9 ms·

Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, an

Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve. The "tax/soak the rich" notion seems almost entirely punitive, not productive. Yeah Musk has $billions, he's also creating thousands of jobs (direct & indirect), making the expensive affordable, improving environment, etc - and able to because he's very rich. Even the "mean" rich create jobs & markets etc that gov't can't.

noahth 7y ago
Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. The way we accomplish that is through government. Elon Musk is not improving the environment, he's launching cars into space for giggles while mistreating his workers.
- ColanR 7y ago
  > Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'. Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend. I trust them a lot less than I trust a rich philanthropist.
  - noahth 7y ago
    No thanks! The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others. Everyone deserves an equal say in the allocation of resources. It pains me to say that this must include even those who are willing to exploit other people to amass resources.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      By what reasoning does someone deserve a say in the allocation of something they made no contribution to producing? How would you feel if somebody came to your house, ate your food and slept on your bed, because they felt they deserved a say in how those resources were allocated?
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others Citation very much needed. I'd say "luck given the presence of opportunity and ability", perhaps - but luck alone is certainly not enough. (Or else why do lottery winners do so poorly?) As for "the willingness to exploit others", is this universally true? Are performers exploiting their audiences? Companies their customers? Their workers? Their vendors? I think that would be trivially true for some definitions of "exploit", but that is not the definition of exploit that most people would tend to think of.
  - hnhg 7y ago
    Isn't that what lobby groups do anyway? Seems like this is somewhat covered by the current political system.
  - wycy 7y ago
    That's what we have now. The more resources (money) you have, the more say (speech) you get. Citizens United.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'. This makes the huge assumption that "the market" is already equitably rewarding talent with money. It is not. Luck, heritage (inherited wealth and power), and race/gender all skew how much you can amass and the effects are exponential, not linear.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      That might still result in a better mapping of resources to ability than dividing resources equally among the population, though.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    > it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend The rules they run by are created by your elected representatives.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it. Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason. All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth. Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      There's a huge difference. Kings and dictators get power through war and violence. Musk got rich through making and selling things people want. Surely you see the difference between war and commerce.
      - zpallin 7y ago
        Well actually no. Kings and Dictators also gain power by being opportunistic in the same way as Musk. They begin by amassing social power, and then at the right moment they take over. See the Medici family of Florence, or the East India Company. War is not the only means for domination. Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender." Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.
        7y ago
  - tangent128 7y ago
    How is the ability to amass resources relevant to competence in determining the appropriate allocation? That's like saying that winning a game makes you competent to referee it.
    - logicchains 7y ago
      You amass resources by investing (allocating) them well. If you invest poorly, you lose what you invested. Over time, the person who invested best will have the most resources.
  - hedvig 7y ago
    His dad somehow obtained rights to mines in Africa, you're going to tell me he "figured out how to make a ton of money" with that kind of start?
- logicchains 7y ago
  Resources don't just appear out of thin air, someone has to invest in producing/creating/mining them. Why should somebody who made no contribution to creating something have any say in how it's used?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hnhg 7y ago
You raise an interesting point, and I'd like to follow it further with some numbers across job creation, charity, arts funding, etc, so I can follow things more closely? Also, how do contributions to these differ across the rich? Are there a couple of 'whales' who keep the numbers high while the other freeload or are they all equally contributing in this efficient manner? It's also somewhat implicit (correct me if I'm wrong) in your post that government spending and voluntary contributions from the super rich are almost mutually exclusive. To argue devil's advocate, if that's not the case, both can coexist and the overall amount goes up. One last point, I would like the super rich to be taxed at the same proportion as the middle class. I know wealth isn't linearly distributed but I do expect the relative tax bill to be - would you say that's punitive?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
s9w 7y ago
In that case no one should pay taxes.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Exactly.
AlexandrB 7y ago
> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not. > Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs. Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them." Is this actually true? At having that much money you can hire someone to be competent for you in wealth management.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >It's not like it [democracy] is really an admirable state of affairs. So, what is an "admirable state of affairs" if democracy is so objectionable to you?
    - ctdonath 7y ago
      Individual liberty. Individuals choosing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, rather than being told at implied gunpoint to do what a bunch of ignorant strangers, or a tyrannical dictator, decided.
      - 7y ago
alphabettsy 7y ago
Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Allowing the rich to choose what organizations and causes are worth supporting is certainly not Democratic. For example, you have private schools getting massive amounts of donations from Alumni, while the local elementary is shutting off water fountains because of lead exposure and they can’t afford to update the plumbing. I also don’t think the kids in the school with books so old they don’t mention 9/11 care about the millions donated to the art museum.
- ctdonath 7y ago
  Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? They shouldn't. All should pay $0 taxes. We expect adults be financially independent after a few decades. The gov't, with its ability to literally make money along with other unique powers, should be financially independent after 225 years.
  - hnhg 7y ago
    A gift to enemies of the USA :)
  - bonoboTP 7y ago
    The gov't isn't supposed to be some entity on its own but an orchestrator of society, balancing things, running ahead of feedback loop effects etc. The whole concept of "financially independent govt" sounds like they are spending the tax earnings just on themselves. Of course they have overhead costs, but the main function of the govt is to redistribute. They are supposed to be like the heart that pumps the blood around, and doesn't just use it up all for itself.
    - ctdonath 7y ago
      the main function of the govt is to redistribute. Absolutely not. That's communism, which never does - and never can - turn out well. The USA was founded on the main function of gov't is to protect individual rights - that each knows & serves his own interests better than strangers.
wycy 7y ago
Multimillionaires and billionaires constantly donating to the Harvard endowment while public education--and even other private schools--is certainly overhead free, but far from an efficient use of resources. Podcast about this specific phenomenon: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-million http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-...
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve." Is this actually true? The vast majority of research and innovation is gov't funded. The vast majority of tuition reimbursement and educational spending is gov't. The US Gov't is the biggest employer in the nation of the USA. Medicare, food stamps, disability spending, and social security altogether dwarf any charity that the rich is doing in the US. What is the rich doing to the public benefit that governments aren't dwarfing them in doing? I'm super baffled here.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > Is this actually true? Not even remotely. Not even in the same ballpark as true. Not even the same sport.
xtian 7y ago
These individuals accumulated their massive wealth by utilizing the infrastructure and economic substrate of our society. So the people who make up that society have a right to decide democratically how some of those resources are allocated. That’s the deal. Even assuming you are right, there are many more important values than mere efficiency. Governments are the only bodies which can realistically pursue the values and needs of the people in the face of massively powerful multinational corporations. Of course there is always room for improving the effectiveness of government, but the alternative is blind faith that the super-rich know best for us, despite their limited perspective and many well-documented flaws and biases.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate, billionaires just made better use of it to generate more value, so why should they have to pay more?
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    They create far more negative externalities? They literally can and do pay for laws written in their favor, to entrench their interests, limit their competition, and adjudicate their behavior? See, even they agree they should "pay more." And because obviously they have more to lose if government services decline. They are the primary driver of demand for government services. Many of them need a functioning military, aviation, infrastructure, law enforcement, patent office, and other services to continue to make their billions. If all the highways, gas pipelines, airports, Internet backbone and the Pacific Fleet in America crumbled to dust tomorrow, I'd be greatly unhappy but WalMart, Amazon, and Facebook would be ... well let's just say disproportionately affected.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    Because they have the ability to do so and so we can create more value in the future. Also, doesn't it seem fair that those who benefit the most from society contribute back the most? > Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate Lastly, this point is more thornier, but I think it is easy to say that this isn't true across the board.
locopati 7y ago
And they externalize the impacts of their work. The Waltons pay very little to their employees such that their employees must rely on public services. If the public services weren't there, the Waltons aren't suddenly going to pay people more out of the goodness of their hearts. You can substitute a lot of corporations here (Amazon outsourcing all of their fulfillment operations for example). Resource extraction companies pollute even with the regulations in place. How much worse would it be without those regulations?

