Wednesday, June 21, 2006

On the topic of the previous post

Here's a quote from the article linked to on a point discussed in the comments:

"Belief that beneficence and charity can be a substitute for the revenues raised under a just tax structure assumes human beings have the spiritual capability to overcome the sin of greed by the strength of their voluntary efforts. This assumption cannot be theologically defended because it denies the sin of greed as being part of humanity's fallen condition and our absolute dependence on God to help us fight greed as well as all other human tendencies to sin."

I'm so conflicted, because I don't believe in God or the truth of the Bible, but I want to support the author's position because I agree with the end result: an accretion model of progressive income taxation. On the other hand, I frequently (and others as well) adopt the vernacular of my opponent in order to take the argument into his playing field and beat them there (to date, I have beaten no one and suffered numerous losses, but I still hold to the strategy). Anyway.

4 Comments:

Blogger Matt said...

If you can't beat greed by voluntary effort, good luck getting your progressive tax policies passed in a democracy.

3:50 PM  
Blogger Fishfrog said...

Luckliy, though, I'm not trying to get them passed in a democracy. I'm trying to get them passed in the United States of America. [Arsenio Hall-type hooting]

4:00 PM  
Blogger scarlet panda said...

A democracy is a great way to get a very steeply progressive tax system: even if everyone acts solely out of greed, the poorest 51% can tax the richest 49% as much as they want and themselves not at all.

6:45 PM  
Blogger Xeno said...

I find the best way to win an argument is to have an entirely different argument.
argument:
"I want universal health care."
Retort:
"You stole my jacket! I want it back!"

7:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home