[Timo]

Op-Ed of interest:

What Would Jesus Do? Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners
By ADAM COHEN



MONTGOMERY, Ala.


If the religious right had called up Central Casting last year to fill the part of governor, it could hardly have done better than the teetotaling, Bible-quoting businessman from rural central Alabama who now heads up the state. As a Republican congressman, Bob Riley had a nearly perfect record of opposing any legislation supported by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

But Governor Riley has stunned many of his conservative supporters, and enraged the state's powerful farm and timber lobbies, by pushing a tax reform plan through the Alabama Legislature that shifts a significant amount of the state's tax burden from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations. And he has framed the issue in starkly moral terms, arguing that the current Alabama tax system violates biblical teachings because Christians are prohibited from oppressing the poor.

If Governor Riley's tax plan becomes law ? the voters still need to ratify it in September ? it will be a major victory for poor people, a rare thing in the current political climate. But win or lose, Alabama's tax-reform crusade is posing a pointed question to the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family and other groups that seek to import Christian values into national policy: If Jesus were active in politics today, wouldn't he be lobbying for the poor?

Alabama's tax system has long been brutally weighted against the least fortunate. The state income tax kicks in for families that earn as little a $4,600, when even Mississippi starts at over $19,000. Alabama also relies heavily on its sales tax, which runs as high as 11 percent and applies even to groceries and infant formula. The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent.

A main reason Alabama's poor pay so much is that large timber companies and megafarms pay so little. The state allows big landowners to value their land using "current use" rules, which significantly lowball its worth. Individuals are allowed to fully deduct the federal income taxes they pay from their state taxes, something few states allow, a boon for those in the top brackets.

Governor Riley's plan, which would bring in $1.2 billion in desperately needed revenue, takes aim at these inequalities. It would raise the income threshold at which families of four start paying taxes to more than $17,000. It would scrap the federal income tax deduction and increase exemptions for dependent children. And it would sharply roll back the current-use exemption, a change that could cost companies like Weyerhaeuser and Boise Cascade, which own hundreds of thousands of acres, millions in taxes. Governor Riley says that money is too tight to lift the sales tax on groceries this time, but that he intends to work for that later.

Church and state are not as separate in Alabama as they are in most places. (The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was in federal court last week defending his decision to install a 2.5-ton rendering of the Ten Commandments in the state's main judicial building.) Alabamians are used to hearing their politicians make religious arguments, and Governor Riley thinks he can convince the voters that Christian theology calls for a fairer tax system. "I've spent a lot of time studying the New Testament, and it has three philosophies: love God, love each other, and take care of the least among you," he said. "I don't think anyone can justify putting an income tax on someone who makes $4,600 a year."

The state's progressive voters, including many in the sizable African-American community, have backed tax-law changes like these for years. And reform-minded business leaders, who see such tax changes and improved schools as crucial to the state's economic development, have promised to spend millions of dollars on television ads in support of the September referendum.

But religious groups could provide the margin of victory. Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama tax professor with a theological degree from an evangelical divinity school, caused a stir with a law review article called "An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics," which makes an evangelical case for making the tax system fairer. She plans to train speakers this summer to take the theological argument to the grass roots. Kimble Forrister, the state coordinator of Alabama Arise, a coalition that advocates for poor people, expects the 100 church groups that are part of his organization to hold church-basement workshops this summer to get the word out to their congregations.

The Christian Coalition of Alabama has not yet taken a position on the September vote, but it has been speaking out against the plan's tax increases. In an interview yesterday, John Giles, the group's president, had trouble pointing to a biblical passage that directly supported his opposition to new taxes, but he referred to Jesus' statement about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The key question, he argued, is, "How much is Caesar's?"

As the Bush administration and the religious right fight to put theology more squarely into public policy discussions, they are going to have to be ready for arguments like the ones coming out of Alabama. Many theologians argue that it is far easier to find support in the Bible for policies that help the poor than for, say, a cut in the dividend tax. If Governor Riley's crusade succeeds this summer, Alabama may offer the nation a model for a new kind of tax system: one where the Devil is not in the details.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/opinion/10TUE4.html

[zigzag]

Presents an interesting test for people on both sides of the political aisle: can Christian conservatives who profess compassion for the poor reconcile their values with inequitable tax policies? And can secularist liberals who want to change the tax laws reconcile it with the fact that such a movement might be faith-based?

I'm not saying that these things can't be reconciled, but they do present interesting questions.

[daimoni]

.

[davesimondotcom]

There is a difference between the government instituting "morality" by legislation so that "rich" pay more taxes and those "rich" actually being more moral.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There is a difference between the government instituting "morality" by legislation so that "rich" pay more taxes and those "rich" actually being more moral.

Which is another angle on the questions I posed earlier: is morality/ethics even a governmental concern, and if so, to what degree? Does the fact that it might be faith-based make a difference?

