Should we Tax Hate?

Bogan

No.   We should tax low IQ people who can not spell.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ;  I believe most taxation is tyranny. I work for years, I pay for a home, I'm taxed annually thousands of dollars for that home, repeatedly, year after year.

LGBTQ is not sustainable and abortion is not sustainable; therefore, queers and murderers should pay the tax, not law abiding citizens who strive to be productive.

maxx

Hate is an emotion, and like all emotions, it is neither negative nor positive; emotions depend upon what thoughts and ideas that we apply to them that decides the negativity or positive aspects. You may as well say we should ban certain ways of thinking that contributes to our emotions. @Barnardot

Barnardot

@Bogan ;No.   We should tax low IQ people who can not spell.

Well okay then but you didnt explain why. May be we could tax people who fart in elevators or people who dont dress well but how far do we go. We cant tax every little thing that might annoy a few people.

My examples are people who hate others for no reel reason and even unlawfully which causes much disruption and cost to society. Why should society pay for there ill doings. If they cant control them selves and change them selves then they should be made to pay for it. Not the rest of us.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;LGBTQ is not sustainable and abortion is not sustainable; therefore, queers and murderers should pay the tax, not law abiding citizens who strive to be productive.

LBGTQ and people who have abortions are law abiding citizens but people who go round beeting queers and blocking abortion clinics are not law abiding and being counter productive. Thats why not only should they pay the penalty but they should also be taxed. If they don't like getting taxed well thats grate. Its the same as smocking. If you dont like being taxed on smokes then just stop getting them.

Barnardot

@maxx ;You may as well say we should ban certain ways of thinking that contributes to our emotions

Well we cant tax every thing and when you do make a new tax it should be beneficial to society as a hole.

For example if I think of some thing real random and Im only saying what if here because its hard to think that such a situation exists. But what if some one thinks in a certain way that he thinks eating garlic is good for you. Well we could impose a tax on eating garlic to counter act all the burden on the health system and lost days at work  it causes from toxicity illness. But that would only apply to very few people and would not really impact on the grater society.

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@Bogan ;No.   We should tax low IQ people who can not spell.

Well okay then but you didnt explain why. May be we could tax people who fart in elevators or people who dont dress well but how far do we go. We cant tax every little thing that might annoy a few people.

My examples are people who hate others for no reel reason and even unlawfully which causes much disruption and cost to society. Why should society pay for there ill doings. If they cant control them selves and change them selves then they should be made to pay for it. Not the rest of us.

@Barnardot

I do get what you're saying, I really do. But taxing hate, that's a podora's box that we would never be able to close. Thought police and the like, what ever minimal good one may think might be possible, the potential for weaponizing such laws would far out way any good. How does someone defend themself against being accused of thinking in a hateful way? That, and I think we (working class) are taxed enough.

maxx

if you say so. science has proved garlic is healthy, just like all fruits,  veggies, nuts and grains. @Barnardot

MayCaesar

Barnardot said:

For example we get taxed on liquor and cigarettes because both of those things put a huge burden on the health system.

This is an interesting one. I actually did research on this when helping a student with his research project. When it comes to alcohol consumption, virtually across the board of health indicators moderate consumption is linked to better outcomes than zero consumption. That does not imply causation between the two (it is possible, for example, that, on average, people abstaining from alcohol also have less healthy social lives, which is known to take very heavy toll on one's health) - but, suffice to say, the research on dangers of alcohol is very inconclusive. It is clear that consuming too much alcohol can be deadly, but so is consuming too much of other things that are generally considered "healthy".

Taxation of alcohol is not based on health considerations; it is based on old puritan morals, in conjunction with the lobbyists within the alcohol industry. I would make a larger point, supported by academic works of such prolific economists as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman: the overwhelming majority of taxes merely use moral considerations as rationalization of their existence, with the motives of their introducers being far more nefarious than what is announced to the public.

A good question to ask when it comes to adopting a new tax or increasing an existent one is, "Is doing this absolutely essential for the society and state to function?" If the answer is "no", then the discussion should be closed right there and then. The government sucks at running the economy, and the less it invades it, the better.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I would make a larger point, supported by academic works of such prolific economists as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman: the overwhelming majority of taxes merely use moral considerations as rationalization of their existence, with the motives of their introducers being far more nefarious than what is announced to the public.

So true. We physical conservatives decades ago coined a word for that because it seems the left tries the tactic concerning taxation more than we on the right. When they start 'demonizing' a product look out, they've discovered a way to intrude into your personal lives...