Charity, defined as “generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless,” is not being executed to spec in our society. Rather, when you are taxed, your capacity to help people is lessened, and yet it doesn’t feel like you’re helping anyone because you’re just paying the normal tribute to the government. Nevertheless, the government is actually using your money to be charitable—sort of.
Like that awful boss you’ve probably had, the government then redistributes your hard work to various parts of society and claims credit. Look! We gave money to the poor! Vote for us! The “vote for us” part becomes, in this case, the fulcrum of the argument because obviously nobody is expecting government to give them something for nothing.
They also didn’t give money to the poor. The government has no money to give to anybody. I invite you to look at this rough graph for the Canadian government’s balance sheet. This page, potentially some of the most frightening things to read in the entire country, should spell it out for you if you didn’t know. The Canadian Government is a not-for-profit organisation, running entirely on taxation and force.
Yes, that’s force. Put simply, try not paying your taxes, and you’ll see what I mean. You’re a victim of extortion—we all are, and we always have been; from chiefdoms to modern states, people with weapons have always extracted wealth from people without.
To advance back to modernity, we have to take a look at 2017 Liberal Budget just proposed by the Trudeau government. We’ve, of course, been over how corrupted things can become as we try to understand what the government has to do to continue to justify its theft during these late stages of collapse.
One of the major focuses of the 2017 Liberal Budget is, just as an example, maternity leave. I actually have a pregnant relative, and you’d think that’d be just fine with me. The problem is that she has so much of her money stolen that of course she needs help. And she doesn’t even make enough money to pay taxes. I’m almost specifically referring to social security, EI premiums, and HST taxes (she’s an Ontario resident).
Together, those three things are a substantial amount of her income lost. What could she use that income for?
Maternity leave, otherwise. And if she wasn’t pregnant, she could be doing anything with it.
As an aside, don’t bother with the whole “people aren’t fiscally responsible” argument, which basically goes like this: if people kept their money, they couldn’t be relied on to spend it properly. That’s just a line of thinking that lends more to my view anyway. If gifting poor people with money worked to get them out of poverty, the welfare state would have fixed the problem decades ago.
Practically speaking, then, you can remove the whole “the government is more responsible with money than you are” because demonstrably, it isn’t. Even foreign aid tends to just wind up in the hands of corrupt government officials who terribly misspend it.
So the question goes, why not leave the money with the people who earned it? What do we get out of forced redistribution of our own money?
Healthcare? Sure. Okay. That is a very practical benefit, and I can see the need for it. But the only reason healthcare has to be subsidised is that doctors have to pass the intensive regulatory fees, tuition for education, malpractice insurance, and a massive array of other costs to their lives onto their consumers who wouldn’t be able to pay for healthcare otherwise unless they made enough money to be a doctor in the first place.
And who holds all those medical school debts? You guessed it. Naturally, nobody wants you to know what healthcare actually costs, which is why the central government just appropriates a hefty chunk of your cash to pay for their own regulatory fees.
If healthcare was privatised and made more accessible to practitioners, and the artificial costs were eliminated, I bet you we’d see a whole other subset of possibilities that we currently have no hope of ever seeing.
So even healthcare is the sort of thing which you could debate that privately-held firms might do a lot better with.
You know all this though, I’m sure, so you might be wondering why I’m going over it again.
To address the question of charity, you have to wonder why more people don’t say, when approached by people with their hands out for whatever reason, “I pay my taxes.”
Your taxes are, as I’ve written, a legitimate form of forced charity. Oh wait! We’ve clashed with our definition, haven’t we? Charity has to be generous, either in action or in donation, another word which carries the hint of the offering having been willing.
It’s here that they try to get you. They can say “you’re not doing enough,” because even though you’re losing at various intervals of income, anywhere between 30% and 50% of your total earnings to government theft and redistribution, it’s not willing.
Therefore you aren’t being charitable yet. You’re not helping anyone. You’re selfish. How can they say that? Because they construe participating in a state as volunteering to pay these hefty fees—but of course, they are wrong about that. Vote for whomever you like, and see if your taxes change at all. Or if you have a direct hand in where they go.
The straight fact is that in a representative democracy, you’re voting for a party. And people don’t really vote for tax policies, they vote for anything at all that sounds good. For example, Trudeau mostly won the last Canadian general election because he promised to legalise marijuana and picked up the youth vote.
Has that happened yet?
No. Okay, so if you can vote for a government party and get them into power and have them completely ignore their own promises they made to get there, how legitimate is your government? It isn’t.
But doesn’t that then make your taxes even more charitable? You’re paying on the basis of trust; that your money will go where you were promised it would. That’s pretty generous, considering the government’s track record as far as actually fixing things goes.
As for the argument that you pay taxes to stay in Canada goes? A lot of people don’t remember this, but taxation in the West basically didn’t even really exist until 1916, when the First World War began to drain the treasuries of all the involved parties.
And how valid is that presumption, anyway? Pretend everyone stopped paying taxes. Would we abruptly cease being Canada? Would services even be disrupted without government interference, or would private firms simply take over, start competing, and you’d eventually wind up paying a lot less than you do now for the same stuff?
Does that sound far-fetched? Well, take a look at the opposite extreme, the consequences of which are quite rapidly occurring in South America right now. Look at Venezuela, specifically. Simply because we have been stagnant, inefficient, and unchanging for about a half-century doesn’t mean things have to stay that way. Why, as recently as 1991, the Soviet Union underwent a catastrophe that I’m describing. Why was it a catastrophe? Because somehow, the government got involved and managed to sell all the services it had owned to the same group of about a dozen men. This created, of course, the corrupt, turbulent, tumultuous “shock therapy” era in the Russian Federation.
Anyway. Taxacation didn’t bloom into full, venomous, deadly flower until about the mid 1960s, when promising government service became the main method of getting elected in the United States. The problem, of course, is that you can’t promise people actually free stuff because the government has no money.
What you’re promising them is someone else’s money.
That’s why they can ask you to be charitable. Taxes aren’t your money, the same way that people you’re killing in a war aren’t human beings. It’s those damned rich people, is who it is. They made all this money and they’re not helping anyone, just sitting on big huge stacks of gold. So, it’s fantastic that we’re forcing them to finally pay up, but that still leaves open the question of what you’re doing to help vulnerable minorities and others.
This question, normally delivered with the asker eyes wide, hand out and palm upward.
It’s all meant to force you to feel like you’re not doing enough, even with a huge portion of your productivity vanishing into thin air. What else could you be doing? For other people, of course. Spending money on yourself, your family, your unborn… that would be uncharitable. The correct route, of course, is to give that money to the government so they can give a small portion of it back to you to spend on yourself, your family, and your unborn.
This is one possible emotive face of the left, if nationalism is one possible emotive face of the right. The left wants to constantly grind it into you that you have to, need to be charitable. There are buzzwords all over the place for this: karma, turn the other cheek, charity, aid, illegal immigration, whatever.
It all means the same thing. Your money (or other resource) vanishes so you can be guilted into spending money you can’t afford because a portion of your original vanished. Since you can’t afford it, you have to get other people to do it, because you need to be charitable.
Sound maybe a little shaky on the logical side of things? Well, there’s a reason for that. It isn’t logical.
The response to a request for charity is “I pay my taxes,” until that infinitesimal chance crops up that taxes stop being a thing.