Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.
My definition? What definition? I said that I consider it unethical for the government to tax A in order to hand out the money to B. My comment is specific to that scenario, not all taxation.
But you're not understanding that that's all taxation is: taking money from person A to hand to person B. The only differences lay in why the government gives that money to person B. Usually, that money is given to person B for a service, say, that of a teacher or a soldier or an IRS agent or an OSHA inspector. Other times, that money is given to non-governmental agencies, like companies or corporations for services (road maintenance or facility cleaning) or goods (office supplies, toilet paper, food for the vending machines) or even research and development (Lockheed Skunk Works, etc.). Sometimes that money is given to foreign individuals, agencies, or nations...these can be for any of thousands of reasons, from wildlife preservation to counterinsurgency support to protection of intelligence assets to outright bribes.
Not all of these uses are good or right...but most of the time, most of them are, just as most of the time, most of the people really, truly want to do the right thing.
Now one of the uses I didn't mention is the one that you seem to have a problem with - giving the money to person B when that person B is not providing a good or a service in return...and I'll continue on that assumption. Why would a government give a person money month after month, sometimes for well over a year, if that person is not providing a good or service in return?
The answer's quite easy: in the long run, it saves the government - and the taxpayers - a
lot of money. Let's first address unemployment benefits. First, one must understand that while yes, there are some who abuse the system, MOST people on unemployment honestly want a job - trying to keep a family fed, clothed, and sheltered on unemployment benefits is really difficult...but not impossible.
So let's get down to brass tacks - is it easier to get a job if one has no criminal record, or if one is an ex-con? The former, obviously. Is it easier to get a job if one has a home with electricity and running water, or if one is homeless? Again, the answer is obviously the former. Those who are homeless are much less able to get a job, and much more likely to engage in crime...and so are their children. The more people who are evicted and tossed out on the street, the higher the crime rate will be...and this has a direct deleterious effect on the community. And the greater the crime level, the worse the effect on local businesses...and the more likely they will lay off people...and the more people will be jobless...and if they are evicted...
...it becomes a vicious circle, one that is very difficult for a community to recover from...and even a successful recovery can take many years. And all that time, with all the loss of business revenue and losses of jobs comes community-wide loss of tax revenue.
So which costs more - to continue paying unemployment benefits (which are spent in the community supporting the local businesses anyway) or to suffer the loss of tax revenue from the higher rate of homelessness and the higher rate of crime that always, always follows? If you'll think about it, the same logic applies to welfare and food stamps...and again, while some do abuse the system, most hate being on welfare and food stamps. My family was on them too when I was a teenager...but now I'm a small business owner providing jobs for other people.
So it goes with that bane of all modern-day Conservatives, that Conservative invention called "Obamacare". It's certainly not a perfect system, but it's a heck of a lot better than what we had (my oldest son now has health insurance despite his preexisting condition of a serious bout of rheumatic fever). How does Obamacare save the taxpayer money, especially given that so many people are given taxpayer-funded subsidies? Well, Obamacare's not perfect - it's not a truly socialized health care system like that found all the other first-world democracies...and in our armed forces (it's called 'TRICARE'). But what one finds with such systems is that one is MUCH more likely to go to the doctor to get problems taken care of when they're first noticed...and one is much less likely to wait until one is very sick (or deathly ill), when one's care would be much more expensive.
Speaking of expensive, would it be a benefit to America's economy if the single biggest cause of all our nation's bankruptcies (and the foreclosures that follow all too often) was removed? About half of all our bankruptcies have health expenses as the cause or a major contributing factor...whereas in Canada, it's closer to 10%.
IN OTHER WORDS, just because the government's giving money to someone without receiving an obvious service or good in return does NOT mean that the government's simply 'throwing money away' or 'redistributing wealth for ****s and giggles'. That 'wealth redistribution' is perhaps our most effective tool in keeping the homeless population - and the crime that always follows - down to a minimum. Got to Canada sometime, walk down the streets of Vancouver - a city of 2M - and try to count how many homeless you see. I have, over a New Year's weekend about five years back. I counted two.
Your assumption that I want to live in a nation that has a weak government is entirely unfounded, and is wrong.
Okay, I'll take that hit.
The only comment I have made is that I consider it unethical for a government to tax A in order to hand the money over to B.
And I've described above why a well-run government can see such wealth redistribution as vital to preserving the economic well-being of the nation.
I also notice that you haven't tried to argue that such an action is actually ethical. I give you credit for that, at least.
It's VERY ethical, as I've shown above.
I see you think that a society's prosperity is a function of government taxation. I disagree with your economic theory
No, I do not think that a society's prosperity is a function of government taxation...but I will absolutely state that a modern society cannot - repeat, cannot - function without government taxation. Now this would not have been the case in, say, the 1800's...but in the modern world? No. government - and the taxation that government needs to function - are absolutely crucial to modern society.
None of which addresses the issue of whether taking from A in order to give to B is ethical.
I believe I've shown why it's not only ethical, but absolutely necessary in the modern world.
