If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Test
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A. “Murder is murder if even it is committed by the Government and named war”.
B. “Theft is theft if even it is committed by the Government and named tax”.
What do you think about these sentences? Do you believe that
1. A is true but B is false.
2. B is true but A is false.
3. Both A and B are false.
4. Both A and B are true.
?
B. “Theft is theft if even it is committed by the Government and named tax”.
What do you think about these sentences? Do you believe that
1. A is true but B is false.
2. B is true but A is false.
3. Both A and B are false.
4. Both A and B are true.
?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I would be inclined to choose response #1.
If you dont like the tax system here, you can always go somewhere else.
In some cases war's are needed, but in most they are not. The individual cases of soldiers killing each other, well, thats a grey area, I suppose it is murder, but its different.
We should never take pleasure in others deaths, but, well as much as I hate the saying the end justifies the means.
One of the oldest "slippery slope" arguments in the book and completely immoral.
Even in a case such as WWII?
To cut through the misapplied rhetorical comparison between WWII and our current militancy, one should consider that the entry of the allies into the war came as a response to a demonstrably ongoing cross border assault on the sovereignty of nations by Germany itself. It was not a case of claiming some "perceived" threat and thereby justifying pre-emptive conquest, the conquest in question was already in full swing and required allied resistance to end.
Apologies for pulling a monocrat, im not in the best of moods today and simply reacted to the timeworn and sweeping claim without further clarifying my thoughts.
I completely agree with you, when talking about recent conflicts (and those of a similar nature)
Thank fuck monocrat is no longer around...
Tax is not theft, though to say it is anything other than forcible removal of earned property is wrong. You dont have a choice as to whether you pay tax or not- omission is a crime to be punished. Therefore it is forced.
But for the war issue, as a general rule war is murder, though it is a difficult one to call. If the war is for a genuine reason then I think it is acceptable- the Catholic Church hit the nail pretty much on the head when it comes to just and unjust wars.
Though eitehr way the actual killers do not murder.
So you think morality and legality are opposites?
I like it!!!
We rats are wise aren’t we?
Calling it theft seems to me to imply a negative feeling towards it, which although I'm sure people begrudge paying it, for the majority its something they feel is the right approach to a society.
I think this can be shown by the fact that up untill relatively recently many polls suggested people wouldnt mind paying a bit more tax in exchange for better public services.
Whether people are getting value for money though is another matter altogether.
It may be forced but conider that the money you have earned could not conceivably be acquired without paying the tax so as to sustain the vital organs of govt it would be a very strange sort of tax indeed......
Of course, ist impossible to live in a world without tax of some description (even in places like Andorra there is tax, its just the ski-slope operators who pay it) but it still remains a fine line between theft and not.
Though when we have our money being spent on Dubyas visit I think it crosses the line.
That again is not really true.
For it to be murder you have to INTEND to KILL, not merely conquer. It is terrorism without a just cause, just as what the Catholic Church say about wars without purpose being immoral.
Pheh.
Yes I know but the question is how much of the wealth you are being taxed from would you have if you weren't to pay the taxes, or more specifically if everyone were not to pay there taxes?
Why not turn the issue around?
If tax were made optional and consider that some choose to pay and others do not then those that do not would be free-riding and would in effect be stealing from not the govt but from those paying for the public services.
It is the nature of the goods that the govt provides that means that the relationship must be forced at some stage to provide the best benefit to society..........
as for tax ...i never did understand economics but ...surely it is OUR money being circulated to everyones benefit. or in an ideal situation it ...i'll give up now on that one!
Of course. But where the line gets drawn depends on your political perspective.
Free-market liberals think that, aside from basic Governmental needs such as security, then Government should not exist. Therefore what they consider just in terms of taxation is a very small amount. Whereas many Socialists want to see redistribution of wealth via taxation- the rich get taxed highly to pay for the less rich, so a higher level of taxation would be acceptable to them (though of course I have to be a cynic and add the caveat "so long as the rich are paying and Im not").
I didn’t think my question would get so many answers.
I accept your excuses ( as ‘Yes, but..’, ‘No, though..’ etc) but I leave me to interpreter your answers . You understand of course that the question is too tough (over- simplistic actually) but it doesn’t matter.
I named it Test because it IS a test on your political…sorry! I hate the word Politics, so : Your Social Philosophy Opinions, I think it sounds much better. And it is a test, really. You’ll get answers.
Again, thanks!
And please be more active! I want know more about you British blokes. ( you can see how much selfish and egoistic I am).
Indeed, but then the question becomes not one of whether taxation is theft per se but of whether the purpose of the tax is justified.....