4 ms·

But at what point, OP's criticism is a qualitative criticism of the approach being advocated? For instance, if someone says that alternative medicine fails for

But at what point, OP's criticism is a qualitative criticism of the approach being advocated? For instance, if someone says that alternative medicine fails for n different reasons, would you say that the person is committing Nirvana fallacy or that there is something to say about the fundamental failures of alternative medicine? The qualitative fault I'm trying to point out is that trying to tax 'rich people' is a failed attempt because no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes. It is a Nirvana fallacy if someone says "No matter how hard you try to curb murders, serial killers always keep finding new ways to commit crime", because at the end of the day, if all the serial killers move out of your country to a more serial killer friendly country, you don't actually suffer, you did your job. On the other hand, in terms of taxes, you don't want your tax paying population to move out or be rendered incapable of producing wealth. That kind of 'equality' is not worth it.

openasocket 9y ago
His argument, as stated, is a use of the Nirvana fallacy. But it can certainly be re-phrased and re-worked into something substantial. The general sentiment isn't completely without merit; people will always exploit loop holes in the tax system. But to say there isn't any point in closing this loop hole or that loop hole because people will just use another is an assertion, not an argument. You need to provide evidence to support this claim. Maybe those other loop holes are more of a hassle, or require substantial initial investment to take advantage of (like re-structuring your company to incorporate in a different country), or don't shelter as many assets from taxes. The point is, you need evidence to back up the claim. > The qualitative fault I'm trying to point out is that trying to tax 'rich people' is a failed attempt because no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes. That's more of an argument against taxes in general, isn't it? You tax people high enough and they'll leave. There's a certain "sweet spot" at which you tax people just enough to provide good services without making people leave. I wouldn't dispute that. But for that to be a valid argument in this case, you'd have to provide evidence to show that closing these loop holes puts the tax burden of people above that "sweet spot."
gasbag 9y ago
> no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes. The first half of this--that rich people can move to other countries if they think they are being taxed too much--is certainly true, but I have doubts about the second half. There are people who have as part of their drive a desire to see humanity as a whole better off than we were before, and there are people whose primary drive is "eff you, I got mine." That's the kind of rich person who will be the first to abandon a high-tax country in droves, and in my opinion we are better off without them: they are the profiteers who make life for those working under them hellish, who feel no responsibility for polluting and underpaying and ignoring externalities and racing to the bottom. What we want, who we should hope to see become successful, are principled people who understand that the riches which come their way are only possible within the context of a healthy society, and who are willing to part with a larger share of their fantastic revenues to ensure its continued improvement (while of course still being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor). To argue otherwise, as it looks to me at least, is to argue that (1) the only way to make a lot of money is to be selfish and unethical, and (2) we still need that money in taxes (at a lower tax rate) to maintain a healthy society. I am sure I'm simplifying things.

openasocket 9y ago

His argument, as stated, is a use of the Nirvana fallacy. But it can certainly be re-phrased and re-worked into something substantial. The general sentiment isn't completely without merit; people will always exploit loop holes in the tax system. But to say there isn't any point in closing this loop hole or that loop hole because people will just use another is an assertion, not an argument. You need to provide evidence to support this claim. Maybe those other loop holes are more of a hassle, or require substantial initial investment to take advantage of (like re-structuring your company to incorporate in a different country), or don't shelter as many assets from taxes. The point is, you need evidence to back up the claim. > The qualitative fault I'm trying to point out is that trying to tax 'rich people' is a failed attempt because no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes. That's more of an argument against taxes in general, isn't it? You tax people high enough and they'll leave. There's a certain "sweet spot" at which you tax people just enough to provide good services without making people leave. I wouldn't dispute that. But for that to be a valid argument in this case, you'd have to provide evidence to show that closing these loop holes puts the tax burden of people above that "sweet spot."

gasbag 9y ago

> no matter how effective you can implement your tax measures, at the end of the day people can move to other countries and your own country starts to suffer more than it benefits from the increased taxes. The first half of this--that rich people can move to other countries if they think they are being taxed too much--is certainly true, but I have doubts about the second half. There are people who have as part of their drive a desire to see humanity as a whole better off than we were before, and there are people whose primary drive is "eff you, I got mine." That's the kind of rich person who will be the first to abandon a high-tax country in droves, and in my opinion we are better off without them: they are the profiteers who make life for those working under them hellish, who feel no responsibility for polluting and underpaying and ignoring externalities and racing to the bottom. What we want, who we should hope to see become successful, are principled people who understand that the riches which come their way are only possible within the context of a healthy society, and who are willing to part with a larger share of their fantastic revenues to ensure its continued improvement (while of course still being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor). To argue otherwise, as it looks to me at least, is to argue that (1) the only way to make a lot of money is to be selfish and unethical, and (2) we still need that money in taxes (at a lower tax rate) to maintain a healthy society. I am sure I'm simplifying things.