3 ms·

> It is only hubris for some people to think some governments of their own choosing should have a piece of that It is not hubris. It is pragmatics. Moving to a

by csb6 6y ago

> It is only hubris for some people to think some governments of their own choosing should have a piece of that It is not hubris. It is pragmatics. Moving to another county does not fully avoid contributing to the community where you live; you aren’t leaving the state, so state taxes still apply. The point is that rich people should pay their fair share of taxes and not be able to just buy their way out of it with fancy lawyers and accountants, thereby depriving governments of billions in taxes. This analogy just isn’t on the same order of magnitude. However, I think our philosophies are too different for you to accept my argument because it rests on the premise that rich people should pay taxes, which I don’t think you believe. It seems to me that you believe that individuals can and should avoid contributing to their communities through taxation as much as they possibly can. No matter that this money is often used for social services and other non-profitable activities that help people in need. I think the atomized, “I got mine” attitude meshes deeply with the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” attitude that tries to justify the Panama Papers stuff as on the same order of magnitude as getting cheap gas in another county. The concept of community doesn’t exist in this mindset; only a group of dragons sitting on their hoards whose sole interactions with each other are business transactions exists. I hope that changes.

vmception 6y ago
As someone that knows exactly what the “fancy lawyers and accountants” do, I think your argument is just far too simplistic and I think you could never get an effective public policy change because you don’t know whats really going on in the implementation, you react to the results. To me the argument is “I’m mad we arent getting hosed equally” and rationalizing a phantom role of the state as if the state’s revenues would really improve and as if they would fund that infrastructure properly and that the infrastructure really had a meaningful effect on that wealthy person’s ability to do business reliably - or even keep the area safe and productive via improved social services. To which I would say thats all overestimated, and the state’s revenue sources should be reevaluated.

by csb6 6y ago

vmception 6y ago

As someone that knows exactly what the “fancy lawyers and accountants” do, I think your argument is just far too simplistic and I think you could never get an effective public policy change because you don’t know whats really going on in the implementation, you react to the results. To me the argument is “I’m mad we arent getting hosed equally” and rationalizing a phantom role of the state as if the state’s revenues would really improve and as if they would fund that infrastructure properly and that the infrastructure really had a meaningful effect on that wealthy person’s ability to do business reliably - or even keep the area safe and productive via improved social services. To which I would say thats all overestimated, and the state’s revenue sources should be reevaluated.