@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The US income tax is also "voluntary", is that what she means?
Maybe if I typed more slowly, the difference between voluntary contributions and taxes that Americans are required to pay would not be so difficult to understand? (Though I think Ican is correct in his observation that liberals aren't as dense as they pretend, but they have to pretend or else they lose their 'liberal' badge.)
But maybe we can agree that I choose how much I put in the Salvation Army kettle or pitch in the collection plate at church or enter into the check that goes to St. Judes or Boys Ranch or the local homeless shelter? I can also choose to contribute nothing at all. That is what freedom looks like.
We also need to agree that I can also choose to pay more in taxes than is required, and the government will happily accept my contribution, but I cannot choose to pay less.
So in the final analysis, it all comes down to what is appropriate for government to do with the taxes it collects.
To pay its bills that are obligations it accrues to operate government? Certainly.
To provide for the common defense? A Constitutional requirement.
To promote the general welfare? In the form of shared infrastructure and necessary services and incentives that benefit all rather than special interest groups, also a Constitutional requirement.
To enrich Paul at the expense of Peter without Peter's consent? Nope. You can't find that anywhere in the Constitution, nor has anybody yet been able to articulate a rationale for how that is moral, ethical, or Constitutionally legal to do.
The Founders would have considered it unethical, illegal, and wrong for your to forcibly take property from me and give it for the benefit of another individual just so you could feel magnanimous and righteous.
They would consider you a great man should you choose to give of your own wealth for the benefit of others, however.
