Tax cuts for the rich
October 31st, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarQuiz for readers. Which of the the following parties is promising, if elected, an income tax cut for some-one earning $150,000 a year?
(a) ACT
(b) Labour
(c) National
58 Responses to “Tax cuts for the rich”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I am going to take a punt and say b), otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the question.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Due to the first 5000 tax free?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:16 pm
None?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
@DPF- please take the tongue from your cheek. I’ll meet you in the coffee bar to collect my chocolate fish.
From Stuff: “Labour has confirmed it will introduce a capital gains tax at 15 per cent and a new top tax rate of 39 per cent on income above $150,000. There would be a tax free threshhold at $5000 and GST would be taken off fresh fruit and vegetables. The personal tax cuts would give those earning between $25,000 and $150,000 another $525 a year. But someone on $175,000 a year would pay $975 more a year, and someone on $200,000 would pay $2475 more in tax..”
Changes are due to their ‘first $5000 being exempt from tax’ proposal.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5284832/Labour-confirms-capital-gains-tax-new-rate
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:34 pm
A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very Labour minded, and she was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon National supporter, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Labour of course.
But the real question is: Will they adjust WFF so that like their last tour of economic destruction people earning twice the rich prick level can still get WFF… I mean they defended that position with great vigour… Imagine a person earning $300,000/year being entitled to welfare just so they continue to vote Labour….
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Mark1
Brilliant. Exactly the point….
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 12:55 pm
DPF
I’ve actually been waiting to see what becomes of this, National are still pretty much using Dr Cullen’s pretend “top 5%” settings for the top tax rate which seems like a major fail to me.
However it’s hard to imagine any good will come from bagging Labour for this threshold. The days of simple dim-bulb ‘whatever they say yes to we say no to’ are clearly alive and well in major parties. Kind of sad really – more leadership and less BS would be a pleasant change.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Mark’s parable is very good, but it doesn’t just apply to staunch right versus left, most of the centre would probably also acknowledge the message in that.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:18 pm
False headline. $150,000 a year isn’t rich, it’s barely well off.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Pete George
Yes, but redistribution of academic grades isn’t Labour party policy so they will simply dismiss it as irrelavent. IE: There isn’t a talking point to counter the obvious stupidy of such a policy so they won’t know how to respond.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:21 pm
KiwiGreg
And with inflation running circa 3% it’s really hard to work out how 3 years ago $60K was rich and now $150K isn’t. Ideology is a bitch isn’t it.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Mark1,
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”
So the basic philosophy of National is that if you aren’t rich then you must be lazy and have a bad attitude. The implication being that if everyone had the right attitude we’d all be rich.
Does that about sum it up? Does anyone actually believe this? I wonder: if we were all rich then who would scrub the toilets or pick up the trash or serve you at a restaurant?
As a parable your story does a good job of explaining the idea that people who work hard should be rewarded for their efforts. What it doesn’t do so well is explain why some others don’t do as well. It presumes that people who don’t do as well must be lazy and have a bad attitude. Such is the simplistic mindset that the political right finds itself in these days.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:32 pm
KiwiGreg,
False headline. $150,000 a year isn’t rich, it’s barely well off.
It is more than the vast majority of people earn and given that the terms “rich” and “poor” are relative, I’d say that counts as rich… well-off anyway.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Labour with its first $5k tax free and gst free veges.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Weihana 1:30pm: You’re oversimplifying. The point is that there should be rewards for hard work and achievement.
If everyone had the right attitude and ability, we’d be richer on average. Sure, someone would still be cleaning the bathroom, but they would be paid more. Why? Because there would be more competition for good jobs and fewer people restricted to being menial labourers. So wages for cleaners would go up, and salaries for managers would go down.
Inequality exists for a reason.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Inequality exists because we are not all equal – irrespective of what communism/socialism want to be the truth – the truth is we are not all the same.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:24 pm
> Inequality exists for a reason.
