Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

odd question, is profit and taxation morally wrong?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
basically is charging more than the cost of labour and goods extortion, along with the threat of violence or imprisonment through non payment of taxation wrong?

why are any of these justified?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    basically is charging more than the cost of labour and goods extortion, along with the threat of violence or imprisonment through non payment of taxation wrong?

    why are any of these justified?
    oh for fucks sake ...this is like a personal invite for klint to start all over again ...and blag to bring ...oh god.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    enter stage left....the blagg.........the klint........3...2...1....go!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no and no.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    oh for fucks sake ...this is like a personal invite for klint to start all over again ...and blag to bring ...oh god.
    :yes: Another one. :D

    In reality, yes, it is. But to do without it currently would require a radical change, which the current people in power do not want as it does away with them, and they are quite unecessary. The whole structure would change... probably for the better... but it would mean those who currently wield power would be bought down to the same as the rest of us.

    Much to their personal dislike.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Hears starting gun*

    One is, one isn't

    Profit is fine and here is why - if it's voluntary trade, BOTH people must make a profit from the transaction or it won't take place.

    Taxation is theft, and theft is wrong. One party must lose out in taxation.

    Now, there are a limited number of occasions where theft can be understood (sick granny's medicine, your starving etc) and there are even fewer instances where theft actually is the only option.

    If it's not right for you to do something, it's not right for you to ask someone else to do it for you. You cannot give other people rights you do not have yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the international climate we profit by trading internationally, without taxes to provide infrastructure improvements which improves productivity so reduces th average cost of production (which means more profit, which in theory means more income for people), anyway, without these low costs workers still demand hgh wages which means in many cases we become uncompetitive with india etc. and so whilst in the short term people get more money, in the long term we see an issue like in France where due to how uncompetitive they are, people start struggling to find jobs.

    In France it was not an equitable loss of income - in fact mainly people from ethnic minorities found it a lot harder to get jobs. Now students are finding it harder to get jobs. As with the riots last year caused by racial tensions due to a lack of fairness (i.e. give white people jobs not black people), which had caused an increase in a feeling of 'grievance' with the state, the recent strikes / protests have been down to a similar cause, because the students no longer have worker rights and so are discontent, and are kicking up a fuss.

    Now, whilst there are very massive social externalities to all of this, Frances economy has been in the red for years now, investors wont touch them with a long barge pole. I agree that some countries demand efficiency so much of its people it forgets about the standard of living. Countries like China where human rights are pretty much ignored so long as output is increased. I think you have to strike a happy medium somewhere.

    So, its all relative. You can have an unfair tax, you can have a firm in supernormal profits with unfair terms of trade (lets look at mcdonalds, for example). But you can have a firm with a good level of profit that boosts incomes and so the affluence of the local area, which is an undeniably good thing. You also get taxes that allow for two things - one to reduce harmful consumption (i.e. fag duty) and another to redistribute wealth to those who've 'slipped the net' so to speak. Once you've become deskilled, lost your home, its immensely difficult to find work again. By providing hostels and training courses, people can earn a living for themselves, which is good for them, because its better than being on the dole (or begging, in some cases) and its better for the country because its a further improvement (or recovery) of the supply side.

    So maybe. Its all relative. Are the UKs firms making a fair profit? I'm not sure, we get paid a lot in comparison to a lot of countries, but we work a lot harder too (not compared to slave labour countries though). Is the tax system fair? Thats difficult to say with Gordon Brown making it so confusing, and just smiling at us. But taxes have increased for the past couple of years, I don't know if he's creating too big a government spend, the government is only there to make sure the country is running smoothly afterall.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Taxation is theft, and theft is wrong. One party must lose out in taxation.

    :no:

    Both parties bring consideration to the agreement.

    I pay tax, and when I get ill, I get taken in a state ambulance to a state hospital. I drive on state-maintained roads. The state empties my bins.

    There is nothing wrong with profit either. But there is something wrong with excessive profit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nothing wrong with tax in principle, in practice we don't get a say how our money's spent and all the fatcats are sitting back on 45k pensions so it's nothing more than a bad joke.......nothing wrong with profit either, but capitalism puts money before anything else, including the wellbeing of people in poorer nations who can be put to work making fancy nike boots for 18 cents an hour or some shit......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Both parties bring consideration to the agreement.

    No they don't. There are half dozen reasons why not but have a simple one first -

    The government buys you services using your money. Until you pay them they cannot provide the services.

    That's fraud that is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I pay tax, and when I get ill, I get taken in a state ambulance to a state hospital. I drive on state-maintained roads. The state empties my bins.

    I agree with Klintock in that you seemingly lose out when you are taxed - they take money away that you have earned after all. However the tax does pay for medical care and road maintanance (as Kermit said) and so many other things as well.

    If we didn't pay taxes, where would the money come from to pay for things that the general public uses? Ok so for medical care we could pay insurance, but that's easy as you would pay it just for yourself. Would you want a bill sent to you everytime your bins were emptied? What about things that you can't bill to each person? How do you monitor who drives over which bits of roads the most times and does the most damage so the bill can be sent to them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If we didn't pay taxes, where would the money come from to pay for things that the general public uses? Ok so for medical care we could pay insurance, but that's easy as you would pay it just for yourself. Would you want a bill sent to you everytime your bins were emptied? What about things that you can't bill to each person? How do you monitor who drives over which bits of roads the most times and does the most damage so the bill can be sent to them?

    Toll roads, in a word.

    I'm hoping klintock responds to my previous post :) (so I can have a discussion)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's two words :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    The government buys you services using your money. Until you pay them they cannot provide the services.

    No, you buy access to government services.

    You pay tax, they provide services to you. Quid pro quo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm hoping klintock responds to my previous post

    Okidoki.
    In the international climate we profit by trading internationally, without taxes to provide infrastructure improvements which improves productivity so reduces th average cost of production (which means more profit, which in theory means more income for people),

    If theres profit to be made from this trade, companies can provide their own infrastructure. What happens at the moment is that businesses can offload the costs of their business onto the tax payer. While the big corporations are the main beneficiaries of a rail network in say France, the taxpayers of France are the ones who pay for the fucker.

    You see this everywhere, large companies bribe the state to use violence to get them favourable conditions, remove fixed ciosts and close their markets through pointless laws that require huge costs to comply with.
    anyway, without these low costs workers still demand hgh wages which means in many cases we become uncompetitive with india etc. and so whilst in the short term people get more money, in the long term we see an issue like in France where due to how uncompetitive they are, people start struggling to find jobs.

    Without regulation, an area of low wages would quickly attract hundreds of compaies looking to make a quick pound from those low wages, and of course this would then fill the vacuum and swiftly raise the wages. The only way you can close a market is to use force - government, in other words.
    In France it was not an equitable loss of income - in fact mainly people from ethnic minorities found it a lot harder to get jobs. Now students are finding it harder to get jobs. As with the riots last year caused by racial tensions due to a lack of fairness (i.e. give white people jobs not black people), which had caused an increase in a feeling of 'grievance' with the state, the recent strikes / protests have been down to a similar cause, because the students no longer have worker rights and so are discontent, and are kicking up a fuss.

    That problme is a common one - the feeling of entitlement. No one is entitled to anything from others, save what they are willing to trade. No one is going to be sacked if they are a good employee in a good business. If you get sacked from a poor business you have been done a favour, if you get sacked for being a crap employee you have also ben done a favour - it's a signal to buck your ideas up. The lack of self responsibility is astounding.
    Now, whilst there are very massive social externalities to all of this, Frances economy has been in the red for years now, investors wont touch them with a long barge pole. I agree that some countries demand efficiency so much of its people it forgets about the standard of living. Countries like China where human rights are pretty much ignored so long as output is increased. I think you have to strike a happy medium somewhere.

    Whn you look at China or any other system of governance you have to realise that the majority of people are always left alone - even very violent states keep a core of people "ok" to maintain their power. The same is true of the west as anywhere else. yes, those who fall foul of the system in China are treated more harshly but that's only because our governments like to put up a pretense of freedom.

    What has to be understood is that there are very very few (if any) free market companies left. The whole system more closely resembles the fascist model of private owners doing what the state tells them in exchange for favours than anything else. Every piece of legislation is designed to keep a market closed, and is sold on the grounds of being good for the workers/customers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, you buy access to government services.

    You refuse the service or find alternatives...you have to pay anyway...you don't recieve the service, you cannot sue for loss.

    No quid pro quo.

    In the case of the state, it provides services and protection in exchange for allegience. However, it demands allegience but admits no remedy when services aren't provided. They aren't holding up their end, I see no reason to hold up mine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    You refuse the service or find alternatives...you have to pay anyway

    You pay for access to the services- you always have access to the services.
    you don't recieve the service, you cannot sue for loss.

    You can.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You pay for access to the services- you always have access to the services.

    Really? So if I set up a business in my local community I can send out bills to everyone who lives nearby and expect payment, can I?

    After all, they have access to my services, don't they?
    You can.

    So. if my bin isn't taken away one day I get a rebate for that cost do I?

    If a light fails on my street cash comes winging back to me, does it?

    If I get mugged the police pop round with a cheque for my loss because they failed to hold up their end of the contract do they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and so whilst in the short term people get more money, in the long term we see an issue like in France where due to how uncompetitive they are, people start struggling to find jobs.

    France's problem is not with uncompetitivness; French workers are among the most productive in the world and thier private sector performs excellently year after year. Thier problems lie with a bloated private sector/high tax and ridiculous labour laws.
Sign In or Register to comment.