Moral Objection to Taxation
James McGovern
Executive Architect | Application Modernization | Enterprise Architecture | Financial Transformation | Fractional CTO
I have been observing a growing moral objection to taxation which has been increasing since the start of our inflationary cycle. It is interesting to note that America has much higher reasons to object to taxation compared to our earlier history.
Moral objections to taxation are diverse and can stem from various philosophical, ethical, or political perspectives. It's important to note that opinions on taxation often vary widely, and what one person sees as morally objectionable, another may view as a necessary and justifiable societal practice. Here are some common moral objections to taxation:
Coercion and Force: Some individuals argue that taxation is inherently coercive because it involves the government using force (or the threat of force) to collect revenue. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to choose whether or not to contribute to public services.
Property Rights: Critics may claim that taxation infringes upon individuals' property rights. They argue that the government's ability to tax implies a claim on a portion of citizens' property, which they view as an unjust violation of personal freedom.
Redistribution of Wealth: Some argue that progressive taxation, where higher-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes, is morally objectionable. They contend that it amounts to the forced redistribution of wealth, which they argue is unjust and interferes with the principle of individual responsibility.
Government Efficiency and Spending: Critics often raise concerns about government inefficiency and wasteful spending. They may object to taxation on moral grounds, arguing that if tax dollars are not used effectively or for legitimate public purposes, it is morally wrong to compel individuals to contribute.
领英推荐
Individual Liberty: From a libertarian perspective, some argue that taxation limits individual liberty by reducing the choices people can make with their own money. They believe that individuals should have maximum freedom to decide how to use their resources.
Voluntary Alternatives: Some argue for voluntary funding models for public services, suggesting that individuals should be able to choose which government programs or services to support, rather than being compelled to fund a broad array of services through taxation.
It's important to recognize that these objections are just one side of the debate. Others argue that taxation is a necessary means to fund essential public services, promote social justice, and address collective challenges. The debate over the morality of taxation often involves weighing individual freedoms against the collective needs of society. Different political and ethical perspectives may lead to varying conclusions on this complex issue.
What I am seeing is there is no accepted definition across society of what forms of social justice are important and what should remain ignored. Also we have not as a society determined what is the purpose of government and what is best handled by not-for-profit organizations. If we do not figure this out quicky and our leaders just let thinks happen without a larger conversation, I fear we as a nation will self-destruct.
Student at Conner Creek Academy East/ Michigan Collegiate Middle/High School
3 个月In addition to paying the salaries of government workers, your tax dollars also help to support common resources, such as police and firefighters. Tax money helps to ensure the roads you travel on are safe and well-maintained.?
Head of Commercial & Industrial Banking at Patriot Bank, N.A.
1 年We still have taxation without representation, via the graduated income tax and the welfare state. Either one allows for taxation without representation, or one does not. If one does not, then one cannot logically allow for taxation in excess of representation or representation in excess of taxation. It is not enough for Alice to have one vote, and pay, say, $100K in taxes per year, if Beth also has one vote and pays $10K, or $1K, or negative $5K via EITC, or receives public assistance in excess of the taxes he pays. In that instance Alice is subjected to taxation without representation and Beth enjoys representation without taxation. It should work like a co-op - your say over how "our" money is spent should correlate to how much of "our" money is actually YOUR money. It does not, and so we have taxation without representation.
Enterprise Architect / Principal Consultant
1 年Our founders were very comfortable with 'use taxes' and certain other levies, such as excise taxes, but considered taxes on property ('direct' taxation) to be tantamount to theft, because it implied that the government had a legitimate claim of ownership against an individual's property (a *very* slippery slope). Since owning property (free of impediments) was considered essential to being a free person, indirect taxation was tolerated but direct taxation was routinely rejected. [This remained true until the Civil War debt required massive levies.] Today, although we generally agree that taxes are necesary to afford the government services we've become accustomed to. However, we've also come to recognise that direct taxation too often causes unintended consequences, such as forcing the poor or elderly out of their homes, simply due to inability to afford the mandated taxes. Perhaps it's time for us to both reduce our addiction to governement services *and* to reassess which levies are the most even-handed and just.
Retired Planner Providing Insight on Major Energy Issues.
1 年I understand the truth of your statement. But the individuals on complete freedom should consider the road network would not exist without public involvement so it is not everyman for himself.