3 ms·

> How do I know this? Because it's the only logical thing. As a somewhat libertarian person, I will give you my opinion why I think that low taxes are better.

> How do I know this? Because it's the only logical thing. As a somewhat libertarian person, I will give you my opinion why I think that low taxes are better. As history shows, all known forms of government eventually become very ineffective at spending money. Firstly, on the "macro" level, funds more often end up being allocated to useless projects (e.g. google trillion dollars useless plane). Secondly, on the "micro" level funds more often end up being allocated to work that does not produce any value - e.g. "paper pushers". On the other hand, I see that my logic stops to work when the government ends up borrowing money anyway.

cryptoz 9y ago
> As history shows, all known forms of government eventually become very ineffective at spending money. First, that does not mean that a current government will fall into that trap. That is just something to look out for, not something that is destined to happen forever. Second, why does it matter? The efficiency of government spending is absolutely not the most important thing, or even important at all. We are considering the questions of the future survival of the species, and therefore the society and government in question (if you don't agree with this, then I recommend checking the recent 2017-2018 nuclear threats made by the US president). Efficiency is not the goal. Survival is. You are less likely to survive as a society if there is massive wealth inequality and massive unrest and chaos like government shutdowns and rising debt ceilings due to it. Increasing govenrment efficiency is a "nice-to-have", not the be-all and end-all of everything that exists. It doesn't make sense to optimize for the efficiency of something when that "efficient" machine is the most likely one to fail. > On the other hand, I see that my logic stops to work when the government ends up borrowing money anyway. Right. The government would borrow a lot less if it raised the taxes in the first place. Therefore, raised taxes are better.
- kozikow 9y ago
  > future survival of the species As this is the discussion about taxes - notice that all currently available methods capable of blowing human species off the earth were funded by taxes. > recent nuclear threats made by the US president How does that relate to taxes or income inequality in any way? If anything, if the government would have even more spare money it would be more likely to go to war in order to spend that money. > government shutdowns The way I see it, the government shutdown is just a bargaining chip used in negotiations between parties. The problem here is lowered standard of acceptable behavior in politics and increased adversity between republican and democratic party. There is definitelly something seriously wrong, but I don't think it's fundamentally economic in nature - you find both rich and poor people on each side.

cryptoz 9y ago

> As history shows, all known forms of government eventually become very ineffective at spending money. First, that does not mean that a current government will fall into that trap. That is just something to look out for, not something that is destined to happen forever. Second, why does it matter? The efficiency of government spending is absolutely not the most important thing, or even important at all. We are considering the questions of the future survival of the species, and therefore the society and government in question (if you don't agree with this, then I recommend checking the recent 2017-2018 nuclear threats made by the US president). Efficiency is not the goal. Survival is. You are less likely to survive as a society if there is massive wealth inequality and massive unrest and chaos like government shutdowns and rising debt ceilings due to it. Increasing govenrment efficiency is a "nice-to-have", not the be-all and end-all of everything that exists. It doesn't make sense to optimize for the efficiency of something when that "efficient" machine is the most likely one to fail. > On the other hand, I see that my logic stops to work when the government ends up borrowing money anyway. Right. The government would borrow a lot less if it raised the taxes in the first place. Therefore, raised taxes are better.

kozikow 9y ago
> future survival of the species As this is the discussion about taxes - notice that all currently available methods capable of blowing human species off the earth were funded by taxes. > recent nuclear threats made by the US president How does that relate to taxes or income inequality in any way? If anything, if the government would have even more spare money it would be more likely to go to war in order to spend that money. > government shutdowns The way I see it, the government shutdown is just a bargaining chip used in negotiations between parties. The problem here is lowered standard of acceptable behavior in politics and increased adversity between republican and democratic party. There is definitelly something seriously wrong, but I don't think it's fundamentally economic in nature - you find both rich and poor people on each side.