Objection to the Against Taxation and Imprisonment argument

Objection to the Against Taxation and Imprisonment argument

In the argument, taxation is immoral; the character jasmine is a personification of the government’s immoral tax. The idea behind the case is that if two actions A and B have no significant moral difference, then if one is wrong, so is the other. Government taxation is immoral since it is contrary to the consent of the people. In the arguments, jasmine imprisons her neighbors and demands them money to sustain the prisoners. She threatens those who fail to pay at gunpoint and even imprisons them. Also though the actions of jasmine are illegal, they have no difference from the government’s taxation system.

In the same way as jasmine, the governments collect taxes legally and imprisons those who fail to pay the fee. Thus, if jasmine actions are immoral, then government taxation is also immoral (Perry et al. 108).  In this paper, I critique the arguments that government taxation is immoral. In the first part, I reflect on the discussion of how tax is unethical in the author’s perspective. In the second section, I present the objections that could be raised against the argument. Ultimately, I offer the objections that could be raised against my criticism of the immorality of government taxation.    

The argument on immoral taxation is based on the jasmine scenario. Jasmine, a vigilante in an imaginary town, extorts money and kidnaps her neighbors. In the pursuit of maintaining law and order, jasmine imprisons two con artists in her basement. After realizing it would be challenging to carter for the daily needs of her prisoners, she starts to demand money from the public forcefully. She raises her demands via email and suggests that everyone in the society should pay $50 for the maintenance of the prisoners and the farewell of a local gym (Perry et al. 108). Jasmine’s actions are bureaucratic and illustrate a system where top officials make all the critical decisions without the consent of the public. The argument taxation is immoral suggests that if there is no moral difference between two situations, then both the conditions have a similar moral consequence. Thus, if jasmine’s extortion and kidnapping of her neighbors is morally wrong, then government taxation and imprisonment of citizens are also illegal (Perry et al. 108). We are blindfolded by the fact that the government collects taxes legally. However, the government makes all the laws and thus makes it seem moral for it to raise taxes. However, when a different party engages in tax collection using the same procedures as the government, the party is regarded as immoral and deserving punishment. Nevertheless, there is no considerable moral difference between government taxation and imprisonment with extortion and kidnapping from a different party. If one action is wrong, the other is wrong regardless of the perpetrator.

Indeed, the argument on the immorality of taxation and imprisonment confronts the hypocrisy of government taxation. However, it fails to recognize the importance of taxation to the public. Surely, imprisoning people for not paying taxes is crude action similar to extortion and kidnapping. Nevertheless, such a perception would alter the essence of paying taxes and thus disrupt economic progress in a country. Supposing that tax is meant to support those in prison would undermine the importance of the taxation systems and rehabilitation programs (Katzenstein et al. 638). The primary significance of taxation is catering to the needs of the public. If the public needs better infrastructure, education, healthcare, and housing, then paying taxes should be an obligation of every citizen. The notion that taxation is wrong creates a conflict between the government and the public. It makes it seem like the governments extort money from the people.  Unlike jasmine, the government’s taxation is aimed at improving the farewell of its citizens. The money does not all go sustaining personal interests but reverted to serving the needs of the people. Every citizen has to understand the importance of paying taxes and the so benefits of taxation. From this point of view, the individual can realize that taxation has a higher essence than extortion. The government imprisoning is meant to make people understand the severity of evading taxes. It is intended to rehabilitate potential tax evaders and to give them time to contemplate the importance of paying the fee. Taxation and imprisonment are meant to work together to ensure the stability and smooth running of a nation.

Though my criticism is based on the fact that the importance of paying tax is not considered, there are still objections that could be raised against my argument. Indeed there are numerous cases of unfair government taxation. The taxation system, in many ways, suppresses the people and makes life hectic.  Taking money from people without their consent is similar to extortion (Perry et al. 108). Supposing that government taxation is moral because of its authority undermines the effects of the people and encourages heinous crimes, including corruption. Legal obligations do not make it ethical for the government to force people to pay money without their consent. It is also not moral to imprison a person because of failing to pay the requested sum. Such viewpoint evidence that government taxation is wrong and intimidates the power of the public. Equal taxation down presses the poor and enlarges the wealth distribution gap. Is the government was moral; it would tax the rich more than the poor to ensure that wealth is equally distributed. However, imprisoning the poor for not paying taxes is illogical and cruel (Katzenstein et al. 638)l. From this viewpoint, government taxation is no different from jasmine, who is a saint and a sinner at the same time. The government disguises as a promoter of the people yet victimize the people by taking their money and threatening them with prison. The notions of taxation demotivate workers and kill performance and morale. Taxes make commodities expensive and inaccessible to many people. Taxations results in the formation of classes and standards. The creations of social classes and standards lead to segregation and moral decay at the community level. Such arguments support the immorality of government taxation and prove that moral difference is significant in analyzing the morality of taxation.

Conclusion

The argument of immoral taxation deserves deeper contemplation. The author suggests that moral difference is essential in determining the morality of taxation. Since there is no significant difference between tax and extortion, thus both actions are wrong. I find that the argument on immoral taxation is one-sided and does not consider the benefits of taxation or the operating with the tax-free government. Thus, the author undermines the importance of taxations and its significance to public operations.  The benefits of tax outweigh the limitations, and therefore every civilian must pay for the good of their farewell.