I'm not smart enough to provide an answer, I just think it's an interesting question.

In either case, I applaud the governor for being willing to risk his career on principle (although my natural skepticism about politics leads me to believe that there's more to this than meets the eye).

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There is a difference between the government instituting "morality" by legislation so that "rich" pay more taxes and those "rich" actually being more moral.

Ah, the old "legislating morality" argument.

Such a terrible argument. Virtually all laws are "morality".

Isn't the 10 Commandments "legislating morality"? Is it less moral to obey God's law than to do it without being told?

It's not like these "moral" laws are being imposed by an alien authority (like God), they are self-imposed through a representative democratic system. You know, of, by and for the people. The good people of Alabama will have a choice whether or not they want to play by the new rules.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that the suggested reforms (as presented in the article) sound like a positive change.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ah, the old "legislating morality" argument.

Such a terrible argument. Virtually all laws are "morality".

There's a difference between laws making murder illegal and taking someone's money to redistribute it just because YOU think it's moral.

After all, we do have an equal protection clause in our Constitution.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Isn't the 10 Commandments "legislating morality"? Is it less moral to obey God's law than to do it without being told?

The 10 Commandments are a religious rule. Not law.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It's not like these "moral" laws are being imposed by an alien authority (like God), they are self-imposed through a representative democratic system. You know, of, by and for the people. The good people of Alabama will have a choice whether or not they want to play by the new rules.

That's semi-true. Are you saying that the MAJORITY of people can legislate that a minority should have to pay more taxes than others? That violates equal protection and would endanger our representative form of government.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the suggested reforms (as presented in the article) sound like a positive change.

I'm not going to tell another state what they can and cannot do (not that they would listen anyway.)

I'm simply saying that the author's use of the word "morality" is kind of interesting.

If it were truly a morality change going on, the companies and individuals would VOLUNTEER to give more money to charities, helping poorer people.

As it is, they aren't being any more moral by paying more taxes. They are just paying more taxes.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There's a difference between laws making murder illegal and taking someone's money to redistribute it just because YOU think it's moral.

Not really. They are both moral laws for starters. And it has nothing to do with what I think is moral. The voters of the state of Alabama will decide.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The 10 Commandments are a religious rule. Not law.

I only mention it because I hear the "legislating morality" argument most often from the religious right. Irony. I'm not accusing you of that, just noting the irony.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'm not going to tell another state what they can and cannot do (not that they would listen anyway.)

I'm simply saying that the author's use of the word "morality" is kind of interesting.

If it were truly a morality change going on, the companies and individuals would VOLUNTEER to give more money to charities, helping poorer people.

As it is, they aren't being any more moral by paying more taxes. They are just paying more taxes.

So you're not moral for not killing people because you're just obeying some law imposed on you?

Practically all laws are moral laws. The Social Contract is a moral obligation. You can volunteer to not enjoy the benefits of our Society if you feel the compromises are too great.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I only mention it because I hear the "legislating morality" argument most often from the religious right. Irony. I'm not accusing you of that, just noting the irony.

I am as far from the religious right as you can get.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So you're not moral for not killing people because you're just obeying some law imposed on you?

Slightly different, IMHO.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Practically all laws are moral laws. The Social Contract is a moral obligation. You can volunteer to not enjoy the benefits of our Society if you feel the compromises are too great.

I'm just saying that making someone pay more taxes is not making that person more moral. And the act of taking that person's money in the form of taxation is not necessarily moral either.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So you're not moral for not killing people because you're just obeying some law imposed on you?

Yes. Morality isn't an action, it's a state of mind. If you're doing something good because you are forced to do it, then you're not being moral, any more than you would be immoral for doing something bad because you were forced to do it. This is something commonly forgotten both by the Christian Right and the Socialist Left.

Practically all laws are moral laws. The Social Contract is a moral obligation.

And where does this so-called "Social Contract" come from? And whence did this entity (whatever it may be) derive the authority to impose that moral obligation?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I only mention it because I hear the "legislating morality" argument most often from the religious right. Irony. I'm not accusing you of that, just noting the irony.

My own intended point was that the irony can be two-sided. When I saw the article I thought "Hmm, seems like good policy, not just in terms of equity, but probably good for business in general. Win-win." But then when I saw what was behind it - religious doctrine - I had to check my thinking, i.e. even if the cause is good, can I reconcile it with my firm belief in secular government? After all, I'm often one to complain about religion influencing policy - do I make an exception when I happen to think the end result might be agreeable to me? If I say "I like your thinking on this, Governor", what do I do when he says "I'm also introducing a bill to outlaw the sale of beer - my religious convictions deem it to be immoral"?

