5 ms·
I don't think anyone is arguing that the value to society is the same in both circumstances. But unless you want some kind of authoritarian state, it isn't your
by zchrykng 7y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that the value to society is the same in both circumstances. But unless you want some kind of authoritarian state, it isn't your business what someone else does with their money. Assuming they didn't break the law to get it and they paid whatever taxes they owed on it, they can do anything they want with it, including setting it on fire.
- tsimionescu 7y agoWell, in particular, setting it on fire is actually against the law, on safety and environmental reasons. The same environmental reasons will probably have to apply in the near future for over-consumption in general. But that is all a different matter. The relevant discussion is not about trying to prevent people from spending their money for useless things. It is about the relationship between economic value and actual utility. Any transaction for a car seems to produce the same economic value, but can have vastly different social utility. Therefore, arguments that certain behaviors should be accepted because they produce economic value which must have social utility are wrong. So perhaps it does make sense to tax the rich, even though GDP or other economic value measurements will go down, because social utility will not go down proportionally.