4 ms·

Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra taxes are very different things. You probably know this, as do most people making

by creato 7y ago

Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra taxes are very different things. You probably know this, as do most people making this argument.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Yes, they are - one is just and the other is unjust.
merpnderp 7y ago
No. People would take them seriously if they volunteered the money. Otherwise they’re the people complaining the Earth is on fire while vacationing around the world, burning through a thousand people’s CO2 budget.
- throwaway100773 7y ago
  Rules for thee but not for me.
ericmay 7y ago
Why are they two different things? If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? Leadership would be paying extra taxes regardless of whether or not the taxes are raised across the board. It feels kind of slimy to me to say "oh yes we should all pay extra taxes but I won't do so unless the government officially raises my tax rate" - uh so you mean you don't believe in paying more taxes unless the government forces you to? Like the rest of us? It is definitely more along the lines of moral posturing to me. At least I know where someone stands when they don't want taxes to be raised.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? They're talking about solving problems on a scale of a country the size of the US. A few extra bucks from some small number of wealthy people is meaningless.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    So you are against raising taxes on them?
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
      - ameister14 7y ago
        Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
        EpicEng 7y ago
        Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
        throwaway100773 7y ago
        This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
- OGWhales 7y ago
  >why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? To ensure everyone does it. Are you suggesting no rich people should support higher taxes unless they volunteer more tax money now? Or what exactly is your point here other than a "ha ha, gotcha!"?
  - ericmay 7y ago
    > Are you suggesting no rich people should support higher taxes unless they volunteer more tax money now? My ire is more directed at billionaires who do such things as publicity stunts as they lobby to lower taxes - especially for their corporations, but essentially, yes. Nobody forces people to use loopholes to lower their tax rates or take deductions, or use a variety of different methods to lower their tax burdens. If they think taxes should be higher on themselves, why do they need to wait until the government raises the tax rate? * I pay $100,000 in taxes but I think I should be paying $200,000 because I'm altruistic (more likely you want to be well-liked and seem like a good person) * Here is a link to pay an extra $100,000 in taxes * ??? I'm not sure how that's a "gotcha". If you say you believe in it, what's stopping you?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - gmadsen 7y ago
      I don't think the argument is that a rich individual should pay more in taxes to feel personally more altruistic. There is specific policy that can only be enacted if all wealthy people pay more in taxes, such as medicare for all, or even getting rid of the deficit. A single rich contributor does literally nothing to change policy when they volunteer extra in taxes
      - ericmay 7y ago
        So then say “I support Medicare for all” not “I don’t pay enough taxes”. If you’re wealthy enough you can just pay for health insurance for a select number of people while protecting your wealth. There are a lot of things you can do that are not “complain but do nothing”.
- resonantjacket5 7y ago
  Everyone's needs to be raised at the same time or it's useless. It's like in a race imagine the fastest route tramples a bunch of flowers. If the individual agrees to go around them they'll lose. There's nothing wrong with proposing something that as a group one should do that as an individual makes no sense
  - ericmay 7y ago
    But they do it individually once it's implemented. If they pay (just making this up) 10% in taxes why not advocate for higher taxes and then just go ahead and pay extra and do what you believe in while also advocating for higher taxes? It's like if I buy a big SUV and say that I think we should all drive EVs but I'm not going to do it until someone makes me, but I really believe it! Uh. Ok. Sell the SUV and buy the EV?
- SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
  If the US wants denuclearization it should dismantle its own nuclear arms. -Khrushchev, probably
- creato 7y ago
  You are basically saying paying taxes should be voluntary. Do you really, honestly think that is actually going to work? This is basically why the first iteration of the United States fell apart: the Articles of Confederation basically made taxes voluntary, and they only had to convince 13 states to pay them! Spoiler alert, they couldn't do it, and the first US government collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Taxation_and_commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Taxa...
tathougies 7y ago
> You probably know this, as do most people making this argument. Yes, but this is not a valid criticism of the argument. If you believe in raising taxes on yourself and people like you, then you ought to lead by example, and voluntarily pay the extra taxes you would like to pay yourself, while proposing the law forces others to do the same. For example, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that the law mandate parents care for their children while neglecting my own. Similarly, the 'ultra-wealthy' who are arguing for higher taxes while not voluntarily paying them are hypocrites. You probably know this, as do most making this argument.

by creato 7y ago

Being willing to raise taxes on yourself, and unilaterally volunteering extra taxes are very different things. You probably know this, as do most people making this argument.

commandlinefan 7y ago

Yes, they are - one is just and the other is unjust.

merpnderp 7y ago

No. People would take them seriously if they volunteered the money. Otherwise they’re the people complaining the Earth is on fire while vacationing around the world, burning through a thousand people’s CO2 budget.

throwaway100773 7y ago
Rules for thee but not for me.

ericmay 7y ago

Why are they two different things? If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? Leadership would be paying extra taxes regardless of whether or not the taxes are raised across the board. It feels kind of slimy to me to say "oh yes we should all pay extra taxes but I won't do so unless the government officially raises my tax rate" - uh so you mean you don't believe in paying more taxes unless the government forces you to? Like the rest of us? It is definitely more along the lines of moral posturing to me. At least I know where someone stands when they don't want taxes to be raised.

