3 ms·

Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing

Not that I necessarily agree with it (I'm on the fence) but doesn't sound like it. Broken window fallacy is saying "if I destroy your stuff, I'm actually doing society a favour". So, damage to you = benefit to society, which is bunk. This is saying, lets not be led by the nose by people who gain the most from what we are doing - because while it (arguably) helps society a bit, society could overall benefit a lot more from better balanced solutions that aren't stymied by those seeking to reinforce their wealth/power. A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what - which is what we do anyway, middle class already loses when a big company finds a tax loop-hole, to use a trite example.

UncleEntity 8y ago
> A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".
repolfx 8y ago
That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.

UncleEntity 8y ago

> A wealthy person may "lose" if we tax them more, but that isn't breaking their window, that's balancing who gets what... But this is after tax income that they're just spending however they wish. The same arguments were used in the recent article about the superyachts where people were saying society is broken because someone can actually earn enough money to buy one of those things. I'd much rather have Bill Gates spending his wealth on whatever philanthropic projects he deems worthy than the city taxing me to renovate the baseball stadium down the street "for society".

repolfx 8y ago

That argument is assuming government directed 'philanthropy' is more efficient, better directed or somehow less supporting of the status quo than private philanthropy. But private philanthropists got where they were by being good at management and effecting change in the world, whereas government employees did not, so it strikes me that it's likely to be the opposite - governments are less likely to do good things with the money, and more likely to support the status quo.