6 ms·

I take no ethical issues with the concept of taxes and funding things that are in the common interest of the country. What I do take issue with is the fact tha

by adam419 11y ago

I take no ethical issues with the concept of taxes and funding things that are in the common interest of the country. What I do take issue with is the fact that I don't think my tax dollars are being used as effectively as they should be, not just because I don't feel like I get proportionate value from what they're supposedly funding, but more importantly I dont think anyone is. I think by and large the world runs on incentives, and I don't think that the people whose job it is to allocate the resources obtained through taxes have the kind of skin in the game that's necessary to make decisions in the long term best interest of all parties involved. Anytime you have a scenario where a organization of people in society unbounded by naturally selective forces, waste and misallocation of resources will take place. It would make me feel a lot better if my taxes were going towards a system characterized by bottom up trial and errors rather than grand design, and unfortunately I think the latter best describes how our country appropriates tax dollars to our collective benefit. As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair about the concept of proportionality. I don't think its the job or role of taxation to act as punishment, because it's not as "fair" for someone making 50k a year to pay 20% in taxes to pay the same 20% as someone making 500k. I find great injustice in this idea, as I want to live in a society that seeks to empower people to become the best that they can, in a spiritual and economic sense. Not send the message that those who've achieved economic success somehow have engaged in a misdeed they have to pay or make up for.

dllthomas 11y ago
"As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair about the concept of proportionality." Proportionality of what, is much of the question. Progressive taxation is often justified by pointing at the fact that money (like most things) has diminishing marginal utility. Taking $10k from someone making $50k is far more of a burden than taking $100k from someone making $500k.
- montbonnot 11y ago
  I'd push the logic even further. How about taking away $100k from someone who's making $250k per year? If you reach $250k/y you're supposed to make a statement. Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc. A doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, etc. You have to give away 2 times the salary of that person making $50K/y. I think it's not far. Progressive taxation should start way higher. If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never become a millionaire because you'd have to give away %50 of it. You have to make 2 million dollars to earn one million dollars. I think it's unfair at any level. Unless you're a billionaire. Billionaires should get taxed %50. You still have half a billi left in your bank account to live your life like a king... you'll be fine trust me.
  - dalke 11y ago
    > $100k from someone who's making $250k 40% tax? Sounds about right. So long as there are good social services. That's about the taxation level in the Nordic countries, so with that I expect universal health care, 1 year combined parental leave per child, free college tuition to state colleges, state coverage of old age homes, free college, 30 days of holiday, good roads, clean water, etc. > Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc If tuition is free, there's no need to go into massive student debt. Cuba, with the Latin American School of Medicine, pursues medical diplomacy by providing free medical education to international student, including US citizens. It cost Cuba about $15K/year/student or about $90K total. Some of the US citizens do this so they can return home and worked at a free clinic or volunteer in communities that are underserved by those who go into $100Ks of debt. (See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-students-a-free-ride/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-stu... ). Those medical students are making a statement as well - that $250k/y isn't what drives them to be a medical doctor. (I bring this up to highlight that a lot of people make statements, not just those with high incomes.) > Billionaires should get taxed %50 Note that "billionaire" refers to wealth, not income. Are you proposing a global wealth tax of 50% of the richest people? Picketty's proposal is only 5 or 10% for billionaires. FWIW, the highest income tax bracket in the US used to be ~90%. > If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never become a millionaire If you make $1M/year with 50% income taxation and no wealth taxation then you have 500K. If your lifestyle costs $250K/year than you bank $250K/year. It will take 4 years to become a millionaire. If there is a 50% income tax and 2% wealth tax on $1M/year income and no savings (and the same spend) then you'll have $250K in savings for the first year, $490K the second, $720K the third, $940K the fourth, and by the fifth year you'll have over a million in savings.
    - montbonnot 11y ago
      Regarding your last point, assuming you'd be an employee with a steady income of one million dollars per year. I believe you'd be a CEO in a large corporate or you'd have a very generous employer. Then yeah, you could chill and plan for the next 5 years. What if you're a small business with no regular income? You made a million dollars thanks to your hard work in 2015, which might not happen again in 2016. They took away %50 of that million dollars. I agree, billionaire refers to wealth not income. At that level your income is the money you generate from your own money. Which is an income, which should be taxed at %50 if your wealth is in the billions of dollars. That's what I was referring to.
- adam419 11y ago
  But whose job is that to decide? The arbiters of fairness and marginal utility? The issue with fairness is that it's impossible to arrive at a definition of fairness without it inevitably just serving the interest of whomever defined it.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "But whose job is that to decide? The arbiters of fairness and marginal utility?" There are a variety of answers to that question, of varying quality. But take a step back. Do you realize you're responding with a statement that determining fairness is impossible... to an objection to your own attempt to assert something was fair?
    - adam419 11y ago
      Yeah I do, but I'm mostly meaning to point out the epistemological issues with conversations around fairness and to state that to me, proportionatity is the only thing that most resembles fairness
ereckers 11y ago
Some people may call it punishment, others call it progressive taxation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
- adam419 10y ago
  And others can call it whatever they like as long as they end their sense of entitlement in being able to lay a claim on my earnings. I'm aware of the definition, instead of replying with semantics you could try to outline the specifics of your defense of it. From how I see it, in no morally relativistic sense do I see how making more money means I should have to forfeit more of my income because that's what's decided to be right and just by people who make less money. I think if someone claims they have a bigger claim on my money because I earn more, you must PROVE why that is.
  - joshuanomed 10y ago
    Because you have more to lose when the revolution comes.
    - adam419 10y ago
      And more tools to prepare for/profit off it :)