I agree with you that these things ultimately get resolved at the ballot box ("Politics makes for strange bedfellows"), I just think it raises some interesting questions about people's political convictions, including my own. I might be tilting at windmills, though.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'm just saying that making someone pay more taxes is not making that person more moral. And the act of taking that person's money in the form of taxation is not necessarily moral either.

I guess the sticking point is whether or not they're "making" some people pay higher taxes. As I understand it, they appear to be committed to the idea that lots of people will willingly accept the moral obligation of caring for the "least among them".

Will they still not be moral even if they are willing just because it's codified into the law?

No doubt there will be those who do not agree but will be subject to the law on the matter (if it passes). I wouldn't be surprised if they volunteer to take their business elsewhere.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes. Morality isn't an action, it's a state of mind. If you're doing something good because you are forced to do it, then you're not being moral, any more than you would be immoral for doing something bad because you were forced to do it. This is something commonly forgotten both by the Christian Right and the Socialist Left.

And where does this so-called "Social Contract" come from? And whence did this entity (whatever it may be) derive the authority to impose that moral obligation?

You seem to pinning your argument on the idea that no one will be doing this willingly. From the article, it appears that the proponents feel just the opposite.

If you're unfamiliar with the Social Contract, then you've ignored the Enlightenment principles and philosophy that this nation (and it's laws) were founded on.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess the sticking point is whether or not they're "making" some people pay higher taxes. As I understand it, they appear to be committed to the idea that lots of people will willingly accept the moral obligation of caring for the "least among them".

What happens if you don't pay your taxes? Jail time? Confiscation of property? I consider that "making" someone pay.

If they really thing that people would willingly accept the "obligation" of caring for others, they wouldn't need legislation.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Will they still not be moral even if they are willing just because it's codified into the law?

I'm just saying you don't need legislation for people to help. And making them pay extra taxes doesn't make them moral. It makes them taxpayers.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No doubt there will be those who do not agree but will be subject to the law on the matter (if it passes). I wouldn't be surprised if they volunteer to take their business elsewhere.

But, of course, they'll then be subject to criticism for moving their business to someplace more "tax friendly."

Perhaps they'll even be called immoral.

[vmarks]

Dave, Dave, when are you gonna run for office?

Course, I'd have to move to ND to vote for you, but darn it- it'd be worth it.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, when your Anarcho-Syndicalist commune of pure moral volunteers operating on the honor system is up and running, I might consider joining.

In the meantime, I have no problem with people using democratic processes to creates rules that they agree to play by.

If such a tax reform ever was propossed in California, I would happily and joyfully file my taxes every april with a smile on my lips and a song in my heart.

Are people really attacking the idea of Social Contract? Are we going backward in time here?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Are people really attacking the idea of Social Contract? Are we going backward in time here?

Forward. Can't go forward without learning the lessons of the past.

May I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...052446-8408041
?

The truth, however, is that social justice as customarily conceived is precisely not a kind of justice.

On the contrary, such "social" justice essentially involves what, by the standards of old -fashioned, without-prefix-or-suffix justice must constitute a paradigm case of flagrant injustice: namely, the abstraction under the threat of force (the taxing away) of some of what must be defeasibly presumed to be the justly acquired income and capital of the better off in order to give it (less, of course, some often substantial service charge) to those whom previous just acquisitions or lack of just acquisitions have left worse off. The tacit and even sometimes explicit identification of justice with equality is equally erroneous. For the rules of justice, like all rules, require not that all individuals, but only that all relevantly like individuals, should be treated in the same way. Who, for instance, would recognize a system which insisted that the guilty should be treated in exactly the same way as the innocent as a system of justice ?

Most of those professing concern to promote what they call social justice conceal from themselves the force, indeed even the possibility of such objections, by tacitly assuming that the sum of all the incomes received and all the wealth owned within some nation is already the collective property of that nation. Hence it is available, free of all morally legitimate prior ownership claims, for redistribution at the absolute discretion of (socially) just redistributors.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Dave, Dave, when are you gonna run for office?

Course, I'd have to move to ND to vote for you, but darn it- it'd be worth it.

Further west, my friend. Montana. Although anything in Montana east of Billings shall be hereby called "West Dakota."

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
In the meantime, I have no problem with people using democratic processes to creates rules that they agree to play by.

All I am saying is that it is very easy for the majority to vote away money from a minority.

[OAW]

I'd like one of those who are complaining about "wealth redistribution" to explain to me the fairness in this:

"The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent."

All theories aside, the bottom line is that the State is going to get its piece of the action from an economic standpoint. Thus, the question becomes "From whom?" and "How much?". If one thinks that the poor should pay nearly 11% of their income in taxes while the rich pay only 4%, then please explain why. And if one thinks that this situation is not equitable, then what should be done to rectify the system?

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Forward. Can't go forward without learning the lessons of the past.

May I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...052446-8408041
?

The truth, however, is that social justice as customarily conceived is precisely not a kind of justice.

