Fe politics versus Fi politics

[ByMySword]

You're wrong. If you want to be entirely responsible for yourself, fine... Build your own house and power it with energy you create.
Otherwise... every single member of society you benefit from has the right to tell you what contribute to it. This includes things more complex than a simple flat tax.

What sucks is that this is all hypothetical. But if I'm already contributing, then I can tell them what to contribute as well!!!!!!!!!

Don't tell me what morals I should have. A government should be run on ethics, not morals. If I have money I inherited from my family, or if I earned it through my good efforts, then its MY money. I should be asked no more than anyone else. I pay my taxes, I abide by the law. Now, should I wish to help people out of the goodness of my own heart, then that's my right as well. I contribute to society by being a consumer in the economy and paying my taxes to the government.

So no. I am not wrong.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

That's correct... But the argument here is once again about defining what really is "Caesar's".

Well, in this case I'm interpreting it to mean that moral imperatives are different from legal imperatives. I agree with the Texans and disagree with you on whether rich people have earned their money and whether they should bear a disporportionate tax burden. They've earned their money under the law and the law should not be able to unreasonably take it away.

That said, I think that morally, the rich owe a debt to the society that they live in. I think it's incumbent upon them to help those who are suffering. But I don't believe that it's the state's place to legally compel them to do so.

So...

Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's (they earned it legally, it's theirs)
Pay unto God what is God's (that doesn't mean they're off the hook morally)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What sucks is that this is all hypothetical. But if I'm already contributing, then I can tell them what to contribute as well!!!!!!!!!

Don't tell me what morals I should have. A government should be run on ethics, not morals. If I have money I inherited from my family, or if I earned it through my good efforts, then its MY money. I should be asked no more than anyone else. I pay my taxes, I abide by the law. Now, should I wish to help people out of the goodness of my own heart, then that's my right as well. I contribute to society by being a consumer in the economy and paying my taxes to the government.

So no. I am not wrong.

AHAH! Yes, I do prefer the word "ethics".

To address a couple of points here... I honestly don't believe in inheritance. I consider heirs to fortunes as valid as heirs to crowns.
I'm a merritocrat, and I think money should go to people based on working for it, using it well, and needing it. Fortune heirs did not work for it, certainly don't need all of it, and most of them don't know how to properly use money, because the odds just don't favor that a good-hearted genius will always be born to wealth.

Now, if you earned it, then you deserve it, but I disagree with this country's criteria for earning wealth.

On more technical grounds, I frankly don't think a highly captialist system sufficently helps people.

EDIT: of course it's hypothetical! You're Intuitive, right? The very ropes that bind society are the concepts of encompassing interests and long term interests.
Naturally, it's all very abstract. Society is a broad, complicated, and intangible thing. What do you expect?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, in this case I'm interpreting it to mean that moral imperatives are different from legal imperatives. I agree with the Texans and disagree with you on whether rich people have earned their money and whether they should bear a disporportionate tax burden. They've earned their money under the law and the law should not be able to unreasonably take it away.

That said, I think that morally, the rich owe a debt to the society that they live in. I think it's incumbent upon them to help those who are suffering. But I don't believe that it's the state's place to legally compel them to do so.

So...

Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's (they earned it legally, it's theirs)
Pay unto God what is God's (that doesn't mean they're off the hook morally)

I suggest that the law be changed.
I think, even on terms of practical effectivity, the state should pull a variety of strings in the field of business.
Are you familar with Mancur Olson?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

What I don't get is...if rich people die and their heirs don't get their money, where does it go? I can only assume that you would prefer it go to the government to be purposed for social programs.

I guess this is where I show my conservative stripes, but if the criteria for having money is who will use it the best, I'd rather leave it to my dog than have the government get it.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What I don't get is...if rich people die and their heirs don't get their money, where does it go? I can only assume that you would prefer it go to the government to be purposed for social programs.

I guess this is where I show my conservative stripes, but if the criteria for having money is who will use it the best, I'd rather leave it to my dog than have the government get it.

This is why nearly everyone, across the political spectrum, advocates simplifying the tax system. It would be easier to trust the government if it were a simple process, because that's so much easier to monitor.
I prefer leaving heirs with a reasonable amount of money, but circulating most of the fortune into the social system As simply as possible.

(Yeah... go ahead... brand a hammer and sickle on me. )

 

[Metamorphosis]

This is why nearly everyone, across the political spectrum, advocates simplifying the tax system. It would be easier to trust the government if it were a simple process, because that's so much easier to monitor.

Like say...a flat tax?

I prefer leaving heirs with a reasonable amount of money, but circulating most of the fortune into the social system As simply as possible.

(Yeah... go ahead... brand a hammer and sickle on me. )

That would lead to an unprecedented amount of tax evasion.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

(Yeah... go ahead... brand a hammer and sickle on me. )

I'll not do that. I despise red state/blue state polemics, and I won't further them by engaging in hyperbole.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Like say...a flat tax?

