Duh. I realize that. BTW, I'm only referring to Federal income tax here and Federal programs. States can do whatever they want.
If you are so sharp why don't you tell me how they initially financed the Federal gov't after the country was formed, up until 1913? Do you know? I do.
"What planet do you live on? Did your mother overprotect you?
Uhm, let me see . . . no, I don't think so. I've traveled extensively in this country, in Europe, and spent some time in parts of Asia. Your mis-applied sense of superiority aside, I have not been overprotected, nor have I been sheltered.
You think you're arguing morality when all you're arguing about is who should get the tax money.
Wrong once again. I am arguing morality. It is a moral question whether gov't should be taking money from certain individuals and using that money to enrich other people's lives. It was considered wrong, immoral -- whatever you want to call it -- for gov't to do so until 150+ years of precedent were overturned in the 1930's.
That aside there are legitimate questions about how society should be organized and what are the functions of government.
Of course there are. We are discussing what those should be and how they should be funded. Your assumption is that the functions of healthcare, welfare, etc., are ones that gov't should provide to certain of the citizens at a cost to other citizens and you act as if that is a fait accompli, which it is not. It may be the status quo now but it hasn't always been such.
BTW, I have asked you in post 80 and post 81 whether it is morally right for gov't to forcibly collect from one person or group of people and enrich other person(s) with the proceeds. All you have said is basically that this is the way it is and gov't need money to function. That has nothing to do with this argument since there are other ways for gov'ts to raise revenue. Now I'm asking you again to answer this question although I doubt whether you will.
Why? Doesn't morality apply to them?
If you are so sharp why don't you tell me how they initially financed the Federal gov't after the country was formed, up until 1913?
Excise taxes, tariffs, land sales, etc.
Wrong once again. I am arguing morality. It is a moral question whether gov't should be taking money from certain individuals and using that money to enrich other people's lives.
Back to this again so soon after arguing that States could do whatever they want.
Your assumption is that the functions of healthcare, welfare, etc., are ones that gov't should provide to certain of the citizens at a cost to other citizens and you act as if that is a fait accompli, which it is not.
Where do you get this stuff? The functions of the State are whatever the citizens decide they should be...assuming that they are within the realm of the possible. Each citizen, of course, has different ideas. In my case I believe the State should assume a certain responsibility for health care but that they've currently assumed too large a responsibility.
BTW, I have asked you in post 80 and post 81 whether it is morally right for gov't to forcibly collect from one person or group of people and enrich other person(s) with the proceeds.
"Enrich" other people implies theft - so of course it's wrong. But if you phrase it differently - Do I believe that wealth transfer is appropriate under certain circumstances? - My answer is yes.