On the contrary, such "social" justice essentially involves what, by the standards of old -fashioned, without-prefix-or-suffix justice must constitute a paradigm case of flagrant injustice: namely, the abstraction under the threat of force (the taxing away) of some of what must be defeasibly presumed to be the justly acquired income and capital of the better off in order to give it (less, of course, some often substantial service charge) to those whom previous just acquisitions or lack of just acquisitions have left worse off. The tacit and even sometimes explicit identification of justice with equality is equally erroneous. For the rules of justice, like all rules, require not that all individuals, but only that all relevantly like individuals, should be treated in the same way. Who, for instance, would recognize a system which insisted that the guilty should be treated in exactly the same way as the innocent as a system of justice ?

Most of those professing concern to promote what they call social justice conceal from themselves the force, indeed even the possibility of such objections, by tacitly assuming that the sum of all the incomes received and all the wealth owned within some nation is already the collective property of that nation. Hence it is available, free of all morally legitimate prior ownership claims, for redistribution at the absolute discretion of (socially) just redistributors.

I'm just wondering how your empassioned argument against Communism is pertinent to a debate about a state realizing it's placed a burden on those who make $4600/yr because they've allowed loopholes for the wealthy to escape their tax liability.

I see nothing in the proposal for expanding entitlement programs. On the contrary, it sounds like fiscal responsibility to realize that you're tripping over nickles to pick up pennies.

I'm not sure how you equate closing loopholes that allow massive landowners to escape their tax liability, (which in turn allows you to alleviate a disproportionate burden on the poor), with blatant Communist-style wealth destribution.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by OAW:
"The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent."

I'll get blasted by the "progressive police" for this - but I don't see why they can't just make it so both pay the same percent of their income in taxes.

However, there are other factors that go into this - by the time someone qualifies as "rich", there is less of their pie to go around, since the Feds take MORE.

For example, in Montana, we are given credit for taxes paid to the Feds, so the more you pay to the Feds, the less you pay to the state, essentially. Perhaps that is what is happening to skew the numbers in Alabama. I don't know.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OAW:
I'd like one of those who are complaining about "wealth redistribution" to explain to me the fairness in this:

"The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent."

All theories aside, the bottom line is that the State is going to get its piece of the action from an economic standpoint. Thus, the question becomes "From whom?" and "How much?". If one thinks that the poor should pay nearly 11% of their income in taxes while the rich pay only 4%, then please explain why. And if one thinks that this situation is not equitable, then what should be done to rectify the system?

OAW

Ending taxation, period, would be equitable. In that situation, the more wealthy would keep the same percentage of their money as the less wealthy: all of it. Note the possessive pronoun their.

Of course, that's not the only option, but how much of your money do you think the government is entitled to take from you by force? Name a percentage.

Additionally, this sort of falls under a States-rights heading, in that Alabama can currently tax people how it pleases- and people should teach Alabama a lesson and move to States that better respect their property rights to their money.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm just wondering how your empassioned argument against Communism is pertinent to a debate about a state realizing it's placed a burden on those who make $4600/yr because they've allowed loopholes for the wealthy to escape their tax liability.

I was specifically responding to your comment which expressed the idea that those who question the notion of a "social contract" are somehow passing through time in retrograde motion. That was all.

[thunderous_funker]

social contract
n.
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.


This is the founding principle of the American experiment. This is our legacy from the Enlightenment that freed us from the tyranny of the Divine Right of Kings and the social darwinism of feudalism.

You can't have the rights without excepting the duties.

You seem to be hung up on the troubles of conflict resolution within a society. Our system is essentially democratic (majority rules with minority protections). It's imperfect, as in any system that must deal with lack of unanimity, but it's also flexible. If you find yourself on the losing end of a policy debate this time around, you can usually comfort yourself with the realization that it will be revisited in the future and you'll have a chance to be more persuasive.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ending taxation, period, would be equitable. In that situation, the more wealthy would keep the same percentage of their money as the less wealthy: all of it. Note the possessive pronoun their.

Of course, that's not the only option, but how much of your money do you think the government is entitled to take from you by force? Name a percentage.

Additionally, this sort of falls under a States-rights heading, in that Alabama can currently tax people how it pleases- and people should teach Alabama a lesson and move to States that better respect their property rights to their money.

You have blown this thing so out of proportion I can only wonder what is at the heart of it.

As I see it, there are 2 significant changes to the tax code:

1) closing the "current use" loophole that allows massive landowners to escape tax liability
2) with the increased revenue from preventing the above tax evasion, they can afford to lessen the burden on families with incomes below $17000.

The article also mentioned increasing the deduction for dependents and scaling back the sales tax.

So, Alabama has found a way to cut taxes for a majority of it's population by the sound of it.

