mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/11/84)
On taxation being robbery and governments not creating wealth, I think
Ian Darwin is absolutely dead wrong (not my usual impression of his postings).
Capitalism works because of the concentration of control in a place where
decisions can be made.
Money in the hands of many people, a little for each person, cannot get
refineries or factories, or even houses built. You have to concentrate
the money for these things to happen. But it isn't the money itself
that is useful -- that's only paper. It is coordinating the work of
many people that is useful. These people may work directly for the
money funnel (boss) or for the suppliers of goods to the capitalist,
or for secondary suppliers ... All money achieves is the control of
these people's work.
Individuals or corporations do not create wealth. Wealth is not money.
What wealth is, is the ability to have or do what you want, and that
means organization. Wealth is created by orgainzing raw materials
into something useful: ore into metal, silicon into computers, lumber
into houses, and so forth.
There are many things that are good for the community, but not good
for any one individual. Basic research is such a thing. Roads are
another. For these things, one needs a concentration of control in
the hands of someone whose concern is the good of the community
(and I don't want to get into the infinite recursion about it being
to his benefit to be re-elected because he appears to be doing good
for the community). The job of a capitalist is to improve his degree
of control, and his means is to augment the supply of money at his
disposal.
Any society that is to stay healthy must have an organization that
controls the work of people for the benefit of the community. They
can do it by coersion (China, for example), or by using money in the
same way as the capitalist. You have the choice between tithing your
labour for community purposes or paying taxes so that someone else does
the community work. Perhaps it would be better if we all took our
turns as police, roadworkers, garbage collectors, scientists, and
so forth, doing the necessary things that individuals might not feel
worth while to them (or might not be able to afford). But such labour
would also have to be either coerced or paid.
In any event, SOME taxation money does go to create wealth. Other money
goes to reduce the concentration of control by allowing more people
to get a small share of the money, and they can thereby exercise
cooperative control of the capitalists by buying or not buying products.
That kind of control requires distribution of resources, not concentration.
It has been shown by history that such distribution does not happen
with laissez-faire government, but without it, the capitalists themselves
suffer collectively.
It is silly to say that government use of money does not create wealth.
It does, by both direct and indirect means. It is equally silly to equate
taxation with robbery. Without it, you wouldn't have the "money"
you claim is yours and not ours (including you).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmthenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/14/84)
> Capitalism works because of the concentration of control in a place where > decisions can be made. No argument, although this also applies to every other form of government (indeed, every form of organization in general). > Money in the hands of many people, a little for each person, cannot get > refineries or factories, or even houses built. You have to concentrate > the money for these things to happen. Yes, but this is the job that banks do. It is silly to assert, as some have, that all those little bits of money don't do any good. Nonsense; most of them either (a) get spent, or (b) get put into a bank. Banks do an excellent job of concentrating money for investment, and they do it without coercion. Why bring the government in on it? > There are many things that are good for the community, but not good > for any one individual. Basic research is such a thing. Roads are > another. ... I'm not sure about Ian, but I personally tend to agree that this sort of thing is a reasonable role for government. This does not mean that all kinds of other things (oil companies, airlines, vacation resorts, amusement parks, etc.) can be justified on similar grounds. Furthermore, many of these things *can* be set up so that they are good for specific individuals as well. Not all, but many. Bridges, for example, are generally government-owned, but it is not clear that this is really a good idea. The poor state of repair of many major bridges is becoming a major scandal in the US, but toll bridges are not among the problem cases. The reason is obvious: toll bridges have revenue available for maintenance, and specific people interested in making sure that they get maintained. I know, it's a pain paying toll, but it really does seem to work better that way... > It is silly to say that government use of money does not create wealth. Again, I don't know about Ian, but I don't take quite such an absolute position. "Quite". *Most* government use of money does not create wealth, and that which does, often does it very inefficiently. > ......................................It is equally silly to equate > taxation with robbery. Taxation is legalized theft. Let us not mince words -- it is the government taking money out of my pocket by force, without supplying a specific service in return. That's theft. The only reason it's legal is that it's done by the same organization that makes the laws. This does not mean I see a way to eliminate it [although I do think that "pay as you go" would be a viable way to run a lot of services, and mandatory (privately-supplied) insurance would suffice for others]. But then, I don't see a way to eliminate burglaries, either; doesn't mean I think they're right. > Without it, you wouldn't have the "money" > you claim is yours and not ours (including you). "(including you)"! What a farce. Tax money, once extracted from the citizens, does *not* belong to them any more. It belongs to the government, which is an independent entity. Ownership of, and control of, the government by the citizens is absolute in theory but utterly nonexistent in practice. The great strength of democracy, from the viewpoint of the government, is that it keeps the peasants quiet by giving them an illusion of participation and control. Sorry, Martin, but it looks like you've been taken in by this. If you doubt me, consider this: if I, as a citizen, am part owner of (say) Ontario Place, can I sell my share if I leave the country for good? Of course not, because it never belonged to me in the first place. It belongs to the government, which claims to speak for me but really speaks only for itself. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/14/84)
In article <4212@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
~| Taxation is legalized theft. Let us not mince words -- it is the
~| government taking money out of my pocket by force, without supplying a
~| specific service in return. That's theft. The only reason it's legal is
~| that it's done by the same organization that makes the laws.
