103
104

A new idea... (imgur.com)

chabanaisStronger than derp が 投稿

全 30 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

This is probably the heart of the matter that I do not understand.

Why conservatives (all? some? few?) consider taxation a theft. I have heard it several different times and the only human I have heard it from considers himself a libertarian (I live outside the US).

How will a government function without taxes? Or is it something less extreme than considering all taxes unethical?

edit: thank you guys for your comments, you guys were really nice. I am signing off tonight, but be prepared to be bombarded with more questions sometime in the future.

[–]jfoley31 [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Taxes are of course necessary for lots of proper government functions. Each individual will have their own opinion of what counts as proper government spending versus irresponsible spending or outright graft. Conservatives are generally opposed or skeptical many things that government spends our money on. Libertarians have a more restrictive view of the proper role of government, and so consider much of government spending to be wasteful or improper.

The "taxes are theft" is an exaggeration, although one could easily point at examples that are indeed graft. It's a matter of degree and values.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Thanks for that answer. If you find time, you could clarify a bit more.

  1. Does this imply that I should only pay the amount of tax I think I should?
  2. Should the tax form have a set of tick boxes like "I do not support NASA" or "I do not support Catholic schools"? I can think of worse examples but my point is that nobody would support un-sexy necessary spending, right? Everybody will just tick whatever social/political issue they think is worthy of attention.
  3. What are the necessary functions of a government according to (most) conservatives? Was Trump's answer (1. security, 2. security, 3. security, 4. healthcare, 5. education, ...) morally in line with conservative values?

edit: typo

[–]roberttylerleeReagan Conservative [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

  1. No. It means you vote for people who are "going" to cut those wasteful programs you disagree with.

  2. No. Ties in to question 1. If you disagree with something, vote for someone who is going to cut it/make it something more inline with your beliefs.

  3. The necessary functions of government are outlined in the constitution. They are vaguely outlined in the preamble first:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain, and establish, this constitution for the United States of America.

The necessary functions of lower governments are those outlined in their constitutions.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

From what I have observed about US politics, the politically thorny questions would surround the bit about "general welfare", I guess.

Your tag says you are a Reagan conservative. Pardon my ignorance about the nuances of US politics. Would the (federal) Department of Education fall under "general welfare" for a Reagan conservative? I know US politics is different. In Australia we quite possibly want our schools to be regulated by our federal government.

Also, do conservatives see toppling dictators around the world as "common defense"?

[–]jfoley31 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Does this imply that I should only pay the amount of tax I think I should?

Of course, you should comply with the law, or you risk the consequences.

Should the tax form have a set of tick boxes

Massachusetts allows you to select a higher income tax rate if you wish. Generally government policy is not personally selectable. We can each advocate and vote for what we think is proper. There's no contraction for opposing (for example) government sponsored abortion, but then playing one's income tax regardless.

What are the necessary functions of a government ...

This is too broad a question to answer concisely. To pick out one element: Most government funded schools are run by local or state governments, and are covered by state law. The federal government could shut down the department of education entirely, and just let states and towns raise the funding and set their own policies (as they do already, mostly), without an extra layer of regulation and money shuffling.

Some of his policies align with conservative values (security, ending Obamacare), others don't. Conservative's objection with Trump is not with his policies, but his lack of maturity, inconstancy, and knowledge of how government policies work. Voters favor him not so much for his policies (other than illegal immigration) but because he says what he thinks and that he can get things done.

If you want to understand conservatives, Trump is the wrong example to look at. Trump is a populist who happens to be running as a Republican.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, I know, I do not think Trump is a conservative. But I am interested to learn about conservatism, not vote for anyone. Thanks for your reply.

[–]leftboot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would all taxation without consent is theft. People can say "well the majority agree so..." or "Well it's a necessary thing so..." But that does not change the immorality behind it just because the majority agree. If the majority of your neighbors agree to rob your home, is it not still theft? Slapping the label "Government" on one's self doesn't diminish the immoral act.

[–]universal_strawConstitutional Conservative [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

You have other answers but what the hell? I'll throw my opinion in as well.

Taxes are undeniably, in my opinion, required to a certain extent, and are a necessary evil. I don't like paying them, I don't want to pay them, but I know that for our government to function as required they are needed. My issue is when government steps outside of it's responsibilities, as outlined in the Constitution, and decides that to fund these extra-Constitutional activities more taxes are needed.

So in essence, as much as I hate taxes they are needed, but when you have some members of your society paying upwards of 50% of their income in taxes the system is out of control and that's when it becomes theft.

Edit: You asked this in another comment and I wanted to address it.

What are the necessary functions of a government according to (most) conservatives? Was Trump's answer (1. security, 2. security, 3. security, 4. healthcare, 5. education, ...) morally in line with conservative values?

