Read back through the thread. Maybe your point needs to be directed at @Dem. He’s the one who said that forcing us to pay off someone else’s school loans was a matter of “consent of the governed.”
I think when we vote, we give our representatives consent to give our consent, no?
1 Like
On paper it works that way.
In reality, my original statement stands:
Which governed voters said, “Sure, take my money and pay off someone else’s school loans” ?
At best, some voters have said, “Sure, take [that guy’s] money and pay off my school loans.”
Certainly this sort of taking and redistributing does NOT represent the majority of citizens, even if supposed representatives craft such social engineering.
Yes, and that paper is the Constitution. I oppose the wholesale paying off of student loans, but we’ve given these folks the right to make such decisions. Unless there is a Constitutional challenge, we’re stuck with using our votes to make a difference.
Or run for office. We live in a country where anybody can become a representative.
1 Like
Techically it is a form of authoritarianism, as the threat of punishment for tax evasion and refusal are severe and always have been.
However, it is part of the social contract between the people and their government to allow said government to levy taxes in exchange for the building of the general good.
The issue comes from one simple question. What is the general good? That means different things to different individuals. Between different groups. What is good for one may not be good for the other.
I have no solution for how to correct that. It is a conflict inherent to the relationship between the state and the people. Because the people aren’t the same.
5 Likes
Shouldn’t everyone have skin in this game?
Certainly there must be a more fair way to levy tax upon the people.
3 Likes
Sneaky’s original post was from where does the right come? The other part, which you address, is how is that right administered. Very different subjects, indeed.
Steve Forbes went up in smoke advocating a flat rate income tax. No one, Republican or Democrat, has touched it since, or ever will in my opinion.
I don’t buy this, it’s lazy use of the language. But if you/they want to call it that, whatevs.
That is an interesting question. Technically the state doesn’t have rights. It has delegated authority.
From that perspective, it would be a part of the contract between the people and their government. When men come together to form governments and societies, they are willingly giving up a part of their freedom as humans to form a system that would to their own betterment. At least that’s the intention.
Anarchists of all stripes would disagree with that, though. And they make very compelling cases, imo.
4 Likes
What else can it be?
No one would pay taxes if they didn’t have to. People with the means to do so go to the ends of the earth to lower the amount of taxes that they pay.
Without the threat of force, taxation could not exist. It is something the people gave up to the state in exchange for the pooling of resources to build the general good.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
1 Like
Coercive? Sure. Authoritarian? No, unless words no longer have fixed meaning, a point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.
I think the issue (at least for me) isn’t so much the taxation itself. But instead what constitutes the general good.
I am sure that our ideas of what the general good is greatly differ. Almost everyone’s ideas about the general good greatly differ.
I agree. A flat tax is the most equal form of taxation in theory, but 15% of 10,000 dollars effects an individual differently than 15% of 3 million.
I feel like the fairest form of taxation in both theory and practice is consumption based. Technically you get to decide what to pay in to the system. Everyone from the poorest pauper to the richest tycoon would be taxed at rates they can afford.
I like your distinction between equal and fair.
1 Like
Sure, but consider this: I/we accede to your outlook, and you/they accede to mine.
The money is fungible, in a great big pot. I’ll put extra of my share to tuition, and you can pay your share extra for littoral combat ships.
Or whatever.
I would actually put mine towards trades and hard sciences, and engineering oriented higher education. The education would be a loan at a fixed monthly rate with no interest. They wouldn’t have to pay until after getting a job in their chosen field.
They wouldn’t be going to Harvard or extremely high level schools. But trade schools, community colleges, and affordable state level universities if they meet certain qualifications that show a high chance of both graduating and having appropriate work ethic.
The people would be making an investment into a citizen while something tangible in return. Which is why I have to limit it to trades, engineering, and hard sciences.
In addition, aptitude tests would be introduced at the high school level to see where the citizens excel and show high interest in. They would take course work related to that field starting in high school.
Basically it’s a modification of the German model, which is one of the best models to emulate in the world.
They can choose not to participate, but they could not receive funding for other educational ventures.
As for the current school debt issue, I don’t have an answer for that.
Why?
. .
