Subject:
|
Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:17:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3171 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > If $10 per anum was considered a satisfactory level of payment, then surely a
> > greater tax (sales tax, etc.) is at least as satisfactory? Indeed, I believe the
> > proposal suggested that welfare (gleaned from taxes) be provided to the poor so
> > that they can pay their taxes!
>
> My point is that the *amount* isn't what's at stake, but the participation in
> the specific tax--sales tax, income tax, franchise tax, VAT, etc. Otherwise
> we're arguing about magic numbers--if $10 is sufficient, why not $11, etc.--
All right, but the point remains. Under my example, the low-wealth person
*is* participating in the tax framework, just as readily as if you'd assigned
some low figure as an appropriate level of taxation. I don't think it's
material to quibble over *which* particular tax is paid; more specifically, we
weren't discussing (or excluding) any particular tax until this point.
> "Would you sleep with me for $1 million?"
> "Sure."
> "How about for $1?"
> "What do you think I am, a prostitute?"
> "We've already established that, we're just dickering on amount!"
Well, you'd have to buy me dinner first, at least.
> since for any amount n, one can persuasively argue for n - 1 or n + 1.
But not if you're conscious of it in the aggregate. n+10 is not the same as
((((((((((n+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)
> The handing over of currency for the purpose of fulfilling taxation is what
> makes citizens responsible for their government. Once someone on welfare is
> given money, it becomes theirs in their mind. They are parting with
> something dear to them, and spending the time required to fulfill that
> responsibility.
I don't think I can accept that. If you hand me an apple expressly so that I
can hand it back to you, then at no time do I consider it mine, nor do I
perceive it to benefit you or me in any way--it simply exits the equation.
Charity, on the other hand, is given to me by one agency and (possibly) taxed by
another. If you give me an apple so that I can hand it to Hop-Frog and thereby
pay off my apple-debt, then I am spared the pain of his apple-wrath. But at
what point would I perceive the apple (or handed-off slice thereof) to be mine?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