Come now, Henry. I agree with much of what you say, but you're
going a bit far with this one. No organized society exists without
some form of taxation. As to specific services you get in return,
how about police protection, military defense, medicare and the
whole social service system, for starters? You may disagree with
some of the expenditures made by the system, and you have the right
to vote and to work within the political system to make changes if
you feel strongly enough about it.
Theft? Only if you feel that you really earned every dollar you're
paid. Didn't you get some help from government in the form of
education? In the form of government support to the university
which pays your salary to support its research? Put yourself on
a desert island, with no taxes, and you wouldn't have your job.
If you really think it's theft, you have two ways of avoiding
paying taxes: (1) don't work, or (2) move to the Bahamas.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davehenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/15/84)
> .............................. No organized society exists without > some form of taxation. As to specific services you get in return, > how about police protection, military defense, medicare and the > whole social service system, for starters? My point was, the bill isn't itemized that way. I have no objection to paying for specific services, including most of what you mention, but that isn't all (by a d**n long sight!) that the government does with my money. And "theft" is definitely the word for it. If I steal food to save my (hypothetical) children from starvation, when I am unable to do so in any other way, the entirely-adequate justification doesn't make the act of theft any less an act of theft. When the government steals my money to support its activities, it's still theft. My approval of some of the activities does not change that. Nor does my inability to think of a better way of financing some of them. Necessity should not be confused with morality. > You may disagree with > some of the expenditures made by the system, and you have the right > to vote and to work within the political system to make changes if > you feel strongly enough about it. To put this in another context: "well, if you American colonists have grievances, you have every right to petition the King to do something about them". Right, except there's no useful result. The reason I do not engage in such activity is that the odds approach 0 that my actions would have any significant effect. I have spoken before about the illusion of participation and control that a democracy provides to its citizens. > Theft? Only if you feel that you really earned every dollar you're > paid. My employers certainly think I do, or they would pay me less. > Didn't you get some help from government in the form of > education? In the form of government support to the university > which pays your salary to support its research? Put yourself on > a desert island, with no taxes, and you wouldn't have your job. See above comments on the justifiability of *some* government activities, and on my inability to think of a better way to finance them. This does not make the government's existing practices any less reprehensible. "I couldn't think of any way to feed my kids except by stealing the food." > If you really think it's theft, you have two ways of avoiding > paying taxes: (1) don't work, or (2) move to the Bahamas. Item (1) has less-desirable side effects, unfortunately. Depriving myself of money to make sure the government doesn't take any of it is cutting off my nose to spite my face. And item (2) would be worth considering, except that it's probably worse in the Bahamas than here. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
chrisr@hcrvax.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (08/15/84)
In reply to Dave Sherman's reply to Henry Spencer:
Taxation IS legalized theft, if you think about it a little, as
Henry Spencer obviously has. It is theft backed up with violence,
an issue I want to raise here. The important distinction between
a market transaction and a government transaction is that the
latter is always applied under a threat of violence, wereas the former
is only entered under mutual aggreement and benefit.
Proof: do not pay your taxes this year. You will be threatened
with fines and/or prison. If you persist, you will be fined;
if you refuse to pay you will be sent to prison and be
forcibly denied physical freedom. Other parties who owe you money
may be ordered to hand over that money to the government.
On the other hand, no one can FORCE you to pay for things you
do not want in a free market. Think about that when next you
pick over the sale items in your local supermarket.
If you think about the services which you indirectly receive for your
tax dollars, you will realize that they are of very poor value.
I have sometimes wondered about the value of a "free" education,
when illiteracy and truancy are discussed. If a parent was to pay
up-front costs for his/her childrens education, I doubt very much
whether that parent would condone truancy, and I am sure that much
more attention would be paid to the childs progress. I believe that this
whole issue of seperate versus public school funding would go away, if
only a voucher system was set up so that a child could be placed in any
school, public or private, and only the SUCCESSFUL schools were allowed
to be open.
If you do not beleive that every dollar you earn is yours, then
why would you want to work? There is no inducement to work harder
unless the effort is rewarded in some way. In a trade union or work
guild you work to get "seniority", a meaningless measure of value.
Can you really imagine a guild worker working extra hard for NO reward?
Given this argument, it is not hard to see that the more that is taxed
away, the greater the disencentive to work, or, conversely, the
greater the incentive to hide those earnings. I collect a "baby bonus"
that is effectively taxed back to the government -- there is obviously
little value to this "benefit" to me because I keep very little of it
after tax, and on the other hand there is a large cost for the government
to pay the salaries of the staff running the baby bonus program,
and purchase the equipment used to run off and mail those monthly cheques.
And yet this is one of those fine universal social programs that I
am supposed to be so happy for, and that politicians tell us all
citizens want!
