Moggy wrote:It’s contradictory because you’ve claimed that it’s morally wrong to forcibly take money that people have earned.
You then say that we should have tax, but that it should be lower.
That contradicts itself, either tax is wrong or not. If forcibly taking money is morally wrong, then taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%.
You edited your post.
It’s not a strawman to ask somebody how we pay for things when they have said that forcibly taking earnings is wrong. It’s a logical question to ask.
No, it isn't contradictory. I'm still not sure what the hang-up is, here. I agree forcefully taking money is wrong. I disagree with you entirely that "taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%". Taking less money is still wrong, but less wrong than taking more money. Taking 10% is half as wrong as taking 20%, to me. Because by taking 10%, you're taking away one tenth of someone's income, by taking 20% you're taking a whole fifth. There is a demonstrable impact on someone's life between the two rates, especially on someone who is on a poorer income. I didn't say there was a system which would work that would be "completely" morally okay. I reject the assumption that that is possible.
I take it you generally don't believe there is such thing as a "necessary evil", then.
And yes I edited my post because I had additional thought to weigh in and didn't care to double post. I did it with this one too!
Tineash wrote:Maybe you could just provide a comprehensive list of which forms of taxation you do and don't consider legitimate.
I mean we got income tax: naughty bad I earned that go away, and CGT:yep cool ya got me.
Now just fill in the rest.
Why are you talking about 'legitimacy'? They're all legitimate. I don't think any tax is particularly good but I think it's a necessary evil (again, not 'evil', but best phrase that comes to mind).
I'm seriously unsure why this forum has a problem with grasping the concept of "necessary evil".