The Left Is Right — Taxes Are a Moral Issue

[WendyGirl33]

The Left Is Right — Taxes Are a Moral Issue

 

It is too bad that libertarians and conservatives rarely take on the left on moral grounds because the left's moral foundations are as weak as their economic foundations.

 

One principle that all those on the left hold is that taxes constitute more than an economic issue; they are, first and foremost, a moral one. Economists on the left may argue for higher taxes on economic grounds but they and we know that at bottom, higher taxes, especially “taxing the rich,” is what they believe morality demands.

 

For example, there are obviously only two possible ways to reduce government deficits: reduce spending or increase taxes (or some combination of both). The left advocates the later; the right advocates the former. Left-wing spokesmen, such as New York Times economics columnist and Princeton University professor of economics Paul Krugman, may offer economic arguments for raising taxes in order to lower government deficits, but their real motivations are moral: reducing economic inequality (by redistributing income) and expanding government (because government is the most effective way to help all citizens).

 

Now, as it happens, not only is there is nothing wrong with being animated by moral concerns — we should all be. The problem with the left’s advocacy of higher taxes is not that it is rooted in moral concerns. The problem — actually the two problems — are these:

 

First, higher taxes are rarely morally defensible. In fact, on purely moral grounds — in other words, even if they did effectively reduce the deficit without paying an economic price for doing so — they are usually not moral. More on this below.

 

Second, higher taxes are usually economically counterproductive. This does not matter to the left, however, because economic growth is not what most interests the left. Since Karl Marx, the left has always been far more interested in economic equality than in economic growth. It is true that liberals such as John F. Kennedy were more concerned with economic growth than with economic equality — which is why he advocated lowering taxes — but for much of the last century, unlike today, there was a major difference between liberal and left.

 

Now to return to the moral arguments, my difference with the left is not that I oppose morality dictating economic policy. I believe, in fact, that virtually all social policies should be rooted in moral concerns. My difference with the left is that I am convinced that moral considerations dictate lower, not higher, taxes.

 

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/09/24/the-left-is-right-taxes-are-a-moral-issue/

[i'maveryneatMonster.']

Ok.

[noonsun]

Well, raising taxes is obviously <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cutting spending. I don't know what you're trying to say exactly.

[Josh42]

Taxation, no matter what the form, is theft. All trade should be based on voluntary mutual exchange. Taxation is NOT voluntary.

 

[/thread]

[i'maveryneatMonster.']

I love how this WendyGirl starts threads with nonsense stuff and never posts back.

[flickahidalgo]

In my mind, taxes are just stealing people's money to pay people that don't work. Also, to pay for our leaders mistakes. If you want money, work for it.

[an angel]

I

n my mind, taxes are just stealing people's money to pay people that don't work. Also, to pay for our leaders mistakes. If you want money, work for it.

 

This.

[Josh42]

In my mind, taxes are just stealing people's money to pay people that don't work. Also, to pay for our leaders mistakes. If you want money, work for it.

 

I

 

This.

 

You two say this, but then you'll still go out and vote for some moronic "leaders" who you hope will increase your taxes a little bit less than the other guy.

[an angel]

Then are you never going to vote at all, Josh?

I don't know of any politician who doesn't have some sort of tax plan.

[Josh42]

Then are you never going to vote at all, Josh?

 

I'll keep my pride and dignity, thank you very much.

 

I don't know of any politician who doesn't have some sort of tax plan.

 

Exactly.

[an angel]

I don't know what you're saying there, but good luck finding someone to vote for during the next election. I don't think taxes will be going away anytime soon, unfortunately.

[Josh42]

I don't know what you're saying there, but good luck finding someone to vote for during the next election. I don't think taxes will be going away anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

Missed the point. I don't want to vote for anyone. A government without taxation wouldn't function, and therefore I believe having no government would work better than anything.

[flickahidalgo]

You two say this, but then you'll still go out and vote for some moronic "leaders" who you hope will increase your taxes a little bit less than the other guy.

 

Thats the thing. I don't vote. I think I only voted twice and that was it. I don't care much for politics.

[Josh42]

Thats the thing. I don't vote. I think I only voted twice and that was it. I don't care much for politics.

 

:heart:

 

I forgive you.

[an angel]

I don't think we can function without a government.

[flickahidalgo]

In any way, how come this Wendy girl make ridiculous threads and doesn't even reply to any of our comments?

[Josh42]

I don't think we can function without a government.

 

Really now? Who is "we"? You? Your family? What do you need from the government that is necessary for you to function?

[an angel]

I mean I don't think our country can function without a government. How would we deal with other nations? We'd be an easy target for an attack. Who would be making the decisions?

 

It's not going to work, unless every other country abolishes their governments too.

[Saffire]

Wow, Wendygirl is right for once. But she needs to take it a step further.

 

Okay, so we recognize that taxation is by definition theft (the taking of money via the threat of force/violence).

 

Of course, statists will claim that taxation is necessary to keep society functioning. This couldn't be further from the truth. The only thing a civil society requires is a stable currency that is generally trusted by the people. With it, we are able to voluntarily purchase security services, subscriptions to access privately-owned roads, insurance, etc.

 

Government isn't necessary, and it's always doomed to fail because it's a collectivist institution. This is where WendyGirl needs to intellectually mature - she's aware economic collectivism doesn't make sense, but she needs to take it a step further and understand that social collectivism is equally contrived.

[flickahidalgo]

@Josh: Exactly. Why would you need to have a government. I know I would be better off without a government. As it is, half of my paycheck goes to the government. I thought it was always about the people and get the people's opinion. Now we have leaders who can't even think for themselves. I wouldn't mind having a government if I could voice my opinion.

[an angel]

I love how nobody can answer my question.

 

Anyway, I don't think our government is anywhere near perfect. The government supposed to be for the people, but politicians are way too into themselves. However, I don't believe our nation cannot function at all without some sort of leadership. It just won't work.

[flickahidalgo]

^What is your exact question?

[an angel]

I mean I don't think our country can function without a government. How would we deal with other nations? We'd be an easy target for an attack. Who would be making the decisions?

 

It's not going to work, unless every other country abolishes their governments too.

 

What I said here. No one responded.

[MrMagpie]

WHITE PEOPLE

[Lore]

I love how this WendyGirl starts threads with nonsense stuff and never posts back.

 

a troll :wacky:

 

http://www.google.cl/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_esCL335CL335&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=WendyGirl33