If taxes are used for proper purposes , it is not immoral. What is immoral is usage, not taxes per se.
Prosecution rested too early.
- Status
Prosecution rested too early.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Here’s a question: I’ve dealt with private charity. You’re lucky if you can get a few hundred a year. My medical care this year I’d say was around 6k. That’s not from government regulations - that’s from just there isn’t enough money.
If private charity doesn’t come through, what are people like me expected to do?
If private charity doesn’t come through, what are people like me expected to do?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, that is not the definition. Stealing is taking something without the legal right. Taxation is legal. Therefore it is not stealing. It is not theft. This is true regardless of whether the tax money was well spent by the government, was given away to someone else, or was just thrown away.
That question is a deflection, because one does not need to specify how much should be spent to maintain that doing so is not intrinsically immoral. Note that in specific instances a person might reasonable conclude that certain wealth redistribution is immoral. But you are not even attempting to do that. You seem to be trying to claim the much broader claim that any redistribution program is immoral, which of course is false.
These questions you pose are not unique to redistribution programs. They could be asked of any number of government programs. Taking public schools again, who gets to decide how much tax to collect for schools, and why, and on what basis? How much school taxes is moral and how much is immoral? These are difficult questions to answer for school taxes, and people argue about them all the time. But the fact that they are difficult questions does not prove that school taxes are immoral. Similarly, the fact that the same questions applied to a redistribution program are also difficult to answer does not, by itself, prove that all redistribution programs are immoral.
If you accept that conclusion, then I suggest you move on to the more relevant question of proving that the wealth redistribution implicit in subsidized health care, like a single payer system, is immoral. Make it easy on yourself and scale back your claim to one you might actually have a chance of proving. Since this thread is only about single payer health care, that is the only redistribution program you need to address.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Translation:Vonsalza:
If taxes are used for proper purposes , it is not immoral. What is immoral is usage, not taxes per se.
Prosecution rested too early.
“When taxes are used for what I think they ought to be used for, then taxes are moral.
When they’re used for things that I don’t agree with, they’re immoral”.
Ok, buddy.
And again, not what I said. It has nothing to do with what I do or don’t agree with. I strongly agree with helping those in need. I’ve watched this nation spend trillions on just that and the poverty rate is about what it was at the start of the Great Society.
There is a reason these programs don’t work. When it comes to bureaucracy and elected officials, there’s no incentive for them to succeed. It isn’t compassion or charity. It is power.
The moral position is you do not take the property of one person against their will and give it to another. Forced wealth redistribution is immoral. It is theft. And if the intent is to end poverty, it doesn’t work, either.
Running out of steam?Ok, buddy.
So, where does Christ say that Caesar is doing a good thing.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s is a condemnation of Caesar, because He follows it with, and unto God what is God’s. The juxtaposition is God is good and moral, Caesar not so much.
If we are to help those who need help, let’s do it God’s way (voluntary charitable giving) and not Caesar’s way ( government taking).
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Where does he say it’s categorically bad?
No it isn’t. The juxtaposition separates the state and the Church.
If you disagree with what the government takes, lobby for it to change. And if your opinion isn’t popular enough to affect your change, then too bad.
And your razor of voluntary vs involuntary completely breaks down when faced with the tithe; particularly when the Church and state were the same thing under the Jewish monarchy. The myriad of tithes to support the charitable work of the temple were no more voluntary than the taxes you pay today. When those institutions separated, all those tithes went away and were replaced by secular taxation in order to provide exactly the same services once provided by the Church/state.
The notion that “we” were, at any point, “sovereign citizens” as it came to taxation/tithing is a total fantasy.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Go back.
READ the actual U.S. Constitution.
It is very specific.
And detailed.
And you can also read The Federalist Papers for greater detail.
READ the actual U.S. Constitution.
It is very specific.
And detailed.
And you can also read The Federalist Papers for greater detail.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Where in the constitution does it say that Medicare is an appropriate government program? If you support medicare for some as constitutional, you certainly cannot criticize medicare for all. Try to be a little more consistent.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Eh, that could be the subject of endless debate. In any case, the programs I mentioned have certainly been considered by the courts as constitutional. Perhaps you disagree, but at this point we’d have to pretty much redo the entire management of the country to change that, so I’m not sure that’s a terribly relevant thing at this point.
