it questionable-- but eliminate those components and take another look at the tax.

Lovely5799 -- You very reasonably believe that government has gotten too big, does too much and takes too much of our money to do it.


That's fine. If I read this correctly, it's not that you see something inherent or intrinsic in the nature of an income tax -- you just think that too much is too much.

I won't disagree with this. Income taxes are fine if they're low, fair, not too burdensome and the proceeds are used for those essential things (national defense, police? fire? ) that are best provided for through a community or nation wide effort.+

So nothing intrinsically morally wrong with an income tax -- just don't abuse it.

Income taxes are immoral, economically unsound

By Travis Lee Rubeck

Whoa -- this is one reason I love this forum

I love arguments of this sort --  I haven't read the entire piece yet -- but this seems to be the structure of his argument:


Premise 1: It is morally wrong for the government to take a person's property (wealth).
Premise 2: The income tax takes a person's property.
Hence, the income tax is morally wrong and not legal.

This is perfectly valid argument. Let's assume that both of the premises are true.

Isn't this then, an equally sound argument?:

Premise 1: It is morally wrong for the government to take a person's property (wealth).
Premise 2: Any sales tax, excise tax, i.e, any tax or fee takes a person's property.
Therefore, Sales taxes, excise taxes, i.e, any tax or fee is morally wrong and not legal.



 

Immoral? I guess that is up to each individuel.....But if you think about the old "cheach and Chong" line  [German voice]..... Signs zee papers old man!

You sign under the duress of perjury? you make a mistake... your guilty of perjury?

Well I cannot sign zee papers because .,... You have broken all of my fingers.  

Is the expenditure of collected taxation on things not in the interest of the Republic IMMORAL ?

You really don't have to like it because the question does stand to be technically correct.

I guess if there are things you believe that need to be changed and it's time to get the signatures on since there are obviously such strong feelings on your part. I'm not saying they're wrong, the answer is it's time to put yourself in the batters box.

The additional question of taxation has been asked since the birth of Jesus, because if taxes hadn't need be paid who knows where he would've been born. Since this is an age old question, do you really have the age old sought after answer?

Keep those smart a** remarks coming, learn to multi-task it's good for you. Besides if I or Pugergee don't stop what are you going to do about it other than cry?  

A voluntary consumption tax is the only method of taxation that is in accordance with the fundamentals of American political-economic philosophy.
When properly implemented, a consumption tax fully funds the civic duties of the state. It is also completely voluntary, as people are only taxed when they make a purchasing choice.

This was enjoyable.

Rubick is attempting to provide an essential distinction between a sales tax and an income tax that would establish that the one is morally permissible while the other is not. I'll give him credit for that.

Good for him. Unfortunately, he fails to justify the distinction.

A completely voluntary tax? Isn't this an oxymoron?

The British levied a tax on tea. No colonist was forced to buy tea. Did they over-react in throwing the tea into Boston harbor?

I suspect they saw the tax as unfair and wrong -- taking their money to support the crown when they didn't want to give money to the king.

A voluntary tax is one that you aren't forced to pay -- you can take it or leave it. You buy the item and then you can contribute x% to the king or not--it's your choice. If you don't get the tea without paying the tax it's not a voluntary tax.

I could use Rubeck's argument to show that the income tax is voluntary. No one is forced to  accept any money for their work. IF you voluntarily accept payment for work then you voluntarily pay the tax for that income.

The heading for all this is the concept that government legitimacy is based on the (voluntary) consent of the governed. What constitutes consent?
Does buying an item mean that I agree or consent to paying the tax?

Does living in and becoming a citizen of the United States mean that I voluntarily consent to obey the laws -- and to pay income taxes?  

If so, then the income tax is a voluntary tax.

Further Reading:  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

BTW, logicians call this a scope fallacy.


An example:

A bomber pilot is given orders to drop a bomb and destroy fuel storage tanks. The pilot does it -- his goal or intention was to drop a bomb on the fuel storage tanks. If the fuel had not been a high-value target the order wouldn't have been issued and he  would not have dropped the bombs there.

iHe knew that a guard would be standing near the target and would be will be killed by the explosions that resulted from the initial blast. It simply does not follow that the pilot intended to kill that guard-- that was not his purpose.

The intention was the destruction of the fuel -- the intention does not include within its range the killing of the guard.

[Wikipedia:  An agent's intention in performing an action is their specific purpose in doing so, the end or goal they aim at, or intend to accomplish.]


I am not forced to buy some x. But if I voluntarily and intentionally buy x, it does not follow that I voluntarily and intentionally payed the tax that is added to the price of x.

My choice was to get the item x. That was my goal, that was my choice. My goal was not to pay a tax -- I did not pay the tax by choice--that was not my purpose.

Buying x is matter of choice, the choice does not range over paying the tax that is added onto x.

Saying that I could have avoided buying x does not establish that the tax was voluntary any more than saying that the pilot could have avoided dropping the bomb establishes that he intentionally killed the guard.