4 ms·

No, you responded to arguments you thought I made, namely: 1) That a wealth tax is good because you should be making more money than the tax. 2) That a wealth

by patmcc 6y ago

No, you responded to arguments you thought I made, namely: 1) That a wealth tax is good because you should be making more money than the tax. 2) That a wealth tax is right simply because it's affordable. I didn't make either of those arguments. For 1 - regardless of whether you're making or losing money, any sensible wealth tax is marginal, only on net worth of amounts over $10mil (or whatever). So the very worst a wealth tax will do is keep you at that cap - you don't pay anything on your first $10mil (or whatever). For 2 - no, I'm saying a wealth tax is affordable, so it's clearly not wrong based on that alone. I'd say a wealth tax is right because it's progressive, not unaffordable, and ultimately not significantly impactful on the people it would impact (rich people). We need to have taxes of some kind. What do you think is the most "right" kind to have? Why is it more right than a wealth tax?

tekknik 6y ago
Perhaps a flat sales tax? Or something fair? Why is there an attempt to punish the rich here? We need some taxes, but this shouldn’t be a blank check. At what point do you think the government should stop taking taxes? By your logic should we not just give 100% of our pay to the gov and start issuing cars, houses and other needs? Also why is anything good simply because it’s progressive? Is there no other factor?
- patmcc 6y ago
  What exactly is "fair"? There are lots of ways we could tax people, that some or other people would declare to be fair. Sure, we could tax all sales at 20%, or 45%. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone a flat amount - $10k or something. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone a flat percentage - 15%, say. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone such that we all have the same income - $50k perhaps. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? The idea that higher taxes "punish" the rich doesn't make sense to me. We have the money! Of course that's where taxes should come from. What, we're going to shake down the people making $12 /hour? They don't have any money. Here is my thinking: we should decide, as a society, what is essential. Defense, roads, fire departments, schools, etc. And then we figure out the best tax system to pay for that. We should aim for that system to: 1) Gather as much money as we need to pay for the essentials. 2) Cost as little to administer as possible. 3) Discourage harmful societal behaviour and/or encourage beneficial societal behaviour (generally, the more you tax something, the less of that thing you get). 4) Impact people's lives as little as possible. This is where progressive taxation wins - if you tax a poor person, that's money they really, really need. They were going to spend that on essentials. If you tax a rich person, their quality of life isn't meaningfully impacted. If Jeff Bezos has to pay more taxes, that impacts his day-to-day life exactly not at all. 5) Be conceived from behind the 'veil of ignorance', as much as possible. (This is where the 'fairness' argument comes in)
  - tekknik 6y ago
    So as a society we are saying it’s ok to tax the wealthy, but we also give people the opportunity to become wealthy and encourage it but then once you make it bad, time for punishment via taxes? What exactly did Bezos do that requires him to pay more taxes? He didn’t “get a small loan”, he earned his and now your saying people who have no desire in life to be anything more than a store clerk deserve some of his money. Can they afford it? Sure. Is it fair, absolutely not.
    - dnadler 6y ago
      I think framing it as a punishment is a bit disingenuous. The idea is not to punish rich people, the idea is to change how the tax burden is distributed. I would turn the question around and ask why we as a society are intent on punishing the middle class with the tax burden?
      - tekknik 6y ago
        It seems pretty spot on to me. Your rich, this is evil, and now you gotta pay. Because the middle class is the one asking to increase it with the constant addition of social programs that benefit them and those in lower classes the most? Unless you want to get into some twisted math on how much resources they use by breathing.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > At what point do you think the government should stop taking taxes? When millionaires stop crying because they have to pay them.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    So it is punishment?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That's exactly what I was talking about Only kids and millionaires cry when you ask them to do their duty And that's why the government can't stop asking for taxes to rich people
      - tekknik 6y ago
        What exactly is their duty? They earned money so they owe it to you as duty? What entitled you to their money? Do you have stuff? Can I come in your house and take things because it’s your duty?
        romanoderoma 6y ago
        > What entitled you to their money? Do What entitle you to speak on their behalf? The story of the rich who cry about their money being taken away by some evil entity, it's just the constant, endless, uberable whining of the wannabe rich people So boring... They are not giving them to ME, they are giving them back to society, the same society that made them rich. There are many billionaires who wants to pay more taxes because it would simply be fairer. > Can I come in your house and take things because it’s your duty? You are wrong, again 1) If it was my duty, you couldn't do it, because you cannot collect what's in the government duty to collect. 2) Your duty would be, at best, to report to the authorities. But since you're one of those americans who don't understand what "society" means, you think everything revolves around you and you alone. Spoiler: it doesn't. Your duty is to contribute back in proportion of what you earn and own. What about you simply do it and shut up? p.s.: you are obsessed with punishment, are you one of those americans who believes that the bible is the law? somebody already told you that "framing it as a punishment is a bit disingenuous. The idea is not to punish rich people, the idea is to change how the tax burden is distributed. I would turn the question around and ask why we as a society are intent on punishing the middle class with the tax burden?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210412 Of course you have no answer to that, because you should admit that if it is wrong to punish rich people with taxes for being rich, it is vastly more wrong to punish people who are not rich for not being rich.