by adam419 11y ago

dllthomas 11y ago

"As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair about the concept of proportionality." Proportionality of what, is much of the question. Progressive taxation is often justified by pointing at the fact that money (like most things) has diminishing marginal utility. Taking $10k from someone making $50k is far more of a burden than taking $100k from someone making $500k.

montbonnot 11y ago
I'd push the logic even further. How about taking away $100k from someone who's making $250k per year? If you reach $250k/y you're supposed to make a statement. Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc. A doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, etc. You have to give away 2 times the salary of that person making $50K/y. I think it's not far. Progressive taxation should start way higher. If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never become a millionaire because you'd have to give away %50 of it. You have to make 2 million dollars to earn one million dollars. I think it's unfair at any level. Unless you're a billionaire. Billionaires should get taxed %50. You still have half a billi left in your bank account to live your life like a king... you'll be fine trust me.
- dalke 11y ago
  > $100k from someone who's making $250k 40% tax? Sounds about right. So long as there are good social services. That's about the taxation level in the Nordic countries, so with that I expect universal health care, 1 year combined parental leave per child, free college tuition to state colleges, state coverage of old age homes, free college, 30 days of holiday, good roads, clean water, etc. > Someone who studied hard (for example), got into student debt, etc If tuition is free, there's no need to go into massive student debt. Cuba, with the Latin American School of Medicine, pursues medical diplomacy by providing free medical education to international student, including US citizens. It cost Cuba about $15K/year/student or about $90K total. Some of the US citizens do this so they can return home and worked at a free clinic or volunteer in communities that are underserved by those who go into $100Ks of debt. (See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-students-a-free-ride/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/cuba-offers-poor-med-stu... ). Those medical students are making a statement as well - that $250k/y isn't what drives them to be a medical doctor. (I bring this up to highlight that a lot of people make statements, not just those with high incomes.) > Billionaires should get taxed %50 Note that "billionaire" refers to wealth, not income. Are you proposing a global wealth tax of 50% of the richest people? Picketty's proposal is only 5 or 10% for billionaires. FWIW, the highest income tax bracket in the US used to be ~90%. > If you make 1 million dollars a year you'll never become a millionaire If you make $1M/year with 50% income taxation and no wealth taxation then you have 500K. If your lifestyle costs $250K/year than you bank $250K/year. It will take 4 years to become a millionaire. If there is a 50% income tax and 2% wealth tax on $1M/year income and no savings (and the same spend) then you'll have $250K in savings for the first year, $490K the second, $720K the third, $940K the fourth, and by the fifth year you'll have over a million in savings.
  - montbonnot 11y ago
    Regarding your last point, assuming you'd be an employee with a steady income of one million dollars per year. I believe you'd be a CEO in a large corporate or you'd have a very generous employer. Then yeah, you could chill and plan for the next 5 years. What if you're a small business with no regular income? You made a million dollars thanks to your hard work in 2015, which might not happen again in 2016. They took away %50 of that million dollars. I agree, billionaire refers to wealth not income. At that level your income is the money you generate from your own money. Which is an income, which should be taxed at %50 if your wealth is in the billions of dollars. That's what I was referring to.
adam419 11y ago
But whose job is that to decide? The arbiters of fairness and marginal utility? The issue with fairness is that it's impossible to arrive at a definition of fairness without it inevitably just serving the interest of whomever defined it.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "But whose job is that to decide? The arbiters of fairness and marginal utility?" There are a variety of answers to that question, of varying quality. But take a step back. Do you realize you're responding with a statement that determining fairness is impossible... to an objection to your own attempt to assert something was fair?
  - adam419 11y ago
    Yeah I do, but I'm mostly meaning to point out the epistemological issues with conversations around fairness and to state that to me, proportionatity is the only thing that most resembles fairness

ereckers 11y ago

Some people may call it punishment, others call it progressive taxation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

adam419 10y ago
And others can call it whatever they like as long as they end their sense of entitlement in being able to lay a claim on my earnings. I'm aware of the definition, instead of replying with semantics you could try to outline the specifics of your defense of it. From how I see it, in no morally relativistic sense do I see how making more money means I should have to forfeit more of my income because that's what's decided to be right and just by people who make less money. I think if someone claims they have a bigger claim on my money because I earn more, you must PROVE why that is.
- joshuanomed 10y ago
  Because you have more to lose when the revolution comes.
  - adam419 10y ago
    And more tools to prepare for/profit off it :)