Libertarian philosopher R. Nozick argues taxation for any reason other than national defensive and public safety requires taking a richer person’s earnings and giving them to a poorer person. But this is like forcing the rich person to work for the benefit of the poor person. Therefore, says Nozick, redistributive taxation (Nozick's term for such taxes) is like forced labor. Is Nozick right?
Is redistributive taxation really like forced labor? Forced labor is a kind of slavery. Are rich people who have to pay taxes like slaves? In what sense?
Societies lead to wealth, not individual effort. Try to run asuccessful business in Libya at the moment and you'll see what I mean. At to that the fact that capitalism is inheirently exploitative (profit by definition is the difference between what something is worth and what you can sell it for) and it seems to me that Nozick's arguement doesn't hold water. 'Redistributive taxes' are simply societies way of mitagating the inheirent inequalities of Capitalism so that a stable social fabric can be created.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with people getting rich so long as they don't do it by taking advantage of others to get their riches. Also, when they do strike it rich, they should not be able to get away with things that we the common man can't. Example, not pay taxes and getting away with it. Paying off politicians to get laws passed in their best interest at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteThere are many layers to this argument. If one can itemize deductions, then charitable contributions offset taxes owed. The rich can donate millions, and I can donate hundreds, and taxes are reduced, and those in need benefit; this is a voluntary redistribution. If Nozick disagrees with any form of government assistance to those in need, I jump on board for the way funds are managed. I have experienced too many teens with one baby, who have another before they are 17, and then complain that their check isn't as big as someone else's . . . too many families who depend on SSI or ADC or whatever, and send their kids to school for a week and then let them stay home while they collect a check. More money toward better management and less money toward moochers would make me feel better about any redistribution.
ReplyDeleteHaving taken a mission with a group of teens to bad-lands Indian reservation I have seen first hand what GIVING money (or welfare) to a group of people can do. This was the Lakota tribe – by wounded knee. One of the things our group did was clean their school and their manse. At the manse they had had a party and no one had cleaned anything up. Spoiled food, dirty plates, etc. Yes, out mid-west teens bagged and cleaned. At the school the grass hadn’t cut for weeks, they hadn’t even bothered to flush toilets. So what was the rest of the population doing? Nothing. The unemployment rate was close to 100%. The population came to the school for meals (free) and then went home. It was explained to us, by members of the tribe, that several businesses had tried to set up and run, but the local population would work on Indian time. That translates to come when they feel like it and leave when they want, if they came at all that day. The businesses failed. Members of the tribe were eagerly recruited outside of the reservation and if they had the ambition and ability, they left the reservation.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would like to see money given for training and education. Money used to help those working towards a goal self reliance. I have seen it work wonders with teen mothers, and I have seen it abused. It is more than just throwing money at a problem. That just makes it harder for some to move on with their life.
No, taxation is not slavery, but it is a form of robbery and for that reason it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gill on this one. If a person has a talent that is marketable, then there’s nothing wrong with wealth. If however, wealth is arrived at through greedy exploitation, it should be against the law. And these good laws should enact measures of justice.
Jay make’s the assumption that all wealth is arrived at through greedy exploitation (which to my understanding is foundational to Marxist philosophy). And so he justifies redistributive taxes. This kind of justice is assuming the wealthy are guilty without due cause. This violates my understanding of two higher goods. First, ‘don’t steal‘. And second, ‘an eye for an eye‘, which is not, as it is often misused, a law of vengeance, but it is a law limiting vengeance.
By Marxist thinking, all Americans should be robbed (taxed) to redistribute the wealth to third world countries. Taxation sounds great as long as its picking someone else’s pocket to advance my causes, but I don’t think any rich American Communists really want to even out the standard of living all over the globe. If they say they do, I doubt they have really crunched the numbers and given it serious thought.
Instead of stifling growth and shrinking the pie and sharing equally with everyone. Let’s discourage greedy exploitation, encourage innovation and charity. Then watch the pie grow so there’s more for everyone.
Rich people are not paying taxes like slaves. This is a very selfish way of presenting taxation. We all pay taxes, but I don't think most of us consider it slavery. Some people may consider it forced labor, but again, I think one should consider it a means of helping others and ourselves with services that are necessary in societies for betterment of the people of the nation--schools, social welfare.... Perhaps, we do need to redistribute the wealth a little, not making the rich pay for everything, but some of it. Taxes are essential for the betterment of society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteTax stimulus money was distributed according to tax brackets. People in the upper brackets didn't receive a stimulus check. However, many people who did not receive checks worked hard for their earnings. I don't know that there was anything just about that.
ReplyDelete