It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

My point is that taxes are an evil. That is generally what we call things that are immoral.

Now we can debate necessary evils, but the thing to understand about necessary evils is that they are best understood to be kept to a severe minimum. Once you begin down the road of normalizing and accepting an evil, it leads to more bad things. In this case, and has already been discussed, it leads to resentment and anger on all sides for various reasons.




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
well, it seems that the idea of some of the tax revenue being used to help the poor and elderly is older than the United States, not to mention our modern day concepts of "liberal" and "conservative"

maybe some would prefer to live someplace else like Bangladesh or India, where crippled children are out on the streets begging, heck, where there's even gangs that go around crippling children and forcing them onto the streets to beg.

www.tribuneindia.com...
www.slate.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
My point is that taxes are an evil. That is generally what we call things that are immoral.

Now we can debate necessary evils, but the thing to understand about necessary evils is that they are best understood to be kept to a severe minimum. Once you begin down the road of normalizing and accepting an evil, it leads to more bad things. In this case, and has already been discussed, it leads to resentment and anger on all sides for various reasons.

Not everyone shares you opinion that it is evil, necessary or otherwise, so right out of the gate you are talking about different things.

My point was, what are you going to do about it? Probably nothing besides complain on the net.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You seem to think it's immoral though.

Taking property from someone against their will to use as you desire is theft and immoral. That is what taxes are. It changes nothing that a government is the entity taking or that they government can make it legal. If it did, then slavery would be moral, and I think we can all agree that no matter how legal it was, it was still immoral.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

the evil started long before the taxes did. ya know, way back when powerful, wealthy men began to raise up armies of hoodlums that went from village to village raping, pillaging, murdering, and warring with the other warlords over who should have the right to rule and control the people in the villages and make serfs out of them.
as long as there are people who are able to overpower and take advantage of those who are weaker, there will be need for some form of rule, which always will require taxes and laws. and, there will be people willing to pay those taxes for the security and perks that are provided by the rulers.
there's a simple solution for those who despise the idea of having to pay taxes. quit your job, go find yourself a nice national forest to get lost in and begin building a nice self sufficient life for yourself, without all the protection and perks that this society provides....



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand the argument. The thing is that the thread is about how the money is spent.

ETA: Making it seem like the gov spending it one way is bad and you are here saying it is all bad even though the constitution provides for taxation for buying stuff. Just saying.

Also, I don't agree with the word evil. If you pay taxes and get a good ROI then is that evil?

If you buy from a private company and their product is not as good as another brand do you consider them evil?


edit on 26-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What you're missing is that the warlords you denigrate were the government of the time. There is precious little difference between them and our present government, other than the fact our present government is larger and has written policies. I'll admit the written policies are an improvement.

But it's still about control of the people and keeping people in their place. The warlords of old also provided protection from invaders and troublemakers. And they still collected taxes, although sometimes they were called tribute. And the people still paid them, primarily to keep the government from coming after them.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Also, I don't agree with the word evil. If you pay taxes and get a good ROI then is that evil?

If you buy from a private company and their product is not as good as another brand do you consider them evil?

You miss a very important aspect: in the former, one did not make a choice to invest, while in the latter they chose to purchase.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You choose where you live and you could always try to get away with not paying.

ETA Sorry, my point was that you get something back for your taxes. Is that textbook evil? I don't think so.
edit on 26-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
If you think taxes are "taking from me and giving to others" then you are ideologically at odds with this country, and should find a new country to move to.

To me, paying my taxes isn't "taking from me and giving to others", it's how I contribute to keeping America great. It pays for my roads, firemen, police, military, science grants for university research...and a bunch of other things that make "civilized life" possible.

That's part of the social contract I willingly and gladly accept.

If you are opposed to this, then move to Tanzania or Uganda. I hear you can do whatever the hell you want there and no one will "take mah monies!".


If my taxes pay "for my roads, firemen, police, military, science grants for university research...and a bunch of other things that make "civilized life" possible."

Then why are my roads such crap? You are mistaken if you believe what taxes are said to be for are actually used for that.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You itemized a few things and included a whole bunch more under "things that make "civilized life" possible." but only complained about roads.

Most spending goes to the military and you got that in aces, without taking into account the black project space fleets (this is still ATS isn't it).



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Possible, not perfect.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You itemized a few things and included a whole bunch more under "things that make "civilized life" possible." but only complained about roads.

Most spending goes to the military and you got that in aces, without taking into account the black project space fleets (this is still ATS isn't it).


I did not itemize anything. I quoted another member.
Thank you for playing.
Roads are a major infrastructure issue that are part of taxes attached to petrol/ gasoline taxes that we pay at the pump.
So what are those taxes going to?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Sorry, did I miss something? I simply do not remember filling out a form to choose where I was born before I was born. What do you remember about choosing your birthplace? How specific were you? Like, did you fill out the address, or just the city? Or was it just the state? Maybe the country? I'd like to know, since I don't remember choosing for myself.

As for something back... let me pose a scenario: You walk into a convenience store and want to buy a drink for, say, $1. You have no money with you, but you do have a slightly used cigarette lighter that is worth $1. So you take the drink, drop the lighter on the counter and run out of the store into a cop. Are you guilty of shoplifting?

Just because one gets a return on a forced contribution, it does not make that contribution a good thing. A deal is only a good deal if both parties get something they want from it and agree to it beforehand... in my example, I would be guilty of shoplifting because there was no agreement beforehand to exchange a lighter for a drink. There would have been an implied agreement to exchange $1 for a drink, implied by the fact that I was in a store using legal tender and the price was marked.

Taxes are still necessary; I do not deny that. But they are inherently not a free and fair exchange, and therefore should be kept to the minimum absolutely necessary.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I like it when people say “my money” in these debates...

They never consider the fact that without the safety net of government protection the company they work for wouldn’t compensate them for their work at all...

You’d be a literal slave without government and would have no way of changing that.




Here come the smart arses...
“I’ll just become self employed and wouldn’t have to rely on a company to compensate me”...

That is until your business is raided by anyone who so desires to really “take from you”...
& again... without government, that would be a very likely outcome.




So... slave, or self employed target of the local warlords and mafioso...



Hahaha.

You’d soon be willing to pay taxes to avoid such a drastic decline in societal values.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Well, what you quoted was itemized.

A good chunk of that money might be going to the expensive toilets on the intergalactic space tanks.


edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

True, but I didn't say free and fair exchange I just said that "evil" might not be the best word to describe that situation.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


You’d be a literal slave without government and would have no way of changing that.

Amazing... so how did the United States survive and grow into an economic superpower then?

There was no Federal income tax from 1776 until 1862. The maximum tax rate did not exceed 10% until 1916. That's 86 years without an income tax and another 54 years at 10% or less. Were there warlords taking over American villages during that 140 years? History shows the US grew economically at an amazing rate... are all the books wrong?

You can verify all this here.

And yes, it is MY MONEY. Keep your greedy paws off it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Fair enough, perhaps "criminal" might be the best way to describe it. That's how I would be described if I were to act out my example. The problem with that is that criminality is defined by the law, which is instituted by the government. Thus, taxation by the government cannot technically be criminal.

How about "necessary evil"?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hows slashing taxes working in Alabamistan and Kansistan? I hear its such a runaway success, that they're keeping the schools in Kansistan only open four whole days a week now!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join