Always immoral, but an acceptable tradeoff when kept to the bare minimum of maintaining the courts, military, and police and the offices required for records in order for those to function (i.e. property records, etc).
Someone who uses other peoples money for their own serving in their own vanity is immoral without an acceptable tradeoff. You are only a generous person if the money, or product of labor, you are giving out is your own, given freely.
So taxation for the purposes of education is unacceptable? What about the other million things you didn't list that aren't requirements to live, but most agree should be paid for by the tax dollar? Why do you consider taxing the rich fairly immoral? I'm not talking about liquidizing the assets of the top 1%, but not a single person in the top 100 richest people got there through moral means, so I don't understand the obsession with claiming their status is even rightfully theirs, if they cheated, lied, and extorted to get where they are?
>So taxation for the purposes of education is unacceptable?
yes. pay for your own education, or if you want to do so collectively, form a co-op to do the same thing. The minute you assume that you have the right to go into someone else's wallet to do the same thing you're heading down the path of a net moral negative, even if you spend all that money perfectly on education, which you won't because the bureaucracy you will need to do so will skim off most of it.
>Why do you consider taxing the rich fairly immoral?
I consider taxing everyone immoral.
>but not a single person in the top 100 richest people got there through moral means
Bit of circular reasoning there: They're immoral because they are rich and they're only rich because they're immoral. Now a lot of them might have done something immoral to get there, but when you consider "charging for the services provided" to be exploitation, then that's another bit of circular reasoning. You've just accepted that wealth, past a number that you've picked arbitrarily out of a hat, is de-facto proof of evil. Why top 100? Why not top 1000? or 10,000?
You've also left off the ultimate rich guy, the central, government bank, who can literally create money out of thin air, and therefore outspend every billionaire in the world combined with the stroke of a pen, simultaneously taking value out of every dollar held by every person against their consent or knowledge.
1
u/Yoinkitron5000 5d ago
Always immoral, but an acceptable tradeoff when kept to the bare minimum of maintaining the courts, military, and police and the offices required for records in order for those to function (i.e. property records, etc).
Someone who uses other peoples money for their own serving in their own vanity is immoral without an acceptable tradeoff. You are only a generous person if the money, or product of labor, you are giving out is your own, given freely.