- This topic has 66 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“however, the idea that rich pay less taxes is retarded propaganda, and not remotely true.”
I would say that it is very skillful propaganda.
4. Government provides all kinds of necessary or desirable social services that benefit some people more than others — prisons, road-building, financial regulations, and yes, preventing destitute people from starving by giving them a little income. I don’t see how the latter is really different than all the rest.
5&6. “When the majority decides to take stuff from the minority, that is just plain tyranny and stealing.” But that’s not what is happening. The majority is taking from the majority. It’s not as if only the richest people pay taxes. Virtually everyone pays taxes.
7. The distinction is between wealth and income. Wealth includes assets that are relatively stable — one’s net worth. Retirement accounts, houses, valuable personal belongings, etc. Income is what’s coming in — the money you receive. I agree it’s undesirable, and even akin to stealing, to talk somebody’s house and give it to somebody else. That’s the kind of thing Mao or Pol Pot did. But taking a small proportion of general tax revenues to give needy people a little income, which they more or less immediately spend on necessities, is neither redistribution of wealth or stealing. It’s just giving the needy some temporary help.
Regardless, it’s not feasible or desirable to take people’s voting rights away whenever they’re receiving any kind of government benefit, or to get rid of democracy in general. When you can’t vote, you can’t protect your rights — and I’m not talking about a “right” to welfare, but basic civil rights.
Moreover, what would really be in poor people’s interest is to pass legislation that would provide them with job training and job placement services, and probably an increased minimum wage, so that they could be self-sufficient rather than relying on benefits (Rambam’s highest level of charity!). Ratcheting down the drug war and reducing incarceration to reasonable levels would probably help too (since imprisonment devastates people’s job prospects and impoverishes those left in the community). But how are they supposed to achieve such things without being able to vote?
Taxing assets is double taxation. You already took your cut when I earned it and didn’t spend it. I don’t want to get involved here but I think that was simple enough.
4. It’s not a very important difference. I’d rather differentiate between government actions based on whether they advance the common good. If you’d ask me, do I see a difference between the U.S. spending hundreds of millions overthrowing foreign governments for speculative and questionable reasons (insert your favorite examples here), and spending the same amount filling some poor American’s bellies and giving them a chance to escape poverty for the long-term, I’d say sure, the first is objectionable and the second is unobjectionable.
5&6. In general, yes, I would find that unfair, but it really depends on the context. Is there a good reason to do what they’re doing in the context of their society? What percentage of the rich quartile’s income does $1000 represent? Do the top 25% have some representation in government? How do they feel about the decision?
What about this. Would you find it objectionable if the lowest quartile of income paid 20% in taxes (mainly sales taxes), the second quartile paid 23% (in sales, property and income taxes), the third quartile paid 27% (ditto), and the richest quartile paid 30% (in mainly property and income taxes), and the government does all kinds of things with the money, and spends a small proportion of it helping the poorest when they need it? If the majority (composed of people of all groups, but weighted somewhat toward the lower end) had approved it? What if the majority were composed mainly of the upper two or three quartiles, because upper quartiles vote more often than people in lower quartiles?
7. They’re not amassing a fortune by taking your money. They’re getting it just to survive. And I’m not sure I agree it’s all “yours.” If it weren’t for police and courts and a stable society and government (all made possible by taxes) you probably wouldn’t have been able to manage to grow the wheat, because you’d be too busy dealing with the chaos of living in an uncivilized and corrupt society. We’re all in this together. This is a cliche by now, but you didn’t build that — not all on your own. The myth of rugged individualism is just that — a myth.
Squeak is a fascist
I wouldn’t deny it if it was true, but I don’t see how that follows. In any case, I was just making a point. Not sharing my personal values.
I don’t mean double taxation as in corporate profits followed by personal profits. I mean that after the income is taxed what’s left should be mine. Wealth is post-tax income not spent.
Now if you’d like to discuss my personal opinion on this (which is: a bank account should be subject to property tax like any other significant asset) somewhere else I’d be glad to. Just not near Ayn Rand.
4. Whether anti-poverty spending is in the overall public interest is complex issue depending on empirical questions (does it foster dependency or independence? would the lack of such programs cause instability?) and values questions (do we value helping the most vulnerable, whether or not it will be of direct benefit to ourselves? is it ethical to allow people to starve or live in miserable poverty when we could prevent it?).
I’d like to see these programs administered in much different ways, especially in the US, but still overall I think they work in the public interest, and are thus worthwhile even if they superficially look as though they work against the private interests of the wealthy and for the private interests of the poor. The more poverty and inequality you have in a society, the worse it tends to be for everyone (in terms of all sorts of economic and non-economic variables). Recent research has provided a lot of evidence for this.
It’s also important to point out that the wealthiest have overwhelming political influence in this country. It’s not as if the poor masses are voting in the populists to soak the rich. It hasn’t been anywhere near that, at least since the FDR administration.