[OAW]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'll get blasted by the "progressive police" for this - but I don't see why they can't just make it so both pay the same percent of their income in taxes.

Well you won't get blasted by me. In theory, I agree with a "flat tax" approach. Of course, the devil is in the details so there should be certain provisions. I think income should be exempt up to a certain point. Where that point lies is debatable. But the bottom line IMHO is that it simply isn't right for the poorest of the poor to pay 11% of their incomes to fix the roads, pay for state and local services, support the schools, etc. ... while the rich pay only 4% for the same.

OAW

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by OAW:
But the bottom line IMHO is that it simply isn't right for the poorest of the poor to pay 11% of their incomes to fix the roads, pay for state and local services, support the schools, etc. ... while the rich pay only 4% for the same.

Again - the numbers MAY be decieving. Look at my post above for a possible reason why.

[OAW]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ending taxation, period, would be equitable.

I trust you realize that this is utterly unrealistic. Moving along ....

Originally posted by vmarks:

Of course, that's not the only option, but how much of your money do you think the government is entitled to take from you by force? Name a percentage.

The government is entitled to take as much as the people allow it to take as a result of their voting behavior.

Having said that, I think that we as a society should simply set some explicit boundaries for the government and be done with it. For instance, why get into a big partisan fight every few years over raising the minimum wage. Why not simply set a standard based upon a Cost of Living index and provide a mechanism for it to be adjusted automatically at certain intervals based upon the rate of inflation? Similarly, when it comes to government spending, why not simply set a cap on the size of government based upon some percentage of GDP? This would allow government to grow only in relation to growth in the overall economy. There should be a set rate of taxation for individuals and businesses, and any tax revenues generated above the cap must be used to repay the national debt, refunded to taxpayers, or both. Of course, there should be provisions to go beyond the cap in times of national emergency (requiring a super majority in Congress). With such an approach, the debate can shift from "How much to spend?" to "What should we spend the money on?" In other words, it becomes a debate about spending priorities instead of endless "tax cut vs. spending increase" bickering. It also would encourage more efficiency in spending if the politicians knew they couldn't go back to the trough to get more money to finance their latest pork project.

The bottom line is that taxation is reality and there is no way around it. So the question becomes how to do it in the most equitable and efficient way possible.

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

You have my vote.

:applause:

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


You have blown this thing so out of proportion I can only wonder what is at the heart of it.

Dave and I both responded to OAW by saying that a flat tax was preferable and equitable.

The difference between his responses and mine were that I stated that they could be zero percent and equitable, and asked OAW what percent of his money he thought his government was entitled to take from him. Dave didn't ask that question or specify a preference for a percentage.

Certainly, I'm not disappointed with the change in Alabama tax law as a net cut in taxes (the way you've stated it- I haven't read Alabama's law, and don't particularly plan to unless someone posts it here) - it's a step in the right direction where taking less is better.

[Timo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The difference between his responses and mine were that I stated that they could be zero percent and equitable...

Can you please explain how the government is supposed to run without money, or--alternatively --is that the goal: choke the government to death by defunding it?

Is there a practical agenda you're pursuing?

[nvaughan3]

You wanna talk morality and taxes and the first thing that comes to my mind is the 93% tax on porn in france.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Timo:
Can you please explain how the government is supposed to run without money, or--alternatively --is that the goal: choke the government to death by defunding it?

Is there a practical agenda you're pursuing?

smaller government is less opressive. That which governs most locally governs best.

Besides, the thread is titled Morality and Taxes- what is moral about taking a person's property (their earned money) by force (Government threat of imprisonment) ?

What percentage of a person's income do you feel justified taking from them by force? Why is that the magic number that you feel good about depriving them of?

[Timo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
smaller government is less opressive. That which governs most locally governs best.

Besides, the thread is titled Morality and Taxes- what is moral about taking a person's property (their earned money) by force (Government threat of imprisonment) ?

What percentage of a person's income do you feel justified taking from them by force? Why is that the magic number that you feel good about depriving them of?

I'd be happy to answer your questions when you answer mine.

[vmarks]

The goal is to return the government to it's constitutional responsibilities and let the states pursue other responsibilities, per the 10th Amendment.

As such, there are lots of things that could do with a healthy dose of defunding.

A government limited to providing defense against aggressors, both domestic and foreign, could indeed operate without taxation.

I'm sure you feel that it takes some money to run courts, for example. User fees, paid for by the guilty party, will take care of the courts.

Isn't some good accomplished by taxation? Sure, but bad means taint the good ends we hope to achieve by the agression of taxation.


Are you ready to answer yet?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
You wanna talk morality and taxes and the first thing that comes to my mind is the 93% tax on porn in france.

Yeah - I've never felt more oppressed.

[vmarks]

We have 'sin' taxes in the US as well, of course. They're on cigarettes and alcohol, and have been proposed for fatty or otherwise non-healthy foods.

