4 ms·

>I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax looph

>I'm somewhat baffled by this simultaneous behavior- if the rich want to be taxed, they have all the wealth to make it happen. Hire lobbyists to close tax loopholes. Hire lawyers to go after the rich who tax-evade or the accountants that support them. Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check?

username444 7y ago
Primarily, I think, because an individual contribution/overpayment has almost zero effect in the big picture. It's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is like giving someone a bottle of water, when what they need is a well built. A compounding factor is that billionaires are by nature, competitive. Giving away half of your net income puts you at a disadvantage against other billionaires who can use that against you. Taking away half of everybody's net income keeps the playing field level.
Angostura 7y ago
> Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? I hear this mantra time often - sometimes in relation to charity, sometimes in the context of climate change action ('if it bothers you, why not just cycle to work?'. ) There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''.
- wolco 7y ago
  It's ego driven. I won't give up my money until everyone else does. If you really want to give more, than do. If you want to make sure you are still in top then stop..
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    Taxation is actually a major topic in economic research, and it involves a lot more than someone's ego.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Taxation as a topic isn't ego driven. But this is. He basicly says.. I think rich people like me should pay more. But I won't because my friends will have more than me and I will lose my status.
- hitpointdrew 7y ago
  >There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". Yeah, one relies upon the threat of violence, the other one doesn't. I prefer minimizing the violent threats. >First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. What specific "ill" are you trying to solve? Eliminate the national debt? Free college for all? Because taxing the wealthiest 1% at 100% isn't going to be enough. And if you can't specifically identify "society's ills" and an dollar amount needed to correct said "ills", then why should anyone be willing to contribute a dime? How about drone strikes in Yemen? Is that "solving society's ills"? I don't get to specify what programs my tax dollars fund, and I find it naive to think that taxes "help people", they certainly aren't helping the people in Yemen. >Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. Is it really good will at all if someone puts a gun to your head? If you really care and want help someone do you really give a rat's ass what other people are doing? Do you donate blood and then think "Why didn't that asshole over there donate their blood? Why is it on ME to donate blood! That's it!! I've had it, if they aren't going to donate then neither will I!". >For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''. Maybe others will follow suit if they lead by example. Maybe the billionaire's who want to pay more taxes should just cut a check to the IRS and persuade their billionaire friends to do the same, rather than threatening them with violence.
SantalBlush 7y ago
>why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? Because it's a Nash equilibrium. Government enforcement can adjust for these, which creates a more optimal outcome for society. Without enforcement, everyone will become a free rider in the long run.
Zarel 7y ago
> why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? In general, this is to solve a coordination problem. Imagine in the Prisoners' Dilemma (you would rather defect than cooperate, but you would rather everyone cooperate than everyone defect), you're at an equilibrium where everyone defects. If you cooperate, it just makes yourself worse off. But if you pass a law forcing everyone to cooperate, then everyone is better off. Overpaying the IRS is a lot like cooperating in the Prisoners' Dilemma – if you're the only one who does it, it hurts you more than it helps the rest of the world (even if you wanted to help the rest of the world, it would be more efficient just to donate it directly to charity, or even start a charity yourself – which is unsurprisingly what most wealthy people actually do in that situation). If only you donate $10m to the IRS, you might cause $5m of good in the world (50% is an example and not intended as an actual estimate of government efficiency - the math works similarly with any percentage) - you'd rather just donate it to charity. But if you raise taxes by $10m for 1000 wealthy people, the $10m you spend could cause $5000m of good in the world, making it well worth it.
- wolco 7y ago
  If you raise taxes and ask everyone to pay 10 million Warren is still top dog. Time to put his wealth where his mouth is if he believes in equality.
simion314 7y ago
Then there should be no taxes at all and we all will live from the mercy of others. Maybe people don't like to be take advantage of by egotistic community members, and we also (and seen this in monkeys) we want fairness, if everyone is dodging paying taxes using some loopholes I feel cheated and an idiotic if I do not use the same loopholes. This argument is so obvious wrong for me that I am inclined to believe is trolling.
- hitpointdrew 7y ago
  > if everyone is dodging paying taxes using some loopholes I feel cheated and an idiotic if I do not use the same loopholes. Yep, which is why income tax is stupid. You SHOULD use all legal means to pay as little tax a possible. A VAT tax would be the smart thing to do and would make it impossible for billion dollar corps. and billionaires to evade. That is how you fairly make sure everyone is contributing, not an income tax.

username444 7y ago

Primarily, I think, because an individual contribution/overpayment has almost zero effect in the big picture. It's the systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is like giving someone a bottle of water, when what they need is a well built. A compounding factor is that billionaires are by nature, competitive. Giving away half of your net income puts you at a disadvantage against other billionaires who can use that against you. Taking away half of everybody's net income keeps the playing field level.

