AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It would not violate the social contract for the people to have an option to also check off an amount to fund relief for the goverment to use for poor or those undergoing unexpected hardships. But forced charity does violate the social contract and I believe it is one of the primary causes for much of the corruption and inefficiency in our government.

What refundable tax credits? I don't recall any mention of refundable tax credits.

But since you bring it up, how is it not charity for Citizen B to receive such a credit and Citizen A not being allowed to do so?

The social contract did not allow the predator to use the government to take property from one person and provide it for the private benefit of another as that would leave the people no better off than they were when everybody fended for himself. John Locke was quite clear about that, as were those who broke with England and set about setting up a new nation in which unalienable rights were inviolate.

Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority:

To understand this the better, it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexed also, and submits to the community, those possessions, which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government: for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property; and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government, to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject.

It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?

Okay, Cyclop takes the view that it isn't charity because Citizen A has the option of impoverishing himself to the level of Citizen B and receiving the tax credit too.

(That does beg the question of who will pay taxes if everybody opts to do that, huh? And it also begs the question of the definition of charity which in this context means the government taking the property of one for the personal benefit of another who is deemed needier.)

I think you need to actually read Locke before you try to tell us what he said Fox.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
John Locke
First published Sun Sep 2, 2001; substantive revision Sat May 5, 2007
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher, whose association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This opposition is both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. The positive side of Locke's anti-authoritarianism is that he believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determining the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.
...

Locke says it is dishonest to have more property than you need.

Audience member: "Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor."

McCain: "I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more."

Audience member: "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism?"

McCain: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

http://able2know.org/topic/124399-1

Locke says it is dishonest to have more property than you need.

a lack of something requisite (ESSENTIAL, NECESSARY), desireable, or useful