It's a means of raising revenue while trying to curb behavior those writing the legislation find distasteful.

It's partially motivated by the fear that someone, somewhere, might actually be happy. (Paraphrase of Mencken.) The rest of the motivation stems from the feeling that those legislating are doing what's best for the rest of us (read: Nanny State.)

[Timo]

Here come your answers:

Originally posted by vmarks:
smaller government is less opressive. That which governs most locally governs best.

Got a link for that? Heh, I've remarked in another thread that you're a Jeffersonian and I'm a Federalist, so we're unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this.

For example, the state may be the best defender of minority rights. Not much chance of this if there is no larger framework for local disputes. Your postulation of local government best has its merits, but it also lends itself more completely to a tyranny of the majority and general provincialism.

[Of course, some people view these aspects as positive]

Besides, the thread is titled Morality and Taxes- what is moral about taking a person's property (their earned money) by force (Government threat of imprisonment) ?

Eh, you're postulating only one half of the social contract. Having property doesn't mean anything outside of human society.

Oh, and last time I checked you can't go to prison for debt. If your saying you can go to prison for flagrantly ignoring the laws of the land, well, I've got little sympathy for you and the whole world of self-entitlement-before-all-else in general.

What percentage of a person's income do you feel justified taking from them by force? Why is that the magic number that you feel good about depriving them of?

What percentage? A fair one, of course.

As for the force part, there even more force involved than you imagine. Not only does the federal government represent obvious and overt corercive force, so are most social interactions in life, especially those where inequality is involved. We are all surrounded and constrained by social forces, many of them as coercive and imprisoning as your characterization of the federal government.

My problem with your POV is that you don't really postulate a viable alternative. As opposed to the federal government and our system of checks and balances, you want local government (smaller the better) and all of the petty tyrannies such entail. Your mechanisms for coordination of these local governments for the larger stage is unconvincing, and one need only look into the failure of the Articles of Confederation to see a real-world example of this.

And believe me, abolish the bogeyman of the federal government and its control, and watch other systems take its place.

I for one prefer the devil I know to the utopian fantasies of agarian decentralization -- possible, if they ever were, two centuries ago.

[OAW]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The goal is to return the government to it's constitutional responsibilities and let the states pursue other responsibilities, per the 10th Amendment.

As such, there are lots of things that could do with a healthy dose of defunding.

A government limited to providing defense against aggressors, both domestic and foreign, could indeed operate without taxation.

I'm sure you feel that it takes some money to run courts, for example. User fees, paid for by the guilty party, will take care of the courts.

Isn't some good accomplished by taxation? Sure, but bad means taint the good ends we hope to achieve by the agression of taxation.


Are you ready to answer yet?

Sounds great on paper. Unfortunately, once you awaken from what sounds like a Libertarian fantasy you will realize that such a scenario would not effectively reduce the tax burden. Rather, it would merely shift it from the federal government to state and local government. The bottom line is that the American people like their government services and their entitlement programs. Does it really matter who Joe Taxpayer writes the check to if he still has to cough up approximately 40% of his income in taxes one way or another?

OAW

[vmarks]

Why is 40% acceptable?
Is 40% equitable? Is it just (as in justice) ?

Are you willing to admit that the Federal Government is fraught with inefficiencies, waste, and corruption? If so, is it possible that some or most of these social or entitlement programs be taken on by non-profits, private orgs, anything non-governmental?

The government tries to be all things to all people- Can it be successful in that aim?

Aren't orgs based in the community better equipped to address community needs, just because they're on the ground, and can adapt to needs instead of pushing a one-size-fits all solution?

I much prefer to make voluntary contributions to NGOs attempting to solve things in the community than the government depriving of people of their money by threats and force. Cut taxes and I'll have more money to contribute voluntarily.

[Spliffdaddy]

Punishing achievement is the hallmark of liberalism.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm just wondering how your empassioned argument against Communism is pertinent to a debate about a state realizing it's placed a burden on those who make $4600/yr because they've allowed loopholes for the wealthy to escape their tax liability.

It doesn't. Nor can it, because neither of the things you've mentioned is true.

First, going to "the porrest of the poor". How much do you think someone who pays $4600/year owes the government, under current United States tax law? The answer, though it's common sense, will probably come as a surprise to you: zero. And this is a just thing.

Then, as for "the rich": This too may surprise you, but the bit about rich people paying no taxes through accounting tricks is an urban legend. It is true that corporations have managed this feat in the past -Microsoft and Intel are known to do it, and Apple is rumored to do it as well- but the loopholes which make that possible cannot be used by individuals. There are ways to defer money to be taxed at a later date, but all this does is delay the inevitable; in the end, the rich pay their fair share and more. It may be worth noting that each of the top 400 wage-earners last year paid an average of 400,000 times as much as an average taxpayer from the lowest tax bracket that's actually liable for anything.

