4 ms·

This is taking the objective of taxes to an extreme: redistribution of resources from the wealthiest to the poorest. From wikipedia: "Governments also use taxe

by xlayn 11y ago

This is taking the objective of taxes to an extreme: redistribution of resources from the wealthiest to the poorest. From wikipedia: "Governments also use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water and waste management systems are also common public utilities." ... "A nation's tax system is often a reflection of its communal values and the values of those in current political power. " [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Purposes_and_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Purposes_and_effects edit: extend comment and provide support

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Pacifying the public through "bread and circuses"[1] has been a goal of governments for at least 2000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
ones_and_zeros 11y ago
Taxes are whatever the electorate want them to be. Plus the modern day idea of taxes is relatively new... I mean, income tax in the US is barely 100 years old. The whole basis of the US tax system rides on the "General Welfare" clause, so really taxes provide for the general welfare (food, shelter, etc), and a basic income covers all of the general welfare bases without all of the overhead of separate agencies and regulations.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > The whole basis of the US tax system rides on the "General Welfare" clause No, it rides on the 16th amendment which explicitly authorized income taxes. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
  - ones_and_zeros 11y ago
    No, the US gov't was able to set taxes well well before the 16th Amendment, which as you point out, is only for income taxes. The US gov't had all sorts of taxes before the 16th Amendment and the justification for that as outlined in the US Constitution is for the general welfare.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      We were discussing income taxes; and income taxes existed before the 16th as well, based on other tax clauses until the courts ruled the direct taxes and thus unconstitutional. You're correct about the general welfare clause as the basis for most taxes, but it's not the basis for income taxes which is what "taxes" mean generally when people are discussing taxes.
- sandisk5 11y ago
  > the general welfare (food, shelter, etc) Those are not the general welfare, they are the particular welfare of the person eating the food or living in the shelter.
SixSigma 11y ago
I would hardly call it an extreme. But the wealth was created by my parents and their parents before them to give the wealthy the opportunity to create wealth. The post-work economy is coming, especially in Finland. The opportunity to create new services, digitally, with the freedom to fail but without the need for investment spent on just keeping the lights on and paying wages etc.
sethrin 11y ago
> This is taking the objective of taxes to an extreme: redistribution of resources from the wealthiest to the poorest. You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer to have poor people dying in the streets? The measure of civilization since the French Revolution has not been how a country treats its wealthy, but how it treats the poorest. As societies, we have agreed that humans have a right to life and happiness but for the most part we're still too much in love with the myth of merit to follow the consequences of this idea -- and it is certainly in the interest of the wealthy and powerful that this should continue. It flatters a man's self-love to believe that he has earned his place in life by his own sweat and toil, when the reality is that if divested of social relations and one's normal milieu very few of us would rise to any degree of prominence. We have slowly accepted the idea that hardship, debility, or infirmity should not necessarily be a judgement against a person's worth, but we are too infatuated with ourselves to believe it wholeheartedly. And so we grant a basic existence, but conditionally: only those who meet an arbitrary moral standard are permitted to live. Basic income recognizes that imposing that moral standard is itself immoral. If you agree that citizens have the right to not die in the streets, or at the least that it is unseemly for a wealthy society to permit such, then you cannot argue against a basic income with any degree of consistency.
- xlayn 11y ago
  "You say that like it's a bad thing" I'm not, in fact it's a good thing. A second objective of tax would be wealth redistribution, I firmly believe tax heavens and evasion is one of the current problems in USA; I assume is the reason the 1% has so much power than the rest of the people.
istjohn 11y ago
All governments, since the most primitive tribal societies, redistribute income. Conservative economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman favor a basic income over more specific welfare programs because it could be implemented with a very lean bureaucratic overhead and minimally distort the economy, e.g., the government is not directly providing services, instead people purchase what they need themselves, and the perverse incentive of means-tested welfare programs to avoid earning too much money are avoided.

by xlayn 11y ago

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Pacifying the public through "bread and circuses"[1] has been a goal of governments for at least 2000 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

ones_and_zeros 11y ago

Taxes are whatever the electorate want them to be. Plus the modern day idea of taxes is relatively new... I mean, income tax in the US is barely 100 years old. The whole basis of the US tax system rides on the "General Welfare" clause, so really taxes provide for the general welfare (food, shelter, etc), and a basic income covers all of the general welfare bases without all of the overhead of separate agencies and regulations.

gnaritas 11y ago
> The whole basis of the US tax system rides on the "General Welfare" clause No, it rides on the 16th amendment which explicitly authorized income taxes. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
- ones_and_zeros 11y ago
  No, the US gov't was able to set taxes well well before the 16th Amendment, which as you point out, is only for income taxes. The US gov't had all sorts of taxes before the 16th Amendment and the justification for that as outlined in the US Constitution is for the general welfare.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    We were discussing income taxes; and income taxes existed before the 16th as well, based on other tax clauses until the courts ruled the direct taxes and thus unconstitutional. You're correct about the general welfare clause as the basis for most taxes, but it's not the basis for income taxes which is what "taxes" mean generally when people are discussing taxes.
sandisk5 11y ago
> the general welfare (food, shelter, etc) Those are not the general welfare, they are the particular welfare of the person eating the food or living in the shelter.

SixSigma 11y ago

I would hardly call it an extreme. But the wealth was created by my parents and their parents before them to give the wealthy the opportunity to create wealth. The post-work economy is coming, especially in Finland. The opportunity to create new services, digitally, with the freedom to fail but without the need for investment spent on just keeping the lights on and paying wages etc.

sethrin 11y ago

> This is taking the objective of taxes to an extreme: redistribution of resources from the wealthiest to the poorest. You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer to have poor people dying in the streets? The measure of civilization since the French Revolution has not been how a country treats its wealthy, but how it treats the poorest. As societies, we have agreed that humans have a right to life and happiness but for the most part we're still too much in love with the myth of merit to follow the consequences of this idea -- and it is certainly in the interest of the wealthy and powerful that this should continue. It flatters a man's self-love to believe that he has earned his place in life by his own sweat and toil, when the reality is that if divested of social relations and one's normal milieu very few of us would rise to any degree of prominence. We have slowly accepted the idea that hardship, debility, or infirmity should not necessarily be a judgement against a person's worth, but we are too infatuated with ourselves to believe it wholeheartedly. And so we grant a basic existence, but conditionally: only those who meet an arbitrary moral standard are permitted to live. Basic income recognizes that imposing that moral standard is itself immoral. If you agree that citizens have the right to not die in the streets, or at the least that it is unseemly for a wealthy society to permit such, then you cannot argue against a basic income with any degree of consistency.

xlayn 11y ago
"You say that like it's a bad thing" I'm not, in fact it's a good thing. A second objective of tax would be wealth redistribution, I firmly believe tax heavens and evasion is one of the current problems in USA; I assume is the reason the 1% has so much power than the rest of the people.

istjohn 11y ago

All governments, since the most primitive tribal societies, redistribute income. Conservative economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman favor a basic income over more specific welfare programs because it could be implemented with a very lean bureaucratic overhead and minimally distort the economy, e.g., the government is not directly providing services, instead people purchase what they need themselves, and the perverse incentive of means-tested welfare programs to avoid earning too much money are avoided.