> This article has a fundamental flaw. It starts with the premise that some outrageous tax revenue level is necessary, and from that premise tries to analyze the fairness of the existing tax code.
> Honest question: Can someone convince me that it's not immoral to vote for a tax? Please don't down-vote me for asking a question, because I am honestly trying to understand. If you disagree, help persuade me.
Taxation is only "immoral" if you believe in radical individualistic libertarianism. That is not the only tenable view of the world (and I'd argue it's not even a tenable view of the world).
Alternatively:
1) Human beings are inherently social, communal creatures.
2) Division of labor requires social organization.
3) Without division of labor, you can't create wealth.
4) Government is created by groups of humans to implement social organization and facilitate division of labor.
5) Fine-grained division of labor yields a huge surplus (i.e. the total production of society using socially-organized division of labor is far higher than the aggregate production of a group of unorganized individuals).
6) The proceeds of that surplus, which exist but-for the institution of social organization, don't morally have to be distributed in any specific way.
7) The rules underlying the social organization are there for utilitarian reasons, and taxation is just another rule that should be justified on utilitarian reasons.
There are no God-given rights. "Rights" and "property" make no sense at all without society imposing, by the threat of force, certain rules on certain people for the greater good. "Theft" is different from "taxation" because the former is not sanctioned by society, for utilitarian reasons, while the latter is sanctioned, again for utilitarian reasons.
Zuckerberg and Elison wouldn't be rich but for the existence of government. They'd be at the bottom of the pecking order, physically weak nerds that would be enslaved or killed by the physically strong. Indeed, "billionaires" on their scale would not exist without government--a society without an effective government can't create that kind of wealth! When society institutes a set of rules to create a net benefit from the combined productivity of a large number of people, why is it "immoral" for society to then decide how those proceeds are distributed?
It's really not. The proposal in the article has a strong theoretical basis. Read the chapter on realization in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Taxation-Concepts-Insight....
> Honest question: Can someone convince me that it's not immoral to vote for a tax? Please don't down-vote me for asking a question, because I am honestly trying to understand. If you disagree, help persuade me.
Taxation is only "immoral" if you believe in radical individualistic libertarianism. That is not the only tenable view of the world (and I'd argue it's not even a tenable view of the world).
Alternatively: 1) Human beings are inherently social, communal creatures. 2) Division of labor requires social organization. 3) Without division of labor, you can't create wealth. 4) Government is created by groups of humans to implement social organization and facilitate division of labor. 5) Fine-grained division of labor yields a huge surplus (i.e. the total production of society using socially-organized division of labor is far higher than the aggregate production of a group of unorganized individuals). 6) The proceeds of that surplus, which exist but-for the institution of social organization, don't morally have to be distributed in any specific way. 7) The rules underlying the social organization are there for utilitarian reasons, and taxation is just another rule that should be justified on utilitarian reasons.
There are no God-given rights. "Rights" and "property" make no sense at all without society imposing, by the threat of force, certain rules on certain people for the greater good. "Theft" is different from "taxation" because the former is not sanctioned by society, for utilitarian reasons, while the latter is sanctioned, again for utilitarian reasons.
Zuckerberg and Elison wouldn't be rich but for the existence of government. They'd be at the bottom of the pecking order, physically weak nerds that would be enslaved or killed by the physically strong. Indeed, "billionaires" on their scale would not exist without government--a society without an effective government can't create that kind of wealth! When society institutes a set of rules to create a net benefit from the combined productivity of a large number of people, why is it "immoral" for society to then decide how those proceeds are distributed?