4 ms·

Quite - Leftists reframe the question "Why do you need that money?" when the one we should be asking is "Why is the state entitled to it?"

untog 8y ago
Because very often the answer is "the state enabled you to earn that money in the first place, moving things on its roads, and employing workers educated by its school system, while under the protection of its police force and fire service"
- vidarh 8y ago
  I find it enlightening to discuss with people what they would do if they could unilaterally secede. I find offering the option quite appealing, in the sense that it would hold government strictly to account if it annoys sufficiently large minorities to warrant large splits. But what the people opposing taxes often tends to forget is that if you want to argue that society should be organized in a fully voluntary way, then the rest of society don't owe you access to any of their public services either if you're not prepared to agree to their terms for interacting with you. If someone is ok with taking the consequences of that, then, hey, let them, but in my experience the moment you point out the likely consequences, there is a tendency to start crying about how unfair it would be when other people want to exercise their freedoms to refuse to deal with someone not prepared to pay their share. In other words, most of this boils down to wanting to be free to pick and choose how they interact with wider society, without wanting the rest of society to be able to pick and choose how to interact with them.
skh 8y ago
Your question is just as bad. Here’s the framing I prefer. 1. Government is necessary since some things are best run by public services and without a for-profit motive. 2. What are these things? 3. How much money should be raised to properly run these things? 4. What is the optimum tax rate/policy to achieve this goal?
- kristianc 8y ago
  You'll never get to that framing while taxation is presented in and of itself as an unalloyed good, and the Left is asking "What's the maximum we can tax people before they stop working?" or the new favorite from Saez et al "Okay, the rich might stop working a little, but how much are we prepared for them to stop working before we have to lower taxes?" My framing allows people to say 1. in response, if it is able to specify 2., and if it can then determine 3 and 4. What it doesn't allow people to do is say "the state is entitled to as much in taxation as it can get away with, because the state also builds roads and hospitals" ('You didn't build that'), or "the state is entitled to use taxation as a proxy for creating equality of outcome" ('This is Class Warfare').
  - skh 8y ago
    Your question used the word “entitled”. It is reminiscent of those who say that taxation is theft. Your framing does none of 1, 2, 3, and 4. I don’t understand the point of your first paragraph. It’s a caricature of people you call the Left. I have never seen anyone anywhere paint taxation as an unalloyed good in and of itself. Can I suggest that instead of talking in terms of Left/Right that some other dialog be used? This is why I framed things the way I did. There’s not mention of Left or Right. It’s just questions that get at the heart of what being a society means.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      I have seen the (far?) Left say, quite recently and very publicly, that wealth inequality is an unalloyed bad, and that taxation is the answer. That's not quite "taxation is an unalloyed good", but it's definitely "you don't need (and shouldn't have) that money, so we'll take it".
      - skh 8y ago
        OK. I guess don't change the framing of taxation from Right vs. Left to framing the issue to one of determining the optimal way to fund what society needs/wants. I doubt you can large numbers of the Left saying what you claim. Specifically that the reason for wanting to increase taxes is to get rid of wealth inequality. I have heard people say things to the effect that beyond a certain point the wealthy can afford to pay more taxes in order to fund some programs. These things are nuanced and it's not helpful to reduce everything to a slogan.

untog 8y ago

Because very often the answer is "the state enabled you to earn that money in the first place, moving things on its roads, and employing workers educated by its school system, while under the protection of its police force and fire service"

vidarh 8y ago
I find it enlightening to discuss with people what they would do if they could unilaterally secede. I find offering the option quite appealing, in the sense that it would hold government strictly to account if it annoys sufficiently large minorities to warrant large splits. But what the people opposing taxes often tends to forget is that if you want to argue that society should be organized in a fully voluntary way, then the rest of society don't owe you access to any of their public services either if you're not prepared to agree to their terms for interacting with you. If someone is ok with taking the consequences of that, then, hey, let them, but in my experience the moment you point out the likely consequences, there is a tendency to start crying about how unfair it would be when other people want to exercise their freedoms to refuse to deal with someone not prepared to pay their share. In other words, most of this boils down to wanting to be free to pick and choose how they interact with wider society, without wanting the rest of society to be able to pick and choose how to interact with them.

skh 8y ago

Your question is just as bad. Here’s the framing I prefer. 1. Government is necessary since some things are best run by public services and without a for-profit motive. 2. What are these things? 3. How much money should be raised to properly run these things? 4. What is the optimum tax rate/policy to achieve this goal?

kristianc 8y ago
You'll never get to that framing while taxation is presented in and of itself as an unalloyed good, and the Left is asking "What's the maximum we can tax people before they stop working?" or the new favorite from Saez et al "Okay, the rich might stop working a little, but how much are we prepared for them to stop working before we have to lower taxes?" My framing allows people to say 1. in response, if it is able to specify 2., and if it can then determine 3 and 4. What it doesn't allow people to do is say "the state is entitled to as much in taxation as it can get away with, because the state also builds roads and hospitals" ('You didn't build that'), or "the state is entitled to use taxation as a proxy for creating equality of outcome" ('This is Class Warfare').
- skh 8y ago
  Your question used the word “entitled”. It is reminiscent of those who say that taxation is theft. Your framing does none of 1, 2, 3, and 4. I don’t understand the point of your first paragraph. It’s a caricature of people you call the Left. I have never seen anyone anywhere paint taxation as an unalloyed good in and of itself. Can I suggest that instead of talking in terms of Left/Right that some other dialog be used? This is why I framed things the way I did. There’s not mention of Left or Right. It’s just questions that get at the heart of what being a society means.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I have seen the (far?) Left say, quite recently and very publicly, that wealth inequality is an unalloyed bad, and that taxation is the answer. That's not quite "taxation is an unalloyed good", but it's definitely "you don't need (and shouldn't have) that money, so we'll take it".
    - skh 8y ago
      OK. I guess don't change the framing of taxation from Right vs. Left to framing the issue to one of determining the optimal way to fund what society needs/wants. I doubt you can large numbers of the Left saying what you claim. Specifically that the reason for wanting to increase taxes is to get rid of wealth inequality. I have heard people say things to the effect that beyond a certain point the wealthy can afford to pay more taxes in order to fund some programs. These things are nuanced and it's not helpful to reduce everything to a slogan.