Yes, in principle a flat tax does make sense, but it simply doesn't address all the issues I'm talking about on its own.

The main reason I don't advocate the US switching to a flat tax right now is because I think its system is too screwed up to be ready yet.

That would lead to an unprecedented amount of tax evasion.

Not necessarily.

 

[Metamorphosis]

Yes, in principle a flat tax does make sense, but it simply doesn't address all the issues I'm talking about on its own.

The main reason I don't advocate the US switching to a flat tax right now is because I think its system is too screwed up to be ready yet.

So it is too screwed up to simplify it? The only people I can imagine complaining loudly would be accountants.

Not necessarily.

How so? Virtually the only thing stopping people would be morals. I assure you that if I knew the government was going to take a large portion of my money upon my death, I wouldn't report it and I would make sure my family got it and knew how to spend it without getting caught.

 

[Mr Galt]

Why should a rich person's money be made public property upon his death? Is it not still his money? Surely he has the right to give it to whomever he sees fit. Nobody has a right to just take it for "the greater good".

 

[SillySapienne]

How odd, this is an issue where I cannot affirmatively say I am on one side or another.

I just don't know enough about how our political system *actually* works in order to form an opinion.

People deserve/have the right, to keep what they've earned and to share that with their family.

But a wealthy nation like ours should be able to support a substantially "good" universal health care program, and an excellent public education system.

I dunno, I dunno, I dunno!!!

 

[Mr Galt]

I just don't know enough about how our political system *actually* works in order to form an opinion.

Never take into account the system in place when deciding what SHOULD be in place.

 

[nemo]

Republicans (right wing)
Economy: liberal
Social issues: centrist but conservative leaning

Democrats (left wing)
Economy: centrist but liberal leaning
Social issues: liberal

Libertarian
Economy: liberal
Social issues: liberal

Leads me to believe that libertarians don't fall into either category.

I think you're on the right track.

The Political Compass

^ I don't know what, if any, implications that has for this thread, lol

 

[Magic Poriferan]

So it is too screwed up to simplify it? The only people I can imagine complaining loudly would be accountants.

Oh, come now. My point is that other factors have to be altered before a flat tax is adopted. Part of the reason we even have the rich get taxed more is because of what a ludicrously innapropriate amount of money they make.
Creating a flat tax before we've attempted to balance other aspects of the field would only inflame the inequality problem.

How so? Virtually the only thing stopping people would be morals. I assure you that if I knew the government was going to take a large portion of my money upon my death, I wouldn't report it and I would make sure my family got it and knew how to spend it without getting caught.

Well, in theory, that risk always exists. You will find no law that simply side-steps law-breakers. That's logically impossible. It's an entirely different issue.
Anyone being taxed in anyway has an incentive to hide the truth from the government if they think they can do it.
Someone hiding their money from tax collectors is much like a person that robs purses.

Why should a rich person's money be made public property upon his death? Is it not still his money? Surely he has the right to give it to whomever he sees fit. Nobody has a right to just take it for "the greater good".

Now you get to call me the immoral one. I don't think a corpse owns anything.
Society needs that money, and can use that money, more than that dead guy can. I would argue, more than his children, too.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

How odd, this is an issue where I cannot affirmatively say I am on one side or another.

I just don't know enough about how our political system *actually* works in order to form an opinion.

People deserve/have the right, to keep what they've earned and to share that with their family.

But a wealthy nation like ours should be able to support a substantially "good" universal health care program, and an excellent public education system.

I dunno, I dunno, I dunno!!!

Hahaha. The ENFP I know proclaims herself an anarchist but usually advocates Socialist policies in practice!
You silly things.

 

[SillySapienne]

Never take into account the system in place when deciding what SHOULD be in place.

I was talking about my ignorance in regards to what and how exactly the government spends tax money, where does it all go???

How is it being managed and distributed, where and to whom is it being distributed.

I just don't know!!!!

*feeling ignorant*

 

[Mr Galt]

Society needs that money, and can use that money, more than that dead guy can. I would argue, more than his children, too.

The fundamental difference between our philosophies is that you think need entitles people to things. I don't think need entitles a person to do anything but try harder to fill that "need".

 

[Mr Galt]

I was talking about my ignorance in regards to what and how exactly the government spends tax money, where does it all go???

How is it being managed and distributed, where and to whom is it being distributed.

I just don't know!!!!

*feeling ignorant*

Who cares? Where SHOULD it go? Only then should you find out where it DOES go, and see where there are incongruities.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The fundamental difference between our philosophies is that you think need entitles people to things. I don't think need entitles a person to do anything but try harder to fill that "need".

Society exists out of need. The need is the basis of the ethic that creates society.