(Also, insinuating your opponents are unaware of the constitution is hardly a way to impress anyone with your arguments or charity, hmm?)
(Also, insinuating your opponents are unaware of the constitution is hardly a way to impress anyone with your arguments or charity, hmm?)
T
Theo520
Guest
Don’t be gullible.
Politicians rarely do anything that is not in their self interest.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Doing something because of compassion is not necessarily against their self interests.LeafByNiggle:
Don’t be gullible.
Politicians rarely do anything that is not in their self interest.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
If the government took so much that there was essentially no private property that would be too much. There is no evidence that any country that has redistributive welfare programs such as social security and medicare are doing anything illegal. This is particularly true given that nobody is forced to live here. You can move to the UAE, or Bermuda, or the Cayman Islands and pay a lot less tax. So if you choose to live here, the government certainly has the moral ability to determine what policies it will pursue. This is particularly the case given that we elect the people who enact the policies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
While the rules may be different in the several states, continuous coverage status does not end until one has 60 + days without insurance. COBRA is optional. With continuous coverage, a health insurance policy other than COBRA is normally guaranteed issue. If one loses a job that had health care benefits then one can purchase a different policy in the private market. Yes, the policy is not free but then we all make choices on how to spend our money.
I don’t know how this particular situation works but I suspect the population affected is quite small. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that this affected population is 2%. Advocates for that 2% of the population should argue for a Medicaid expansion (CHIP?), if necessary but not argue that the other 98% change their health insurance to a federal program.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
We don’t all have the opportunity to make the choice to buy an insurance plan that costs more than we have to spend. Unless you are referring to the choice between paying for health care and paying for rent and food. For people with preexisting conditions it can come down to that. The “we all make choices” argument amounts to blaming those with congenital conditions for their condition.DarkLight:
While the rules may be different in the several states, continuous coverage status does not end until one has 60 + days without insurance. COBRA is optional. With continuous coverage, a health insurance policy other than COBRA is normally guaranteed issue. If one loses a job that had health care benefits then one can purchase a different policy in the private market. Yes, the policy is not free but then we all make choices on how to spend our money.
It really amounts to the same thing. To expand Medicaid to pay for the health care for this 2% would require an increase in taxes, which are paid for by all. No matter how you look at it, there is no way this 2% can cover their health care without affecting the other 98%.
Last edited:
It doesn’t have a moral ability. It has s legal ability, even though some of that legal power is usurped.
And again, it isn’t illegal. What I said was the policies that coerce redistribution are immoral. The moral type of redistribution is voluntary. That’s what Christ told the rich man: “go sell all you have and give to the poor”, not “go force others to give to the poor”.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
It does have the moral ability, because the Church has never condemned government policies because they were redistributive. The Church has written extensively on morality and economics and yet when it had the chance to tell everyone that redistributive policies were immoral, it never did. It is true that Jesus tells us to individually to give to the poor, he never condemned any policies by the government that were designed to help the poor. He never said government policy could not be used to help the poor.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, you have said this, but the reasoning you give is that taxing to to give to the poor is theft. But you misused the word “theft” because “theft” only applies when something is taken from you without legal authority. Here is were the legal and moral meet. The fact that the acting of taxing you is legal is the very fact that makes it not theft. And if it isn’t theft, your argument that it is immoral is gone. Your comparisons to charity are irrelevant because taxing you to give to the poor is not claimed to be charity. So the fact that it is not voluntary is irrelevant. It doesn’t have to be voluntary to be both legal and moral.
Also, what stickcat said.
Last edited:
Actually He does condemn them , when He says to render unto Caesar. He is making a clear comparison to what God is.JonNC:
It does have the moral ability, because the Church has never condemned government policies because they were redistributive. The Church has written extensively on morality and economics and yet when it had the chance to tell everyone that redistributive policies were immoral, it never did. It is true that Jesus tells us to individually to give to the poor, he never condemned any policies by the government that were designed to help the poor. He never said government policy could not be used to help the poor.
You are using the same argument that progressives in the Church make regarding same gender marriage: _even though Christ says in Mark 10 that it is man and women, He never says it can’t be man and man, woman and woman. therefore it must be okay. _
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
Can you explain this? Because the passage to me reads pretty much the exact opposite -the Jews are questioning the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, and he’s saying to go ahead and pay them.
- Status