Hypocrisy of Teachers

[genkaus]

Taxes are necessary to anyone that lives in an advanced society. I would say that while you hate paying taxes, the alternative is much worse. The American government would go bankrupt to the point of dissociation if taxes were absolved. Roads, bridges, and sewers would crumble nearly instantaneously and there would be a world filled to extinction with violence, not to mention all the public service workers that would suddenly lose everything, including government officials. Of course no one likes taxes, neither do I, but I accept my responsibility to contribute to the society and government I live in for the betterment of my fellow citizens.

As for the teaching of common morals/ethics like the one against stealing other peoples' property, I would say that this concept didnt apply in the situation of taxes. As an advanced civilization, we have collectively agreed to sanction taxes on citizens. While I agree that the taxes too high and the government should be using the tax money much more wisely, I do not agree at all that it is stealing. The misuse of government money is not a reason to discontinue taxes all together, it just means that reform may be need quickly to establish a better system in which people are benefited more from their tax money.

The one peeve that I have with taxation is that what it is in principle and what it should be in practice are two very different things.

When we consider taxation here, we seem to accept that there are great advantages to having a government - political and economic stability, necessary infrastructure, security - all services provided by the government for which it should be paid. And we often consider taxes to be the form of that payment. And while we might wish we had those services cheaper (or even free), we don't regard this arrangement as a form of extortion.

However, in principle, taxes are a form of extortion. If you look up what a tax means, you'd see that it is "a pecuniary burden levied by the state that is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution". Obviously, this is not how governments in a free society apply the principle. It is evident from the fact that governments are supposed to use this money to provide the necessary services and any misuse is considered corruption. If modern governments taxed its citizens without providing the requisite services, they'd have a revolution in one year and a new government the next.

My peeve is, why haven't we changed the principle to match the practice? While it isn't much of an issue where governments are held accountable, this principle can and does run havoc in other countries. At the very least, changing it would separate good governments from bad ones.

---

That would apply if it was voluntary. It's not agreed upon.

Government is not agreed upon unless every single person in that area explicitly agrees, you can't assume someone's agreement in a contract, that is illegal.

I can't logically or morally use someone else's signature without permission, since it is not true - that person didn't agree to it by definition. So if you can't assume the agreement of one person, then you certainly can't assume the agreement of millions including the unborn.

Your signature here is in the form of your citizenship and the terms of the contract are spelled out in the constitution. You can revoke your signature anytime you want - give up your citizenship.