3 ms·

I pay about 60% of my income in taxes. How much more should I pay so you and your friends can live without working? I also donate 10% of my income to the caus

I pay about 60% of my income in taxes. How much more should I pay so you and your friends can live without working? I also donate 10% of my income to the causes I care about. Should I be forced to give that income to the things you think are better than my choices?

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
What makes you think I'm not on the "would have to pay more" side of these issues? That seems uncharitable (and an ad hominem), to assume I'd only hold that view if I were consuming, not paying. Im not saying that there aren't examples of excesses or that deductions for charitable giving aren't a good idea. Just that the view there should be no taxes or that it's somehow your money being taken away are both mistaken (and fundamentally rely on the notion you should be allowed to externalize costs).
- late2part 10y ago
  I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that don't want to work? As to your point: "the view there should be no taxes" I think killing puppies is bad. That has about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment does. Your comment "it's somehow your money being taken away [is] mistaken" is simply specious and illogical. You want my government, which gains money through taxation, to provide for people who don't want to work. Are you suggesting I wouldn't pay more to support your program that gives money to people who don't want to work?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I don't want to force you to pay for them -- you're welcome to not work, and you'll live (and have the basics). If you want luxuries, then you have to work for them, and that includes paying the cost of using the systems that enable you to work. You don't get to use systems to earn luxuries and expect others to pay for them. My position is that we're very wealthy (as a society) and luxuries (or just running up the scoreboard) are pretty motivating, so we don't need to organize society in a fundamentally coercise manner, merely make luxuries more expensive. The amount of luxury cost increase relative to the amount of coercion and suffering we could alleviate means society is better off. I would even go so far as to say that we'll end up wealthier as a result, but that's a controversial position.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

What makes you think I'm not on the "would have to pay more" side of these issues? That seems uncharitable (and an ad hominem), to assume I'd only hold that view if I were consuming, not paying. Im not saying that there aren't examples of excesses or that deductions for charitable giving aren't a good idea. Just that the view there should be no taxes or that it's somehow your money being taken away are both mistaken (and fundamentally rely on the notion you should be allowed to externalize costs).

late2part 10y ago
I really don't care what side you're actually on, I care about what side you're espousing. I want to understand why you want to force me to pay for people that don't want to work? As to your point: "the view there should be no taxes" I think killing puppies is bad. That has about as much relevance to the discussion as your comment does. Your comment "it's somehow your money being taken away [is] mistaken" is simply specious and illogical. You want my government, which gains money through taxation, to provide for people who don't want to work. Are you suggesting I wouldn't pay more to support your program that gives money to people who don't want to work?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I don't want to force you to pay for them -- you're welcome to not work, and you'll live (and have the basics). If you want luxuries, then you have to work for them, and that includes paying the cost of using the systems that enable you to work. You don't get to use systems to earn luxuries and expect others to pay for them. My position is that we're very wealthy (as a society) and luxuries (or just running up the scoreboard) are pretty motivating, so we don't need to organize society in a fundamentally coercise manner, merely make luxuries more expensive. The amount of luxury cost increase relative to the amount of coercion and suffering we could alleviate means society is better off. I would even go so far as to say that we'll end up wealthier as a result, but that's a controversial position.