6 ms·

I'm really not a fan of the entitlement attitude that we should just take money from the rich to fix our self-inflicted problems.

ForrestN 8y ago
I think the question is whether or not "the rich" are part of "we" or not. Businesses are built using public infrastructure and in some cases (like Twitter) direct, massively valuable government subsidy. In my opinion, "we" are asking "each other" to pay more money to solve public problems in proportion to "our" ability to do so.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Everyone uses public infrastructure. That's what makes it "public infrastructure". Should we raise your taxes to 80% "because you use the roads that are built by taxes"?
  - ForrestN 8y ago
    No—but we should probably do what we can to make each person and company's tax burden proportionate to their size and income. And we probably shouldn't frame efforts to do so as "taking money from the rich" as if wealthy people are somehow living in a separate community.
    - newtothebay 8y ago
      Isn't a flat tax rate already "proportionate to size and income"? What's the justification for higher tax rate for the rich? I agree that their wealth depends on public infrastructure, but I'm not sure that their level of dependence is higher than us. (I'm asking as a proponent of progressive tax rate, just not for this reason. So I'd like to clarify)
      - ForrestN 8y ago
        I may not have expressed my position clearly. Because most costs of living are fixed and not proportionate to income, taking 20% of the income of a poor person will have a disproportionate affect on them, as opposed to someone with a very high income for whom the difference will only marginally affect their standard of living. Take 30% of someone's $20,000 income and you will deeply compromise their ability to exist comfortably in society. Taking 30% of someone's $5,000,000 income will have no effect on their ability to cover their needs and live comfortably. A flat tax, then, is actually quite regressive, rather than neutral. Speaking in terms of companies, though, there is also a question of proportion vis a vis size—bigger companies and their employees tend to cost taxpayers quite a bit more than small businesses. There are no giant Twitter-like subsidies for five-man firms, for example. Larger firms are much more likely to make use of legal infrastructure, to need regulation, and to have the power to seek accommodation by the government for infrastructure needed for their given business.
    - hueving 8y ago
      Do you know what a percentage is? Not only are taxes already proportionate to profit, but they are disproportionate larger for higher incomes in any progressive taxation scheme.
      - ForrestN 8y ago
        In common English, rather than mathematics, proportionate merely implies that these things are related in size or amount. There is no implication of a fixed ratio. Replace "proportionate" with "appropriately related" if that helps.
        hueving 8y ago
        Percentages are "related in size".
- testrun 8y ago
  As if businesses are not currently paying taxes. This is an additional tax.
manicdee 8y ago
I’m not a fan of the attitude that the homeless are solely to blame for their problems.
maxxxxx 8y ago
A disproportionate share of money has gone to the rich over the least few decades so maybe you should also not be a fan of their entitlement attitude.
Wissmania 8y ago
There is a pretty good Utilitarian case for taxing the rich to help the poor too. No sense of entitlement needed.
- ng12 8y ago
  Sure, but this is not a problem money obviously solvable by throwing money at it. San Francisco already spends over $300m/year for helping the homeless, is Prop C going to be any more effective?
  - Wissmania 8y ago
    I was just making a general philosophical point. Whether Prop C specifically is a good idea depends on a lot of empirical information that I haven't researched.
r00fus 8y ago
I'm not really a fan of the entitlement attitude of the rich where they expect the roads/legal/payment stability without paying the appropriate taxes to support the infrastructure. I mean, it's not like infrastructure isn't decaying or anything...
- hueving 8y ago
  Then I presume you're fine with switching to a toll based system where bridges/roads are funded by usage. You wear the road down every day,I am you pay every day. That's as fair as it gets. The notion that rich people simply have to pay more for roads because they are rich is senseless.
  - valeness 8y ago
    I would think it could be argued that the incredibly rich benefit more from public infrastructure. Do you still agree with your statement if Amazon had to pay a toll for every shipment?
- refurb 8y ago
  The top 1% pay something like 60% of all taxes. Are you saying that’s “not appropriate”?
  - valeness 8y ago
    I would be very interested in a source on this.

