Topic: Taxation
Theft Is Wrong Morality and efficiency of transferring wealthby Cincinnatus
(libertarian)
Monday, November 17, 2008
A lot a fuss has been made of Barack Obama's transfer of wealth comment. Conservatives have been falling over themselves to turn this political gaff by the democratic candidate into points for John McCain. It's laughable to consider McCain calling Obama a socialist when McCain, himself, supports, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the military industrial complex, tax-payer funded campaigns, and numerous other programs that transfer wealth from some Americans and give to others. Our government is one giant wealth transferring mechanism. Obama has been rightfully criticized for his intention of taking from one group and giving to another. However, those critics shouldn't ignore the countless schemes of government, already in place, that do exactly that. Socialism is a detriment to society because it's immoral to take from one person and give to another and it's exceptionally inefficient in its execution.
Taxing one person and giving to another is not an issue of compassion or need, it's an issue of morality. It's never acceptable to forcibly take from one and give to another. Let's take the example of a starving family. Surely it is society's duty to provide for them in their hour of need. But how is this most efficiently accomplished morally? If the government, at the local, state, or federal level, decides that it is their role, then they must forcibly confiscate that money through taxes or inflation (printing money). Now what if an individual citizens decided that it was his role to aid the family. So this man goes around the neighborhood taking money from his neighbors to help them. If they refuse he holds a gun to them and asks for them money. If they refuse further then he takes them to his house and holds them until he thinks they will pay him the next time he is collecting. Of course the ladder scenario sounds ridiculous. This would never be tolerated. If people are moved to give to people in need then they should. But forcing people to give only alienates the taxed from those receiving their money. The government should never be allowed to commit an act that is illegal for an individual.
Socialism only creates envy and contempt for your fellow citizens, where private charity promotes compassion and empathy. Forced charity only creates a rift between those that are "giving" and those that are getting what the "need," a rift that politicians are quick to exploit. Watching money that is earned find its way into the hands of another is quite unsettling for the taxed. Receiving money that was not earned from a collection of people you will never meet, creates an attitude of entitlement. And because the money was not earned, there is no built-in incentive for thrift or saving, resulting in irresponsibility. Take the example of unemployment benefits. When government increases unemployment benefits, more people become unemployed. They are only reacting to the incentives put in place by government. When a certain behavior is rewarded, you get more of the behavior. Those that are taxed are then easy prey for politicians, especially Republicans. They rally against Obama's plan of spreading the wealth, all the while ignoring the massive machine in Washington that takes it as its duty to plunder it's citizens for the sake of other well-connected interests.
A common mistake of many advocates for transferring wealth is the fallacy that tax dollars actually help people. First, there is the income tax collection. Almost 1/3 of the income tax is used just in the collection alone. The bureaucrats' salaries and administration costs eat up a significant portion of the plunder. When the dust settles, very little tax dollars actually make it to the people in need. A private charity has much more incentive to save costs and give a higher percentage to the people they are trying to help. If they don't people choose to give elsewhere and the charity disappears. Second, much of these tax dollars go to wealthy corporations and not those are perceived by the public to be in need. Farm subsidies go to the wealthiest of farmers, keeping the price of food artificially high. Now we see banks and brokerage firms lining up to get their "aid," with the auto companies right behind them. Tax dollars are always wasted through the inefficiencies of government and the inevitable line that forms on Capital Hill for redistribution of those earnings.
Only through voluntary charity can we solve the problems of our society. This is largely the job of families, churches, communities, and friends, not of a central authority that can only accomplish it's mean by forced confiscation of property. Do we have a duty to help those in need? Yes we do, but never through forced redistribution of wealth, of ANY KIND.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Cincinnatus only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Cincinnatus is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Other than the innumerable grammatical and sentence structure errors in your article, your assertions are so inaccurately and excessively made that I am forcing myself to respond to your comments so that you realize how far you are actually missing the mark. But, out of the goodness of my heart, I will attempt to help you find your way through the legal and constitutional issues that you seem to struggle with.
First, let me say that "forcing" someone to pay taxes is a LEGAL and LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED procedure. It's like forcing someone to stop at a stop light, or forcing someone to stop shooting that gun that they feel compelled to shoot where they shouldn't. You may disagree with it (as do most of the so-called Libertarians on this site), but that doesn't remove the obligation from you and your cohorts. If you don't like the laws, elect some people to change them. But, you can't even muster 1% or 2% of the electorate because your views are so SELFISH and MISGUIDED.
People accept TAXATION and WEALTH TRANSFERS because they know that it BENEFITS them in the long run. They want highways and sewer systems, and police and fire services, and courts and schools, blah, blah, blah. That's why these taxes and wealth transfers are LEGAL and MANDATORY. If you don't want to comply with them, leave the country or elect people who believe as you do. If you think there is a FAIRER system than allowing people to vote for representatives who make all those decisions for them, then put it up for a vote. Let the people decide what they want, not a unilateral, one-dimensional dictator like you seem to advocate. If it's not done YOUR way then it's illegal, theft, and unconstitutional. Believe me, we've HEARD IT ALL BEFORE.
It's just that there is a tiny, VERY tiny, almost MICROSCOPIC group of radicals (most of whom call themselves Libertarians, but who really are just SELFISH, ANTI-SOCIAL, FEDERAL RESERVE HATING, GUN ADVOCATING, LAW HATING, RULE RESENTING rebels) who feel that THEY know better than the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of other people in our country who don't agree with them about how things should be done.
You can make all the assertions you want about SOCIALISM fails, FIAT MONEY fails, the GOVERNMENT usurps your rights, whatever else you want to cry and clamor about, but it's all LEGAL, MANDATORY, and something THE REST OF US believe in.
Just keep stamping your feet about it and keep running those near-sighted, out-of-touch candidates for office, and it will CONTINUE.
Remember: it isn't THEFT when it's LEGAL even though you HATE IT. Ain't it a shame!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