Indeed they do but you don’t seem to have given much thought as to why. Belieiving that the free market will deliver equality to all is probably the first of your misapprehensions.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@weihana
The message is there should be reward for effort
If someone studies hard for 5 years on no income, puts in the hard yards and sacrifices (and risks) then they should be rewarded more than someone who pisses their life away in a dissolute fashion.
This is a simplification as well but is the core of the matter.
The choices we make in life have consequences
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Weihena
The three little pigs is a similar story…
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:47 pm
If there was no-one to clean the toilets then the demand for toilet cleaning would increase, which would mean that toilet cleaners could charge more for their services.
Most people clean their own toilets, because they don’t consider it worth paying someone to do such an easy job, but if you’re extremely rich then you could consider it.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Mark says:- “The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”
So we’re talking fair return for a good work ethic here.
Couldn’t agree more.
Guy works 100 hours a week is rewarded with 100 units of currency.
Guy works 50 hours a week is rewarded with 50 units of currency.
Which planet does this happen on?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Planet Rightwingnuttia
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Well I think cutting tax for people who earn under five grand a year is a great idea. I think it’s appalling that even my sister, who is a young teenage kid trying to earn some extra cash for her university fees (and by the way most of you lot resent the fact that interest-free loans are currently available to students), has to pay tax so that a whole load of unemployed Maori bums can exploit the welfare system. I am extremely happy that National is making reforms to the unemployment benefit (cards with money put onto them especially for food and paying electricity and water companies of unemployed people directly) and I think Labour should incorporate those policies too, to make it less fun to be sucking up money from people who actually work hard to make a better life.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@Ross 2.24pm I didn’t see any suggestion that the markets deliver equality. It isn’t their aim and anyone who claims it is, is simply wrong. Who says equality (of outcome) is desirable anyway? People are inherently different. All have access to the same basic education, some choose or are able to make more of it than others. Those who do make more should receive the greater reward. They should not be forced to subsidize those who choose or are unable to. Inequality is an inherent outcome of the free market. It is a highly desirable quality for without it nobody would strive to do better.
The drive for equality is a feature of communist economies. Just wait and see what happens if the Sheeple are stupid enough to give hone harawira any power!
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
i don’t think anybody is trying for that ‘make everyone equal’ impossibility..it is a strawman argument you are all making..
what it is all about is that the poorest should still get enough of the pie to be able to feed/clothe/heat/educate/get medical/dental-care..
..for themselves..their families..
..a guaranteed basic quality of life..
..and studies have proven over and over again that those most equal societies are the happiest..
..which makes sense….as opposed to a society where some look down on the rest..with a curled upper lip..
..and are hated by the rest/those unable to have that basic-existance..
..this is what mana and the greens are proposing…
..to make the country more equal yes..
..but there is still room for those with special talents in whatever to shine..
..there is also the fact it is very stupid to deny education to all…we are wasting potential assets..
..skills are not being given the chance to flower..
..and yr international comparisons are horseshit..
..and lets not forget that ultimate obscenity of our age..eh..?
…that fact that 10% of what is spent on armamants..would feed everyone on the planet…
…what could be more obscene than that fact..?
..what could be more of an indictment of us/our age..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:21 pm
The biggest opponent of the poor getting enough of the “pie” is the State, which taxes them, returns the tax in the form of mediocre education and “die while you wait” health care, and enslaves them in intergenerational welfare addiction in order to milk them for votes.
The State is the problem, not the solution.
“and studies have proven over and over again that those most equal societies are the happiest”
No, they haven’t. The so-called “studies”, such as those that formed the basis of the book ‘The Spirit’ level, have been shown to be fraudulent and deceptive in how they choose and read the facts.
Not really. What Mana and the Greens propose would destroy the economy and the tax base by strangling the economy with heavy taxation, rapant regulation and State command and control, which has never worked anywhere it was tried. The result would be more poverty not less.
The only people who look down on the rest are the chardonnay socialists on the Left who despise working class views and values and who want to keep the poor poor to continue milking them for votes.