EpicEng 7y ago
>If you believe that instead of giving to charity or something that the best use of your money is taxes, why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? They're talking about solving problems on a scale of a country the size of the US. A few extra bucks from some small number of wealthy people is meaningless.
- ameister14 7y ago
  So you are against raising taxes on them?
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Not sure how you came up with that. No, I'm for significant tax increases on extremely high income. What I was saying is that change to the tax code is needed because depending on the good will of the rich is just about the most naive idea ever.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      Well, I got it from you saying that you think that a few extra bucks from a small group of people won't make a difference in response to someone suggesting the amount the rich spent on charity could be given to the government instead. That implies that the tens of billions of dollars spent by the rich on charitable donations wouldn't make an impact if given to the government, doesn't it? If that's the case, why tax them for that amount?
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        Tens of billions? No, it wouldn't make a difference, and I think it's highly debatable that those tens of billions would be better off in the hands of the fed. I imagine the people actually giving away billions of dollars don't feel that it would be. The 2019 federal budget was $4.407 trillion. let's say we're talking about $20B in voluntary tax overpayment (good luck with that!), which would represent .004914% of the budget. That would pay about 3% of the interest on US debt in the last year. It would change nothing. However, increase the marginal tax rate and you're talking about real money. Maybe in the meantime we can spend a little less on the military, but that's a tough sell too.
        throwaway100773 7y ago
        This argument is downright silly. 20bln can do a lot of stuff. You’re conflating reckless spending and the amount of utility 20bln has.
OGWhales 7y ago
>why would it matter if there was an official change to the tax code or not? To ensure everyone does it. Are you suggesting no rich people should support higher taxes unless they volunteer more tax money now? Or what exactly is your point here other than a "ha ha, gotcha!"?
- ericmay 7y ago
  > Are you suggesting no rich people should support higher taxes unless they volunteer more tax money now? My ire is more directed at billionaires who do such things as publicity stunts as they lobby to lower taxes - especially for their corporations, but essentially, yes. Nobody forces people to use loopholes to lower their tax rates or take deductions, or use a variety of different methods to lower their tax burdens. If they think taxes should be higher on themselves, why do they need to wait until the government raises the tax rate? * I pay $100,000 in taxes but I think I should be paying $200,000 because I'm altruistic (more likely you want to be well-liked and seem like a good person) * Here is a link to pay an extra $100,000 in taxes * ??? I'm not sure how that's a "gotcha". If you say you believe in it, what's stopping you?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gmadsen 7y ago
    I don't think the argument is that a rich individual should pay more in taxes to feel personally more altruistic. There is specific policy that can only be enacted if all wealthy people pay more in taxes, such as medicare for all, or even getting rid of the deficit. A single rich contributor does literally nothing to change policy when they volunteer extra in taxes
    - ericmay 7y ago
      So then say “I support Medicare for all” not “I don’t pay enough taxes”. If you’re wealthy enough you can just pay for health insurance for a select number of people while protecting your wealth. There are a lot of things you can do that are not “complain but do nothing”.
resonantjacket5 7y ago
Everyone's needs to be raised at the same time or it's useless. It's like in a race imagine the fastest route tramples a bunch of flowers. If the individual agrees to go around them they'll lose. There's nothing wrong with proposing something that as a group one should do that as an individual makes no sense
- ericmay 7y ago
  But they do it individually once it's implemented. If they pay (just making this up) 10% in taxes why not advocate for higher taxes and then just go ahead and pay extra and do what you believe in while also advocating for higher taxes? It's like if I buy a big SUV and say that I think we should all drive EVs but I'm not going to do it until someone makes me, but I really believe it! Uh. Ok. Sell the SUV and buy the EV?
SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
If the US wants denuclearization it should dismantle its own nuclear arms. -Khrushchev, probably
creato 7y ago
You are basically saying paying taxes should be voluntary. Do you really, honestly think that is actually going to work? This is basically why the first iteration of the United States fell apart: the Articles of Confederation basically made taxes voluntary, and they only had to convince 13 states to pay them! Spoiler alert, they couldn't do it, and the first US government collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Taxation_and_commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Taxa...

tathougies 7y ago

> You probably know this, as do most people making this argument. Yes, but this is not a valid criticism of the argument. If you believe in raising taxes on yourself and people like you, then you ought to lead by example, and voluntarily pay the extra taxes you would like to pay yourself, while proposing the law forces others to do the same. For example, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that the law mandate parents care for their children while neglecting my own. Similarly, the 'ultra-wealthy' who are arguing for higher taxes while not voluntarily paying them are hypocrites. You probably know this, as do most making this argument.