ForrestN 8y ago

I think the question is whether or not "the rich" are part of "we" or not. Businesses are built using public infrastructure and in some cases (like Twitter) direct, massively valuable government subsidy. In my opinion, "we" are asking "each other" to pay more money to solve public problems in proportion to "our" ability to do so.

SilasX 8y ago
Everyone uses public infrastructure. That's what makes it "public infrastructure". Should we raise your taxes to 80% "because you use the roads that are built by taxes"?
- ForrestN 8y ago
  No—but we should probably do what we can to make each person and company's tax burden proportionate to their size and income. And we probably shouldn't frame efforts to do so as "taking money from the rich" as if wealthy people are somehow living in a separate community.
  - newtothebay 8y ago
    Isn't a flat tax rate already "proportionate to size and income"? What's the justification for higher tax rate for the rich? I agree that their wealth depends on public infrastructure, but I'm not sure that their level of dependence is higher than us. (I'm asking as a proponent of progressive tax rate, just not for this reason. So I'd like to clarify)
    - ForrestN 8y ago
      I may not have expressed my position clearly. Because most costs of living are fixed and not proportionate to income, taking 20% of the income of a poor person will have a disproportionate affect on them, as opposed to someone with a very high income for whom the difference will only marginally affect their standard of living. Take 30% of someone's $20,000 income and you will deeply compromise their ability to exist comfortably in society. Taking 30% of someone's $5,000,000 income will have no effect on their ability to cover their needs and live comfortably. A flat tax, then, is actually quite regressive, rather than neutral. Speaking in terms of companies, though, there is also a question of proportion vis a vis size—bigger companies and their employees tend to cost taxpayers quite a bit more than small businesses. There are no giant Twitter-like subsidies for five-man firms, for example. Larger firms are much more likely to make use of legal infrastructure, to need regulation, and to have the power to seek accommodation by the government for infrastructure needed for their given business.
  - hueving 8y ago
    Do you know what a percentage is? Not only are taxes already proportionate to profit, but they are disproportionate larger for higher incomes in any progressive taxation scheme.
    - ForrestN 8y ago
      In common English, rather than mathematics, proportionate merely implies that these things are related in size or amount. There is no implication of a fixed ratio. Replace "proportionate" with "appropriately related" if that helps.
      - hueving 8y ago
        Percentages are "related in size".
testrun 8y ago
As if businesses are not currently paying taxes. This is an additional tax.

manicdee 8y ago

I’m not a fan of the attitude that the homeless are solely to blame for their problems.

maxxxxx 8y ago

A disproportionate share of money has gone to the rich over the least few decades so maybe you should also not be a fan of their entitlement attitude.

Wissmania 8y ago

There is a pretty good Utilitarian case for taxing the rich to help the poor too. No sense of entitlement needed.

ng12 8y ago
Sure, but this is not a problem money obviously solvable by throwing money at it. San Francisco already spends over $300m/year for helping the homeless, is Prop C going to be any more effective?
- Wissmania 8y ago
  I was just making a general philosophical point. Whether Prop C specifically is a good idea depends on a lot of empirical information that I haven't researched.

r00fus 8y ago

I'm not really a fan of the entitlement attitude of the rich where they expect the roads/legal/payment stability without paying the appropriate taxes to support the infrastructure. I mean, it's not like infrastructure isn't decaying or anything...

hueving 8y ago
Then I presume you're fine with switching to a toll based system where bridges/roads are funded by usage. You wear the road down every day,I am you pay every day. That's as fair as it gets. The notion that rich people simply have to pay more for roads because they are rich is senseless.
- valeness 8y ago
  I would think it could be argued that the incredibly rich benefit more from public infrastructure. Do you still agree with your statement if Amazon had to pay a toll for every shipment?
refurb 8y ago
The top 1% pay something like 60% of all taxes. Are you saying that’s “not appropriate”?
- valeness 8y ago
  I would be very interested in a source on this.