Yup. So ?
I mean, it’s pretty self evident that justice is subjective and arbitrary. The exact same crime committed in two different countries, two different states, hell even in two different parts of the same county will be judged differently, and lead to different sentences. From country to country, even the basic gradation of crime can be different, so can what constitutes a crime and what does not (e.g. smoking weed)
Where is that magical nugget of objectivity, again ?
As for theft, well, considering there are different definitions of what “property” means or should mean…
Pretty much any morality system is arbitrary and subjective. That’s the beauty of it.
I have an idea that I’ve not seen anywhere else. There’s no way to evaluate all the benefits that different people receive in return for living and paying taxes in the U.S. Part of Bill Gates’s fortune is a result of living in a country with sufficient higher education that he could recruit enough people to staff Microsoft. Of course, those people who work for him also derive a benefit from being educated. I don’t think there’s any way to apportion the costs.
So how about looking at the results? Create a graph of the income distribution; how many people make 2x the average, 3x, and so on. Compare that from year to year and adjust the tax rates so the distribution stays pretty much constant. It won’t always be the same people in each group, someone could have a good year and then a very bad one. But if there’s a trend of one group consistently outperforming all the others, a case can be made that they’re getting more from society than they’re paying for, relative to everyone else.
A lot of “rich” people do that. They have a fancy name for it - “deferring income.”
There was a year (probably 2001 or 2002) when Arianna Huffington paid zero - or close to zero - income taxes. Her total “income” that year was stock sold at a loss. I’m sure her standard of living didn’t change too much.
By the way, I said you can do “this” three ways - three ways are for income taxes - you can tax a zillion ways. Sales taxes, wealth or property taxes, fees, fines, tariffs, consumption, employment, vice, taxes on mustaches or how many doors you have in your home. And we do most of them. You really need to look at the whole tax burden before you start screaming “unfair.” And that is hard to do.
It’s hard to know what to say to a person who demands justice for the rich with one breath, but that he doesn’t give a shit about anybody but himself, in the next.
That’s why I think that you should pay only one set of taxes (income taxes at the end of the year). It’s crazy that there is so much infrastruture involved in collecting taxes of all types when there could just be one (admittedly long) process once a year.
That would create issues with our local/state/federal system of government though. Each has the authority to tax. Also, it would limit the ability to control behavior through tax (i.e. vice taxes) or do “fee for service” type taxes.
But yes, we could simplify at least some of it. State/local governments seem to be the worst.
My British friends do not seem to file tax forms at all. More or less the tax man takes his share out of your pay and you keep the rest. No exemptions, no forms, no refund, it is all done by computer.
Making the system simpler is a goal we can all get behind.
Of course two different events will be judged differently–that’s kinda built into the definition of “different”. But that’s a far cry from “subjective and arbitrary”.
You misunderstand. I’m saying two exactly similar events will be judged differently from one point of the globe to the next, because the people living there won’t have the same idea of what these events should “cost”.
If I smoke a joint in Amsterdam and a policeman sees me, he’ll say “Godendag”. If I smoke it in Paris, the policeman will take my joint and give me a scolding. If I smoke it in L.A. the policeman might arrest me. If I smoke it in Tokyo, he’ll arrest me AND I’ll get a caning. If I smoke it in Algiers, the policeman will ask me whether I want to buy some *better *joint, cause he knows a guy.
Seems subjective and arbitrary to me. If there was some immanent, objective notion of where JUSTICE! lies wouldn’t it objectively be the same everywhere, regardless of culture, colour or creed ?
Yeah, it would be great if figuring out our income tax was a lot simpler. Of course, the complexity has nothing to do with the progressive rates. Anybody who promises you a flat tax in the name of simplicity is hoping you won’t notice he’ll make out like a bandit.
First, fairness? Did I not earn that money on my own? It wasn’t a gift. Why can’t I have any sort of vested interest in it, fair or not? Suddenly if I get “fair” with it, it’s alright that I want to hold on to whats left? Get real.
Second, you’re assuming my money is just that, mine. You’re ignoring the fact that my family also depends on that money. I’m an asshole for looking out for them? My ex’s father rat holed money too. 9/11 and a serious illness left him jobless for nearly 7 years. I can’t imagine what would have happened to that family if he hadn’t religiously saved his money to provide for himself and his family in the event something catastrophic happened. But me? I’m an immature asshole for wanting to make sure I get every bit of it in preparation of, God willing, one of those events.
As for sense of decency or interest in my fellow man, no, I have none, whatsoever. Have you ever heard the saying “You can tell me how to drive when you pay my insurance”? I don’t depend on them for help or expect anything from them. They shouldn’t get anymore of my money because, frankly, they didn’t bust their ass to make it for me. To hell with them, I don’t work for them. I work for my family. If that mindset makes me a 4 year old, oh well, I’m not the one looking for a handout or begging for “fairness”.
