4 ms·

> So the minimum wage worker as 70% less buying power than me: making it fair that I contribute more. I don't think you can assume that it's fair based only on

by ric2b 9y ago

> So the minimum wage worker as 70% less buying power than me: making it fair that I contribute more. I don't think you can assume that it's fair based only on the income. Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. > we'd all feel a lot kinder towards what we would consider as giving. Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not.

telesilla 9y ago
>Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. >Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not. A transparent society can show that sharing a fair portion of your income has a greater benefit to you than keeping it to yourself. The point of my original comment is that it would be something I hope to see, where society moves in the direction of seeing sharing a portion of income with your community/country as giving, rather than as a tax to be taken. Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted.
- ric2b 9y ago
  > I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. Not at all. Many (non-criminal) scammers probably make more than the two of us combined, and their value to society is most likely negative. It's actually pretty easy to come up with examples of professions that are harmful to society but still have very good incomes due to one or more of the following: - Their societal costs are externalities - They abuse political power to get unfairly rewarded - They make their income by taking money in small slices from other people in a way that people don't care much (lots of payment providers/intermediaries do this) or by scamming people. > Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted. I didn't comment on whether it is wanted, only on whether it is voluntary.

by ric2b 9y ago

telesilla 9y ago

>Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. >Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not. A transparent society can show that sharing a fair portion of your income has a greater benefit to you than keeping it to yourself. The point of my original comment is that it would be something I hope to see, where society moves in the direction of seeing sharing a portion of income with your community/country as giving, rather than as a tax to be taken. Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted.

ric2b 9y ago
> I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. Not at all. Many (non-criminal) scammers probably make more than the two of us combined, and their value to society is most likely negative. It's actually pretty easy to come up with examples of professions that are harmful to society but still have very good incomes due to one or more of the following: - Their societal costs are externalities - They abuse political power to get unfairly rewarded - They make their income by taking money in small slices from other people in a way that people don't care much (lots of payment providers/intermediaries do this) or by scamming people. > Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted. I didn't comment on whether it is wanted, only on whether it is voluntary.