Welfare Socialism is and always has been a vote buying scam that destroys the integrity, self-respect and self reliance of working class people.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
I’ve noticed that there is an equivocation happening between use of the terms “inequality” and “poverty”. To some extent poverty is a relative term, but nowhere near as much as “rich” and “poor”. I think there’s an argument for reducing poverty in a functioning society, less so for reducing “inequality”.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I prefer a Sauvignon Blanc whilst despising working class views and values personally.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:49 pm
leo..i can’t be buggered arguing against shouted-slogans..
you just shine on..you crazy diamond.. eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:52 pm
All I have done is give you the facts. The only one shouting slogans is you.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:57 pm
http://mises.org/
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 3:58 pm
no you aren’t leo..
..you are giving a potted randite-rant…
..(yawn..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 4:34 pm
# tas (77) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Weihana 1:30pm: You’re oversimplifying. The point is that there should be rewards for hard work and achievement.
I’m oversimplifying? No I’m responding to this:
“All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
As far as this parable is concerned the less successful never study, are only concerned about being popular and getting invited to parties and aren’t able to make it anywhere on time because they’re too hung over. And you accuse moi of being too simplistic?!?!
If everyone had the right attitude and ability, we’d be richer on average. Sure, someone would still be cleaning the bathroom, but they would be paid more. Why? Because there would be more competition for good jobs and fewer people restricted to being menial labourers. So wages for cleaners would go up, and salaries for managers would go down.
The vast majority of people do have the right attitude. Most people do what they can to get ahead. Contrary to popular myth, people generally don’t like being poor. What we do have is a very small proportion of the population who are beyond help and for some reason those on the political right seem to assume that anyone who isn’t well-off must be one of these life long beneficiaries and alcoholics. The hypothetical with the student who doesn’t study and drinks too much is typical of this mindset and how the political right views people who aren’t that successful.
Perhaps an alternative parable would involve a student struggling to maintain her grades not through laziness or a bad attitude but simply because she isn’t as good. So the student with a grade point average of 90% could, instead of the absurd and meaningless notion of giving her grade to someone else, spend her time helping the below average student to improve her marks by offering to tutor in her spare time.
Inequality exists for a reason.
Indeed, because people aren’t equal, not simply because they’re lazy with a bad attitude which is what Mark’s parable appears to imply.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Lance (989) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 2:28 pm
The message is there should be reward for effort
No, the way Mark’s parable is told I think the message is that the less fortunate are that way because they don’t make an effort.
If someone studies hard for 5 years on no income, puts in the hard yards and sacrifices (and risks) then they should be rewarded more than someone who pisses their life away in a dissolute fashion.
This is a simplification as well but is the core of the matter.
The choices we make in life have consequences
Not just a simplification, but an oversimplification. Look at the context of the parable which centres around the concept of the wealthy paying more in tax. The argument is that they shouldn’t and should keep what’s theirs because the less fortunate deserve to be that way and deserve no assistance by virtue of their bad attitude and lack of effort.
As far as advancing the message that effort should be rewarded I think stories like “The Little Red Hen” are superior in conveying that message without the implicit and unnecessary generalizations that everyone who isn’t well off must be that way because of their bad attitude.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Weihana:
So are you saying that underachieving students should get the grades increased, as long as they are working hard? Marks for effort basically? The parable still holds.
And helping others out is charity and it’s a great thing.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Weihana (848) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Mark1,
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”
So the basic philosophy of National is that if you aren’t rich then you must be lazy and have a bad attitude. The implication being that if everyone had the right attitude we’d all be rich.
Sounds perfectly fair to me.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 6:27 pm
# tas (78) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Weihana:
So are you saying that underachieving students should get the grades increased, as long as they are working hard? Marks for effort basically?
Where did I say or suggest this?
The parable still holds.
What holds exactly? That if someone isn’t as successful they must have a bad attitude towards life?
