3 ms·

As net contributors, part of the function of taxes we pay as, whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not, is to reduce the general level of suffering/struggling

by danans 6y ago

As net contributors, part of the function of taxes we pay as, whether we'd like to acknowledge it or not, is to reduce the general level of suffering/struggling in the broader population, if not out of our humanity then at least because an angry, hungry, hopeless population at our doorsteps is a dangerous thing for us. If we are clear-eyed, we have to incorporate that into any risk-adjusted evaluation of "benefits" that we enjoy in exchange for our taxes. That is the price of freedom, and unless we wish to slide back to the serfdom/slavery the feudal past (and all the horrors that entails), we'd be wise not to ignore that our shared sense of security rests on the contributions we make to society.

dantheman 6y ago
What level of spending is required for that? I to a large extent agree with your intent, but I think the argument is invalid. What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense?
- danans 6y ago
  > What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? I'd say it's irrelevant what you or I think. What's relevant is what a politically viable legislation can achieve. That does not include UBI in the US today (unless you are an Alaska resident receiving money from their oil fund), but there is plenty that is achievable short of a UBI today that will put a floor under people, like a federal jobs guarantee, and universal healthcare and pre-K education. We do, however, have plenty of actual evidence that shows the historical correlation between higher top marginal income tax rates, the building of infrastructure, and the growth of middle class prosperity in the US - at least for a particular subset of the population. > What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? > What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense? I would agree that non violent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail - and that drugs should be treated as an economic and health problem, not a criminal issue. We can lower incarceration costs in the process. But we must also put a floor under people so they are less likely to turn to drug dealing or illicit behavior so readily.

by danans 6y ago

dantheman 6y ago

What level of spending is required for that? I to a large extent agree with your intent, but I think the argument is invalid. What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense?

danans 6y ago
> What if I said, I thought we could achieve the same results at 10% of the cost? I'd say it's irrelevant what you or I think. What's relevant is what a politically viable legislation can achieve. That does not include UBI in the US today (unless you are an Alaska resident receiving money from their oil fund), but there is plenty that is achievable short of a UBI today that will put a floor under people, like a federal jobs guarantee, and universal healthcare and pre-K education. We do, however, have plenty of actual evidence that shows the historical correlation between higher top marginal income tax rates, the building of infrastructure, and the growth of middle class prosperity in the US - at least for a particular subset of the population. > What if I think many of the policies actually do great harm? > What if I'm in jail for a nonviolent drug offense? I would agree that non violent drug offenders shouldn't be in jail - and that drugs should be treated as an economic and health problem, not a criminal issue. We can lower incarceration costs in the process. But we must also put a floor under people so they are less likely to turn to drug dealing or illicit behavior so readily.