5 ms·

One potential problem I see with it - when welfare, public infrastructure, country protection and other goods for all commons is outsourced to one ambiguous ent

One potential problem I see with it - when welfare, public infrastructure, country protection and other goods for all commons is outsourced to one ambiguous entity (federal government) people who paid for it the most are not getting respect for that, and instead are being called thieves and abusers of the system and that they should give more. While praise (if any) goes towards that ambiguous system. When a large donor donates to some cause - they get their name out there. When someone pays a lot of money into federal treasury - nil. It can be very discouraging and further isolating from people actually receiving a direct benefit (even if in the grand scheme of things everyone gets better off, including these large taxpayers.) Not saying there is a solution to that in modern states to that, but I can see how paying taxes to ambiguous treasury not very fulfilling, and when one actually cannot feel how they helped someone with it. I have similar feelings when contributing to a large code base. Yeah, we get top management's praise one a quarter/year about how good we did as a mass, but I do not feel that. Perhaps if I could see how the code I contributed somehow actually helped someone - I would feel better. But I could not come up with some solution to that. This I would imagine applies to many large systems. This includes so often discussed BS jobs, which most likely are not, they are just perceived this way because one who did it has no clue what effect their work had. And unless you are "superstar coder", "industry disrupter", etc - no one even remembers your name...

forapurpose 8y ago
> people who paid for it the most If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else. > hen someone pays a lot of money into federal treasury - nil Why should they get any praise for doing their share? Or everyone should get praise (which I support). The premise that someone is somehow superior for doing their fair share is fallacious. They are not aristocrats condescending to help the poor; they are merely pulling their weight. > are being called thieves and abusers of the system and that they should give more. This is a strawman often used by advocates of low tax on the wealthy to, in a standard rhetorical technique, somehow portray themselves as victims - which is quite an incredible, cynical, and frankly embarrassing stretch. In fact, consensus has supported decreasing taxes for the wealthy, which is what has happened. Also, even those who oppose it, calling names is rare, IME. I'm sure there are some out there, but given that it's just a portion of one side of the debate, it's not many. If anyone on HN is using those words, I don't recall it. > While praise (if any) goes towards that ambiguous system. I'm not sure what's ambiguous about it at all.
- hippich 8y ago
  > If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else. I am talking in absolute numbers. There is plenty of research on who is paying the most taxes. A just random result from google - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo... " A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns)."
  - noobermin 8y ago
    That's income taxes, the poor pay other taxes too. Also, the poor comprise the people who cut your hair, clean your yards, make your food, essentially provide for those making over 200K. Just because we don't provide the means to live to them like we do for other people doesn't mean they aren't important and don't equally sacrifice.
    - hippich 8y ago
      I am genuinely interested in seeing something about "total taxes paid" (including sales tax, which hits the hardest low-income folks) but I could not find such research. And I am certainly not saying hair cutting is not important. For once, without proper haircut CEO of the company will not be able to raise money to do a new project which potentially can employ a lot of people and pay a lot of taxes.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    They also benefit the most from government in absolute terms, since the extent of their wealth in the absence of government would be limited to the tiny fraction of their assets that would still meaningfully exist and could reliably be defended with their personal militia.

forapurpose 8y ago

> people who paid for it the most If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else. > hen someone pays a lot of money into federal treasury - nil Why should they get any praise for doing their share? Or everyone should get praise (which I support). The premise that someone is somehow superior for doing their fair share is fallacious. They are not aristocrats condescending to help the poor; they are merely pulling their weight. > are being called thieves and abusers of the system and that they should give more. This is a strawman often used by advocates of low tax on the wealthy to, in a standard rhetorical technique, somehow portray themselves as victims - which is quite an incredible, cynical, and frankly embarrassing stretch. In fact, consensus has supported decreasing taxes for the wealthy, which is what has happened. Also, even those who oppose it, calling names is rare, IME. I'm sure there are some out there, but given that it's just a portion of one side of the debate, it's not many. If anyone on HN is using those words, I don't recall it. > While praise (if any) goes towards that ambiguous system. I'm not sure what's ambiguous about it at all.

hippich 8y ago
> If we are talking about equal sacrifice, they did not pay the most, they paid as much as anyone else. I am talking in absolute numbers. There is plenty of research on who is paying the most taxes. A just random result from google - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo... " A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns)."
- noobermin 8y ago
  That's income taxes, the poor pay other taxes too. Also, the poor comprise the people who cut your hair, clean your yards, make your food, essentially provide for those making over 200K. Just because we don't provide the means to live to them like we do for other people doesn't mean they aren't important and don't equally sacrifice.
  - hippich 8y ago
    I am genuinely interested in seeing something about "total taxes paid" (including sales tax, which hits the hardest low-income folks) but I could not find such research. And I am certainly not saying hair cutting is not important. For once, without proper haircut CEO of the company will not be able to raise money to do a new project which potentially can employ a lot of people and pay a lot of taxes.
- notahacker 8y ago
  They also benefit the most from government in absolute terms, since the extent of their wealth in the absence of government would be limited to the tiny fraction of their assets that would still meaningfully exist and could reliably be defended with their personal militia.