by patmcc 6y ago

tekknik 6y ago

Perhaps a flat sales tax? Or something fair? Why is there an attempt to punish the rich here? We need some taxes, but this shouldn’t be a blank check. At what point do you think the government should stop taking taxes? By your logic should we not just give 100% of our pay to the gov and start issuing cars, houses and other needs? Also why is anything good simply because it’s progressive? Is there no other factor?

patmcc 6y ago
What exactly is "fair"? There are lots of ways we could tax people, that some or other people would declare to be fair. Sure, we could tax all sales at 20%, or 45%. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone a flat amount - $10k or something. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone a flat percentage - 15%, say. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? We could tax everyone such that we all have the same income - $50k perhaps. That would be fair. Can you see any problems? The idea that higher taxes "punish" the rich doesn't make sense to me. We have the money! Of course that's where taxes should come from. What, we're going to shake down the people making $12 /hour? They don't have any money. Here is my thinking: we should decide, as a society, what is essential. Defense, roads, fire departments, schools, etc. And then we figure out the best tax system to pay for that. We should aim for that system to: 1) Gather as much money as we need to pay for the essentials. 2) Cost as little to administer as possible. 3) Discourage harmful societal behaviour and/or encourage beneficial societal behaviour (generally, the more you tax something, the less of that thing you get). 4) Impact people's lives as little as possible. This is where progressive taxation wins - if you tax a poor person, that's money they really, really need. They were going to spend that on essentials. If you tax a rich person, their quality of life isn't meaningfully impacted. If Jeff Bezos has to pay more taxes, that impacts his day-to-day life exactly not at all. 5) Be conceived from behind the 'veil of ignorance', as much as possible. (This is where the 'fairness' argument comes in)
- tekknik 6y ago
  So as a society we are saying it’s ok to tax the wealthy, but we also give people the opportunity to become wealthy and encourage it but then once you make it bad, time for punishment via taxes? What exactly did Bezos do that requires him to pay more taxes? He didn’t “get a small loan”, he earned his and now your saying people who have no desire in life to be anything more than a store clerk deserve some of his money. Can they afford it? Sure. Is it fair, absolutely not.
  - dnadler 6y ago
    I think framing it as a punishment is a bit disingenuous. The idea is not to punish rich people, the idea is to change how the tax burden is distributed. I would turn the question around and ask why we as a society are intent on punishing the middle class with the tax burden?
    - tekknik 6y ago
      It seems pretty spot on to me. Your rich, this is evil, and now you gotta pay. Because the middle class is the one asking to increase it with the constant addition of social programs that benefit them and those in lower classes the most? Unless you want to get into some twisted math on how much resources they use by breathing.
romanoderoma 6y ago
> At what point do you think the government should stop taking taxes? When millionaires stop crying because they have to pay them.
- tekknik 6y ago
  So it is punishment?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    That's exactly what I was talking about Only kids and millionaires cry when you ask them to do their duty And that's why the government can't stop asking for taxes to rich people
    - tekknik 6y ago
      What exactly is their duty? They earned money so they owe it to you as duty? What entitled you to their money? Do you have stuff? Can I come in your house and take things because it’s your duty?
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        > What entitled you to their money? Do What entitle you to speak on their behalf? The story of the rich who cry about their money being taken away by some evil entity, it's just the constant, endless, uberable whining of the wannabe rich people So boring... They are not giving them to ME, they are giving them back to society, the same society that made them rich. There are many billionaires who wants to pay more taxes because it would simply be fairer. > Can I come in your house and take things because it’s your duty? You are wrong, again 1) If it was my duty, you couldn't do it, because you cannot collect what's in the government duty to collect. 2) Your duty would be, at best, to report to the authorities. But since you're one of those americans who don't understand what "society" means, you think everything revolves around you and you alone. Spoiler: it doesn't. Your duty is to contribute back in proportion of what you earn and own. What about you simply do it and shut up? p.s.: you are obsessed with punishment, are you one of those americans who believes that the bible is the law? somebody already told you that "framing it as a punishment is a bit disingenuous. The idea is not to punish rich people, the idea is to change how the tax burden is distributed. I would turn the question around and ask why we as a society are intent on punishing the middle class with the tax burden?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210412 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210412 Of course you have no answer to that, because you should admit that if it is wrong to punish rich people with taxes for being rich, it is vastly more wrong to punish people who are not rich for not being rich.