And helping others out is charity and it’s a great thing.
Except of course for the political right this doesn’t include government run social programs because that’s against liberty. Of course such liberty is only important if you don’t actually want to give such charity. And who can blame them for not wanting to give charity when they believe that anyone who is not successful must be a lazy alcoholic that parties too much and never shows up on time.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 6:37 pm
# MT_Tinman (1,566) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Weihana (848) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Mark1,
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”
So the basic philosophy of National is that if you aren’t rich then you must be lazy and have a bad attitude. The implication being that if everyone had the right attitude we’d all be rich.
Sounds perfectly fair to me.
Sounds stupid to me. It’s the right-wing answer to the crazy left that thinks that rich people are inherently evil and should give up everything for the sake of others.
I would prefer a sensible middle ground that appreciates the value that most rich people contribute to society while also appreciating that if someone isn’t as successful it isn’t necessarily because they’re lazy and drunk. That if the government has bills to pay and services to provide that the most wealthy should, within the limits of reason and practicality, be asked to contribute first.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“the most wealthy should, within the limits of reason and practicality, be asked to contribute first.”
Silly me, I thought that’s exactly what happens now.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 6:48 pm
adze,
I’ve noticed that there is an equivocation happening between use of the terms “inequality” and “poverty”. To some extent poverty is a relative term, but nowhere near as much as “rich” and “poor”. I think there’s an argument for reducing poverty in a functioning society, less so for reducing “inequality”.
I agree. Inequality is natural as we aren’t all equal and giving greater reward to people who contribute more creates incentive for people to be more productive. The concept of poverty on the other hand is that there is a standard below which people shouldn’t have to endure. Even though that standard is relative to a particular society and a particular time it nevertheless doesn’t seek to remove inequality altogether it just seeks to ensure that the degree of inequality is acceptable.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 6:52 pm
That if the government has bills to pay and services to provide that the most wealthy should, within the limits of reason and practicality, be asked to contribute first.
That might be fine if they were properly costed out for needs and not wishes/wants or vote catchers or heaven forbid to tax the rich!
Firstly, that is after an audit is done of non essentials and they are stopped.
As one of the 168,000 households paying 97% of the collected tax, I think my vote should count proportionately to those who have their hands out for state funds (OPM).
Vote:Or maybe if you are receiving a state benefit of any kind then you can’t vote until you aren’t. now that would get my vote.
with one caveat, all except those on super.
October 31st, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Aredhel777 (124) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“…has to pay tax so that a whole load of unemployed Maori bums can exploit the welfare system.”
ooo look. Racism rears its ugly head.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 8:51 pm
# Mick Mac (481) Says:
October 31st, 2011 at 6:52 pm
That if the government has bills to pay and services to provide that the most wealthy should, within the limits of reason and practicality, be asked to contribute first.
That might be fine if they were properly costed out for needs and not wishes/wants or vote catchers or heaven forbid to tax the rich!
The biggest areas of spending are health, education, superannuation and welfare. So I don’t know. Are these needs or wants in your view?
Firstly, that is after an audit is done of non essentials and they are stopped.
There seems to be this assumption on the right that if all the so-called “non essentials” were stopped that their tax liability would be a lot less. This of course makes one wonder what is non essential?
As one of the 168,000 households paying 97% of the collected tax
The top 10% pays 37% of tax collected (gross tax)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/net_taxpayers.html
I think my vote should count proportionately to those who have their hands out for state funds (OPM).
Or maybe if you are receiving a state benefit of any kind then you can’t vote until you aren’t. now that would get my vote.
Why? Because society functions well when a small minority of people control power to the exclusion of everyone else?
with one caveat, all except those on super.
O surprise surprise.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Mick Mac
“Or maybe if you are receiving a state benefit of any kind then you can’t vote until you aren’t. now that would get my vote.
with one caveat, all except those on super.”
Thank you, finally somebody here agrees with me. I have been saying the same thing for years now.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
weihana says:- “The top 10% pays 37% of tax collected (gross tax)”
That’s just income tax which in 2006 only accounted for 43% of the total tax take.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_New_Zealand
No doubt the less well off would contribute proportionately far more to the GST tax take for instance.
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Weihana:
Don't get me wrong. I think there is a case for a certain amount of welfare and redistribution. But X voting to steal Y's money and donate it to Z is not charity; X giving directly to Z is.
I should also note that Bill Gates' charity doesn't give money to the government. He knows that there are much more efficient ways to help people.
The message I take from the parable is that different people deserve different rewards, whether it is because they work harder or have more skill.
Your 4:34 comment says:
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 9:49 pm
No doubt the less well off would contribute proportionately far more to the GST tax take for instance.
No, everyone contributes the same amount to GST Scott. Everyone pays it, rich or poor, and when we pay it, rich or poor, we all pay the same amount.
Isn’t that right?
So what’s the pwoblem?
Vote:October 31st, 2011 at 10:01 pm
what it is all about is that the poorest should still get enough of the pie to be able to feed/clothe/heat/educate/get medical/dental-care..
..for themselves..their families..
..a guaranteed basic quality of life..
..and studies have proven over and over again that those most equal societies are the happiest..
..which makes sense….as opposed to a society where some look down on the rest..with a curled upper lip..
..and are hated by the rest/those unable to have that basic-existance..
..this is what mana and the greens are proposing…
Yes phil and it’s First Class fucking mental, that’s what it is. The reason is, life is NOT like that. People DON’T sneer down on anyone, with a curled upper lip. The fact some people think we do, doesn’t make it so.
This is the elementary truth that you haters and wreckers never get. What the fuck is wrong with you, as human beings, that makes you think you are such a superior brand of humanity that only you and your kind are capable of feeling love, compassion, peace and the deepest sense of connection. For that’s what you say, every second you and your kind, like Mana candidates, hold to your poisonous, yet profoundly mistaken, unnecessary and counter-productive perspectives.
All for nought, since at the end of the day, all you fools will ever find, is that actually, no-one is like that, at all. There is no dragon, no ogre, and no-one to blame for your own wretched plight, but oneself. But people like you can’t face that you’re responsible for the entire circumstances of your own wretched lives, so you turn around and blame others for it, as an ego protection mechanism, lest you look like an idiot, in the mirror. Classic cognitive dissonance phil. Classic.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 1:33 am
tas,
So are you saying that underachieving students should get the grades increased, as long as they are working hard? Marks for effort basically?
Where did I say or suggest this?
Your 4:34 comment says:
Perhaps an alternative parable would involve a student struggling to maintain her grades not through laziness or a bad attitude but simply because she isn’t as good.
Honestly?
My statement suggests an alternative explanation for why a person might have failing grades, it doesn’t argue that their grades should be raised on the basis of effort. Is English your first language?
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 1:38 am
tas,
“The message I take…”
Oh… you mean what you take while ignoring everything else about it. It’s a terrible parable. It doesn’t just attempt to explain a simple moral concept, rather it is a very cheap political gimmick. It’s a “vote for National because everyone else is a lazy drunk who’s trying to steal your money”. See the “Little Red Hen” for a decent parable.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:31 am
Weihana: English is technically not my first language. You’re reading the wrong meaning into the parable. No one honestly believes that poverty is purely the result of laziness. And no one apart from you seems to think that that is the meaning of the parable. Perhaps it isn’t the best parable and it could be made more clear, but you should calm down.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 8:37 am
“Except…” said the young woman to the father “how come you’re only interested in Audrey? What about my other friends Tom, Dick, Harry, Sandra, Pedro, Max, Rachel, Bob, Hendrix and Martha who are all smarter than me, work far harder than me but only have averages in the 70′s and 80′s? They can’t get my grades because they also have to work part time jobs to live – unlike me who gets everything paid for. Also their parents aren’t old school buddies of the dean … by the way did I ever thank you for asking the dean to accept that late essay?”