Absolutely not. Security most conservatives would agree with, but healthcare and education should not even come to mind when talking about the responsibilities of government. Just about all conservatives believe that the federal government should stay out of educations, letting the states handle it, and that healthcare would be much better off completely privatized. Not the bastardization of private/public healthcare we have now.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

So you do not agree with the cartoon's premise that tax is essentially the modern version of raiders plundering the village?

The tax rate for my income (in the $80,001-$180,000 bracket) is $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 ($s in AUD). How much would I pay if I were in the US, for example, the state that you are from? At what point would I earn enough to pay 50%? What kind of job would that be?

[–]universal_strawConstitutional Conservative [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

No, I wouldn't agree with the cartoon, but it did get a chuckle out of me.

I'll use my father as an example. He makes roughly 150k per year, so he is pretty well off. Between federal and state income tax, property tax, sales tax, capital gains, and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head he paid 71k in taxes last year. He and I actually just added it up a few weeks ago. Not quite 50%, but that's ridiculous.

He's a middle aged engineer.

Edit: Well shit. He's 65 now so I guess he's not middle aged anymore.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

How about tax deductions? Are you guys eligible for tax deductions if you, I don't know, (thanks for replying by the way), make salary sacrifices (when buying a home, for example)?

[–]universal_strawConstitutional Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ohh yeah, he qualifies for some. Just not much. He didn't do his taxes himself, but paid an accountant to do it for him. All he and I did was add up the numbers after she'd done all the legwork.

[–]universal_strawConstitutional Conservative [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

So I just did some rough calculations (mind these are very rough), but if you made say 100,000, which is in the bracket you listed, you'd pay 33,000 in taxes. That is including an average yearly burden of 2000 for sales tax in my city, and an average yearly burden of 1300 in property tax for my city.

Without having more specifics you'd be paying roughly 33% on 100,000.

[–]mwd410 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ok, one of us needs to check their math

17,547 + ((100,000 - 80,000) * 0.37) = 24,947

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

In defense of Trump, he did qualify healthcare and education. But I am not a Trump supporter so that's OK.

So, security? That's it? I suppose the Justice system as well, as /u/roberttylerlee explained. Of course, the government already has the justice system as one of the branches. Is the military part of the government in the US? That takes care of the two mentioned. What is the role of the elected administrative body then?

You don't have to reply immediately, I am signing off. Thanks a lot.

[–]longrifleLibertarian Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm with you to a large extent. Anyone who calls all taxes as theft is just using it as a buzz phrase and I think they might be over simplifying it.

A lot of people think taxes are unconstitutional or against the fabric of the founding of our nation, but that's incorrect. Our founders even understood the necessity for taxes, but they were angry about the lack of representation in Parliament even though they were paying these heavy taxes. That's not to say they weren't angry about being over taxed, but not having a proper representative in the government was fuel to the fire. But you also have instances like the Regulator movement in North Carolina in the early 1770s where the people became angry that their taxes became increased and misused to build a lavish mansion for Governor William Tryon. This, in my opinion, is a misuse of tax money that the people can be justifiably angry over.

So I think people become angry about the mishandling of their tax money but sometimes confuse it with being "ALL TAXATION IS THEFT!!!" without really thinking about it.

[–]trytoinjureme [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You're confused for good reason, there is a lot of inconsistency. They recognize the problem with taxation, and think it's insightful to mention it, but they're ultimately no different than they're opponents. They just want the taxation level modified or funds reallocated, the theft is never up to consider being abolished.

How will a government function without taxes?

Not very well, which is why I like the idea. You don't want an entity that makes your life miserable to function very well.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But the sub is upvoting the cartoon, aren't they? Would they upvote it if the message was against their beliefs?

I know it is just a figure of speech. I am trying to understand the rationale behind such enthusiasm for this soundbite.

[–]trytoinjureme [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Would they upvote it if the message was against their beliefs?

Of course, like I said, they're inconsistent. They do see taxation as a problem, but they're not necessarily willing to do anything about it.

[–]jfoley31 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This comic is best understood in its historical context. Earlier in history, aspiring empires found that if they invaded their neighbors, killed the people, and plundered their stuff, there was nothing left to take the next year. An innovation was to subdue the population, take some of their stuff, but leave enough so that they can produce more stuff to be plundered the next year. In a very real and literal sense, taxation was an innovation to plunder more successfully.

In modern times, we get to vote for who gets to plunder us, based on who tells the nicest stories.

[–]RPDBF [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Read The Law by Batiast its only 75 pages and will explain it very simply. Its free online in ebook and audiobook

[–]chabanaisStronger than derp[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

How will a government function without taxes?

Fewer taxes.

[–]hijibijbijCurious about Conservatism [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

So the recommended plan is to plunder them just a bit lesser than a little bit? I do not understand the point of the cartoon then.