15 ms·
Allowing people to keep their own money does raise the standard of living for all parties involved, but that’s a marginal benefit and not the core ‘argument’ wh
by eksu 9y ago
Allowing people to keep their own money does raise the standard of living for all parties involved, but that’s a marginal benefit and not the core ‘argument’ why the wealthy should be allowed to keep what they make.
Why should the government, or the masses, or society be allowed to take people’s money at all in the first place?
- kennywinker 9y agoBecause you didnt earn it in a vacuum. You used the roads, the educated populace, the borders, the civil society that is largely free of crime, etc. to "make" the money you made. Because of that we say you owe some of it back. If it helps you could think of taxes as society user-fees. Your Society as a Service bill.
- refurb 9y agoI love it when people use examples like education, road, the legal system to justify taxes. Most of the tax burden is entitlement payments. Educations, road, the legal system is a small fraction of the total tax burden.
- conanbatt 9y agoAnd military. Adam smith mentions that war should be a direct tax on people's incomes, as opposed to long term bonds. It would thus make people very much against any kind of war, realizing how expensive they are.
- kennywinker 9y agoI realize that a large portion of every US tax dollar goes it the military - that's why I mentioned the borders - without some military spending it's doubtful the borders of the US would be the same as they are today. I think we should all agree that too much money is spent on the military, but that's not an argument about "should we pay tax" - that's an argument about how we should spend taxes.
- kennywinker 9y ago"entitlement payments" is what, a euphemism for social security et al? There is no doubt in my mind that the quality of the social safety net plays into everyone's ability to make money and take risks. But you've already ceded the point that taxes make sense - we're just arguing about how much and how to spend them.
- wavefunction 9y agoBecause that money/income/wealth was generated from the sum total effort and infrastructure of society as a whole. Consider the utility derived from a roadway for two different people. For the average American, they're a way to get conveniently across from point a to point b. For the wealthy their factories are able to ship goods and services to markets all over the country. Their employees are able to drive to the factory. The factory itself was built because there was road access for construction vehicles to reach the site and transport raw materials there. The SEC is a great example. We all benefit from having a market for securities that is stabilized by regulation and oversight. For someone with no securities their utility derived ends there. For the wealthy, they derive the maximal utility from that same situation since they have wealth to protect from unscrupulous actors. Is there any case you can make that the wealthy don't derive more utility from society and so should face a greater burden in maintaining it via taxes?
- Bud 9y agoBecause otherwise, there would be no society, which means no police to prevent the masses from brutally slaying the rich, which is what used to happen when things got this far out of hand.
- state_less 9y agoBecause it's not their money. They can't make money where a functioning society does not exist. This is a very old news. You'd be grunting and chortling without a society. Even in remote places, they have a language and a bit of knowledge to pass along if you're halfway decent to the group.
- gozur88 9y agoNo, it really is their money. Property ownership is a core tenet of any civilized society, and you'd be "grunting and chortling" without it.
- state_less 9y agoTry telling that to someone whose had their assets frozen. Ill gotten gains are frozen all the time in a civilized society, that includes not paying for upkeep (taxes), lest we descend into savagery.
- gozur88 9y agoIf you've done something illegal you can be assessed all sorts of penalties. But if you've come by your money legally, it's your money. It's not society's money. And it doesn't belong to your fellow citizens because, well, they want it.
- state_less 9y agoWell it does belong to them, because it's only through them that money has meaning. Society may decide they don't owe you anything, if you don't feel you owe them anything.
- gozur88 9y agoWell, I suppose you could have a society peopled by thieves.
- 9y ago