Taxation of income is similar to forced labor Published by bernard on October 27, Sample Essay According to Nozick, taxation of income is similar to the forced labor or slavery mainly because workers pay taxes as per the rules imposed by the taxing body but not as they wish. In my view, paying of taxes involves taking some time of the day from the workers to work for the benefits of others and not under their consent; therefore this can be compared to forced labor because many workers are against taxes implying that they are imposed against their wish thereby violating the self-ownership rule. However, in my opinion the comparison of the two is unfair mainly because taxes are paid to assist the government to provide social amenities and services such as medical services, hospitals, street lights among others. Therefore, it can be compared to pooling of resources together to provide necessary that would be difficult to provide and manage individually.
Distributive Justice and Redistribution The concept of distributive justice is sometimes understood as the moral assessment of distributions, or as the moral assessment of individual or collective decisions in light of how they affect distributions.
These distributions affecting institutions include laws and other social rules governing what kinds of things can be owned and by whomhow they can be acquired, transferred, relinquished, and forfeited, how markets and the production systems are structured, the manner in which decisions concerning trade policy and the monetary system are made, and so on.
The concept of redistribution has been invoked extensively in discussions of distributive justice in both the domestic and global context. Indeed, the differences between popular recent approaches to distributive justice, such as libertarianism, prioritarianism, and so-called luck egalitarianism, are sometimes characterized in terms of their attitudes towards redistribution Scheffler Given its robust role in discussions of distributive justice, it is unsurprising that disagreements concerning the permissibility of redistribution have often been quite heated.
In this vein, critics of so-called redistributive policies often claim that while individuals may have positive ethical duties to aid poor or unwell persons, it is morally impermissible to compel them to do so through state-administered tax and transfer or other means, unless universal consent for these policies can be secured Narvesonch.
Egalitarians, on the other hand, have often argued that redistribution through compulsory taxation and other coercively imposed measures is required to meet basic material needs or to promote other valuable social goals, and provide a legitimate, though perhaps not morally costless means of doing so.
This essay aims to clarify and evaluate some of these disagreements by exploring the many different senses in which the concept of redistribution has been used. It also indicates some of the confusions to which equivocation among different senses of this concept has led.
It concludes that the use of the concept of redistribution has tended to obscure rather than clarify the true nature of substantive disagreements about distributive justice.
Two kinds of questions concerning redistribution can be identified: Does it have a unified and coherent meaning? Is it purely descriptive, so that we can classify practices as redistributive without evaluating them?
Taxation for redistribution is at par with forced labor essay does the correct application of the term, like democracy, liberty, and perhaps also coercion depend on evaluative judgments? Does the concept of redistribution provide a helpful framework for understanding and evaluating institutional arrangements, or does it invite confusion?
Can social practices that are commonly said to involve redistribution be justified? In what contexts and for what purposes is it permissible to adopt these practices? Does the fact that a social practice involves redistribution count for or against it, or does it lack basic moral significance?
We might begin to address these questions by looking more closely at the structure of the concept of redistribution. The concept of redistribution can be characterized in terms of four parameters. In assessing whether and how redistribution has occurred, then, the following four questions must be answered: Among which if any subjects did the redistribution take place?
Which if any baseline can be defined, of which the present distribution can be seen as a modification? Through which if any social mechanism was the redistribution brought about?
Which if any goods have been redistributed? Redistribution refers to modifications of the holdings of particular persons, collective agents, or groups as defined in terms of non-resource holding characteristicsor changes in holdings by groups as defined by resource holdings.
Sometimes those from and to whom resources are redistributed are defined as individuals, other times as groups to which individuals are rigidly assigned for example, Whites and Hispanicsand other times to groups that are defined by their holdings for example, the top and bottom quintile.
Whether redistribution has occurred, then, can only be determined relative to the set of subjects that is identified. Discussions of redistribution are not always very specific about which kinds of subjects they are concerned with, or about the possible significance of the fact that policies will be more or less redistributive depending on how these subjects are defined.
Take, for example, the following claim by Harvard economist Richard Freemanp. If substantial numbers of people have moved up or down, then redistribution in this sense has taken place.
My focus in this entry will be on the issue of the baseline, since this seems most fundamental. The Baseline Distribution Talk of redistribution implies a baseline, some distribution to which another distribution can be compared.
We can explore this concept by examining the different baselines that are implicitly or explicitly adopted when people claim that redistribution has taken place. Once these baseline distributions are clarified, questions regarding the meaning and moral significance of redistribution can be more easily addressed.
Economists, for example, often refer to policies as having redistributive effects when they engender a different pattern of holdings than obtained previously. Redistribution of wealth, in this sense, occurs whenever there is a shift in patterns of holdings over time among some set of subjects in response to some policy or other social mechanism.
On this understanding, we can determine whether redistribution has taken place by identifying 1 a pattern of holdings at time t1 that characterizes the initial distribution; 2 a pattern of holdings at time t2 that characterizes the later distribution; and 3 some policy or other social mechanism that, intentionally or not, caused the change in patterns of holdings between t1 and t2.
Changes in the structure of markets, the production system, monetary policy, the allocation of public funds for primary and secondary education, or the level of the minimum wage have all been adopted at least partly for the purpose of bringing about changes in the pattern of holdings.
In a recent study, for instance, Alberto Alesina et al. Purposive diachronic redistribution involves the successful implementation of institutions and policies whose purpose is to bring about changes in the holdings of different subjects. On this interpretation, determining whether redistribution has taken place involves identifying 1 the holdings of a set of subjects at time t1; 2 the holdings of these subjects after the policy or institutional changes at t2; 3 an agent or set of agents who have enacted the policy or institutional changes that have engendered changes in holdings; and 4 the purposes of these agents in bringing these changes about.
It will not always be easy to identify whether redistribution in this sense has occurred, since the purposes of those who choose and implement policies are often opaque, and also because changes in policies and institutions result from collective decisions involving many agents with diverse and often conflicting purposes.
Whether this was an instance of purposive diachronic redistribution is less clear. It may have been part of an overall plan to improve the position of the least advantaged.Diachronic redistribution can be brought about through many different means, including the reform of social institutions (for example, torts, rules governing competition, trade and tax policy, or the structure of markets in capital and labor), changes in the prevailing social ethos, or specific market or other interventions by governments.
In Robert Nozick famously claimed, “taxation of earnings is on a par with forced labor.” If we assume that forced labor is morally objectionable, something akin to slavery, then Nozick’s claim about taxation challenged the very heart of socialist redistributive liberalism.
Lecture 5: Free To Choose FREE TO CHOOSE With humorous references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan, Sandel introduces the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation—taxing the rich to give to the poor—is akin to forced labor. Michael Jordan, Bill Gates • Taxation for redistribution is coercion, theft, forced labor, slavery • Self-ownership: Disagrees with Utilitarians, must not ever violate individual rights, even if One hundred and fifty years later, Robert Nozick, an American libertarian philosophy would farther argue this point by stating that “Taxation of earning from labor is on a par with forced labor [civil service] .
According to Nozick, taxation of income is similar to the forced labor or slavery mainly because workers pay taxes as per the rules imposed by .