I understand that the system in the US is such that pretty much everybody who pays taxes has money going to things he or she would prefer they not go to. That’s not the question.
Does that make it okay? That’s what I’m asking.
I can’t think of a better alternative.
Again, not the question. Is it okay?
What hajaro said.
Yes, taxes are forcible extracted, although you do have the choice of not being a citizen of the US. As a US citizen, one of your responsibilities is to pay taxes. You also get to vote. Don’t like paying taxes, or want more say in how taxes are allocated? Okay, then support elected officials who agree with you. That’s the way it works.
So, back to your previous question, YES, you are being forced to pay for NPR, when it’s obvious you don’t support that use of your tax dollars. Again, get over it. We all support a government with our tax dollars. The government does a lot of things. Some of them I like, some of them you like, some I disagree with, some you disagree with. Yes, it’s fair.
Just how it is dude.
We’ve beat the hell out of this derailment.
Yep,it is okay, as long as it passes constitutional muster. Got a better idea?
Yes. It’s ok in my mind because I can’t think of a better alternative.
How about not collecting taxes for things that are clearly not essential, such as radio stations?
So, given your and hajario’s answers, it is fair I should be forced to give money to a radio station because you have to give money to stuff you don’t like. Would it be fair to say this is a common sentiment on the left? Not just regarding NPR, but more generally. It’s okay to use force against others so long as force is being used elsewhere.
When I have enough disposable income to donate to a radio station, I always give to the local Pacifica station, WPFW 89.3, “jazz and justice.” I like NPR, but I like Pacifica even better, and they need it more.
It’s true among all people who use taxation, left or right.
Is it not at least a little unsettling that folks are so cavalier about other people being forcibly expropriated? At the very least it would be nice to see somebody make the “lesser of two evils” speech. But instead, it seems preferable to some to castigate a person who points out a flaw in the system than to admit the system needs to be fixed.
It is not a flaw in the system. It is the system.
Somebody being forced to give money to a radio station they disagree with and don’t listen to is no doubt a flaw in the system.
Taxation is not voluntary. Taxation has never been voluntary. Taxation cannot be voluntary. Taxation is not a donation. Taxation is not optional.
It is not a flaw in the system that you do not get to opt out. It is the system. It is not a flaw in the system that taxation is not voluntary. It is the system.
You can argue that you do not want taxes to go to NPR. that’s fine. But you cannot argue that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes if taxes go to NPR. Taxes are not voluntary.
I can argue I shouldn’t be made to pay taxes to support NPR. I am being forced by threat of force to give money to a fucking radio station. That doesn’t stop being fucked up because it’s the system. Things don’t stop being morally repugnant because it’s systematic.
Let’s get a sense of scale. For tax year 2013 the median effective tax rate for a 4 person family was 5.3%. (That’s not the marginal rate - the tax on the last dollar was 15%- but rather the effective rate which divides the income tax bill by the amount of income.) Multiplying by the $74,964 income gives us a tax bill of a little under $4000 for our median 4 person family.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=226
NPR receives various competitive grants, such as those from the National Science Foundation. Applying our ratio above to the $4000 tax bill gives us a typical donation of five cents per year. I’d say we have a fine libertarian whine on our hands.
It’s hard to get “Thousands of dollars” out of a nickel, lacking an expansive libertarian imagination. Basically you have to whine on behalf of others who are not complaining.
You support me or anybody being forced to give a nickel to a radio station we don’t listen to and don’t support? The fact that it’s such a small sum makes it okay to rob me?
If it’s so such a trivial sum, why not let me opt out? Tax forms give individuals the option to donate money to candidates for president. Put another box on there to check if I want to support NPR.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.
Waymore finds the American system of representation democracy to be “morally repugnant.” The fact that the total amount he will give (if he is a taxpayer at all, which we only have his word for) is at most a few bucks over his lifetime (Bloomberg he aint) does not matter: he hates the American system of government (and therefore America) in which he cannot decide for himself where every penny he pays in goes.
Don’t do the math over how much he is forced to spend on other things he disagrees with. He’d burst an anuerysm.
If you’re against taxation, you’re against taxation. Taxation, by its very nature, requires that people pay.
All taxation is by threat of force. Singling out this particular expenditure is laughable. There are no opt out taxes (you can try to make an argument for sales taxes as opt-out, but you can’t have the goods and opt out of the tax).
You can scream about it all you want, but that’s taxation for you.
Me being robbed on behalf of a radio station is an integral part of representative democracy? Answer yes or no please.
Not wanting to be forced to pay for NPR means I hate America? Answer yes or no please.
Would you be in favor of an opt option? Why or why not?
The fact that it’s not robbery makes it okay to take your money in taxes. The fact that it’s such a small sum makes your rage amusing.
Just out of curiosity, what other tax expenditures should you be able to opt out of?