5&6. Here’s an example of how it might depend on context. Let’s say there’s a general agreement in that society that dramatically progressive taxation is in the public interest, because it brings society together or increases consumption and thus economic growth or whatever. If the vast majority believe that, I wouldn’t have a problem with it even if a few of the people within the top quartile do object to it. So in your terms, the underlying theory would not be extracting money from others, but rather providing for a decent society in which we’re all in this together and we all do our share. I believe this is how most people think about things in Northern Europe (which by the way is unlike this example empirically, because they have mainly universal benefits).
On a policy level, however, I think it’s best to have a system that’s far different than what you proposed — that is, that’s either slightly progressive tax-wise or not progressive at all — but that provides significant benefits to pretty much everybody at some time in their lives, whether that’s job training, subsidized low-cost university tuition, high-quality universal health care, paid parental leave, etc. The well-off tend to resent social spending if it doesn’t benefit them very much.
7. You haven’t paid for all those things yourself — you have, together with all the rest of the society (since everyone pays taxes.) It’s not that rich people “owe” that portion of their taxes to poor people. But they do have the obligation of paying the taxes that the government has decided to raise.
The fact that a small proportion of those taxes is going to temporary emergency relief to prevent great suffering and death of the most vulnerable people should not prompt selfish anger at having one’s “wealth distributed,” but rather an appreciation of the need for society to help those who can’t help themselves by spending some general tax revenue money.
After all, the money isn’t really yours — everything on this earth belongs to G-d. Money is not what’s important. Torah, mitzvos, chesed, maasim tovim — this is what is important. Why is it so critical to hold on to all your money and have none of it go to other people? Rabbis have referred to this country as Medinas Shel Chesed, perhaps because of the relative lack of anti-Semitism here. Should we be so aggrieved that the country also engages in the bestowal of kindness in other ways?
One more thing: Millions of children die of preventable diseases every year, mainly in Africa but also in many other places.
Let’s say that 1% of American tax revenues started being spent directly to stop this — not our current system of foreign aid, but giving people anti-diarrhea medicines and vaccines and such and directly preventing thousands of deaths.
What would your reaction be? To seethe in self-righteous anger at having been “robbed”? If so, I think there’s a good chance Ayn Rand may have brainwashed you from the grave.
Personally, I would jump for joy, and thank Hashem for allowing these children to be saved, whether or not my hard-earned income was taxed to pay for it.
1. Just because the majority voted for something that does not make it right. To give an admittedly extreme example, the majority in Germany voted to despoil and later kill Jews.When NYS enacted rent control, while not all agreed with him, Rav Hutner termed it gezel baal habayit.
2.While as in other monetary matters minhag mevatel halacha, the preferred method is to tax according to the benefit. If all benefit equally the activity is financed by a head tax. If the rich nbenefit more than the poor by wealth taxes. If the benefit is mixed the activity is financed half by the former and half by the latter (see, for example, Shulchan Aruch and Rema Choshen Mishpat 163:3).
3. The government in enjoined not to overtax (Nehemia 5:15, Midrash HaGadol Shemot 21 Introduction to parasha, Ple Yoetz “tikkun”, Rav S.R. Hirsch “Horev” 95:604). What can be done by civil society should not be done by government and what can be done by a more local government, which is closer to the problem, should not be done by a more central government. For example, monetary disputes can be adjudicated by “judicial companies” (e.g batel din) but except for certain groups social pressure is insufficient and government enforcement is necessary – but not necessarily at the Federal level.In fact, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is gaining popularity due to the expense and time-consuming nature of suits in government courts with many contracts containg ADR clauses.
AviK, thanks for the sources — that’s interesting.
Popa, that’s a good way of putting it. In other words, you’re arguing for a morality based on a priori principles, while I’m arguing a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic that looks at the effects of policies. (However, I think principles are important too, and part of it is that we don’t agree on the principle — we don’t agree on what constitutes stealing and whether government income redistribution is immoral.)
We don’t have to get into this now, but the question is, which view is more compatible with Torah? I guess one place to start would be to read R’ Aharon Levine.
You’re welcome. Dr. Meir Tamari has also written several books. Position papers in Hebrew are available on the website of ???? ????? ????.Rav Yosef Yitzhak Lifshitz of the Shalem Center has also written a number of articles in English which are on-line.
Thanks again, Avi!
You’re welcome again.
Here is an interesting piece that appeared in “Daily Events” regarding how to achieve the highest for of tzedaka:
Texas has a balanced budget amendment. The recently passed 2013 budget cut both taxes and spending, and produced a record-setting $8 billion budget surplus. Congratulations to Governor Rick Perry. By contrast California is an insolvent state with a net worth of NEGATIVE $127.2 billion (according to the California State Auditor).
How about jobs? Feast your eyes on these statistics: Since 2007 one third of all jobs in America were created in Texas, and in the past decade, more jobs were created in Texas than in the other 49 states Combined.
The result is the best economy in America and the one thing Obama can NEVER make happen- robust job creation. Long live Wild West Cowboy Capitalism!.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.