A Serious Question For Progressives About Taking

[WuWei]

@Dem

Isnt this just a matter of scale? The more people you help personally, the closer you get to helping society as a whole.

Let me see if I’m understanding your viewpoint correctly. Taxes for roads and Defense are ok because the go to society as whole. But, taxes for student loan forgiveness, healthcare, food stamps, etc. Are not, because it helps individuals?

Where would fire, and education fit in? Society or individual? What would I care if someones house on the other side of the city burns down, or if someone else’s kids get an education?

If we decide taxes are ok to pay for some things like defense, then the argument becomes, what else is it ok to spend taxes on? Each different policy will have different value and moral arguments. What do we as a society(Americans) value?

The Constitution takes care of defense (and a few other things).

Yes, paying an individual’s debt does not serve society, it serves that individual.

I don’t agree with education, but I can understand it. Primary education should be tax deductible and private. But one can argue that it benefits society in that it reduces the number of morons, or at least did.

College debt is individual and college is not necessary for survival, it’s a luxury. It’s not “helping individuals”, it’s paying for individuals. What benefit to society to pay for some dumbass to get an art degree?

Fire? You don’t care that somebody else’s house on the other side of town burned down, you care if yours does. You are simply sharing a resource. And if you live in an ant hill, if you don’t put it out, yours will burn up.

I didn’t mention healthcare, but I am not opposed to single payer as a concept, I simply don’t trust anybody to manage it and steal from it like they do social security. And everybody has to pay.

I am not adverse temporary assistance for the truly needy. But welfare is not a way of life.

You’re kind of running this off the rails.

[WuWei]

@Guilds

@conan

True…

The folks who may save your life, or someone you care about, have medical degrees.
The toy you are playing with now was developed by people who have engineering degrees.

They were smart before they went to college.

[WuWei]

@Guilds

@STODR

You don’t need a college degree to be an EMT.

Indeed.
Is there necessary training? Or can one just walk off the street and get hired?

Yes. Does it result in $100k of debt? No. Do I pay for you to go? No.

[WuWei]

@Dem

@WuWei

Speaking of

The Squad on the Prod - #245 by WuWei

Policy violence? Thats some dumb rhetoric.

It’s the rhetoric that will be having me paying for somebody else’s debt so they can have a better life.

[WuWei]

@STODR

@Guilds

@STODR

You don’t need a college degree to be an EMT.

Indeed.
Is there necessary training? Or can one just walk off the street and get hired?

Yes normally provided by a fire department or job. I got mine as a senior in HS working Ski Patrol at night after school. Paramedic would be a better example you are trying make.

The military will do it as well. Paramedic too.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

The government doesn’t require your assent to spend the money.

Consent of the governed. Constitution.

[WuWei]

@mbus

@WuWei

Speaking of

The Squad on the Prod - #245 by WuWei

We paid for our daughter’s college education. Every penny of it.

May I get reimbursed for not committing violence?

Exactly. Mine graduated debt free with two degrees.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Congress has the power to tax and spend. Now I will agree that the “general welfare” clause does some very heavy lifting in this regard, but you have to balance that against the fact that this is how it has been done.

Ignoring the Constitution.

[WuWei]

@mbus

@Guvnah

@mbus

I think your question should be directed to your representatives. They are the governed who govern.

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?

No. Because yours and mine are different.

[WuWei]

@mbus

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.

No, it’s not a right.

[WuWei]

@TheRedComet

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 pols are in breach. They also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution in exchange.

[WuWei]

@mbus

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.

Morally, and from all progressives. Not just pols.

[TheRedComet]

I agree. Which is where the strife comes from.

[WuWei]

@TheRedComet

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.

In a consumer/materialist system.

@TheRedComet

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 disagree

[WuWei]

My original question was not about government and pols - that is the mechanism for doing it.

I want to know where the morality to do it comes from.

[zantax]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@zantax

@Supreme_War_Pig

@conan

@Supreme_War_Pig

The government doesn’t require your assent to spend the money.

Again…spoken like a true authoritarian.

BTW…very big government you endorsed.

There you go again, trivializing a word by throwing it around heedlessy.

The government simply does not need your consent to spend money. On the federal level, the closest you get to providing your consent is voting for offices every two years.

Once the vote is complete, all you can do is hope that the person you voted for remains true to their word. If they break bad, and decide to fund college debt, are you asked for your consent? Of course not. The best you can do is vote against them.

Ignores the constitution and the fact that spending must be for expressly enumerated powers and that supporting someone else, isn’t one of them.

Congress has the power to tax and spend. Now I will agree that the “general welfare” clause does some very heavy lifting in this regard, but you have to balance that against the fact that this is how it has been done.

What you need to do nowis convince enough politicians to a accept this view and change accordingly.

And until such a time, your consent just isn’t required.

I am going with convention of states at this point.

[zantax]

@WuWei

@mbus

@WuWei

Speaking of

The Squad on the Prod - #245 by WuWei

We paid for our daughter’s college education. Every penny of it.

May I get reimbursed for not committing violence?

Exactly. Mine graduated debt free with two degrees.

Insult to injury. I paid for a doctor and a very fine baker with a business degree who will pay a lot of taxes going forward. And was delighted to contribute that to our society.

[zantax]

@mbus

@TheRedComet

@Guilds

@zantax

So you are in favor of having the poor and middle class paying federal income taxes?

The poor? No.
Middle Class? Yes.

In, a, let’s say, progressive manner. i

Shouldn’t everyone have skin in this game?

Certainly there must be a more fair way to levy tax upon the people.

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.

Let’s skip flat and go to no income taxes. I prefer tariffs and luxury taxes. Much better for the working class.

[zantax]

@TheRedComet

@mbus

@TheRedComet

@Guilds

@zantax

So you are in favor of having the poor and middle class paying federal income taxes?

The poor? No.
Middle Class? Yes.

In, a, let’s say, progressive manner. i

Shouldn’t everyone have skin in this game?

Certainly there must be a more fair way to levy tax upon the people.

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 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.

When I was poor, I paid federal income tax and didn’t get it back in rebates and I thought that was fair. Everyone paid them.

[mbus]

@WuWei

@mbus

@Guvnah

@mbus

I think your question should be directed to your representatives. They are the governed who govern.

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?

No. Because yours and mine are different.

But structurally aren’t they same?