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
tas,
“You’re reading the wrong meaning into the parable.”
So this wasn’t supposed to be an analogy for the poor?
“All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
“…you should calm down.”
I’m not calm? The parable deserves to be criticized.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This is bullshit. Such liberty is important because its wrong to invade peoples homes and steal from them, and enslave them to the State.
However the people who are on the right are often amongst the most generous of charity givers, as repeated studies from the USA have show. Conservatives regularly beat Liberals hands down in the extent of their charity.
Try anothe lie Weihana.
Obviously not. It was a parable that some people derseve help in the form of charity, and some deserve help in the form of a swift kick up the backside.
All compulsory taxation is theft. If it is wrong for me to invade someones home and steal their property, how can it be ok for the state to do it?
This is the fundamental moral principle that Statists on this thread have failed to answer, because they know they cannot.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:31 pm
# Lee01 (1,586) Says:
November 1st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This is bullshit. Such liberty is important because its wrong to invade peoples homes and steal from them, and enslave them to the State.
I wouldn’t call taxing to ensure people have health care, education and a roof over their heads to be “enslavement”. But that’s just me I suppose.
However the people who are on the right are often amongst the most generous of charity givers, as repeated studies from the USA have show. Conservatives regularly beat Liberals hands down in the extent of their charity.
Actually I think the more important factor is religion, not conservative vs liberal. Over a third of all charitable donations in the US are given to religious organizations.
So this wasn’t supposed to be an analogy for the poor?
Obviously not. It was a parable that some people derseve help in the form of charity,
Nowhere does it suggest that some people deserve help. I think you’re reading a different parable.
and some deserve help in the form of a swift kick up the backside.
It doesn’t say that either.
All compulsory taxation is theft. If it is wrong for me to invade someones home and steal their property, how can it be ok for the state to do it?
This is the fundamental moral principle that Statists on this thread have failed to answer, because they know they cannot.
The state is justified, in principle, because it is necessary for its proper function.
The very notion of “property” requires regulation by an authority. The acquisition, ownership and use of property all depend upon a set of rules which must be administered. But the administration of such rules itself makes use of property. Policemen, lawyers and judges all want to earn a living. If the authority which administers these rules has no inherent right to property then the very notion of property is meaningless because people will inevitably disagree on what justifies ownership and the authority has no real power to enforce its rulings.
But this argument of necessity provides very limited justification for government taxation and only justifies it to the extent that a system of law and order is maintained which might justify the police, the courts and the military but it wouldn’t justify many other government expenditures like health, welfare and education.
In order to justify taxation for these services I would argue that moral “rights” only have meaning to any individual insofar as such “rights” are consistent with upholding that individual’s life as their highest moral value. That is to say that none of us have a right to keep bread from starving people. It is meaningless for us to presume that we have such a right. We may have the force necessary to prevent them from getting their hands on our bread, but it is impossible for us to give any rational reason for why a starving person should not steal our bread. Our conception of morals is meaningless to a person if it means that they must endure starvation and death.
Therefore, I would argue that government inherits the right to “steal” on behalf of those who are impoverished and who would otherwise have no legitimate reason to follow the law if it meant that they would suffer.
Salus populi suprema est lex (“The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.”)
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 6:49 pm
It is enslavement of those forced to work for the State, which is what compulsory taxation amounts to.
Can you prove that? David Friedman and Hans Hermann Hoppe, as well as other Anarcho-Capitalists have done a good job of showing that the State is not necessary at all.
It requires legal enforcement of contract but that does not require a State. Enforcement of common law through tradition and /or private judiciary has worked well in many places and times. Moreover, far from assuring property rights the modern State has been the very worst villian in terms of violating them.
Propert does require a body of law and custom, I agree. It does not require a State.
None of us has the right to rob our neighbour in order to provide bread for someone else. We DO have the right to work and earn bread, and then give it away. But the need of some people for bread does not justify violating other peoples rights.
