The debate "Deontology applied to taxes and other economics removes the context for taxes and ends in failure" was started by
May 12, 2018, 3:17 pm.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
MrShine posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
MrShine and 7 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Najam1 and 6 visitors disagree.
I think the duty to pay taxes is just part of your duty to follow the law. no tax law, no tax duty.
any program private or public can be efficient or inefficient. sure public programs dont fall directly due to economic pressure, but they are open to constant scrutiny and reevaluation by the public which could (and should) demand results, not just intentions.
the deontological argument against taxes would be a removal of autonomy.
the deontological arguments for taxes are many. from duty, to paying dues to the systems that allowed the wealthy's prosperity. prosperity they would not achieve in areas without the educated workforce or in place infrastructure that they used for free.
Money, markets, and taxes are not naturally occurring phenomena. we as a society created them for our benefit. and if a system isnt working or leaning to hard to one side, its society's duty to steady the ship. whether it's a central bank regulating inflation or Congress balancing the budget, actions need to be taken in society's interest. if the economy is prospering and only a small portion of the population is hoarding all the gains, theres something wrong with the system, and adjusting that system is the ethical thing to do.
of course this is simplified. there is tons of nuance. personal responsibility is a huge factor, but its not the only factor. it also decreases in significance when the starting point for people is so vastly uneven. you cant be wholly responsible for losing if you started 10 paces back and in a hole.
I'm glad you understand deontology. It would be interesting to see an argument of deontology against taxes, but I believe the occasional good charity, always abstrain from wrongdoing would violate the conditions of deontology because to some degree there is a Civic duty to pay taxes. No reasonable person could deny taxes all together.
I thought about making this thread because deontology would be a justification for inefficiency criticisms. It wouldn't matter if the taxes did their job or did enough, it would be on the taxpayer regardless. So long as there is a claim on 'good'.
let's be honest, deontology can be used to argue both for eliminating taxes as well as increasing taxes.
a deontological principle is utterly beyond useless on its own. it's only after you weigh the numerous principles and real world consequences of those principles that you can apply the thought processes of ethics to real world issues.
oversimplified and isolated ethics is how the most evil people in history justify their atrocities.
I don't know anyone who would want to increase taxes for the sake of taxes.
your response hints at a minumum tax goal, and that private ventures are best. if I am right can we make this threads prime subject about the efficacy of government ventures? both moral and economic. im sure there will be a spread, but remember I advocate for oversight, the lack of which is often the source of the failings.
At the very least it seems we've agreed that taxes are not good for the sake of taxes, even if our stance and perspective of efficiency is different. That much is enough, and I actually would agree on more spending for checking taxes. 6.5 trillion dollars went missing in 2016, that's nearly a third of the national debt! Thats roughly 18 thousand dollars per citizen missing on the low end, on the higher end it's 20 thousand. The average American doesn't pay nearly as much yearly, and these values are the money paid in.
an investigation should be fully transparent (short national security) once its complete. felt I needed to clarify before we go on a recent events tangent. I dont mean this in that context, just some nuance to an absolute transparency model.
"And you agree that transparency is nonpartisanship, so would you agree that non-transparent tax hikes are wrong for both parties?"
with the exception of investigations and national security, all things should be transparent, including tax hikes and cuts. I would prefer not to turn a general problem into a partisan weapon.
"A person should be able to use their money in taxes and willing transactions, but to say that they are able and willing there needs to be a possibility to reject or deny certain things. Admittedly as a collective there are some things that will always be passed that nobody can agree on, but the actual language and coordinating of these taxes and approvals are not transparent or separate enough from one another to be held accountable."
in a hypothetical society of 100 people, if 99 agree on everything, and 1 person disagrees, that person will always lose his request, yet he did not lose autonomy, accountability, responsibility, or whatever. he lost the debate, and the vote. he must still contribute the fair amount (what is fair is a separate discussion), and he did have his equal say.
it is difficult to monitor the effect of each dollar across a massive coast to coast nation with 330 million participants.... but it is well worth it. although that would require a government department aka a bigger government aka more initial spending. are we in agreement that this spending would be a worthy investment? or would you prefer a private company that will completely hide its methods and algorithms, while obfuscating and monetizing the results?
our system is great, it's just not keeping up. and rather than shutting it down and shrinking it in a world that is growing increasingly rapidly and increasingly complex, we should (carefully and under monitoring) expand its capabilities AND its safeguards. this is the opposite of the view of most of.my right wing opponents.
Obviously I'm not saying that I am against a union, but why wouldn't I be against using money for a service that was not intended.
A person should be able to use their money in taxes and willing transactions, but to say that they are able and willing there needs to be a possibility to reject or deny certain things. Admittedly as a collective there are some things that will always be passed that nobody can agree on, but the actual language and coordinating of these taxes and approvals are not transparent or separate enough from one another to be held accountable.
Here's a real life example. I live in a state that proposed higher taxes for a higher teacher salary. The tax was proposed a 7% increase to all teachers pay, but in the end only starting teachers within 1-2 years of education got a slight payraise, not always getting to the 7%.
