RoR: Forum

I'll vote for that.

So, why do we pay taxes, then if no one wants them. I mean, in a democracy, would that not be a challenge?

Marnie Thompson defies the conventional wisdom that wealthy people don't like taxes.
She's on a public relations and lobbying campaign to see her own taxes go up.
"I'm proud to pay my taxes; it's a hallmark of democracy," says Thompson, the daughter of a wealthy businessman who gave $5 million she would have inherited to found a charity.
"As a wealthy person, I want you to tax me more," she writes to her elected officials.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125918497

Dozens of wealthy liberals are urging President Obama to kill their Bush-era tax cuts. Are they being patriotic or political?
More than 40 super-wealthy Americans have joined together to urge President Obama to end the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $1 million a year. The group, which calls itself the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, includes big-time Democratic donors such as trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.
http://theweek.com/article/index/209622/the-patriotic-millionaires-who-want-to-pay-more-taxes

In a politically free society, based on inalienable rights, they would all be perfectly free to do so.

Post 1

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:18pm

Those who want to pay more have always been free to do so. The IRS will accept donations at anytime from anybody.

But those people who are clamoring to pay more taxes don't just want to pay more themselves and let it stop there. They want to have the government point a gun at others and take their money away from them.

I suspect that Michael's point is really a form of stealth anarchism - his assertion that in a politically free society, based upon inalienable rights we would not have to pay taxes. Look at the facts. There will be a cost to creating and maintaining the society that best promotes and protects individual rights. The cost can, utimately be paid with various voluntary fees. But that will take time to achieve. In the meantime the cost will come in taxes and the first struggle is to achieve a political stucture and an effective supportive populace that respect and defend a constitution that embodies those rights. Again it takes time, and the course to be followed is to cut off all spending that isn't mandated by that constitution and to keep making those taxes smaller and smaller. Once a strong start is made, the improvement will likely progress over time in an exponential fashion. The alternative is what? Anarchy? I don't think so - not for those that care about protecting those rights.
---------------------

As regards Obama's statement... it stands as evidence of the slippery dishonesty inherent in his rhetoric. That most people don't believe they should be taxed more, is clearly not a valid rebutting of the position that taxes should not be raised. He makes a smirking aside that people are selfish and choose their arguments to cloak those selfish ends, and acts as if that adequately addresses the economic, political and moral issues inherent in his advocacy of higher taxes.

Whoever battles him in 2012 needs arguments like these:
- The believe their taxes are high enough because they are - because they are too high - because the average American works almost six months of every year to pay the taxes you have burdened him with.
- They earned their money, it belongs to them, and would-be Marxists need to learn about property rights and free enterprise.
- What makes you think you have the right to take other peoples money away from them?
- Your class-warfare attacks on the rich and on business are identical to the Marxists attitudes and arguments and they just as out of place in a free America.
- When you call for tax increases to replace borrowing, it is your way of saying you want big government and don't want to reduce spending - you want to transform us into a giant government nation permanently installed behind massive taxes.

Post 2

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 3:01pm

Contrast this quote with the other (contradictory) one that I posted from the same speech, where Obama says that America is a great nation because we're so generous. As you said, Steve, there is a "slippery dishonesty inherent in his rhetoric." Because he's playing on emotions and not logic, he gets away with directly contradicting himself within a single speech.

First, he said folks don't think they should pay more -- with the insinuation that they are wrong in how they feel about that. The correct feelings we should have, according to Obama, is the feeling that we should pay more. This is not unlike a rapist telling his victim that she actually wants/enjoys it.

Then, in almost the same breath where he said we think we shouldn't pay more, he says that what makes us great is that we are so generous, with the insinuation that it would be against our nature (as cattle-led-to-slaughterhouse?) to avoid putting our heads on the chopping block when asked -- often at the point of a gun -- to sacrifice for someone "in need." Continuing with the rape analogy, that is not unlike a rapist telling his victim that what makes her so great is her overflowing sexuality.

In both cases, there is a vicious predator who wants to cash-in on perpetuating self-doubt and self-abnegation in others -- like the leader of a cult of self-sacrifice.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/14, 3:09pm)

Post 3

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 6:36pm

Very well said, Ed.

Friday, April 15, 2011 - 8:11pm

Thanks, Steve.

Ed

Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 1:41pm

I suspect that Michael's point is really a form of stealth anarchism - his assertion that in a politically free society, based upon inalienable rights we would not have to pay taxes.

I would not characterize that as stealth anarchism. In fact, I would say that a conventional Objectivist who firmly believes in minarchism would be violating a fundamental principle of Objectivism in defending involuntary taxation.

There is no reason why all the monopoly services offered by a minarchist government can't be financed by fees paid by the users of the services.

From Wikipedia:

"Rand's view of the ideal government is expressed by John Galt, who says, "The political system we will build is contained in a single moral premise: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force", and claims that "no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality � to think, to work and to keep the results � which means: the right of property"."

How exactly can one tax someone without "obtain(ing) values from others by resorting to physical force" and by violating "the right of property" by taking it without consent and in exchange for "services" that the taxed person often views of lesser value than the property coerced from them, and oftentimes for "services" that actively destroy value?
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 4/16, 1:44pm)

Post 6

Saturday, April 16, 2011 - 3:40pm