4 ms·

> First off, is having more really a virtue? It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. > Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people

> First off, is having more really a virtue? It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. > Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. > They'll still end up with more in the end. Here's the problem though. At a higher tax bracket, I now have an incentive to find ways to avoid it. At 10% income tax on a $100K income I might not care, but at $10 million and an applicable 70% tax rate, I am willing to spend upto $5 or even $6 million to keep more of my money with me. (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue). 1. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-virtue-of-something https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/by-vi...

dorchadas 8y ago
> It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. Yeah, I realized that upon re-reading, but wasn't in a place to edit my comment. I wonder if it's more common in Britain, though, as it didn't sound completely natural in that sense to my American ears. > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. This doesn't follow. So because people who have more pay more (as a proportion of their money, yet still have more in the long run), millions are going to die? And by making these people who have more pay less (as a proportion of their money), millions are going to emerge out of poverty? Seems to me that it'll basically end up with the increasing wealth inequality we're already seeing, except 10-fold. > (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue) Ah, there's the truth. Heaven forbid somebody else pay less (as a proportion of their money) than you, even though it affects them far, far more. Flat taxes hurt the poor and will do nothing but increase inequality.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's an expression in English. The expression is “by virtue of” not “becauase of the virtue of”. I don't know that most English speakers would recognize the latter as a mangled attempt at the former rather than having the normal meaning of the individual words.
berbec 8y ago
>> Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. Please explain how increasing the percentage of income tax paid as income grows causes millions to die?

dorchadas 8y ago

> It's an expression in English. It means "as a result of"[1]. Yeah, I realized that upon re-reading, but wasn't in a place to edit my comment. I wonder if it's more common in Britain, though, as it didn't sound completely natural in that sense to my American ears. > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. This doesn't follow. So because people who have more pay more (as a proportion of their money, yet still have more in the long run), millions are going to die? And by making these people who have more pay less (as a proportion of their money), millions are going to emerge out of poverty? Seems to me that it'll basically end up with the increasing wealth inequality we're already seeing, except 10-fold. > (Personally I would even spend $7.5 million to avoid paying the taxes as a moral issue) Ah, there's the truth. Heaven forbid somebody else pay less (as a proportion of their money) than you, even though it affects them far, far more. Flat taxes hurt the poor and will do nothing but increase inequality.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> It's an expression in English. The expression is “by virtue of” not “becauase of the virtue of”. I don't know that most English speakers would recognize the latter as a mangled attempt at the former rather than having the normal meaning of the individual words.

berbec 8y ago

>> Secondly, is it a bad thing that we expect people that have more to pay more? > Yes, very bad thing. You mess this up and millions of people die, you get this right and millions of people will emerge out of poverty. Please at least acknowledge that. Please explain how increasing the percentage of income tax paid as income grows causes millions to die?