noahth 7y ago

Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. The way we accomplish that is through government. Elon Musk is not improving the environment, he's launching cars into space for giggles while mistreating his workers.

ColanR 7y ago
> Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources. How about we amend that to, 'Everyone deserves a say in the allocation of resources, in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'. Elon Musk figured out how to make a ton of money; he has more right to determine its use than some bureaucrat in an office. You say that government is our method of collective allocation, but it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend. I trust them a lot less than I trust a rich philanthropist.
- noahth 7y ago
  No thanks! The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others. Everyone deserves an equal say in the allocation of resources. It pains me to say that this must include even those who are willing to exploit other people to amass resources.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    By what reasoning does someone deserve a say in the allocation of something they made no contribution to producing? How would you feel if somebody came to your house, ate your food and slept on your bed, because they felt they deserved a say in how those resources were allocated?
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > The "demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources" is mostly a matter of luck, with a small dash of willingness to exploit others Citation very much needed. I'd say "luck given the presence of opportunity and ability", perhaps - but luck alone is certainly not enough. (Or else why do lottery winners do so poorly?) As for "the willingness to exploit others", is this universally true? Are performers exploiting their audiences? Companies their customers? Their workers? Their vendors? I think that would be trivially true for some definitions of "exploit", but that is not the definition of exploit that most people would tend to think of.
- hnhg 7y ago
  Isn't that what lobby groups do anyway? Seems like this is somewhat covered by the current political system.
- wycy 7y ago
  That's what we have now. The more resources (money) you have, the more say (speech) you get. Citizens United.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > in proportion to their demonstrated ability to amass and manage resources'. This makes the huge assumption that "the market" is already equitably rewarding talent with money. It is not. Luck, heritage (inherited wealth and power), and race/gender all skew how much you can amass and the effects are exponential, not linear.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    That might still result in a better mapping of resources to ability than dividing resources equally among the population, though.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > it's really unelected officials doing what lobbyists recommend The rules they run by are created by your elected representatives.
- zpallin 7y ago
  That logic justifies Kings and Dictators; if someone, by force, amasses total power over a people, then according to your rule they deserve to control it. Kings and Dictators get overthrown for a reason. All people deserve to have a say in society, even if they don't want it, use it poorly, or use it reluctantly. It's not because human rights should matter to all individuals, it is because the implementation of human rights and equality is a better guarantee of social stability, and therefore a better conduit for trade and growth. Kings and Dictators open up a society to turmoil and instability, which is bad for markets. There is no reason for a society not to guarantee social stability through measures of equality at this point.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    There's a huge difference. Kings and dictators get power through war and violence. Musk got rich through making and selling things people want. Surely you see the difference between war and commerce.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      Well actually no. Kings and Dictators also gain power by being opportunistic in the same way as Musk. They begin by amassing social power, and then at the right moment they take over. See the Medici family of Florence, or the East India Company. War is not the only means for domination. Also, the only difference between war and commerce is the level of violence applied. War is an exchange, just as commerce is. The only difference is what is being offered in the exchange. In commerce "I will give you this for that." And in war, it's the same: "I will give you my bullets for your surrender." Lastly, Elon Musk didn't just get rich through selling things people want. No one believes that this works. Henry Ford even said as much: "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have asked for faster horses." Musk gained his power by being opportunistic. He jumped into opportunities at the right time, competitively fought to get the engineers he needed, and punched his way through almost every problem he faced. The product quality is a byproduct of his ruthlessness as a capitalist. Don't forget it.
      - 7y ago
- tangent128 7y ago
  How is the ability to amass resources relevant to competence in determining the appropriate allocation? That's like saying that winning a game makes you competent to referee it.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    You amass resources by investing (allocating) them well. If you invest poorly, you lose what you invested. Over time, the person who invested best will have the most resources.
- hedvig 7y ago
  His dad somehow obtained rights to mines in Africa, you're going to tell me he "figured out how to make a ton of money" with that kind of start?
logicchains 7y ago
Resources don't just appear out of thin air, someone has to invest in producing/creating/mining them. Why should somebody who made no contribution to creating something have any say in how it's used?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hnhg 7y ago

You raise an interesting point, and I'd like to follow it further with some numbers across job creation, charity, arts funding, etc, so I can follow things more closely? Also, how do contributions to these differ across the rich? Are there a couple of 'whales' who keep the numbers high while the other freeload or are they all equally contributing in this efficient manner? It's also somewhat implicit (correct me if I'm wrong) in your post that government spending and voluntary contributions from the super rich are almost mutually exclusive. To argue devil's advocate, if that's not the case, both can coexist and the overall amount goes up. One last point, I would like the super rich to be taxed at the same proportion as the middle class. I know wealth isn't linearly distributed but I do expect the relative tax bill to be - would you say that's punitive?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

s9w 7y ago

In that case no one should pay taxes.

ctdonath 7y ago
Exactly.

