5 ms·

> Is the purpose of taxes to fund the government or punish the rich? Government exists because of and for society, and the purpose of taxes is to create the gr

> Is the purpose of taxes to fund the government or punish the rich? Government exists because of and for society, and the purpose of taxes is to create the greatest net benefit to society. Taxes are not to punish anyone, they are levied to fund services for society. Determining the optimum rate is complex and open to debate. But fairness is entirely irrelevant to the question. Whether the top marginal rate is 10%, or 90%, it should be whatever maximizes the usefulness to society. We have a capitalist economic system, and it works pretty well for us, but that doesn't mean anyone has an inherent natural right to their capital. When it comes down it, property rights are all fictitious and exist only because society says it does. It's hardly wrong for society to decide to recoup some of what it has created.

tptacek 7y ago
Right, but Rayiner didn't make any arguments about anyone's "inherent natural right to their capital" and I kind of doubt he believes in any such thing. His argument is subtler and much more important than that: if what we want are social services that resemble Europe's more than our own, what needs to change aren't the taxes on the top 1% of earners, but rather increased taxes on the middle class. Since I've seen Rayiner argue repeatedly on HN that European-style universal health care is a good idea, it stands to reason that what he's saying is that taxes need to increase across the board, not that any one cohort of payers needs to be shielded from increase.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >if what we want are social services that resemble Europe's more than our own, what needs to change aren't the taxes on the top 1% of earners, but rather increased taxes on the middle class. How about increased wealth taxation on the 1% of earners, and the 0.1% of owners?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    It might work as punishment for some wealthy people, but won't bring enough extra income to significantly expand government spending.
ameister14 7y ago
>We have a capitalist economic system, and it works pretty well for us, but that doesn't mean anyone has an inherent natural right to their capital. When it comes down it, property rights are all fictitious and exist only because society says it does. It's hardly wrong for society to decide to recoup some of what it has created. I fundamentally disagree with that point. Government exists to protect people and their property. People have a natural right to themselves and to an extent their property - rights do not come from society, rights are internal and society functions to abridge them where beneficial.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I fundamentally disagree with that point. Government exists to protect people and their property. Well, your property is not others property. So protecting someone having X property, means disallowing others to use that property. But what gives you or anybody the right to your property anyway? Aside from papers, which don't mean anything in terms of justice, moral, fairness, etc -- only in terms of legality? We were all caveman, naked and property less to begin with, so where did your rights to your property began? Even if you think the current market system is fair, the starting point was not equality + market system, but whatever arrangements happened at a time of colonial plundering (off of native Americans), slavery, when even poor whites and women couldn't vote (the most part of US history), plus feudal arrangements (in most other places). Even if someone got their current property "fair and square" in 2019 selling stuff at the market, said property got its start (and ended to the people that have it) from conditions that were anything but fair and square - and not even very long ago. Before the abolition of slavery and universal vote, any kind of property arrangement (and any kind of inheritance and all the second and n-th order property arrangements since them), is unjust and moot. So, as a member of a society, I don't see why someone should be allowed to own huge amounts of real estate or money... >rights do not come from society, rights are internal and society functions to abridge them where beneficial. Internal to what? If someone has the power they can stomp on all your rights, including your "right to life" (as has happened in history time and again), and they and people would just laugh their asses off when they hear your complaint that you have "internal rights". You only have rights because society collectively secured those rights, and gave them to its members (and it took lots of fighting to secure them in the first place). Heck, if you were a black person, without Rosa Parks, you might still not have the right to many things. And it wasn't much better for the average white throughout history. And it wasn't even that it was thought of as injustice. To make such things be thought of as injustice (instead of having justice be whatever the king of lords etc say), also took a lot of fighting and ideological work. You could be killed as a slave that tries to escape, and you wouldn't even be considered just, but just a low-life critical, to the good law abiding citizens... Nothing comes from nature or "internally".

tptacek 7y ago

Right, but Rayiner didn't make any arguments about anyone's "inherent natural right to their capital" and I kind of doubt he believes in any such thing. His argument is subtler and much more important than that: if what we want are social services that resemble Europe's more than our own, what needs to change aren't the taxes on the top 1% of earners, but rather increased taxes on the middle class. Since I've seen Rayiner argue repeatedly on HN that European-style universal health care is a good idea, it stands to reason that what he's saying is that taxes need to increase across the board, not that any one cohort of payers needs to be shielded from increase.

coldtea 7y ago
>if what we want are social services that resemble Europe's more than our own, what needs to change aren't the taxes on the top 1% of earners, but rather increased taxes on the middle class. How about increased wealth taxation on the 1% of earners, and the 0.1% of owners?
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  It might work as punishment for some wealthy people, but won't bring enough extra income to significantly expand government spending.

ameister14 7y ago

>We have a capitalist economic system, and it works pretty well for us, but that doesn't mean anyone has an inherent natural right to their capital. When it comes down it, property rights are all fictitious and exist only because society says it does. It's hardly wrong for society to decide to recoup some of what it has created. I fundamentally disagree with that point. Government exists to protect people and their property. People have a natural right to themselves and to an extent their property - rights do not come from society, rights are internal and society functions to abridge them where beneficial.

coldtea 7y ago
>I fundamentally disagree with that point. Government exists to protect people and their property. Well, your property is not others property. So protecting someone having X property, means disallowing others to use that property. But what gives you or anybody the right to your property anyway? Aside from papers, which don't mean anything in terms of justice, moral, fairness, etc -- only in terms of legality? We were all caveman, naked and property less to begin with, so where did your rights to your property began? Even if you think the current market system is fair, the starting point was not equality + market system, but whatever arrangements happened at a time of colonial plundering (off of native Americans), slavery, when even poor whites and women couldn't vote (the most part of US history), plus feudal arrangements (in most other places). Even if someone got their current property "fair and square" in 2019 selling stuff at the market, said property got its start (and ended to the people that have it) from conditions that were anything but fair and square - and not even very long ago. Before the abolition of slavery and universal vote, any kind of property arrangement (and any kind of inheritance and all the second and n-th order property arrangements since them), is unjust and moot. So, as a member of a society, I don't see why someone should be allowed to own huge amounts of real estate or money... >rights do not come from society, rights are internal and society functions to abridge them where beneficial. Internal to what? If someone has the power they can stomp on all your rights, including your "right to life" (as has happened in history time and again), and they and people would just laugh their asses off when they hear your complaint that you have "internal rights". You only have rights because society collectively secured those rights, and gave them to its members (and it took lots of fighting to secure them in the first place). Heck, if you were a black person, without Rosa Parks, you might still not have the right to many things. And it wasn't much better for the average white throughout history. And it wasn't even that it was thought of as injustice. To make such things be thought of as injustice (instead of having justice be whatever the king of lords etc say), also took a lot of fighting and ideological work. You could be killed as a slave that tries to escape, and you wouldn't even be considered just, but just a low-life critical, to the good law abiding citizens... Nothing comes from nature or "internally".