Sure you did, but it doesn’t make you an island unto yourself. You walk into a deli, buy a sandwich, potato salad and a coke. You hand the guy $10 and walk away. Did he earn $10? Sure, but he earns nothing if you don’t have $10 to buy lunch from him.
It is not a gift, but it was given to you by someone else. Without that someone else, you don’t get paid.
Actually, it does. It becomes my property. I can wipe my ass with it or light my cigars with it. I can even save it and never spend it. It’s mine.
Ok? What are you getting at? If I don’t spend my money I’ll put the hypothetical deli owner out of business or to a point where he has to lay someone off because I didn’t spend my $10 with him? Seriously, what the fuck are you trying to say?
Last time I checked, we lived in a free market. Businesses fail, businesses succeed.
Oh ok, my company just gave it to me right? Nevermind the money I make/save them, the work I perform for them, etc. They just give it to me, huh? No, it doesn’t work that way. In exchange for my services, they trade with legal tender, i.e. cash. Happens everyday; you’ve had a job, right?
She sounded proud when I told her I was donating blood yesterday despite my EXTREME fear of needles. Maybe she was just proud I overcame my fear?
Unless you’ve figured out a way to eat dollar bills, you’re still dependent on other people.
What I’m getting at is you, me and all the rich and poor folks play a role in the economy. None of us manage entirely on our own. For each billionaire who thinks he did it “on his own” there are 100 million people who sent $10 his way.
It’s like when you play a sport. Yes, you can look down on the other players who aren’t as good as you are, but if they weren’t there, you’d be playing with yourself, and what good is that?
Right, but you’re assuming we’re at a shortage of players by slighting the very ones who are hit the hardest by taxes. We’re not.
Again, their situation, good or bad, is none of my concern. I don’t tell you how to live your life or spend your money, extend the same courtesy. We ALL utilize the government in roughly the same capacity and we should all contribute equally in whole numbers, not percentages. 10% may mean $2,500 for you but $25,000 for me (I don’t make that much money, just an example). Do you see my dilemma?
Now, I realize that education, public infrastructure, unemployment, disability, Medicaid/care, etc. all that must be paid for. I’m fine with that. I’m fine with paying for government programs that our elected officials have deemed necessary. I’m not here to bicker which programs I think are useless, etc. I am not fine with having to pay more for these services simply because I make more money than the other guy.
Am I really that crazy for thinking that no matter what you make, you should have equal contributions towards society, even if it at the expense of your lifestyle? I guess so, but that’s just my view.
Ultimately it’s not an unreasonable concept, but it is unreasonable to think that it is possible to implement without driving tens of millions of people into incredible poverty. The federal gov’t alone spends over $10,000 per year per resident. State and local governments spend slightly less than this overall.
The guy who stocks shelves at your local grocery store probably earns $20,000/yr gross. Now, you want this guy, who has a full time job that is necessary for the successful operation of the grocery store you use to buy food, to pay about 90% of his gross income in taxes, leaving him with (maybe) a couple hundred dollars a month left over.
What seems on the surface to be an equal contribution leaves a hard working person, who is performing a necessary job, with next to nothing to buy even the most humble of things with. Contrast that with the high income person who is “over taxed” today, they live a quite comfortable lifestyle, and their high taxes serve only to reduce their level of luxury.
In terms of being “hit hardest” I find it difficult to say that the man living in a comfortable home, driving a nice car and sending his kids to private school (today) is hit harder by taxes than the guy who is taxed into abject poverty, while working full time (your flat tax plan).
Your confusing the difference in particular laws inherent in culture with the broader concept of justice. Specific laws are created for various reasons, but the underlying concept of law is itself an attempt to establish fairness.
Here’s a better analogy. If I drive on the righthand side of the road in the UK, I can get a ticket and–if I do it often enough–risk a more substantial penalty. If I drive on the righthand side of the road in the US, I’m obeying the law. I agree the choice of which side of the road to drive on is arbitrary, but the more general choice to disregard traffic laws established in a reasonable manner merits the same general punishment in both places.
Smoking pot publically in Amsterdam and Tokyo are inherently different events because you know (or can be reasonably expected to know) that you are defying the law in Tokyo. That doesn’t mean you can’t argue against the justice of the law in Tokyo–and IMO in order to do that you need to appeal to a more general notion of personal liberty to do that, not just say “all law is arbitrary”.
Finally, we must realize that humans are flawed, and even in groups they can enact laws that don’t meet an objective standard of justice. But that’s not a reason for denying it exists, even if it is extremely difficult to pin down.
