6 ms·

What a surprise. I'd love to be a billionaire, but I like Sanders opinions about whether they should exist. I'd love to be worth enough for it to hurt me, but I

What a surprise. I'd love to be a billionaire, but I like Sanders opinions about whether they should exist. I'd love to be worth enough for it to hurt me, but I like Warren's wealth tax idea. I'd love to pay lower taxes, or less progressive taxes, but I'm happy to support those less fortunate. As a matter of fact, I'm not even a single-issue voter! Perhaps most controversially, I think altruism is good for society. Shocking, I know. What a crazy idea, voting against your own interest. gasp!

mc32 7y ago
>”What a crazy idea, voting against your own interest. gasp!” I know you mean it differently but people in the middle class get accused of voting against their interests and it’s said as something negative in their political choices.
- ajross 7y ago
  Only in the same sense that's happening here, though. I assume you're talking about takes like "Why don't working class white voters vote for democrats?", which isn't fundamentally any different as I see it. It's a legitimate question, and the answers (in both cases) tell us things about how politics work in a way that simple analysis doesn't. And FWIW: as far as tone, this one seems more "accusatory" to me. There's a clear hypocrisy angle being teased in that headline, where the lefty takes tend to be more about exasperation on the part of the author.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The tone is accusatory because usually there is a classist dimension to the question. Why does a high income tech worker vote Democrat when that would cause her own taxes to go up? The question implies noble intent on the part of the tech worked: because it’s better for society as a whole. We don’t extend that charitable interpretation to the blue collar worker in Iowa. Why do they vote Republican even though Democrats are promising them government benefits? We don’t charitably assume it’s because they believe it’s better for the country in the long run. We assume it’s because they’re easily manipulated or too dumb to understand what’s in their own interest.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      I mean, I've heard blue collar workers ranting about how they finally got someone like Trump in to clean up Washington and now that "bitch Nancy Pelosi" is all over him. That's not a nuanced "better for the country" discussion. It was a real discussion, in a real factory, not a fake discussion in a fake coffee shop.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        “Better for the country” doesn’t have to be “nuanced.” “The best thing for America is god, guns, and capitalism” is not nuanced. It is, ultimately, an expression of values based on a belief about what will enhance national prosperity. (I could recount “real discussions” with folks in northern Virginia growing up, where they express sneering contempt for the folks in the “rest of Virginia.” I don’t think that’s relevant. Obviously race and class play a role in political disputes in the US. That doesn’t excuse making assumptions about why entire groups of people vote the way they do.)
    - ajross 7y ago
      OK, agreed, both sides have ample ability to manufacture outrage (I mean, come on: no one serious actually expresses the outrageous contempt you're imagining, that's 100% interpretation) over takes like this. I just don't see why it's remotely as asymmetric as you think it is. You don't think lefty folks get offended too?
      - jki275 7y ago
        The post you're replying to is presumably a high income left-leaning voter from the way they phrased the comment. They're literally expressing what you say doesn't exist quite clearly. And anyway your own candidate in 2016 famously called everyone that didn't agree with her "deplorable", and it's a common theme throughout left-leaning high income coastal communities to look down on those hicks in flyover country who are too dumb to vote democrat -- you realize the right didn't dream those up, right?
        7y ago
- fmajid 7y ago
  "A real patriot is the fellow who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works." -- Bill Vaughan
zozbot234 7y ago
Wealth taxes are actually bad for society, and especially bad for altruistic people who care about the less fortunate. A wealth tax is a tax on capital, period - and making capital more expensive hurts everyone, but it hugely hurts those who need capital the most. If you care about lowering inequality without hurting folks more than you have to, what you want is a mildly-progressive consumption tax. (I.e. an income tax which exempts most savings and investments from counting as income.) (Oh, and perhaps get rid of assorted insanity such as Prop 13 in CA, so that the real estate market can become functional, and those who own lots of expensive real estate pay their fair share.)
- epistasis 7y ago
  > A wealth tax is a tax on capital, period - and making capital more expensive hurts everyone, but it hugely hurts those who need capital the most. This doesn't really follow at all, and is directly in contradiction with your desire to get rid of Prop 13. Property taxes are the most common wealth tax!
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Wrong. Property taxes mostly bear on land, not capital. Especially in heavily urbanized areas with lots of land value, as we see in CA. Landed property is not "wealth", it's just undue appropriation of something that is created by the community. Land taxes reverse this undue appropriation and let the community that actually created that wealth benefit from it, as it should. It's like the opposite of a wealth tax!
    - cartoonworld 7y ago
      Well said. The taxes on the value created by the labor of those involved in the production and consumption of the product of said labor(s) is indeed a fair and just re-appropriation. Likewise, the results of hoarding the vast wealth in the forms of property, land, legal entities that operate and depend on these same communities which generated them is damagingly extractive. We should, too, somewhat reverse the hoarding of vast wealth and let our communities reap some benefit from the treasures they are capable of producing.
praptak 7y ago
How's that even against your own interest?
rehasu 7y ago
It is not voting against your own interest if your interest is a fair world and not highest amount of private money.
ianai 7y ago
A strong reason for an altruistic vote is precisely that you might end up needing it yourself someday.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
foogazi 7y ago
No one votes or acts against their interests People have different interests or motivations
RickJWagner 7y ago
It's all fun and games until it actually becomes law. Then it'd actually happen, and tech workers would be paid like everyone else. It's sort of like the billionaires that beg for higher taxes, yet can't quite find a way to just write the check unless their politician makes them. Or the media stars who plead nonstop for climate change, yet live in giant houses and travel solo on jets.

