4 ms·

> While nobody likes the cost of investment, our lives and prosperity and everything else depends on it. Yes, taxes are an investment. In the same way that pu

by stale2002 8y ago

> While nobody likes the cost of investment, our lives and prosperity and everything else depends on it. Yes, taxes are an investment. In the same way that putting money in your savings account is also an investment. But I wouldn't recommend that anyone keep all their money in a savings account. Every dollar that the state takes away from people, in order to invest in itself, that is one less dollar that each person has to decide how THEY would want that dollar to be invested. So higher taxes is not higher investment. It is a reduction in private investment, in exchange for a increase in public investment. Whether the world needs more private or more public investment is a matter of debate. > For example, nobody would suggest you minimize investment in your home unless you were leaving soon Well, that depends. If my choice is between paying off my credit cards, or investing in my house, I certainly believe that paying off my credit cards would be a better investment. Every dollar that I personally invest in my home is one less dollar that I am able to invest elsewhere. And those other investments may be a more pressing concern. Or they might not. Also, even IF it is "proved" that a public investment has better returns than a private one, you also need to take into account that you are taking money from someone else, and there are moral questions about how much money we should be taking from other people. I believe that it is OK to take some money from people, but certainly not all of it, regardless of how much better the public investment is. What that level should be is matter of debate. To take it to the extreme, even IF the government had some amazing investment that was better than all private investments, I would STILL oppose it if the government decided to take a full 100% of money from everyone. This is because I believe in private property, and that people are entitled to at least SOME of the profits of their efforts.

xg15 8y ago
> Every dollar that the state takes away from people, in order to invest in itself, that is one less dollar that each person has to decide how THEY would want that dollar to be invested. Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain - it's an investment in communal infrastructure where, yes, others might profit more from than you. However, in return, you might also profit from the contributions of others. > Also, even IF it is "proved" that a public investment has better returns than a private one, you also need to take into account that you are taking money from someone else, and there are moral questions about how much money we should be taking from other people. If we're starting with moral questions we should also discuss how morally justifiable it is to raise the price on products which buyers absolutely need but where they don't have an alternative. (E.g., recent pharmaceutical price hikes). This seems just as well "taking money from other people", except that it's done without any justification at all and, unlike taxes, you don't even in theory have any say about how high the prices should go or how the money is spent. > I believe that it is OK to take some money from people, but certainly not all of it Who was even proposing that?
- stale2002 8y ago
  My example of taking 100% of people's money is an extreme example that demonstrates the moral dilemma of taking other people money, regardless of how good the investment is. The OP phrased taxes as an investment, similar to how one would "invest in their home". And the comparison is not exactly valid. When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it somewhere, not taking other people's money. > Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain Or maybe it doesn't maximize anything. Maybe other people are able to invest it better. Just because something is an investment, doesn't mean it is the BEST investment for society. And you always have to take into account that this "investment" is taking away money from other people, who might very well be doing something better for the world with it.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it somewhere, not taking other people's money. I think you make good points, but I disagree here: Almost all investing involves pooling money with others, including all banking, most business, and almost all financial instruments. When you buy your own house, unless you pay cash you borrow from the bank, which involves money from the bank's other customers being invested in your house.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "My example of taking 100% of people's money is an extreme example that demonstrates the moral dilemma of taking other people money, regardless of how good the investment is." No, it's an absolutely ludicrous statement that makes people no longer pay attention to you.
- zeveb 8y ago
  > Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain - it's an investment in communal infrastructure where, yes, others might profit more from than you. However, in return, you might also profit from the contributions of others. You're assuming that tax money centrally invested will yield more returns to the community as a whole than it would were it invested by each individual. We've got decades of research to demonstrate that's not true. We probably need to fund some services communally, despite some of the enthusiastic & interesting proposals of anarchists like David Friedman. We may also need to investigate some form of universal basic income so that everyone has enough money to spend & invest as he desires. We probably also need to have some sort of information safety net to prevent parasitic 'investment' opportunities. But in general, a single centralised entity just doesn't have the information to make wise decisions about the utility of all investments across all citizens.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
forapurpose 8y ago
Good points. However, I think that there is large omission form that economic model: Non-tax money is not all invested. In fact, Americans have a low savings rate and tend to spend most of their money on consumption. That's their choice, of course, and doesn't by itself justify government investment. It does create more demand and need for government investment.
- nybble41 8y ago
  More investment is not a uniformly good thing, any more than increased consumption is uniformly beneficial. Not only does it matter what you invest in—and government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to choosing investments so as to maximize ROI—there is also a balance to be struck between investment and consumption. Favoring either one over the other through political means moves us away from the optimum balance, and over-investment (and malinvestment) can be just as destructive as over-consumption.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > More investment is not a uniformly good thing Nothing in my post said it was. > government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to choosing investments so as to maximize ROI Who does?

