home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!cs.ubc.ca!mala.bc.ca!oneb!ham!emd
- Newsgroups: can.politics
- Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax
- Message-ID: <JkiqwB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca>
- From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
- Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 21:32:18 PST
- Distribution: can
- Organization: Robert Smits
- Lines: 113
-
-
- jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (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.
-
-
- emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
-
- Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels
- instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne
-