To do, as Dave suggests, and work within the system is of course an
exercise in futility. How many people do you have to convince? Thousands
of Canadians would have to agree to this change. What would it cost to
make this effort? It would not be cheap. If you did this and had the
offending legislation struck down, how long would it be before another
"for the greater good of all" politician re-enacted similiar laws.
No, you may as well save your energy and time and enjoy what you have
now, instead of tilting at windmills!
Dave says:
~| Theft? Only if you feel that you really earned every dollar you're
~| paid. Didn't you get some help from government in the form of
~| education? In the form of government support to the university
~| which pays your salary to support its research? Put yourself on
~| a desert island, with no taxes, and you wouldn't have your job.
No man is an island and this argument is specious. Place a goodly
number on a desert island with some natural resources,
and watch the desert flower! I think the point that Henry raised in his
earlier article about the power of money organized in a bank without
any government involvment is well worth refining:
-- Groups of people can come together to get large projects
completed on a collective basis, without the "benefit" of a government.
There are many examples. Shopping malls. The CN tower. Apartment complexes.
Factories. Oil refineries. Visit one some day.
--
Chris Retterath
{decvax,utcsrgv,utzoo}!hcr!hcrvax!chrisrlaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/16/84)
From Dave Sherman: Didn't you get some help from government in the form of education? In the form of government support to the university which pays your salary to support its research? Put yourself on a desert island, with no taxes, and you wouldn't have your job. Wonderful. Henry is talking about the morality of stealing, and Dave thinks that he should feel that stealing is wonderful because it benefits Henry. Everything is great as long as some other shmuck is getting ripped off and you are getting the benefit, eh? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/16/84)
In article <4221@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
~| From Dave Sherman:
~|
~| Didn't you get some help from government in the form of
~| education? In the form of government support to the university
~| which pays your salary to support its research? Put yourself on
~| a desert island, with no taxes, and you wouldn't have your job.
~|
~| Wonderful. Henry is talking about the morality of stealing, and Dave
~| thinks that he should feel that stealing is wonderful because it benefits
~| Henry. Everything is great as long as some other shmuck is getting
~| ripped off and you are getting the benefit, eh?
~|
My point is that we *all* benefit from the taxes collected, in
various ways. Different things help different people, in varying
amounts. Pretty well all of us get medicare (costs me $1,000 per
year for our family, which is a good deal), free education (if
we want the public school system), OAS (we should live so long)
and other benefits. Henry and others benefit from research grants
to universities (which are made to advance research, not to advance
Henry). Artists benefit from Canada Council grants. Small
businessmen (under 5'4" :-) benefit from low tax rates. Sure,
some people benefit more than others. But the objective of all
of the grants and subsidies is (at least theoretically) to improve
the overall quality of our society.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davedave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/24/84)
In article <4216@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
~| > If you really think it's theft, you have two ways of avoiding
~| > paying taxes: (1) don't work, or (2) move to the Bahamas.
~|
~| Item (1) has less-desirable side effects, unfortunately. Depriving myself
~| of money to make sure the government doesn't take any of it is cutting off
~| my nose to spite my face. And item (2) would be worth considering, except
~| that it's probably worse in the Bahamas than here.
~|
That was exactly my point. Taken in toto, the regime we have here
leaves you better off, despite the taxation (some of which comes
back to support you directly), than many other countries which have
no tax whatsoever. (Can't speak for the weather, though..)
Dave Sherman
--
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!davedave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/24/84)
In article <980@hcrvax.UUCP> chrisr@hcrvax.UUCP (Chris Retterath) writes:
~| In reply to Dave Sherman's reply to Henry Spencer:
~|
~| ... it is not hard to see that the more that is taxed
~| away, the greater the disencentive to work, or, conversely, the
~| greater the incentive to hide those earnings. I collect a "baby bonus"
~| that is effectively taxed back to the government -- there is obviously
~| little value to this "benefit" to me because I keep very little of it
~| after tax, and on the other hand there is a large cost for the government
~| to pay the salaries of the staff running the baby bonus program,
~| and purchase the equipment used to run off and mail those monthly cheques.
~| And yet this is one of those fine universal social programs that I
~| am supposed to be so happy for, and that politicians tell us all
~| citizens want!
~|
I agree with many of Chris's points, but not this one.
First of all, the maximum which can be taxed away is about 50%
(51.14% in Ontario in 1984 if your taxable income after all deductions
exceeds $59,424), so you're keeping half anyway, not "very little".
Secondly, many of the people who receive the baby bonus pay very
little or none of it back in tax.
The only way to have you not receive a baby bonus in the first place,
or only receive half as much, would be for the Wealth and Hellfire
Canada people to have records of your current income, so they know
how much to send you. It's far more efficient to recover it at
the stage of collecting income taxes, since at that point every
resident's income is being calculated anyway. It's also more certain,
since during the year you don't know what your income will be for the year.
And yes, the universality of the program is important to most Canadians.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave