4 ms·

> Lowering taxes on the rich gives them more money. > Therefore, lowering taxes on the rich causes “skyrocketing inequality”. Did I get your argument right? S

> Lowering taxes on the rich gives them more money. > Therefore, lowering taxes on the rich causes “skyrocketing inequality”. Did I get your argument right? Seems to be missing a premise or two.

lucas_membrane 8y ago
Here are two premises: (1) Extraordinary money confers extraordinary power. (2) It is a proper role of government to put reasonable limits on the power of wealth. Sadly, the American government now works on a revised version of (2), i.e.: It is a proper role of wealth to put unreasonable limits on the power of government.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  The federal government is more powerful than at any time in history. I'm curious what you consider unreasonable limits imposed by rich people.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    More powerful than the time during which it allowed people to legally own other human beings? Or when it forcibly relocated people to reservations across the country? Or when it put people into concentration camps because of a war we were fighting at the time?
    - nec4b 8y ago
      Immensely more powerful than at any of those points you have written. Today at a push of a button it can eliminate most of the world as we know it. Remember, it had to fight civil war to prevent people owning other people.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The parent is referring to legal power, not military power.
        nec4b 8y ago
        Legal power without means to enforce it is meaningless, hence the civil war when the government was weaker in the past.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        It's still an orthogonal question. We can rephrase more specifically: "is the legal purview the federal government over residents of the United States at its greatest extent since the founding of the country?"
        nec4b 8y ago
        The answer is unambiguous yes. There has never been more laws, more agencies, more regulation, more government employees and so on.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        If you're only counting number, sure. But there's not a single regulation we have now that impacts lives more than the ones we used to have that said other people could literally own you.
  - lucas_membrane 8y ago
    Limits on protecting the earth. Limits on (i.e. near elimination of) enforcement of anti-trust laws. Limits on limiting the power of money in politics. Limits on enforcement of civil rights laws. Removal of limits on ownership of broadcast station licenses and cross-ownership of broadcast station licenses and local monopoly newspapers. Limits on the availability of justice to the non-wealthy because of the high cost of participating in almost any application of the law. Limits on the ability of those not on the contributors' list to get a meeting with their congressperson.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      I'm afraid if you compare the power of federal government over the decades, the things it has decided are in its purview (and hence power) have steadily expanded. For example, recently the government decided it had the power to force me to buy health insurance from the only provider in the county. That went to the Supreme Court, who decided sure, ok. A large increase in surveillance powers happened after 9-11. A more historical increase in power was the government deciding it has the power to tell me what I could and could not voluntarily ingest. Do you know that the US government did not originally have the power to print money, levy income taxes, or engage in civil asset forfeiture by accusing your property of committing a crime? And on and on. Note that I'm not commenting on whether these powers are good or bad. But they definitely are powers that have accrued to the government since the US was founded.
      - CPLX 8y ago
        > recently the government decided it had the power to force me to buy health insurance What I think you meant to say is that the government decided to impose a tax on you if you decide not to. When the government forces you to do something, you’ll know. At root, of course, the entire argument comes down to taxes, and people’s desire not to pay them, but still wanting a stable and orderly society with a strong functional government. Same as it ever was.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        You two are talking about different kinds of power. You're talking about the power of the government over average people, and the parent is talking about the power of the government over large corporations. 9/11 resulted in fewer rights for you and me, but it didn't take anything away from Bayer. On the other hand, antitrust regulations have been slowly eroded for decades.
- jki275 8y ago
  I would be very interested to hear where premise 2 comes from. I can speak only for America, but that premise does not appear anywhere in our Constitution.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Neither of those premises makes the argument valid.

> Lowering taxes on the rich gives them more money. > Therefore, lowering taxes on the rich causes “skyrocketing inequality”. Did I get your argument right? Seems to be missing a premise or two.

lucas_membrane 8y ago

Here are two premises: (1) Extraordinary money confers extraordinary power. (2) It is a proper role of government to put reasonable limits on the power of wealth. Sadly, the American government now works on a revised version of (2), i.e.: It is a proper role of wealth to put unreasonable limits on the power of government.

WalterBright 8y ago
The federal government is more powerful than at any time in history. I'm curious what you consider unreasonable limits imposed by rich people.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  More powerful than the time during which it allowed people to legally own other human beings? Or when it forcibly relocated people to reservations across the country? Or when it put people into concentration camps because of a war we were fighting at the time?
  - nec4b 8y ago
    Immensely more powerful than at any of those points you have written. Today at a push of a button it can eliminate most of the world as we know it. Remember, it had to fight civil war to prevent people owning other people.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      The parent is referring to legal power, not military power.
      - nec4b 8y ago
        Legal power without means to enforce it is meaningless, hence the civil war when the government was weaker in the past.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        It's still an orthogonal question. We can rephrase more specifically: "is the legal purview the federal government over residents of the United States at its greatest extent since the founding of the country?"
        nec4b 8y ago
        The answer is unambiguous yes. There has never been more laws, more agencies, more regulation, more government employees and so on.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        If you're only counting number, sure. But there's not a single regulation we have now that impacts lives more than the ones we used to have that said other people could literally own you.
- lucas_membrane 8y ago
  Limits on protecting the earth. Limits on (i.e. near elimination of) enforcement of anti-trust laws. Limits on limiting the power of money in politics. Limits on enforcement of civil rights laws. Removal of limits on ownership of broadcast station licenses and cross-ownership of broadcast station licenses and local monopoly newspapers. Limits on the availability of justice to the non-wealthy because of the high cost of participating in almost any application of the law. Limits on the ability of those not on the contributors' list to get a meeting with their congressperson.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    I'm afraid if you compare the power of federal government over the decades, the things it has decided are in its purview (and hence power) have steadily expanded. For example, recently the government decided it had the power to force me to buy health insurance from the only provider in the county. That went to the Supreme Court, who decided sure, ok. A large increase in surveillance powers happened after 9-11. A more historical increase in power was the government deciding it has the power to tell me what I could and could not voluntarily ingest. Do you know that the US government did not originally have the power to print money, levy income taxes, or engage in civil asset forfeiture by accusing your property of committing a crime? And on and on. Note that I'm not commenting on whether these powers are good or bad. But they definitely are powers that have accrued to the government since the US was founded.
    - CPLX 8y ago
      > recently the government decided it had the power to force me to buy health insurance What I think you meant to say is that the government decided to impose a tax on you if you decide not to. When the government forces you to do something, you’ll know. At root, of course, the entire argument comes down to taxes, and people’s desire not to pay them, but still wanting a stable and orderly society with a strong functional government. Same as it ever was.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      You two are talking about different kinds of power. You're talking about the power of the government over average people, and the parent is talking about the power of the government over large corporations. 9/11 resulted in fewer rights for you and me, but it didn't take anything away from Bayer. On the other hand, antitrust regulations have been slowly eroded for decades.
jki275 8y ago
I would be very interested to hear where premise 2 comes from. I can speak only for America, but that premise does not appear anywhere in our Constitution.
antidesitter 8y ago
Neither of those premises makes the argument valid.