mc32 7y ago

>”What a crazy idea, voting against your own interest. gasp!” I know you mean it differently but people in the middle class get accused of voting against their interests and it’s said as something negative in their political choices.

ajross 7y ago
Only in the same sense that's happening here, though. I assume you're talking about takes like "Why don't working class white voters vote for democrats?", which isn't fundamentally any different as I see it. It's a legitimate question, and the answers (in both cases) tell us things about how politics work in a way that simple analysis doesn't. And FWIW: as far as tone, this one seems more "accusatory" to me. There's a clear hypocrisy angle being teased in that headline, where the lefty takes tend to be more about exasperation on the part of the author.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The tone is accusatory because usually there is a classist dimension to the question. Why does a high income tech worker vote Democrat when that would cause her own taxes to go up? The question implies noble intent on the part of the tech worked: because it’s better for society as a whole. We don’t extend that charitable interpretation to the blue collar worker in Iowa. Why do they vote Republican even though Democrats are promising them government benefits? We don’t charitably assume it’s because they believe it’s better for the country in the long run. We assume it’s because they’re easily manipulated or too dumb to understand what’s in their own interest.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I mean, I've heard blue collar workers ranting about how they finally got someone like Trump in to clean up Washington and now that "bitch Nancy Pelosi" is all over him. That's not a nuanced "better for the country" discussion. It was a real discussion, in a real factory, not a fake discussion in a fake coffee shop.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      “Better for the country” doesn’t have to be “nuanced.” “The best thing for America is god, guns, and capitalism” is not nuanced. It is, ultimately, an expression of values based on a belief about what will enhance national prosperity. (I could recount “real discussions” with folks in northern Virginia growing up, where they express sneering contempt for the folks in the “rest of Virginia.” I don’t think that’s relevant. Obviously race and class play a role in political disputes in the US. That doesn’t excuse making assumptions about why entire groups of people vote the way they do.)
  - ajross 7y ago
    OK, agreed, both sides have ample ability to manufacture outrage (I mean, come on: no one serious actually expresses the outrageous contempt you're imagining, that's 100% interpretation) over takes like this. I just don't see why it's remotely as asymmetric as you think it is. You don't think lefty folks get offended too?
    - jki275 7y ago
      The post you're replying to is presumably a high income left-leaning voter from the way they phrased the comment. They're literally expressing what you say doesn't exist quite clearly. And anyway your own candidate in 2016 famously called everyone that didn't agree with her "deplorable", and it's a common theme throughout left-leaning high income coastal communities to look down on those hicks in flyover country who are too dumb to vote democrat -- you realize the right didn't dream those up, right?
      - 7y ago
fmajid 7y ago
"A real patriot is the fellow who gets a parking ticket and rejoices that the system works." -- Bill Vaughan

zozbot234 7y ago

Wealth taxes are actually bad for society, and especially bad for altruistic people who care about the less fortunate. A wealth tax is a tax on capital, period - and making capital more expensive hurts everyone, but it hugely hurts those who need capital the most. If you care about lowering inequality without hurting folks more than you have to, what you want is a mildly-progressive consumption tax. (I.e. an income tax which exempts most savings and investments from counting as income.) (Oh, and perhaps get rid of assorted insanity such as Prop 13 in CA, so that the real estate market can become functional, and those who own lots of expensive real estate pay their fair share.)

epistasis 7y ago
> A wealth tax is a tax on capital, period - and making capital more expensive hurts everyone, but it hugely hurts those who need capital the most. This doesn't really follow at all, and is directly in contradiction with your desire to get rid of Prop 13. Property taxes are the most common wealth tax!
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Wrong. Property taxes mostly bear on land, not capital. Especially in heavily urbanized areas with lots of land value, as we see in CA. Landed property is not "wealth", it's just undue appropriation of something that is created by the community. Land taxes reverse this undue appropriation and let the community that actually created that wealth benefit from it, as it should. It's like the opposite of a wealth tax!
  - cartoonworld 7y ago
    Well said. The taxes on the value created by the labor of those involved in the production and consumption of the product of said labor(s) is indeed a fair and just re-appropriation. Likewise, the results of hoarding the vast wealth in the forms of property, land, legal entities that operate and depend on these same communities which generated them is damagingly extractive. We should, too, somewhat reverse the hoarding of vast wealth and let our communities reap some benefit from the treasures they are capable of producing.

praptak 7y ago

How's that even against your own interest?

rehasu 7y ago

It is not voting against your own interest if your interest is a fair world and not highest amount of private money.

ianai 7y ago

A strong reason for an altruistic vote is precisely that you might end up needing it yourself someday.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

foogazi 7y ago

No one votes or acts against their interests People have different interests or motivations

RickJWagner 7y ago

It's all fun and games until it actually becomes law. Then it'd actually happen, and tech workers would be paid like everyone else. It's sort of like the billionaires that beg for higher taxes, yet can't quite find a way to just write the check unless their politician makes them. Or the media stars who plead nonstop for climate change, yet live in giant houses and travel solo on jets.