AlexandrB 7y ago

> Why the notion that gov't should be the provider & arbiter of all? Because the government is democratically elected. Billionaires are not. > Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? [citation needed] In fact, there's an easy counter-example. Healthcare. More expensive than any public system, with worse outcomes for the general population.

thrower123 7y ago
Democracy just means you managed to convince more idiots to say A rather than B. It's not like it is really an admirable state of affairs. Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "Billionaires have to at least be competent enough to make their money, and shelter it from the thieving governments and other leeches that are trying to suck it away from them." Is this actually true? At having that much money you can hire someone to be competent for you in wealth management.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >It's not like it [democracy] is really an admirable state of affairs. So, what is an "admirable state of affairs" if democracy is so objectionable to you?
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    Individual liberty. Individuals choosing to engage in mutually beneficial activities, rather than being told at implied gunpoint to do what a bunch of ignorant strangers, or a tyrannical dictator, decided.
    - 7y ago

alphabettsy 7y ago

Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Allowing the rich to choose what organizations and causes are worth supporting is certainly not Democratic. For example, you have private schools getting massive amounts of donations from Alumni, while the local elementary is shutting off water fountains because of lead exposure and they can’t afford to update the plumbing. I also don’t think the kids in the school with books so old they don’t mention 9/11 care about the millions donated to the art museum.

ctdonath 7y ago
Why should the average American pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? They shouldn't. All should pay $0 taxes. We expect adults be financially independent after a few decades. The gov't, with its ability to literally make money along with other unique powers, should be financially independent after 225 years.
- hnhg 7y ago
  A gift to enemies of the USA :)
- bonoboTP 7y ago
  The gov't isn't supposed to be some entity on its own but an orchestrator of society, balancing things, running ahead of feedback loop effects etc. The whole concept of "financially independent govt" sounds like they are spending the tax earnings just on themselves. Of course they have overhead costs, but the main function of the govt is to redistribute. They are supposed to be like the heart that pumps the blood around, and doesn't just use it up all for itself.
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    the main function of the govt is to redistribute. Absolutely not. That's communism, which never does - and never can - turn out well. The USA was founded on the main function of gov't is to protect individual rights - that each knows & serves his own interests better than strangers.

wycy 7y ago

Multimillionaires and billionaires constantly donating to the Harvard endowment while public education--and even other private schools--is certainly overhead free, but far from an efficient use of resources. Podcast about this specific phenomenon: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-million http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/06-my-little-hundred-...

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

"Why do none of the "they don't pay enough taxes" crowd not realize the rich do so much of, and more efficiently, what the gov't purports to with massive overhead? Job creation, charity, arts funding, lowering costs of necessities, etc - and at levels & locations which gov't would never achieve." Is this actually true? The vast majority of research and innovation is gov't funded. The vast majority of tuition reimbursement and educational spending is gov't. The US Gov't is the biggest employer in the nation of the USA. Medicare, food stamps, disability spending, and social security altogether dwarf any charity that the rich is doing in the US. What is the rich doing to the public benefit that governments aren't dwarfing them in doing? I'm super baffled here.

mcphage 7y ago
> Is this actually true? Not even remotely. Not even in the same ballpark as true. Not even the same sport.

xtian 7y ago

These individuals accumulated their massive wealth by utilizing the infrastructure and economic substrate of our society. So the people who make up that society have a right to decide democratically how some of those resources are allocated. That’s the deal. Even assuming you are right, there are many more important values than mere efficiency. Governments are the only bodies which can realistically pursue the values and needs of the people in the face of massively powerful multinational corporations. Of course there is always room for improving the effectiveness of government, but the alternative is blind faith that the super-rich know best for us, despite their limited perspective and many well-documented flaws and biases.

logicchains 7y ago
Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate, billionaires just made better use of it to generate more value, so why should they have to pay more?
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  They create far more negative externalities? They literally can and do pay for laws written in their favor, to entrench their interests, limit their competition, and adjudicate their behavior? See, even they agree they should "pay more." And because obviously they have more to lose if government services decline. They are the primary driver of demand for government services. Many of them need a functioning military, aviation, infrastructure, law enforcement, patent office, and other services to continue to make their billions. If all the highways, gas pipelines, airports, Internet backbone and the Pacific Fleet in America crumbled to dust tomorrow, I'd be greatly unhappy but WalMart, Amazon, and Facebook would be ... well let's just say disproportionately affected.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Because they have the ability to do so and so we can create more value in the future. Also, doesn't it seem fair that those who benefit the most from society contribute back the most? > Everybody had equal access to the infrastructure and economic substrate Lastly, this point is more thornier, but I think it is easy to say that this isn't true across the board.

locopati 7y ago

And they externalize the impacts of their work. The Waltons pay very little to their employees such that their employees must rely on public services. If the public services weren't there, the Waltons aren't suddenly going to pay people more out of the goodness of their hearts. You can substitute a lot of corporations here (Amazon outsourcing all of their fulfillment operations for example). Resource extraction companies pollute even with the regulations in place. How much worse would it be without those regulations?