From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 07 2004 - 05:00:09 GMT
Jon,
> I find it disheartening that you jumped to conclusions so quickly. I was
> offering up ideas to ponder. Surely one can raise questions about how the tax
code
> is viewed in relation to how other issues are viewed. This time, deal with
> the ideas without worrying about where I personally stand on any given issue.
>
Guilty as charged. Sorry. Just a little defensive since the election. Won't
happen again.
> If one argues it is moral to tell a rich person what to do with their wealth,
> could the case be made that it is moral to tell a poor person what to do with
> their poorness? I think that's a fair question.
>
My personal feeling is that "social darwinism" does not reflect the reality that
poverty is binding. It is always the exception that proves the rule when a
formerly poor now millioniare is paraded about at rallies. People work hard and
still can't get ahead of a month's bills (or even less). I know many people
working two and three jobs who are struggling. These are not lazy people doing
nothing "with their poorness", they are hard working individuals who are
busting their asses every day of the week. Education disfavors the poor,
mortage rates and loan rates make it more expensive for a poor family to buy a
house, have higher monthy bills and face greater risks of bankruptcy than their
wealthy counterparts. They do not have a pool of capital to invest in stocks,
or land, or any of the other "have money to make money" opportunities. In
short, most poor people are hardworking, dedicated, good people, not lazy
slothful loafs. But the statistics bear out that those born to a class, stay in
that class. If it was just the slothful people, there would be a whole lot more
"slide" both up and down the ladder.
> And the other discussion I raised was about privacy, and what people consider
> permissible. Many in the United States have raised objections about the
> Patriot Act, because of privacy issues. If this is a legitimate complaint, is
the
> man who complains about the tax code standing in the same court (at least
> philosophically) as the man who complains about the Patriot Act? Instead of
> pondering this, you jumped to the conclusion that I support something along
the lines
> of no taxes. You apparently didn't consider these other options. Any or none
> of these could have the highest Quality.
Again, my apologies. I see at as thus, the patriot act is restricting, the tax
code is enabling. The patriot act dimishes my freedoms to go about my daily
life as I see fit. The tax code enables an infrastructure that allows me to
travel, to have access to books, museums and the protection on the police and
safety of EMTs.
The patriot acts tells me what I can't do. The tax code is a membership fee that
allows me to enjoy a social infrastructure that I otherwise would not have. In
this vein, you can tell that I would argue for...
> B. We should complain about the Patriot Act, but NOT the tax code. Taxes are
> the lifeblood of modern society. While it's morally wrong for society to chip
> away at our privacy, it is morally correct for society to tax us. Personal
> privacy is a good value. Personal wealth is inherently immoral, unless
utilized
> by the standards of society.
See, I don't see taxes as due to the inherent immorality of wealth (kings taxed
their slaves due to the inherent POWER of wealth). I see taxes as that which
allows society to provide an infrastructure that all americans can use. Some
may see it as redistributing wealth (a capitalist myth), I see it as creating
the very structure that sustains that wealth (such as public roads,
tax-supported corporate research, access to energy and those state parks that
are so beautiful in the fall to ride through). Some argue that privitization
would also provide an infrastructure. Judging by the likes of enron, oil
drilling in state lands, the historical legacy of "unregulated privitization",
I don't see this as anything I'd look forward to.
But excessive invasion of privacy is the beginning
> of the end for individuals to chart their own course in life. We can map out
> our own future adventures, and make our own rules to successfully navigate the
> rules of society and nature. We don't control the wind, but we control the
> sails. It's all over when society decides what map we follow.
I think I'd have a lot harder time charting that course if the roads were all
private toll roads, if libraries were all barnes and nobles, if i had to depend
on my family's wealth to determine how much education i would ever receive, if
i forgot my visa card when the emt showed up to administer aid, if i got sick
and could not afford medicine, all these things make it much more difficult for
me to chart my own course in life than paying a portion of my income in taxes.
I'd add to that like it or not, we are in a society. This society has benefits,
but those benefits require a significant infrastructure. To anyone claiming
that taxes are preventing them from living, I'd suggest they try to live a
month without leaning on the benefits that taxes provide.
And, I'd point out this. If taxes spelled the end of individual freedoms, why is
it that Sweden and Denmark, both with higher tax rates than we have, both have
higher per-capita happiness indexes than we have? Must be all that cold air...
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 07 2004 - 06:02:14 GMT