Possibly, but the problem with that is there are no starving people in New Zealand, and the State does not rob and steal in order to feed the starving. It robs and steals in order to spend it on TV stations, the non-starving poor (who could be helped by private chairty) Trains, a massive bureaucracy, and myriad other things which are not valid.
So your starving analogy does not apply to the reality of the modern state.
The flaw in your assumption is that they would not be fed unless the State does the feeding. But historically this is not the case. Private chairty has, and can do the job. Therefore your rational for the State stealing is false, because it is not necessary for the issue your using.
The welfare of the people is not enhanced by allowing an armed gang to prey on them, dictate to them, steal from them, and otherwise destroy their welfare through the use of force.
Vote:November 1st, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Lee01,
The state is justified, in principle, because it is necessary for its proper function.
Can you prove that? David Friedman and Hans Hermann Hoppe, as well as other Anarcho-Capitalists have done a good job of showing that the State is not necessary at all.
If you can show me where such theories have worked then that would be something.
The very notion of “property” requires regulation by an authority.
It requires legal enforcement of contract but that does not require a State. Enforcement of common law through tradition and /or private judiciary has worked well in many places and times.
I disagree. It simply means the most powerful get their way and this gives incentive for the formation of tribal allegiances and gangs in order for people to obtain some measure of protection. This in turn foments civil conflict between these competing factions. Civil society requires a government which has a monopoly on the use of force.
Moreover, far from assuring property rights the modern State has been the very worst villian in terms of violating them.
But your alternative isn’t acceptable either in my view and you ignore the fact that some states are better than others and our goal should be to develop systems which work. I think so far we’re doing pretty well. I believe the sacrifice of liberty represented by taxation is, for the most part, well worth the benefits achieved.
That is to say that none of us have a right to keep bread from starving people.
None of us has the right to rob our neighbour in order to provide bread for someone else. We DO have the right to work and earn bread, and then give it away. But the need of some people for bread does not justify violating other peoples rights.
But YOU saying it does not justify it is meaningless. If a person is starving they couldn’t care less what you think is acceptable. They will do what they need to survive.
but it is impossible for us to give any rational reason for why a starving person should not steal our bread.
Possibly, but the problem with that is there are no starving people in New Zealand,
Yeah I wonder why. It certainly isn’t because we live in an anarchist paradise.
and the State does not rob and steal in order to feed the starving. It robs and steals in order to spend it on TV stations, the non-starving poor (who could be helped by private chairty) Trains, a massive bureaucracy, and myriad other things which are not valid.
But all of these things share the same argument: that it makes people, generally speaking, better off. This may not be true in all cases, but it is the general argument nonetheless. This is how rational people behave Lee01. They don’t conform to some rigid ideology, they do what they perceive is in their best interests and to this end they vote accordingly. Or at least that is the intention.
Therefore, I would argue that government inherits the right to “steal” on behalf of those who are impoverished
The flaw in your assumption is that they would not be fed unless the State does the feeding. But historically this is not the case. Private chairty has, and can do the job. Therefore your rational for the State stealing is false, because it is not necessary for the issue your using.
Starvation is an extreme example. But the principle remains the same. Morality has no meaning unless rational people agree on certain basic values. The most basic value is our self interest. To say private charity can feed the starving is probably true. But will it provide all that is required for people to participate in modern society and to live a life that people would generally consider acceptable?
You are advocating a set of rules that goes against the interests of large numbers of people. I fail to see how that will end peacefully.
Salus populi suprema est lex (“The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.”)
The welfare of the people is not enhanced by allowing an armed gang to prey on them, dictate to them, steal from them, and otherwise destroy their welfare through the use of force.
Receiving a state funded education, receiving state funded medical treatment and having the assurance of a social safety net does not, according to sensible people, amount to the state destroying people’s welfare. You’re labouring under the false assumption that maximum liberty is necessarily consistent with people’s welfare.
Vote: