Is the purpose of raising taxes to increase revenue or social justice?

[lothar]

I don't understand the point of this poll...
Am I supposed to vote based on my personal opinion of what I think taxes should be used for or based on what I think the politicians in Washington are using it for?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

As noted above we already invest heavily in our citizens.

Above where?

And what citizens?

 

[cwjerome]

Heh. If your point is that what you define as capitalism doesn't exist, never existed, but is instead corporatism, I won't argue with it.

OTOH, do you really think that small weak govt can cope with it more effectively than big govt? How else can we stand up against it? Invoke some Libertopian fantasy?

I personally don't favor a weak government, I think a small government can be strong. My focus is good government, and I believe a smaller government has the potential to be a better government than a larger one.

The solution to what we have now is for politicians and private citizens to both display sincerity, constitutional thinking, and assume the best intentions of others. Sincerity is honesty squared, honesty with deep caring and seriousness. Constitutional thinking is being reasoned, reflective, creative, constructive, and balanced.

If the people are healthy politically (Aristotle's "virtuous") then the Republic thrives. This means our cultural and personal character must be elevated beyond the Jerry Springer/Team sport of politics of today. Yeah, I don't see that happening anytime soon. But I don't believe adding layers and levels upon layers and levels of government can fix this deficiency either. If we are a strong, smart people we can have a strong, smart government... but that's not us now. We have what we are. Bloated and stupid.

 

[Pia]

"Social justice", lol.

 

[cwjerome]

"Social justice", lol.

I don't have a problem with the term "social justice" and I think the Preamble of the US Constitution directly addresses it as a goal. This is why social justice and social responsibility are principles I speak to in the classroom.

 

[Zorkorist]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the Constitution.

Ya'll can decide if it means "Social Justice."

-John {it doesn't}

 

[dank69]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the Constitution.

Ya'll can decide if it means "Social Justice."

-John {it doesn't}

What kind of justice do you think it means?

 

[dank69]

Actually I don't believe your comparisons are the same.

Regarding the statement:
"Justice usually involves a punishment, therefore you want to punish success."

I don't think he means that you want to punish success BECAUSE justice involves punishment--where BECAUSE refers to root cause. That's not what he's getting at. He's saying that if you believe raising taxes is a form of social justice, then you are using raising taxes as a source of punishment.

I know what he thinks, but he has to make a case for it. Typically, when we speak of justice, we are speaking about righting a wrong. Yes, that often can include a punishment for that wrong, but that is not always the case. In order for raising the taxes of the rich to qualify as justice in the form of punishing the rich, we must first establish that the rich have done something wrong in the first place. In order to do that, you must set up the straw man that anyone voting for the justice option believes that all rich people are evil or need to be punished in the first place. That is idiotic and makes for a nice soft target for morons who can't think critically. First of all, taxes aren't punishment, and anyone who claims such is so fucking stupid that it is difficult to put into words. So I'll just leave it as fucking stupid. Taxes are the price of society. That's it. Nothing else.

Since we are talking about raising taxes on the rich typically, and especially in current events today, you are talking about punishing the rich. Since the rich are viewed as successful, and it's generally the view of Democrats that the successful can afford a few more $ here and there in taxes, that your raising taxes is being directed at those who are successful or are currently enjoying success. Oh and as for success having nothing to do with this topic here? What does success have to do with money? A lot. People will say that happiness is success or say that they care more about things than money, but we all act like we want money and it is a form of envy and we view it as success in others (it's just like we talk about looking beyond physical appearance in girls and that personality is more important, but at the end of the day its human nature to judge by appearance). You know very well success has a lot to do with taxes and our tax code.

I believe that's a fair statement he made. Sure there's a lot he didn't say in between, but if you have even half of a brain you could've drawn that link.

So now, do you want to rethink the above in that context? Because all you did is set up the aforementioned straw man and knock it down.

Now let's take your unfair comparison:
"Conservatives are usually religious, therefore Matt believes the world is about 6000 years old."

In SOME cases this could be true, but it's not a root cause. Not every cause and effect is a root cause behavior. Also this statement lacks any details on what kind of religious. Conservatives are usually hardcore Christians. Matt goes to Church every Sunday and believes in the principle of sex only after marriage. Matt is most likely hardcore religious. Matt doesn't like the theory of evolution. Matt believes the world is 6000 years old. See the logical steps there? The thing is you don't know those facts about Matt, so yes it seems like two disjointed statements. It's not like the two statements can't coexist.

However you very well know what Matt is referring to regarding justice and punishment and success and taxes. You just chose to pick at the way he says it. It's a perfectly fine way of expressing yourself. You might not use it in a research paper, but you should know what it means.

And now you can see why my comparisons were good enough to make my point. They all involved straw men and giant gaps in logic.

Ok so he didn't answer your question, big deal? He asked a follow up question? Is this an interrogation room or something? Here let me answer your question for him. I think that following your hypothetical scenario is social injustice.

You see how easy it is for you to answer the question? That's because you aren't being intellectually dishonest like he is. It's not a difficult question. There is only one right answer. Your answer. Anyone claiming differently is full of shit. He didn't answer my question for a very specific reason. He said "taxes should not be used for any type of social justice." By admitting that my hypothetical situation would qualify as a social injustice, he would have to admit that repealing it would be a form of social justice. Matt cannot possibly admit that he was wrong to a "troll" such as myself, so he HAS to ignore, redirect, and avoid answering it at all costs. Look at his last response again. I asked him specifically, twice, if HE thought it would qualify. He won't answer it. He speculates about other people's perspectives. Fucking classic. YOU are enabling him.

I think you were trying to get at the fact that we don't make over $250k, and that we'd benefit. Sure I'd enjoy my money more that way, but its still social injustice. You're targeting a specific group of people based on their income level.

Don't try to guess at what I think. You are not good at it. Just ask me and I will tell you.

Matt's question didn't answer yours, but it's a valid point. It's getting at when did any tax increase only affect the rich and ignore the middle class? It's a response to your hypothetical scenario because in your scenario ONLY the rich are hit with a burden. So he goes to ask when is a situation like that realistic anyway?

In order for us to even get into the topic of what qualifies as justice or injustice, we must first establish that there can be justice or injustice contrary to his stated position. This is how debate works when people intend to have an honest conversation. If Matt wants to have an honest conversation, he will directly answer the questions asked. If he doesn't, he won't. We can all see which option he is choosing so far.

You act like you're brain dead or something and can't put 2 and 2 together and just harp about logic. I did my fair share of courses in philosophy and logic and did plenty of debate, but if you're going to argue about semantics on this board all day long, then you're going to go nowhere. He has a point, and if you truly know what you're talking about you could've beat his point down already.

If you think this is a semantics battle, you are lost already.

 

[dank69]

Sigh, now the insults. It's all a matter of perspective. Anyone whos taxes got raised might think it was an injustice and those who didn't would think it was social justice. Anyone who thinks taxes should be raised for anything other that to raise revenue, or for "Fairness" as Obama puts it, is trying to do social justice. Now, fuck off you troll.

Nice job dodging my question, again, all while calling ME the troll. What a fucking dumbass. I asked what YOU think. I don't give a shit about other people's perspective. I care about your perspective.

 

[cwjerome]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the Constitution.

Ya'll can decide if it means "Social Justice."

-John {it doesn't}

Social justice has been around since the first communities were formed and what social justice looked like in some communities was different from others, just as what it looked like yesterday can be much different than it looks like today. In the past, it was often the result of the prevailing religious tone, such as the Puritan's notion of what social justice was. The Founding Father's generally had a very deep sense of social justice, a more secular view stemming from older English tradition and even classical Greek and Roman influence, although there was still some Protestant sway as well. To them a citizen wasn't just a denizen, there were certain moral and character responsibilities involved, particularly at the local levels.

I could make an argument that all six of the Preamble's goals invoke social justice, especially the last two. What people need to understand is the US Constitution isn't just a raw, political document... it created a world. It's predicated on a specific type of culture, people, and traits. The Constitution must match the spirit of the people, and in this way, a particular type of social justice. In this regard I would oppose the social justice of "equality of outcome" but strongly support principles such as freedom of conscience and caring for those less fortunate. This is why many on the right loose the war before the battle ever starts; they reject the very concept of social justice instead of fighting for the right kind of social justice.

 

[Jhhnn]

Social justice has been around since the first communities were formed and what social justice looked like in some communities was different from others, just as what it looked like yesterday can be much different than it looks like today. In the past, it was often the result of the prevailing religious tone, such as the Puritan's notion of what social justice was. The Founding Father's generally had a very deep sense of social justice, a more secular view stemming from older English tradition and even classical Greek and Roman influence, although there was still some Protestant sway as well. To them a citizen wasn't just a denizen, there were certain moral and character responsibilities involved, particularly at the local levels.

I could make an argument that all six of the Preamble's goals invoke social justice, especially the last two. What people need to understand is the US Constitution isn't just a raw, political document... it created a world. It's predicated on a specific type of culture, people, and traits. The Constitution must match the spirit of the people, and in this way, a particular type of social justice. In this regard I would oppose the social justice of "equality of outcome" but strongly support principles such as freedom of conscience and caring for those less fortunate. This is why many on the right loose the war before the battle ever starts; they reject the very concept of social justice instead of fighting for the right kind of social justice.

Quite thoughtful. Thank you.

I hope you're not putting too much emphasis on the "equality of outcome" meme, because that's not what even the most progressive thinkers on the so-called "Left" want, at all. We're often more mindful of Reality that our counterparts on the right, that's all, less bound by faux rigid morality of ownership, of Me! & Mine! & how that applies to the expanding gulf between the very Rich & the rest of us. We see it as a threat to the core concepts of egalitarian Democracy & to true economic prosperity.

When business owners depend on production for their incomes as much as workers, they're more reasonable than when they can flimflam investors, pay themselves special dividends, make money flipping the company titsup. They're less reasonable when even huge fluctuations in income affect their lifestyles not in the slightest, when their balance sheets are merely an abstraction of the power to shape the world & run other people's lives. When their lifestyles reached saturation long ago, it's no longer about money, at all, but about power, and about greed for the sake of greed.

Do we want to allow them that much power? Will we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by the veiled threat inherent in the "Job Creators need low taxes" meme?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...t-to-america/2012/03/27/gIQAMJt1eS_print.html