5 ms·

Probably not really. If you really hate paying taxes you can convince yourself that taxes are bad. If you ignore all evidence to the contrary and just really ha

Probably not really. If you really hate paying taxes you can convince yourself that taxes are bad. If you ignore all evidence to the contrary and just really hate filing paperwork and following rules, you can convince yourself that regulation is harmful. If you actually want to experiment with new forms of governance, you will need to convince lots of other people to go along instead of just declaring yourself sovereign and then complaining that other countries don't recognize your right to do that just because you're rich.

DuskStar 7y ago
And if you hate the rich, you can convince yourself that no tax rate is too high. If you just really hate big business, there's no such thing as a bad regulation, because anything that makes life harder for business is a good thing. Is it possible to distinguish someone who thinks taxes are good from society from someone who hates everyone better off from themselves?
- defterGoose 7y ago
  Absolutely you can distinguish. The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. Inverting the original question semantically doesn't mean that you've provided a valid counter-example.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.
    - Voloskaya 7y ago
      > Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
      - dorchadas 7y ago
        Yep. And if they make more, they think they should pay an even higher share. Which, notes, will still leave them with more money. Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        I think the point is that by the GGP's (defterGoose's) standards, that's not differentiable from someone who just hates the rich. (And, frankly, if I started saying that the optimal tax brackets would be 99% for all income over $200k and 1% for all income $50k-$200k, the fact that I would pay more than some other people would not be particularly relevant)
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amount of value for society in aggregate, it makes the most sense to put the highest taxes on money that has the least utility. You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        I don't see the relevance here. Upthread you were saying that it was impossible to distinguish "wanting lower taxes because taxes are bad" and "wanting lower taxes because I want more money". Holding similar standards of evidence would make it impossible to distinguish "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" or "I want higher taxes because of the marginal utility of money" from "I want higher taxes because fuck the rich". You then suggested that you could tell the higher-tax positions apart by the speaker's willingness to comply with the increased taxes. But in a progressive tax system, the speaker is proposing higher tax rates for others than for themselves - which is very similar to "making(sic) a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated". Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
potta_coffee 7y ago
TLDR: "Anyone I disagree with is justifying incorrect opinions." Your argument cuts both ways and can be applied to any issue, and is therefore illogical.

DuskStar 7y ago

And if you hate the rich, you can convince yourself that no tax rate is too high. If you just really hate big business, there's no such thing as a bad regulation, because anything that makes life harder for business is a good thing. Is it possible to distinguish someone who thinks taxes are good from society from someone who hates everyone better off from themselves?

defterGoose 7y ago
Absolutely you can distinguish. The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. Inverting the original question semantically doesn't mean that you've provided a valid counter-example.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.
  - Voloskaya 7y ago
    > Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
    - dorchadas 7y ago
      Yep. And if they make more, they think they should pay an even higher share. Which, notes, will still leave them with more money. Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      I think the point is that by the GGP's (defterGoose's) standards, that's not differentiable from someone who just hates the rich. (And, frankly, if I started saying that the optimal tax brackets would be 99% for all income over $200k and 1% for all income $50k-$200k, the fact that I would pay more than some other people would not be particularly relevant)
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amount of value for society in aggregate, it makes the most sense to put the highest taxes on money that has the least utility. You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      I don't see the relevance here. Upthread you were saying that it was impossible to distinguish "wanting lower taxes because taxes are bad" and "wanting lower taxes because I want more money". Holding similar standards of evidence would make it impossible to distinguish "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" or "I want higher taxes because of the marginal utility of money" from "I want higher taxes because fuck the rich". You then suggested that you could tell the higher-tax positions apart by the speaker's willingness to comply with the increased taxes. But in a progressive tax system, the speaker is proposing higher tax rates for others than for themselves - which is very similar to "making(sic) a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated". Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.

potta_coffee 7y ago

TLDR: "Anyone I disagree with is justifying incorrect opinions." Your argument cuts both ways and can be applied to any issue, and is therefore illogical.