xg15 8y ago

> Every dollar that the state takes away from people, in order to invest in itself, that is one less dollar that each person has to decide how THEY would want that dollar to be invested. Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain - it's an investment in communal infrastructure where, yes, others might profit more from than you. However, in return, you might also profit from the contributions of others. > Also, even IF it is "proved" that a public investment has better returns than a private one, you also need to take into account that you are taking money from someone else, and there are moral questions about how much money we should be taking from other people. If we're starting with moral questions we should also discuss how morally justifiable it is to raise the price on products which buyers absolutely need but where they don't have an alternative. (E.g., recent pharmaceutical price hikes). This seems just as well "taking money from other people", except that it's done without any justification at all and, unlike taxes, you don't even in theory have any say about how high the prices should go or how the money is spent. > I believe that it is OK to take some money from people, but certainly not all of it Who was even proposing that?

stale2002 8y ago
My example of taking 100% of people's money is an extreme example that demonstrates the moral dilemma of taking other people money, regardless of how good the investment is. The OP phrased taxes as an investment, similar to how one would "invest in their home". And the comparison is not exactly valid. When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it somewhere, not taking other people's money. > Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain Or maybe it doesn't maximize anything. Maybe other people are able to invest it better. Just because something is an investment, doesn't mean it is the BEST investment for society. And you always have to take into account that this "investment" is taking away money from other people, who might very well be doing something better for the world with it.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it somewhere, not taking other people's money. I think you make good points, but I disagree here: Almost all investing involves pooling money with others, including all banking, most business, and almost all financial instruments. When you buy your own house, unless you pay cash you borrow from the bank, which involves money from the bank's other customers being invested in your house.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "My example of taking 100% of people's money is an extreme example that demonstrates the moral dilemma of taking other people money, regardless of how good the investment is." No, it's an absolutely ludicrous statement that makes people no longer pay attention to you.
zeveb 8y ago
> Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain - it's an investment in communal infrastructure where, yes, others might profit more from than you. However, in return, you might also profit from the contributions of others. You're assuming that tax money centrally invested will yield more returns to the community as a whole than it would were it invested by each individual. We've got decades of research to demonstrate that's not true. We probably need to fund some services communally, despite some of the enthusiastic & interesting proposals of anarchists like David Friedman. We may also need to investigate some form of universal basic income so that everyone has enough money to spend & invest as he desires. We probably also need to have some sort of information safety net to prevent parasitic 'investment' opportunities. But in general, a single centralised entity just doesn't have the information to make wise decisions about the utility of all investments across all citizens.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

forapurpose 8y ago

Good points. However, I think that there is large omission form that economic model: Non-tax money is not all invested. In fact, Americans have a low savings rate and tend to spend most of their money on consumption. That's their choice, of course, and doesn't by itself justify government investment. It does create more demand and need for government investment.

nybble41 8y ago
More investment is not a uniformly good thing, any more than increased consumption is uniformly beneficial. Not only does it matter what you invest in—and government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to choosing investments so as to maximize ROI—there is also a balance to be struck between investment and consumption. Favoring either one over the other through political means moves us away from the optimum balance, and over-investment (and malinvestment) can be just as destructive as over-consumption.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > More investment is not a uniformly good thing Nothing in my post said it was. > government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to choosing investments so as to maximize ROI Who does?