4 ms·

Right so the government that already has enough money to fund all those good public services will suddenly stop funding the military to a ridiculous degree and

Right so the government that already has enough money to fund all those good public services will suddenly stop funding the military to a ridiculous degree and finally use taxes for the best interest of the people?

patmcc 6y ago
Oh, I don't disagree at all! Government spending is currently not how I would allocate things. But somehow I expect that wherever taxes were going, rich people would be displeased with the amount of taxes they were being told to pay. And honestly, I don't blame them, it's a very natural feeling, I'd rather not pay taxes either. Here's my thinking: as a society, we should decide on what needs to be handled by the government. Defense, roads, pandemic response, scientific research, welfare, healthcare, whatever. Make your own list, we can all hash that out. Then we figure out how much that costs, then we figure out the best taxation method to pay for all of it. I think the goals of that tax system should be to encourage beneficial habits, support economic growth, lower people's standard of living as little as possible, and generally maximize utility. It seems pretty clear that in this kind of system, a progressive system that taxes the wealthy more is a clear winner.
- edoceo 6y ago
  I'm sure you meant to RAISE the standard of living.
  - patmcc 6y ago
    I worded it badly - I mean that the paying of taxes will always lower someone's standard of living, but we should minimize that as much as possible - basically that progressive taxation is clearly the better way.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  We should also work out the costs of not having good cheap public healthcare, education, infrastructure - and not also having public access to the best R&D talent because it's working to make billionaires even richer through clever rent-extraction strategies from the markets. And so on. All of these negatives cost money. Aside from the humanitarian considerations - not trivial - they're a huge drag on social mobility, innovation, and business opportunity. The fact that some people feel irrationally inconvenienced by the prospect of extra taxes - which in reality will not materially affect them or their opportunities in any significant way - is an unconvincing reason to ignore the staggering social, economic, and political costs of their uniquely privileged position.
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    > The fact that some people feel irrationally inconvenienced by the prospect of extra taxes - which in reality will not materially affect them Perhaps it's because we oppose them in principle.
    - abiogenesis 6y ago
      If you are accepting that the statements (1) "[wealth tax] in reality will not materially affect them", and (2) "[status quo is] a huge drag on social mobility, innovation, and business opportunity" are correct; opposing them in principle is not rational.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Here's my thinking: as a society, we should decide on what needs to be handled by the government. Defense, roads, pandemic response, scientific research, welfare, healthcare, whatever. Make your own list, we can all hash that out. Then we figure out how much that costs, then we figure out the best taxation method to pay for all of it. We already do that. It's called politics. However, you seem to want a strictly regimented "waterfall" version of politics, but in reality it has to be continuously iterated and handle the complex interplay of many factors (like different people having mutually exclusive ideas of what the government should actually do).

patmcc 6y ago

Oh, I don't disagree at all! Government spending is currently not how I would allocate things. But somehow I expect that wherever taxes were going, rich people would be displeased with the amount of taxes they were being told to pay. And honestly, I don't blame them, it's a very natural feeling, I'd rather not pay taxes either. Here's my thinking: as a society, we should decide on what needs to be handled by the government. Defense, roads, pandemic response, scientific research, welfare, healthcare, whatever. Make your own list, we can all hash that out. Then we figure out how much that costs, then we figure out the best taxation method to pay for all of it. I think the goals of that tax system should be to encourage beneficial habits, support economic growth, lower people's standard of living as little as possible, and generally maximize utility. It seems pretty clear that in this kind of system, a progressive system that taxes the wealthy more is a clear winner.

edoceo 6y ago
I'm sure you meant to RAISE the standard of living.
- patmcc 6y ago
  I worded it badly - I mean that the paying of taxes will always lower someone's standard of living, but we should minimize that as much as possible - basically that progressive taxation is clearly the better way.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
We should also work out the costs of not having good cheap public healthcare, education, infrastructure - and not also having public access to the best R&D talent because it's working to make billionaires even richer through clever rent-extraction strategies from the markets. And so on. All of these negatives cost money. Aside from the humanitarian considerations - not trivial - they're a huge drag on social mobility, innovation, and business opportunity. The fact that some people feel irrationally inconvenienced by the prospect of extra taxes - which in reality will not materially affect them or their opportunities in any significant way - is an unconvincing reason to ignore the staggering social, economic, and political costs of their uniquely privileged position.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  > The fact that some people feel irrationally inconvenienced by the prospect of extra taxes - which in reality will not materially affect them Perhaps it's because we oppose them in principle.
  - abiogenesis 6y ago
    If you are accepting that the statements (1) "[wealth tax] in reality will not materially affect them", and (2) "[status quo is] a huge drag on social mobility, innovation, and business opportunity" are correct; opposing them in principle is not rational.
ardy42 6y ago
> Here's my thinking: as a society, we should decide on what needs to be handled by the government. Defense, roads, pandemic response, scientific research, welfare, healthcare, whatever. Make your own list, we can all hash that out. Then we figure out how much that costs, then we figure out the best taxation method to pay for all of it. We already do that. It's called politics. However, you seem to want a strictly regimented "waterfall" version of politics, but in reality it has to be continuously iterated and handle the complex interplay of many factors (like different people having mutually exclusive ideas of what the government should actually do).