5 ms·

This particular straw man argument comes up every time taxes are discussed. Obviously the marginal effect of one person paying more in taxes is close to zero.

This particular straw man argument comes up every time taxes are discussed. Obviously the marginal effect of one person paying more in taxes is close to zero. There's no hypocrisy in advocating the group pay more collectively without unilaterally taking it upon oneself first.

mc32 8y ago
It begins with _I’m a millionaire..._ Not we’re millionaires... or Millionaires should pay more... because otherwise they’d be imposing their personalpreferences and beliefs upon others whom they don’t represent.
- skh 8y ago
  I try to impose my personal preferences and beliefs on others whenever I vote. I see nothing wrong with this. I also believe that people in my income bracket should pay more in taxes. I'm not going to voluntarily pay more whilst others don't. It's an aspect of the free rider problem. I'll continue to vote for higher taxes and continue to take advantage of the stupid tax system we have. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite. So what? The belief that taxes should be higher for people like me is true/false independent of my hypocrisy.
zepto 8y ago
There absolutely is. The individual is not advocating that the group pay more collectively. He is advocating that others be forced to pay more. There is a clear distinction. If this individual was advocating for people in his position to pay more, he could simply start a campaign for like-minded millionaires to pay more, and perhaps build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  > If this individual was advocating for people in his position to pay more, he could simply start a campaign for like-minded millionaires to pay more That is actually what he's doing, the whole point of the article.
  - zepto 8y ago
    Did you actually read my whole comment, or did you quote that out of context intentionally? He is not campaigning for like-minded millionaires to pay more voluntarily, he is campaigning for them to force other millionaires to pay more through the tax code. You can clearly see that’s what I meant if you hadn’t just quoted out of context, so I question whether your comment is in good faith.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - lordnacho 8y ago
      > You can clearly see that’s what I meant if you hadn’t just quoted out of context, so I question whether your comment is in good faith. Take a chill pill. It's not clear that's what you meant, I think many people will agree. It's the internet after all. That doesn't mean we have to be accusing each other of bad faith immediately.
      - zepto 8y ago
        So why didn’t you include the second half of the sentence which reads: “and perhaps build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government.”? That makes it abundantly clear that I was talking about a voluntary scheme because that is plainly stated, and it seems like you saw the sentence because you chose to quote the first half. The first paragraph also makes that same distinction. If you had quoted the full sentence instead of the partial one, your comment would simply be false. I didn’t accuse you of bad faith but I did raise the question, and this is why.
        lordnacho 8y ago
        The second half of the sentence can sound quite sarcastic. Depends on how you read it. Like I said, it's the internet. I'll admit I didn't think too much about what you might have meant. Think about it, why would the government need anyone's help to collect money? And in what sense would it be voluntary? The taxpayers are either forced to by law or by social pressure to pay. Anyway, let's put that to bed.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  > build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government. He is not asking for infrastructure to support voluntary donation tobthe government. That would be stupid and ineffective. He is asking for the government to change its tax structure to tax people like him more.
  - zepto 8y ago
    I’m glad you can tell that’s not what he’s asking for. I agree with you - he’s not asking for that. How do you know if it would be stupid and ineffective? Perhaps he’s representative of rich people who want to pay more tax.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      Then why are you suggesting he do something that he is not advocating?
      - zepto 8y ago
        Where did I suggest he do that?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > How do you know if it would be stupid and ineffective? Because you can already pay more taxes than required in many places, and (almost) nobody does so. > Perhaps he’s representative of rich people who want to pay more tax. He is representative — he doesn't pay more than is required. He is proposing that the government require people like him to pay more taxes, which would mean that low income people pay less.
      - zepto 8y ago
        > Because you can already pay more taxes than required, and nobody does so. There are lots of things people can do but don’t until a social movement encourages them to do so. Charities for example don’t receive donations until someone makes a case for why they should. Also, I’m not sure why you think that raising taxes on one group automatically results in other groups being taxed less. That isn’t typically how it works.
antidesitter 8y ago
> Obviously the marginal effect of one person paying more in taxes is close to zero. Exactly the same as when other people do. Probably more, actually.

mc32 8y ago

It begins with _I’m a millionaire..._ Not we’re millionaires... or Millionaires should pay more... because otherwise they’d be imposing their personalpreferences and beliefs upon others whom they don’t represent.

skh 8y ago
I try to impose my personal preferences and beliefs on others whenever I vote. I see nothing wrong with this. I also believe that people in my income bracket should pay more in taxes. I'm not going to voluntarily pay more whilst others don't. It's an aspect of the free rider problem. I'll continue to vote for higher taxes and continue to take advantage of the stupid tax system we have. Perhaps this makes me a hypocrite. So what? The belief that taxes should be higher for people like me is true/false independent of my hypocrisy.

zepto 8y ago

There absolutely is. The individual is not advocating that the group pay more collectively. He is advocating that others be forced to pay more. There is a clear distinction. If this individual was advocating for people in his position to pay more, he could simply start a campaign for like-minded millionaires to pay more, and perhaps build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government.

lordnacho 8y ago
> If this individual was advocating for people in his position to pay more, he could simply start a campaign for like-minded millionaires to pay more That is actually what he's doing, the whole point of the article.
- zepto 8y ago
  Did you actually read my whole comment, or did you quote that out of context intentionally? He is not campaigning for like-minded millionaires to pay more voluntarily, he is campaigning for them to force other millionaires to pay more through the tax code. You can clearly see that’s what I meant if you hadn’t just quoted out of context, so I question whether your comment is in good faith.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    > You can clearly see that’s what I meant if you hadn’t just quoted out of context, so I question whether your comment is in good faith. Take a chill pill. It's not clear that's what you meant, I think many people will agree. It's the internet after all. That doesn't mean we have to be accusing each other of bad faith immediately.
    - zepto 8y ago
      So why didn’t you include the second half of the sentence which reads: “and perhaps build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government.”? That makes it abundantly clear that I was talking about a voluntary scheme because that is plainly stated, and it seems like you saw the sentence because you chose to quote the first half. The first paragraph also makes that same distinction. If you had quoted the full sentence instead of the partial one, your comment would simply be false. I didn’t accuse you of bad faith but I did raise the question, and this is why.
      - lordnacho 8y ago
        The second half of the sentence can sound quite sarcastic. Depends on how you read it. Like I said, it's the internet. I'll admit I didn't think too much about what you might have meant. Think about it, why would the government need anyone's help to collect money? And in what sense would it be voluntary? The taxpayers are either forced to by law or by social pressure to pay. Anyway, let's put that to bed.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
> build some infrastructure to support this voluntary donation to the government. He is not asking for infrastructure to support voluntary donation tobthe government. That would be stupid and ineffective. He is asking for the government to change its tax structure to tax people like him more.
- zepto 8y ago
  I’m glad you can tell that’s not what he’s asking for. I agree with you - he’s not asking for that. How do you know if it would be stupid and ineffective? Perhaps he’s representative of rich people who want to pay more tax.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    Then why are you suggesting he do something that he is not advocating?
    - zepto 8y ago
      Where did I suggest he do that?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > How do you know if it would be stupid and ineffective? Because you can already pay more taxes than required in many places, and (almost) nobody does so. > Perhaps he’s representative of rich people who want to pay more tax. He is representative — he doesn't pay more than is required. He is proposing that the government require people like him to pay more taxes, which would mean that low income people pay less.
    - zepto 8y ago
      > Because you can already pay more taxes than required, and nobody does so. There are lots of things people can do but don’t until a social movement encourages them to do so. Charities for example don’t receive donations until someone makes a case for why they should. Also, I’m not sure why you think that raising taxes on one group automatically results in other groups being taxed less. That isn’t typically how it works.

antidesitter 8y ago

> Obviously the marginal effect of one person paying more in taxes is close to zero. Exactly the same as when other people do. Probably more, actually.