NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/can/politics/11138

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 5.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!cs.ubc.ca!mala.bc.ca!oneb!ham!emd
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 21:32:18 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits
Lines: 113


[e-mail] (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>

>>>
>>> The left has a notion that runs like this:
>>> 'since you are more productive, better educated, more efficient, and
>>> work harder, or have had some luck on your side, you are morally OBLIGATED
>>> to hand over fistfulls of money over to governments who didn't earn that
>>> money'
>>>
>>Your characterization of the "left" (which, by the way, is certainly not
>>...um.. monotheistic, for want of a better term) is childish. Goverments
>>of all stripes (and we have NEVER EVER had a "left" wing federal
>>government in Canada) are only too ready to take money from their
>>citizens.
>
>'Left', 'statist, centralised, natia\onalist' whatever. The Trudeau
>Liberals graciously occupied this role as a LEFT, socialist government.
>Maybe not your brand of socialism, but definitely just as harmful to
>invidual libery and property.
>
You have a strange perception of what is "left", or socialist. The
Trudeau Liberals were neither "left" nor socialist. The Liberals are,
and always have been, a right of centre party. The main difference
between the Tories and the Liberals is how far right each party is,
and which capitalists benefitted most.

>>Taxation in general is not a matter of ideology, although the
>>right and left would probably have very different notions of what to
>>spend taxation money on.
>
>in other words it IS a matter of ideology, since left & right disagree.

Of course not. They don't disagree about the need for taxation, which
is what I said in the first place. That they disagree about what to
spend it on is immaterial.

>>No, you've got it wrong. People who try to avoid taxes fall into the
>>category you describe. It's perfectly legitimate to try to structure your
>>affairs in such a way as to pay the minumum in taxes. It's quite another
>>to try to evade taxes you are legally obligated to pay. Tax evasion is
>>criminal, it's wrong, and it's theft from your fellow citizens.
>
>Legally obligated is one thing. That doesn't make it right.
>1. I pay tax money and recieve a service I want in return == right
>2. I don't pay tax money, and recieve a service I want == wrong
>3. I pay tax money and either recieve no service in return, or recieve one
>   I don't want == wrong
>4. I don't pay tax money, and I don't recieve a service in return = right
>
>given 1, 2, 3, 4 tax evasion isn't always 'wrong', but it may be illegal.
>Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Just because something
>is illegal, doesn't make it wrong.

If you don't want to pay a tax and structure your affairs so that you
don't have to (avoidance), you are perfectly within your rights to do
so. If you don't like a tax, you can lobby against it, run for parliament,
etc., and try to get it changed. If you illegally evade a legal tax, you ARE
wrong. You are also stealing from everyone else, because they will have to
make up the shortfall caused by your evasion.

Avoidance is legal and OK, evasion is wrong and immoral.

>
>Suppose a Evil-greedy-imperialist-capitalist(TM) makes heaps of money,
>and he withholds (evades) taxes. You say that's stealling. Perhaps
>it would be stealling, if he weren't paying for the road maintenance for
>his villa etc.
>

If all the other evil-greedy-imperialist-capitalists are supposed to
pay a tax and he isn't paying it, then yes, he's stealing. Whether or
not he pays some of his taxes has no bearing as regards taxes he evades
(not avoids).

>But what you are calling 'theft from your fellow citizens' is actually
>just avoidance of having your fellow citizens vote en masse to 'legally'
>steal from YOU! If you take money, goods, services away from someone
>against there will and without compensation, it is theft. Just because
>the government legitamises it, doesn't make it RIGHT in any objective or
>moral sense.
>

All of us are obligated to pay our share (as determined by our elected
representatives in parliament) of taxes. If a citizen evades paying his
share of taxes, then he is, in effect, stealing from the rest of us. You
may not like the notion of being compelled to pay taxes, but that hardly
makes them theft.

>>
>>
>>Personally, I'm glad we don't have to depend on the charity of others to
>>see that the less advantaged in our society are looked after. I'm not
>>anxious to go back to the workhouses of victorian England, for example.
>
>well, with so many nice people like you, you won't mind providing for others
>who don't DESERVE it. The capitalists, libertarians, objectivists et al.
>will be happy to take care of charity for people who DO deserve it.
>>

Actually, I'm not in favour of providing for those who don't deseve it.
That includes the corporations which have used phony "scientific" tax
credits, artificially accelerated capital cost allowance depreciation
rates, etc to avoid paying their share of taxes. And the hundreds
(thousands) of people with incomes exceeding $250,000 who paid not a
cent in taxes.


[e-mail]  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels
instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne