Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - 16 members, or so (So Far...) voted "no" to Issue #4 on the "6 Issues" Thread

loquitur · 11-30-2007, 10:40 AM

Host, here is my issue with your OP: question #4 of the 'six issues' post asked whether the function of taxes is to redistribute income. I answered no, the function of taxes is to raise money to enable the government to operate. Here is my reasoning:

1) Taxes have been around a very, very long time, since the very first governments, and it's only relatively recently that redistribution had anything to do with taxation. That's because (among other things) we are now rich enough as a society to worry about things like that. Redistribution is a luxury of rich societies. If everyone is poor there isn't much to redistribute. (Rich societies are dynamic societies, which means that the rich guy isn't just the son of the local lord of hte manor, who inherited his estate in a line from the original duke who was granted the land by William the Conqueror and didn't work a day in his life. The rich guy more likely than not is highly productive and creative, which is how he got rich.) When there wasn't much to redistribute there still were taxes. Why? Because the government had to run. And also because potentates had power and were greedy, and used taxes to enrich themselves. But even the benevolent ones taxed their populace. After all, someone has to pay for defense of the realm. So when you ask whether the purpose of taxation is redistribution, the answer has to be no.

2) The premise of your OP is that wealth inequality and income inequality in and of themselves are bad things. My answer to that is, "it depends." In France in 1788 there was an indolent, lazy, landed aristocracy that spent its days idly and hadn't done a thing to earn its position. That sort of inequality is a bad thing. And that sort of inequality arises from closed economic systems of the sort that had existed for a few previous millenia. In a closed economic system there is little growth, which means that for all intents and purposes an extra penny in a rich man's pocket comes out of the poor man's pocket. That is the sort of economy that the bible had in mind when it adjured charity. The redistributionist impulse traces to Christian teachings, and is based on an economic formula that simply no longer exists in Western countries. This isn't a knock on charity but it is a knock on redistribution. Inequality in and of itself is not a problem, if the inequality came about honestly. Unless a person is a horrendously envious type (which is very very ugly), it does not hurt him one bit if someone else has more than he does.

I'll go out on a limb here: by historical standards we have no poverty in America. None, zero, zip, nada. If you go back to 1600 and consider what poverty meant then, we have NOTHING like that. The biggest health problem for poor people in this country is obesity.

The premise for your OP, that inequality by itself is bad, reminds me of the story about the two Russian peasants, Pavel and Ivan. They were equally poor and miserable for years, friends and neighbors. Then one day Pavel was walking past Ivan's hut and noticed that, instead of the one chicken Pavel always had, Pavel had TWO chickens in his yard. Ivan was struck by the injustice of it all. Why should Pavel have two chickens and he, Ivan, only have one? So every night he would pray that this horrendous injustice should be rectified. One evening when he was praying, he heard an angel speaking to him: "Ivan, your prayers have been heard. We will fix the injustice." Ivan looked up, overjoyed, and said "you mean you're really going to kill Pavel's chicken?"

That is what complaining about inequality is.

11-30-2007, 10:40 AM	#42 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, here is my issue with your OP: question #4 of the 'six issues' post asked whether the function of taxes is to redistribute income. I answered no, the function of taxes is to raise money to enable the government to operate. Here is my reasoning: 1) Taxes have been around a very, very long time, since the very first governments, and it's only relatively recently that redistribution had anything to do with taxation. That's because (among other things) we are now rich enough as a society to worry about things like that. Redistribution is a luxury of rich societies. If everyone is poor there isn't much to redistribute. (Rich societies are dynamic societies, which means that the rich guy isn't just the son of the local lord of hte manor, who inherited his estate in a line from the original duke who was granted the land by William the Conqueror and didn't work a day in his life. The rich guy more likely than not is highly productive and creative, which is how he got rich.) When there wasn't much to redistribute there still were taxes. Why? Because the government had to run. And also because potentates had power and were greedy, and used taxes to enrich themselves. But even the benevolent ones taxed their populace. After all, someone has to pay for defense of the realm. So when you ask whether the purpose of taxation is redistribution, the answer has to be no. 2) The premise of your OP is that wealth inequality and income inequality in and of themselves are bad things. My answer to that is, "it depends." In France in 1788 there was an indolent, lazy, landed aristocracy that spent its days idly and hadn't done a thing to earn its position. That sort of inequality is a bad thing. And that sort of inequality arises from closed economic systems of the sort that had existed for a few previous millenia. In a closed economic system there is little growth, which means that for all intents and purposes an extra penny in a rich man's pocket comes out of the poor man's pocket. That is the sort of economy that the bible had in mind when it adjured charity. The redistributionist impulse traces to Christian teachings, and is based on an economic formula that simply no longer exists in Western countries. This isn't a knock on charity but it is a knock on redistribution. Inequality in and of itself is not a problem, if the inequality came about honestly. Unless a person is a horrendously envious type (which is very very ugly), it does not hurt him one bit if someone else has more than he does. I'll go out on a limb here: by historical standards we have no poverty in America. None, zero, zip, nada. If you go back to 1600 and consider what poverty meant then, we have NOTHING like that. The biggest health problem for poor people in this country is obesity. The premise for your OP, that inequality by itself is bad, reminds me of the story about the two Russian peasants, Pavel and Ivan. They were equally poor and miserable for years, friends and neighbors. Then one day Pavel was walking past Ivan's hut and noticed that, instead of the one chicken Pavel always had, Pavel had TWO chickens in his yard. Ivan was struck by the injustice of it all. Why should Pavel have two chickens and he, Ivan, only have one? So every night he would pray that this horrendous injustice should be rectified. One evening when he was praying, he heard an angel speaking to him: "Ivan, your prayers have been heard. We will fix the injustice." Ivan looked up, overjoyed, and said "you mean you're really going to kill Pavel's chicken?" That is what complaining about inequality is.