By the way, you spoke of me not being familiar with the concept of the Social Contract. Quite the contrary, actually. I know perfectly well who it comes from: Rousseau, I believe, was the first to speak of it. What I asked you was what it comes from. Since you didn't seem to get that, I'll elaborate: the Social Contract concept comes from a person. Fundamentally no better than you or I or anyone else. So what gave him the authority to decide what is moral? What, for that matter, even gave him the ability to decide what is moral? Last I checked, despite the fact that he was an important philosopher, he was not omniscient.

Given that, what gives you the right to force his viewpoint on others? How is that any more moral than forcing anyone else's viewpoint on people?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by OAW:
I trust you realize that this is utterly unrealistic. Moving along ....

For instance, why get into a big partisan fight every few years over raising the minimum wage. Why not simply set a standard based upon a Cost of Living index and provide a mechanism for it to be adjusted automatically at certain intervals based upon the rate of inflation?

Although it sounds good, that, too, is utterly unrealistic. Why? Because as wages are raised, the cost of goods and services goes up, causing the cost of living to go up, which would trigger another raise in wages. Tying the artificial and arbitrary "minimum wage" to the cost of living would cause an unstoppable cycle of growth in the minimum wage. (The same flaw is built in purposefully to the insane "living wage" proposals that are finding there way into cities nationwide.)

The main effect of such a constantly raising wage would be higher unemployment.

Originally posted by OAW:
Similarly, when it comes to government spending, why not simply set a cap on the size of government based upon some percentage of GDP? This would allow government to grow only in relation to growth in the overall economy. There should be a set rate of taxation for individuals and businesses, and any tax revenues generated above the cap must be used to repay the national debt, refunded to taxpayers, or both. Of course, there should be provisions to go beyond the cap in times of national emergency (requiring a super majority in Congress). With such an approach, the debate can shift from "How much to spend?" to "What should we spend the money on?" In other words, it becomes a debate about spending priorities instead of endless "tax cut vs. spending increase" bickering. It also would encourage more efficiency in spending if the politicians knew they couldn't go back to the trough to get more money to finance their latest pork project.

Now that's an idea that I could get behind. Although, I'd hate to see the interagency fighting over who gets what from a finite pie.

Originally posted by OAW:
The bottom line is that taxation is reality and there is no way around it. So the question becomes how to do it in the most equitable and efficient way possible.

I would never argue that getting ride of taxes all together is a way to go. But perhaps there are better ways of taxation. The income tax is inherently flawed because it punishes achievement.

There are multiple proposals for things like a national sales tax that would change things from the current system. One of them gets rid of EVERY federal tax (FICA, SS, Medicare, etc.) and replaces them with a 25% sales tax. When I read that, I realized how hungry the Feds are for money. Add the 25% to most state's/county's/city's current sales taxes, and some people would be paying nearly 40%! Wow.

I don't know what the best form of taxation is. But what I do know is that the current system is too easy for some to get around, too hard for others to live through. It sucks.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It doesn't. Nor can it, because neither of the things you've mentioned is true.

First, going to "the porrest of the poor". How much do you think someone who pays $4600/year owes the government, under current United States tax law? The answer, though it's common sense, will probably come as a surprise to you: zero. And this is a just thing.

Then, as for "the rich": This too may surprise you, but the bit about rich people paying no taxes through accounting tricks is an urban legend. It is true that corporations have managed this feat in the past -Microsoft and Intel are known to do it, and Apple is rumored to do it as well- but the loopholes which make that possible cannot be used by individuals. There are ways to defer money to be taxed at a later date, but all this does is delay the inevitable; in the end, the rich pay their fair share and more. It may be worth noting that each of the top 400 wage-earners last year paid an average of 400,000 times as much as an average taxpayer from the lowest tax bracket that's actually liable for anything.

Given that, what gives you the right to force his viewpoint on others? How is that any more moral than forcing anyone else's viewpoint on people?

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read the article. You're talking about Federal tax brackets and laws, not Alabama's state laws. It clearly states that Alabama's threshold for tax liability begins at $4600/yr. It also states the reason for it is because "current use" loopholes for massive landowners allows them to escape millions in tax liability--shifting the burden downward.

If someone wants to investigate and demonstrate that Alabama's laws are nothing at all like the article presents, that would be something else. Until then, I'm going on what it presents as an utterly regressive tax scheme in desperate need of reform.

You are also completely hung up on this idea that somehow I'm forcing anyone to adopt this new tax scheme because I think it's moral. Even the most cursory review the article clearly presents the viewpoint that the proponents of the bill think that Alabamans will glady and happily approve of the measures.

