3 ms·

You do, through taxes, but would you rather pay lower taxes for fewer benefits and more aircraft carriers in the US, or more taxes for huge benefits like matern

You do, through taxes, but would you rather pay lower taxes for fewer benefits and more aircraft carriers in the US, or more taxes for huge benefits like maternity leave and education?

koolba 9y ago
Speaking selfishly, I can’t get pregnant and primary education is primarily funded by local property taxes so I’m for the lower overall taxes.
- Voloskaya 9y ago
  In most countries where there is paid maternity leave, there is also government pension for retirement that is founded by the active population. So everyone benefits from people having kids, even if it's not your kid, because in the end you need them to pay for your pension.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  That’s the crux of the problem. If you speak selfishly without looking at the big picture, you can’t make a rational decision at scale.
  - koolba 9y ago
    The decisions are still rational, we're just optimizing a different variable. In my view the majority of the money I give the government gets squandered and I have no realistic expectation of getting back anything close to what I've contributed to social security. By that standard if someone suggests raising taxes further to increase the amount of money in the equation I'd be firmly against it. The problem with our government is that it doesn't collect enough taxes, it's that it doesn't spend the money it collects wisely. We're getting off topic from the original article though. If this was a conversation about something like a single payer system it'd be apt (and I'd be for it as well!) but (chronically underfunded) pensions are an entirely separate topic.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rektide 9y ago
      I'd think most people would realize that having a society raised by loving, caring, well-adapted parents would pay off in the long run. I certainly think it would be in my best interest to have my future fellow peers raised well. Now, maybe you REALLY want to stare into the void and declare that the decisions made now won't affect your life, won't change your peers. I guess that's your right, but that's not how my societal calculus functions. To me, this is a bargain for maintaining an upright, well functioning, positive society.
      - koolba 9y ago
        So why stop at 75% for maternity leave? Why not 100%? Or even 200% of your original salary? It’s for families and kids right? Why not double subsidize it? You claim it’s a bargain. At what tax rate is it a bargain? 5% increased tax rate? 10%? 25%? 50%? Specifics matter. Make your case with an actual proposal. Claiming I’m heartless because I don’t want others to spend my money is hardly an argument.

You do, through taxes, but would you rather pay lower taxes for fewer benefits and more aircraft carriers in the US, or more taxes for huge benefits like maternity leave and education?

koolba 9y ago

Speaking selfishly, I can’t get pregnant and primary education is primarily funded by local property taxes so I’m for the lower overall taxes.

Voloskaya 9y ago
In most countries where there is paid maternity leave, there is also government pension for retirement that is founded by the active population. So everyone benefits from people having kids, even if it's not your kid, because in the end you need them to pay for your pension.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
That’s the crux of the problem. If you speak selfishly without looking at the big picture, you can’t make a rational decision at scale.
- koolba 9y ago
  The decisions are still rational, we're just optimizing a different variable. In my view the majority of the money I give the government gets squandered and I have no realistic expectation of getting back anything close to what I've contributed to social security. By that standard if someone suggests raising taxes further to increase the amount of money in the equation I'd be firmly against it. The problem with our government is that it doesn't collect enough taxes, it's that it doesn't spend the money it collects wisely. We're getting off topic from the original article though. If this was a conversation about something like a single payer system it'd be apt (and I'd be for it as well!) but (chronically underfunded) pensions are an entirely separate topic.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rektide 9y ago
    I'd think most people would realize that having a society raised by loving, caring, well-adapted parents would pay off in the long run. I certainly think it would be in my best interest to have my future fellow peers raised well. Now, maybe you REALLY want to stare into the void and declare that the decisions made now won't affect your life, won't change your peers. I guess that's your right, but that's not how my societal calculus functions. To me, this is a bargain for maintaining an upright, well functioning, positive society.
    - koolba 9y ago
      So why stop at 75% for maternity leave? Why not 100%? Or even 200% of your original salary? It’s for families and kids right? Why not double subsidize it? You claim it’s a bargain. At what tax rate is it a bargain? 5% increased tax rate? 10%? 25%? 50%? Specifics matter. Make your case with an actual proposal. Claiming I’m heartless because I don’t want others to spend my money is hardly an argument.