Oh herro

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"]What specifics do you really want? I've said the amount of tax isn't relevant, so it's probably low enough not to really affect anyone.[/quote]

There is never a tax that doesn't harm someone. Yes, even people who are considered "well enough" need every cent they can get. So you really do have to weigh a gain/loss, because the #1 rule of economics is this: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Tax or donation, someone always loses.

[Azdgari]

[quote="Regulus"]If the tax is irrelevant, then that would clearly be the better of the two choices.[/quote]
Then there's your answer! You value the tax doing good over the idea that a tax is a violation of freedom.

DF, you're still overthinking it. Everyone is. This is a hypothetical situation. The tax harms nobody because I said it harms nobody.

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"][quote="Regulus"]If the tax is irrelevant, then that would clearly be the better of the two choices.[/quote]
Then there's your answer! You value the tax doing good over the idea that a tax is a violation of freedom.[/quote]

Except that there will never be a tax like that, so that answer is irrelevant. It's like answering "elephant" for "what's 2+2?". It simply doesn't make any sense.

[Azdgari]

I can change the wording from tax to 'forced donation'. Would that help? :3

[DGFone]

Absolutely not. Renaming things to try and make them sound better doesn't change what they are. Sorry for sounding negative, but the entire premise of this question is flawed, and like we said in the beginning: the best thing to do here is not to take a side. We don't know enough.

[Azdgari]

Can we delete this and start over? I want to continue to get answers, but I ended up wasting a lot of time in failing to interpret your answers, and it's clogged up the topic. :3

[Tora]

[quote="Azdgari"]Can we delete this and start over? I want to continue to get answers, but I ended up wasting a lot of time in failing to interpret your answers, and it's clogged up the topic. :3[/quote]I must post this first.

To tax someone that has no clear destination as to where the tax is going is not a good thing. You can't just tell them it is going to help 100 people. The tax payers want to know who and have the right to know. Honestly a side cannot be chosen from this information. And a forced donation would clearly make it to where everyone would chose pure charity. There would be no point in asking this question.

[Regulus]

[quote="Azdgari"]Then there's your answer! You value the tax doing good over the idea that a tax is a violation of freedom.[/quote]

No, that wasn't exactly my answer. I said if the tax was irrelevant, but then explained that the tax can't be irrelevant.

However, in general, I do support the idea of taxes. Since this is in the world issues section, I'll explain why. If everyone in the United States is taxed $20, that would allow for a sum of $6 billion to be pooled. So, think of it this way. Would you rather eat at McDonalds one night, or let that sum of money to be spent on improving infrastructure, which would benefit everyone for many years to come? Of course, taxes are often wasted, in the case of the Iraq war, for instance, but wouldn't it suck if every time you wanted to go somewhere, you had to pay a toll to use the road?

[Azdgari]

Essentially, the question's point was to understand how important personal freedom is to people. People voiced opinions in a debate that even if a tax was proposed that -everyone- could afford that would help the needy, they would oppose it for the sole reason that it violates their freedom by forcing them to give. Many people said they would save 90 because they value personal freedom. Many said 100 because they value results. I guess you guys fall in the middle: you don't have strong enough feelings to go one way or another without understanding the exact specifics.

[Tora]

It is those exactly specifics that lead to a justifiable answer. Without them both ways a wrong in one way or the other. So yea not much else can be said.