So Alabama has stumbled on an idea for reforming their tax code which accomplish 2 major things:

1) close existing loopholes that allow for inequitable tax evasion at the top
2) tax cut for nearly everyone else

Aside from your railing against the concept of taxation in principle, I've yet to hear a concrete reason why this specific reform is so onerous. Why should Boise Cascade avoid taxation on property that regular home owners cannot? What is equitable and just about that?

Apparantly the calls for equal taxation don't apply to everyone in your view.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by OAW:
Similarly, when it comes to government spending, why not simply set a cap on the size of government based upon some percentage of GDP? This would allow government to grow only in relation to growth in the overall economy.

This is actually a fantastic idea that does have a track record of success. California had just such a system in place for years and it worked.

Governor Lowbeam removed the restriction and has been growing the size of California's government far above and beyond the economy for years- and look where it's gotten us- straight into an economic black hole.

It�s predicted by some who ran the numbers, had govt. growth and spending kept pace with the economy, rather than record budget deficits, we�d be seeing 5 and 6 billion dollar surpluses each year.

The �solution� put forth by Lowbeam and company *of course* will not be to get the size and spending of government back in line with the economy and keep it there- of course not. The 'solution' will be playing games like pretending the only thing that can be cut is school funding, fire and police services- then when citizens cry bloody murder over those, proceeding to triple our auto registration rates and hiking taxes through the roof.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
All theories aside, the bottom line is that the State is going to get its piece of the action from an economic standpoint. Thus, the question becomes "From whom?" and "How much?". If one thinks that the poor should pay nearly 11% of their income in taxes while the rich pay only 4%, then please explain why.

I'm guessing based on the statistics you quote the "why" has a lot to do with deductibilty of certain favored expenses like mortgage interest and other line item deductions (like state taxes paid) that normally can't be taken advantage of unless you make enough to justify that kind of tax return. Those well off enough to afford houses get to take advantage, whereas the poor (for whom housing tends to be a higher percentage of income anyway) can't.

In other words, it isn't a matter of tax brackets so much as it is loopholes written deliberately into the tax code. And why is it there? It's there because do-gooders decided the tax code is a way to influence social policy, and those same do-gooders want to encourage home ownership.

The other reason that comes to mind is because of Social Security taxes. Most people under about $30,000 pay more in FICA/Medicare taxes than they do in income taxes. FICA/Medicare is capped at, I think, about $60,000. That is, those earning more than $60,000 pay no additional social security taxes. That means taxes as a whole are a larger percentage of a poor person's paycheck than a wealthier person's.

There is a real problem here. Social Security is basically a generational ponzi scheme. If you are roughly a baby boomer or older, you will take out more on average than you put in. But if you are among the smaller number of younger workers, you will pay in more than you are likely to get out. In effect, it is a forced gift from younger generations to older, and one that does not favor the poor.

That's because the poor are forced to pay, and the rich still are allowed to collect. It is fundamentally unjust to take from the poor to give to the rich. But try telling that to the AARP and their well-funded (and mostly generationally-compatible) friends in Congress. Thou Shalt Not Touch the Third Rail.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by OAW:

The government is entitled to take as much as the people allow it to take as a result of their voting behavior.

Having said that, I think that we as a society should simply set some explicit boundaries for the government and be done with it. For instance, why get into a big partisan fight every few years over raising the minimum wage...

Because some of us think minimum wage laws are a bad idea in the first place?

... The bottom line is that taxation is reality and there is no way around it. So the question becomes how to do it in the most equitable and efficient way possible. OAW

Well, yes. But even if we were able to cap spending relative to the size of the economy there would still be the argument of what is fair and eqitable when it comes to taxes. I say progressive taxation is neither fair nor equitable. There are a lot of people who would deride that idea as retrograde.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This is actually a fantastic idea that does have a track record of success. California had just such a system in place for years and it worked.

Governor Lowbeam removed the restriction and has been growing the size of California's government far above and beyond the economy for years- and look where it's gotten us- straight into an economic black hole.

It�s predicted by some who ran the numbers, had govt. growth and spending kept pace with the economy, rather than record budget deficits, we�d be seeing 5 and 6 billion dollar surpluses each year.

The �solution� put forth by Lowbeam and company *of course* will not be to get the size and spending of government back in line with the economy and keep it there- of course not. The 'solution' will be playing games like pretending the only thing that can be cut is school funding, fire and police services- then when citizens cry bloody murder over those, proceeding to triple our auto registration rates and hiking taxes through the roof.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Because some of us think minimum wage laws are a bad idea in the first place?

Well, yes. But even if we were able to cap spending relative to the size of the economy there would still be the argument of what is fair and eqitable when it comes to taxes. I say progressive taxation is neither fair nor equitable. There are a lot of people who would deride that idea as retrograde.

Because the constitution garuntees equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Progressive taxation prevents us from having what amounts to an inheirited caste system of economic classes. Progressive taxation and worker protections are what makes upward mobility (equal opportunity) a reality.