Balancing the books will never be possible if the tax money doesn't go towards what is proposed, and the list continues to expand. In no way is this cooperation because maybe a few are able to know and are able to justify the money management but as a general whole who knows? We already cannot protest these changes by not paying, that is a crime. Yet at the same time we cannot say these tax changes are inheritly good or cooperation.
And you agree that transparency is nonpartisanship, so would you agree that non-transparent tax hikes are wrong for both parties?
"If money is a measure of value in someone's vote and the collective is the influence of the government that compels a minority be it ideology or otherwise to support a differing subject where is the self agency?"
is this the central point of your argument?
the collective is not the influence of the government. its allocated by our local representatives in Congress we elect, and in open budgets we can view. we choose how to allocate the funds together. we are the collective.
I guess you see cooperation as antagonistic to self agency.
I think the biggest injustice in tax law is amongst the wealthy. some pay the exuberant rate while others pay a smaller %(then most middle class people) and yet others pay nothing. this disparity is huge and unfair. if we can close the loopholes we can cut the tax rates without losing a dime.
"Then the collective is where we disagree. Money is indeed collectively agreed upon, but people can also refuse to acknowledge another person's purchase for reasons other than sufficient balance. Therefore it is only an exchange standard rather than a collective ownership."
"refuse to acknowledge"? acknowledgement doesn't change anything. I have no idea what an insufficient balance has to do with anything.
if you have a joint account, it is no longer your (exclusively) money. you have a say, but not ultimate decision power.
I'm always down for more oversight and transparency. outside of international security concerns, domestic and especially economic issues demand 100% transparency. but that's not a pro/con tax argument and should be a principle that unites all sides regardless of tax views.
are you saying that you aren't part of this union? the United states?
No person could argue for 100% efficiency, but certainly at a point redirected efficiency moves money out of public interests and into think group policies with ridiculous overhead. After all, who could check an unitimized statement for where their money is going? Paychecks may state why money is taken, but during the process it gets lost in the collective
Then the collective is where we disagree. Money is indeed collectively agreed upon, but people can also refuse to acknowledge another person's purchase for reasons other than sufficient balance. Therefore it is only an exchange standard rather than a collective ownership.
If money is a measure of value in someone's vote and the collective is the influence of the government that compels a minority be it ideology or otherwise to support a differing subject where is the self agency? It's no different from being required to join a union, and have that union support a specific political party. A person may not veto, but compulsory praticipation for more action at a point does not benefit the individual.
I understand that people won't always agree, entropy is a fact in all aspects and entropy wins. But a effort that values the collective should not remove self agency from the individual. So shouldn't we have a better idea of how money is being used, and reconsider taxes as a part of their function rather than blindly state any and every tax is necessary? Entropy or overhead shouldn't be an excuse.
I dont think inefficiency is immoral, i think efficiency is an ideal that cannot be realized in reality. some inefficiency is unavoidable.
and I disagree with the first paragraph because you dont need to agree to every spending. the money is collectively owned by the people and no one person gets an automatic veto without being elected.
past the first 2 paragraphs, I'm at a loss as to what's going on.
Taxes must be paid for society to work, I don't think anyone will argue that much. Some would call this theft because it takes money from our earnings and puts it toward a system of many values some outside of our own. The death penalty, abortion, war, and drug crimes are controversial and not everyone agrees on the morality, paying for what is believed to be immoral by force certainly qualifies, but there must be a standard else there is no country.
An inefficient system is immoral because the finances taken as necessary for the normal functions of the country are inflated well beyond the cost, while in many cases cannot provide basic services by design.
Deontology us the recognition of duties. I recognize taxes and the good of the many as just causes, but that doesn't mean I follow deontology. The disticntion is the reason, I may do the right thing because I recognize a need or purpose that makes an end goal but deontology is prohibitions and compulsions based on defining these mechanics as right and wrong.
To clarify, I pay taxes for an end result. I pay taxes to have a developed nation, which requires many things that a government will contract. I recognize and choose not to agree with every contract, but recognize a utilitarian result encourages payment. Deontology recognizes taxes as good without regard to their efficiency, and that citizens are required to pay taxes because paying taxes is good, and by definition there is a good reason to do so.
Therefore paying less taxes cannot be justified in any beneficial context, it must be reasoned that the same good act must always exist. Keeping your own money, while accepting to pay some taxes that may or may not be theft, is theft because it shirks on a good act.
It is possible to say that a solution to a system must be implemented even if it destroys what stands, because it assumes none of the consequences and a full deontological stance that puts the speaker at an absolute good. The speaker doesn't need knowledge to know what is good, an animal knows that it likes, so that defines a 'fact' and reframes it as a lifestyle.
Kant himself was a moral absolutist, and his statements sound nice and right because there is never context. Kant would say 'never lie' and this applies even if lying will save a life. Marxism sounds nice because it is 'for the people' but if the taxes that do not help people are defined as 'for the people', it's a game of definitions that separate function from fact.