4 ms·

There's not much to be changed, just make donations voluntary. People are better off deciding where to spend their money. Politicians can ask for it, and spend

by jakeogh 11y ago

There's not much to be changed, just make donations voluntary. People are better off deciding where to spend their money. Politicians can ask for it, and spend what they get. Obviously (judging from approval ratings) they will need to make more articulate arguments. Resources would be better spent.

alkonaut 11y ago
I don't think you could find democratic support for replacing taxes with voluntary donations... Everyone has an Ayn Rand period, almost everyone grows out of it. Don't worry.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jakeogh 11y ago
  Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    > Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
    - schoen 11y ago
      Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
      - alkonaut 11y ago
        > assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority Yes, that post was only relevant for a democracy. "Agreed on together" was deliberately provocative, but you get the idea...
- icebraining 11y ago
  FYI, I downvoted you for your condescending second line.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    No worries, I couldn't help it.
    - dang 11y ago
      Please only post civilly and substantively to HN. You can always help it, because you can always edit out the uncivil bits after you post them. That's what most of us do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
eivarv 11y ago
Why do you assume that people would be "better off deciding where to spend their money", and that "resources would be better spent"?
- spikels 11y ago
  Because 3rd parties generally lack both the information and incentives to do as good a job as you would. This is usually known as the "principal-agent problem"[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
  - eivarv 11y ago
    I'm not talking about 3rd parties spending people's money as the people wish. People are better off spending their own money in the sense that they get to choose how their money is spent – but their lack of competence/expertise can for instance make them make bad choices (as in choices that don't lead to the desired goal), and resources will thus not be better spent. Don't get me wrong, though – it's not like politicians are experts either. Things are seldom as simple as ideological hardliners claim that they are.

by jakeogh 11y ago

alkonaut 11y ago

I don't think you could find democratic support for replacing taxes with voluntary donations... Everyone has an Ayn Rand period, almost everyone grows out of it. Don't worry.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jakeogh 11y ago
Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? (Fixed some typos ^) Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not. > If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property? Not sure what you mean by that. A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
  - schoen 11y ago
    Your account is very clear, but "a law he agreed on together with B and C" is doing a lot of work here in terms of smuggling in assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority (since in your account people "agreed on" policies they explicitly object to, so long as those policies were created in particular participatory ways).
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      > assumptions, or conclusions, about political authority Yes, that post was only relevant for a democracy. "Agreed on together" was deliberately provocative, but you get the idea...
icebraining 11y ago
FYI, I downvoted you for your condescending second line.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  No worries, I couldn't help it.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please only post civilly and substantively to HN. You can always help it, because you can always edit out the uncivil bits after you post them. That's what most of us do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

eivarv 11y ago

Why do you assume that people would be "better off deciding where to spend their money", and that "resources would be better spent"?

spikels 11y ago
Because 3rd parties generally lack both the information and incentives to do as good a job as you would. This is usually known as the "principal-agent problem"[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem
- eivarv 11y ago
  I'm not talking about 3rd parties spending people's money as the people wish. People are better off spending their own money in the sense that they get to choose how their money is spent – but their lack of competence/expertise can for instance make them make bad choices (as in choices that don't lead to the desired goal), and resources will thus not be better spent. Don't get me wrong, though – it's not like politicians are experts either. Things are seldom as simple as ideological hardliners claim that they are.