Regarding “Tax day thoughts,” I read Mary Fahnestock-Thomas’ contrast between two different perspectives. 1. A kid with ice cream and a parent eating one third of it. The one third being the tax portion of the kid’s property. 2. A parent or someone with ice cream money but keeping one third of the money (tax portion) for whatever is deemed necessary for “all to benefit.”
Mary says the first is unjust while the second is just. Why? She says, “We each also have some inescapable obligations to the people around us if we are all to benefit.” Someone else once said, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Is this what Mary is promoting?
What is the difference between the above two perspectives? In the first, the parent takes something the kid already has. Mary says this is unjust. In the second, the tax portion of the money never gets to the kid in the first place. The tax is never seen by the kid; Mary says this is just. This makes no sense to me! In both situations, tax money is stolen from the kid; the only difference is that one is seen and appears unjust and one is unseen. Does theft that is unseen make theft just? Not in my book.
While I agree that we should not rely on “sound-bites” I do think that we should logically ponder perspectives and consider what is right. Is theft always, sometimes, or never acceptable? Can theft ever benefit humanity? Without theft, you would have more to share with those around you that you feel obligated to help. I applaud your efforts to help others as long as it is YOUR money with which you do that. If it is my kids’ ice cream money you want, I am not so happy about your advocacy for theft.
Chris Martin
Hamilton