Angostura 7y ago

> Not only this but the IRS allows you to over pay if you want to. If you really WANT to pay more in taxes you can! Just cut them a check, why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? I hear this mantra time often - sometimes in relation to charity, sometimes in the context of climate change action ('if it bothers you, why not just cycle to work?'. ) There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''.

wolco 7y ago
It's ego driven. I won't give up my money until everyone else does. If you really want to give more, than do. If you want to make sure you are still in top then stop..
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  Taxation is actually a major topic in economic research, and it involves a lot more than someone's ego.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Taxation as a topic isn't ego driven. But this is. He basicly says.. I think rich people like me should pay more. But I won't because my friends will have more than me and I will lose my status.
hitpointdrew 7y ago
>There is a big difference between an individual saying "here have some of my cash" and an individual saying "I think people like me should pay more tax". Yeah, one relies upon the threat of violence, the other one doesn't. I prefer minimizing the violent threats. >First, there's there question of effectiveness: A donation by one individual isn't going to solve society's ills, much better to have a plurality of people making smaller contributions. What specific "ill" are you trying to solve? Eliminate the national debt? Free college for all? Because taxing the wealthiest 1% at 100% isn't going to be enough. And if you can't specifically identify "society's ills" and an dollar amount needed to correct said "ills", then why should anyone be willing to contribute a dime? How about drone strikes in Yemen? Is that "solving society's ills"? I don't get to specify what programs my tax dollars fund, and I find it naive to think that taxes "help people", they certainly aren't helping the people in Yemen. >Then there's the human feeling as to what is 'fair'. Is it really fair that I solely tackle the burden of solving an ill while others in a similar position to me leach off my good will?'. Is it really good will at all if someone puts a gun to your head? If you really care and want help someone do you really give a rat's ass what other people are doing? Do you donate blood and then think "Why didn't that asshole over there donate their blood? Why is it on ME to donate blood! That's it!! I've had it, if they aren't going to donate then neither will I!". >For this reasons and others people are more likely to say 'we should all pay more' rather than just saying 'take a pile of my cash''. Maybe others will follow suit if they lead by example. Maybe the billionaire's who want to pay more taxes should just cut a check to the IRS and persuade their billionaire friends to do the same, rather than threatening them with violence.

SantalBlush 7y ago

>why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? Because it's a Nash equilibrium. Government enforcement can adjust for these, which creates a more optimal outcome for society. Without enforcement, everyone will become a free rider in the long run.

Zarel 7y ago

> why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? In general, this is to solve a coordination problem. Imagine in the Prisoners' Dilemma (you would rather defect than cooperate, but you would rather everyone cooperate than everyone defect), you're at an equilibrium where everyone defects. If you cooperate, it just makes yourself worse off. But if you pass a law forcing everyone to cooperate, then everyone is better off. Overpaying the IRS is a lot like cooperating in the Prisoners' Dilemma – if you're the only one who does it, it hurts you more than it helps the rest of the world (even if you wanted to help the rest of the world, it would be more efficient just to donate it directly to charity, or even start a charity yourself – which is unsurprisingly what most wealthy people actually do in that situation). If only you donate $10m to the IRS, you might cause $5m of good in the world (50% is an example and not intended as an actual estimate of government efficiency - the math works similarly with any percentage) - you'd rather just donate it to charity. But if you raise taxes by $10m for 1000 wealthy people, the $10m you spend could cause $5000m of good in the world, making it well worth it.

wolco 7y ago
If you raise taxes and ask everyone to pay 10 million Warren is still top dog. Time to put his wealth where his mouth is if he believes in equality.

simion314 7y ago

Then there should be no taxes at all and we all will live from the mercy of others. Maybe people don't like to be take advantage of by egotistic community members, and we also (and seen this in monkeys) we want fairness, if everyone is dodging paying taxes using some loopholes I feel cheated and an idiotic if I do not use the same loopholes. This argument is so obvious wrong for me that I am inclined to believe is trolling.

hitpointdrew 7y ago
> if everyone is dodging paying taxes using some loopholes I feel cheated and an idiotic if I do not use the same loopholes. Yep, which is why income tax is stupid. You SHOULD use all legal means to pay as little tax a possible. A VAT tax would be the smart thing to do and would make it impossible for billion dollar corps. and billionaires to evade. That is how you fairly make sure everyone is contributing, not an income tax.