Illustration by Arnulfo Bermudez
|
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Wednesday April 16, 2003
Today is the first day of the next tax year. While most citizens dread the onset of April 15, city, county, state and federal agencies and programs depend on the yearly revenue. Currently, the U.S. Congress is dynamically debating the Bush Administration's tax cut that will be in the neighborhood of hundreds of billions of dollars. For some, the function of taxes is the hot issue that completely defines where someone falls on the political spectrum.
In lieu of Tax Day and the potential tax cut pending on the horizon, students philosophically contemplate taxes. What do you think? What role should taxes play in the United States?
Tax cut a necessity for recovering economy
Isn't it about time the politicians put all politics aside and give the people what most Americans are asking for? That's right, it's time for Congress to support President Bush's tax cut, putting the money back where it belongs.
A tax cut is the only way to get our economy back on track. The Democrats, however, don't want this to happen, as it will only ensure defeat in next year's elections. With the war in Iraq having gone so well and the President on the verge of claiming victory after just four weeks of fighting, the Democrats are clinging to the hope that our economy will continue to suffer.
They say that Bush's tax plan only helps the wealthy and big businesses. While this is not completely true, the statement does have merit. While the tax break may entice many of us to spend a bit more money, we won't be creating any new jobs with it. It is the wealthy and big businesses that will be spending more money, creating more jobs, and thus stimulating our economy.
It is with a strong economy that, in the end, we will all benefit.
Steve Campbell is a senior majoring in Spanish. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Taxes should not be a way to legislate morality
Let's state the question more clearly: What role do taxes rightfully have in a free society? One can easily make the case that they should be levied to meet the needs of the community ÷ the entire community, that is, and not just particular members of it. They should pay for infrastructure, defense and, arguably, education.
However, taxes should not be a method of forcibly manifesting a moral code. When people are forced to sacrifice the product of their labor for the benefit of others, taxation has overstepped its bounds. Taxes that go to fund social programs do just this: they take, without justification, what some have earned and give it to others. They legislate morality ÷ the morality of altruism ÷ robbing people of their right to act according to their own moral values and simultaneously institutionalizing the notions of pity, condescension and superiority.
There is one sound argument for such taxes: they stabilize the community by reducing crime (a well-documented fact). However, those who view altruism as such an unshakable principle that it no longer qualifies as a moral code should reconsider; the choice of whether to help others, to what extent and under what conditions, are indeed moral choices, and not matters of the natural duty of men.
Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
In modern societies, taxation is a necessary way to share resources
The conflict between sharing for the good of the group versus self-interest exists everywhere. In every human society, an individual's desire to use his or her resources to build influence or engage in "conspicuous consumption" exists in a complex and necessary balance with a societal impulse to redistribute resources to help the less fortunate.
Some opponents of taxation argue that economic redistribution in smaller societies is more akin to charity than taxation because it is accomplished without the need for legal enforcement. Such a viewpoint is simplistic, ignoring the power of public opinion and reputation ÷ when all members of a group know each other face to face, being seen as "selfish" often carries the risk of strong social consequences. In large modern societies, however, legal means must be taken to ensure that group members contribute to the public good. Attempts to replace taxation with voluntary charity are rarely, if ever, successful.
They may not be as glamorous or amusing as passing legislation to patriotically rename Belgian potato snacks, but budgets and taxation issues are fundamental to every politician's job description. It is a voter's duty to make sure elected representatives reflect our personal values on taxes, ensuring a system of economic redistribution that meets the needs and desires of as many Americans as possible.
Phil Leckman is an anthropology graduate student. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Taxpayer money should protect and serve the average American, not be sent abroad
Most taxes are paid by average Americans so they should be used to their benefit. The use of American taxpayer money should be used for education, quality of life and safety.
Today in America, we have become victims of one of the grossest lies ever brought upon the American people. We have been told that using our tax money to fight a war that is of no benefit to the American people is a way to keep our way of life safe. At the same time, our officials are cutting vital funds to essential programs, including the shameless cut of veteran's benefits, which is a blatant slap in the face of the men and women risking their lives overseas.
Invest in the people of America, give them health care, give them education and ensure that our communities are safe.
Instead of neglecting Homeland Security, which they have to a frightening degree, our elected officials need to concentrate on shoring up the strength of our borders. They need to use this money to make sure we never have another event like Sept. 11 ever again.
Use our money to protect and serve Americans, not to make the rest of the world hate us. To do otherwise is fanatically anti-American.
Bill Wetzel is a creative writing and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu
Taxes provide more than just basic services
It's tax time again, and I'm actually not complaining. While the government spends plenty of money on programs and in places I do not agree with ÷ training of foreign mercenaries at the School of the Americas, subsidies to tobacco farmers, and corporate bailouts of irresponsible companies just to name a few ÷ I realize that individual taxpayers cannot and should not be picking and choosing where their tax dollars go; rather, it must be decided by the American people as a whole through the people they elect to office.
While the government must provide basic infrastructural services, if it cannot go beyond building roads and bridges to cleaning up the water that flows under the bridges and feeding the homeless people who stumble along the roadsides, something is sorely lacking.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last great American president, realized that government could do far more than had ever been imagined before. The result of his New Deal was no form of Communism, as some neo-conservatives would like to portray it, but a spectrum of issues previously considered unsolvable and inevitable that had new solutions, which were bringing real change. Feeding the hungry children, bringing the elderly out of poverty, and providing jobs for young people was not only an appropriate role for government to assume, it was American government at its best.
Kendrick Wilson is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
Moderate taxes necessary for public well-being
It is too bad the word "tax" is political voodoo.
Too many people focus only on how the loss of hard-earned money will adversely affect their personal life without fairly weighing the benefits a nation supported by taxes has given them.
For those anti-tax people out there ÷ every day you benefit from projects funded from tax dollars. I am not talking about campus art, but rather road systems, police and fire services, national defense, and education, not to mention clean water and air. Wanna talk about a weapon of mass destruction, how about a city without proper sewer treatment plants?
We all quickly forget that moderate taxes pay for items that are public goods ÷ items and services that will not be provided in a capitalistic system by the private sector, because they are unprofitable or impossible. The government must regulate for the welfare of its citizens ÷ this costs bucks.
Taxes should only be collected and applied toward projects that will benefit the entire body of citizens. What these are, whether they are health care, education, social programs, depends on what the collective should deem important through elections and legislation.
My only complaint? I wish there were a space to fill in on tax forms that would let people dictate where a portion of their money should go.
Jessica Lee is an environmental science senior and opinions editor. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
