4 ms·

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy [0], which you likely already knew. Of course, that doesn't make your argument wrong, just fallible. I think it's arguable

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy [0], which you likely already knew. Of course, that doesn't make your argument wrong, just fallible. I think it's arguable that taxes only ever go up. Income taxes on the rich used to be near 90% in the top bracket, so it's not a one way ratchet. That said, I agree government tends to expand and needs to fund that growth somehow. But I think it's much more likely that need manifests as an increase in the wealth tax rate rather than a lowering of the wealth threshold. The billionaires have so much more money than everyone else (and so much more than they need) that it will be much more politically popular to raise the wealth tax on them than it would to expand the pool. Not to mention, there are more of us. I'm not advocating a wealth tax, and I think it's problematic for other reasons, but I don't think the slippery slope argument is much more than fearmongering in this case. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

nemo44x 6y ago
Sure, nearly every opinion or argument is fallible. I'm not explicitly trying to create a slippery slope or fear monger. A slippery slope tends to lead to unintended consequences. I don't think expanding the net is unintended - I believe it's the deliberate goal. Our history suggests this w/r/t income taxes, etc.
- darkerside 6y ago
  I don't think the net will be widened, I think when more tax funds are needed, the gauge of the net will be adjusted to catch more fish from the same people. i.e. They'll increase the rate from 3% to 5%, not expose lower wealth individuals to the new tax.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    You're partially correct. They'll increase the rate from 3% to 5% and then a new rate of 1% for the 30m-50m bracket and make it progressive.
gotoeleven 6y ago
Ahh the classic HN logician that spots someone mentioning slippery slopes and reflexively calls it a logical fallacy. The history of taxes in the US (and especially California--remember the "temporary" 13.3% highest marginal rate?) has more slippery slopes than 6 flags fiesta Texas. It's not fear mongering, its a very solid argument against new taxes.
- Akronymus 6y ago
  I have seen many instances of "slippery slope" fallacies actually happening. While I don't want to name specific examples, due to it getting into unnecessary politics, I am able to recall at least 3 BIG instances of it happening.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    A logical fallacy doesn't mean the claim is wrong, just that it doesn't logically follow. I think it's still worth pointing out when the claim is presented as fact.
    - Akronymus 6y ago
      Oh, I completely agree with that. Bad wording on my part. Usually when I talk about such things I add something to denote it as my opinion/fear. Sadly it is legitimate to some extent IMO.
- darkerside 6y ago
  It was not reflexive. Perhaps you misread my post. My reading of the way the slope slips is that rates go up, not that the minimum threshold is lowered. This reflects historical tax law changes, political sensibilities, and basic economic theory. This was all in my original post as well, so I'm not sure it'll land this time, but I'm a bit offended that you have mischaracterized my post as reflexive, implying thoughtlessness, when I believe it was anything but. My opinion restated, billionaires have more to fear from this than any of the rest of us do.
- istjohn 6y ago
nybble41 6y ago
> Slippery slope is a logical fallacy [0], which you likely already knew. Falsely asserting a slippery slope—that A must lead to B which must lead to C when none of these things are inevitable—is a logical fallacy. It is not a fallacy to point out that the grass is wet and the hill is steep and suggest that perhaps we should put up a sign advising people to stay away from the edge. The argument is simply that this is a dangerous situation which we would do best to avoid, not that anyone who goes near the edge will inevitably lose their footing. > The billionaires have so much more money than everyone else … Do they really? It seems to me that what they mainly have is not money but rather illiquid assets, i.e. capital. That includes stocks, which can be sold—at the expense of giving up control of the company—but also stock options which can't be exercised immediately and tons of actual capital equipment, inventory, buildings, and so forth which can't readily be put to other use. > Income taxes on the rich used to be near 90% in the top bracket, so it's not a one way ratchet. Keep in mind that they never actually collected anywhere near that much. Those 90% brackets were purely theoretical.
- darkerside 6y ago
  I've responded to the logical nature of the fallacy in other comments, so won't rehash. I thought I was clear in the original post, but apparently not. There are many millionaires for whom what you describe is a problem. I assure you that billionaires do not have a problem with liquidity unless they want to.

nemo44x 6y ago

Sure, nearly every opinion or argument is fallible. I'm not explicitly trying to create a slippery slope or fear monger. A slippery slope tends to lead to unintended consequences. I don't think expanding the net is unintended - I believe it's the deliberate goal. Our history suggests this w/r/t income taxes, etc.

darkerside 6y ago
I don't think the net will be widened, I think when more tax funds are needed, the gauge of the net will be adjusted to catch more fish from the same people. i.e. They'll increase the rate from 3% to 5%, not expose lower wealth individuals to the new tax.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  You're partially correct. They'll increase the rate from 3% to 5% and then a new rate of 1% for the 30m-50m bracket and make it progressive.

gotoeleven 6y ago

Ahh the classic HN logician that spots someone mentioning slippery slopes and reflexively calls it a logical fallacy. The history of taxes in the US (and especially California--remember the "temporary" 13.3% highest marginal rate?) has more slippery slopes than 6 flags fiesta Texas. It's not fear mongering, its a very solid argument against new taxes.

Akronymus 6y ago
I have seen many instances of "slippery slope" fallacies actually happening. While I don't want to name specific examples, due to it getting into unnecessary politics, I am able to recall at least 3 BIG instances of it happening.
- darkerside 6y ago
  A logical fallacy doesn't mean the claim is wrong, just that it doesn't logically follow. I think it's still worth pointing out when the claim is presented as fact.
  - Akronymus 6y ago
    Oh, I completely agree with that. Bad wording on my part. Usually when I talk about such things I add something to denote it as my opinion/fear. Sadly it is legitimate to some extent IMO.
darkerside 6y ago
It was not reflexive. Perhaps you misread my post. My reading of the way the slope slips is that rates go up, not that the minimum threshold is lowered. This reflects historical tax law changes, political sensibilities, and basic economic theory. This was all in my original post as well, so I'm not sure it'll land this time, but I'm a bit offended that you have mischaracterized my post as reflexive, implying thoughtlessness, when I believe it was anything but. My opinion restated, billionaires have more to fear from this than any of the rest of us do.
istjohn 6y ago

nybble41 6y ago

> Slippery slope is a logical fallacy [0], which you likely already knew. Falsely asserting a slippery slope—that A must lead to B which must lead to C when none of these things are inevitable—is a logical fallacy. It is not a fallacy to point out that the grass is wet and the hill is steep and suggest that perhaps we should put up a sign advising people to stay away from the edge. The argument is simply that this is a dangerous situation which we would do best to avoid, not that anyone who goes near the edge will inevitably lose their footing. > The billionaires have so much more money than everyone else … Do they really? It seems to me that what they mainly have is not money but rather illiquid assets, i.e. capital. That includes stocks, which can be sold—at the expense of giving up control of the company—but also stock options which can't be exercised immediately and tons of actual capital equipment, inventory, buildings, and so forth which can't readily be put to other use. > Income taxes on the rich used to be near 90% in the top bracket, so it's not a one way ratchet. Keep in mind that they never actually collected anywhere near that much. Those 90% brackets were purely theoretical.

darkerside 6y ago
I've responded to the logical nature of the fallacy in other comments, so won't rehash. I thought I was clear in the original post, but apparently not. There are many millionaires for whom what you describe is a problem. I assure you that billionaires do not have a problem with liquidity unless they want to.