6 ms·

I make roughly half a million a year. I'm very aware that my tax rate would increase if we started taxing the wealthy more. Please tax the wealthy more. Send t

I make roughly half a million a year. I'm very aware that my tax rate would increase if we started taxing the wealthy more. Please tax the wealthy more. Send the tax man to my house and all my peers. We can afford it just fine.

syshum 6y ago
You do know you can voluntarily pay more in taxes today, right now... Giving money to government is not compasssion, Helping people get food, shelter, healthcare,etc yourself is compassion. Voting for government to use guns to force people to pay what you have perceived as "their fair share" in order to provide those things to people is not compassion, it is self-righteous bullying.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  I can. I do give to charities. But me giving had a much, much smaller impact than me pushing for everyone to give. It's not just about their fair share. Income inequality is a feedback loop that has a predictable and quite unpleasant outcome. I'd much rather introduce mechanisms to slow that feedback loop down. The parent poster argued that "don't the wealthy know they'll get taxed more?" I'd propose that "don't the bottom 95% know they'll experience a steady decline of income and purchasing power if we don't tax the wealthy more?"
  - syshum 6y ago
    >> much smaller impact than me pushing for everyone to give. The problem here is the fact you are not pushing for everyone to "give", giving is a voluntary act, taxation is compulsory done under the explicit threat of violence. It is not an act of "giving" it is an act of taking. >"don't the bottom 95% know they'll experience a steady decline of income and purchasing power if we don't tax the wealthy more?" History does not show this to be the case at all, The World is becoming a better place for everyone [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      > History does not show this to be the case at all, The World is becoming a better place for everyone [1] Driven predominantly by growth, which will taper off. We are an unusually explosive period of growth at the moment, and it's already starting to recede. Growth is fueled in many cases by population expansion which has almost completely stalled in many places. For an introductory read on the topic, I recommend Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. > The problem here is the fact you are not pushing for everyone to "give", giving is a voluntary act, taxation is compulsory done under the explicit threat of violence. It is not an act of "giving" it is an act of taking. I believe that the taxes you pay were never your money to begin with. I'm not giving the government my money, the government is ensuring that society has what it needs to care for everyone. The mechanism that it uses to do this needs to tap into either wealth or streams of finances, but neither is theft or taking from what I see. An analogy, salmon ladders in dams allow an important resource to flourish and don't generate power. You might call that 'theft' or 'taking' power from the dam. I see it as 'never the dams to begin with'. (In case it's not clear, the water is money, you are the dam. Are you entitled to all the water that flows to you? You say yes, I say no, we disagree but I don't think there's an objectively correct answer.) Counter to the opinion that taxes are theft, I believe that austerity is theft. We can agree to disagree here if you'd like.
      - syshum 6y ago
        WOW, where to even begin. Money is not a resource like water, money is a medium of value exchange. In the case of income money is the medium where I exchange my Time, Knowledge, and labor for a given quantity of money which I then use for trade to obtain things others have used their time, money and knowledge to create It is a simpler and more abstract instead of me having to grow wheat to exchange with a baker for bread Given this, I do 100% believe I am entitled to 100% of my Labor, time and knowledge. You seem to have the belief that I am a subject or property of the government, as this the only conclusion one can draw in order for your world view to square with what money really is. I believe it is unethical to take by force or taxation a persons labor, and thus by extension it is unethical to take a person income by theft or taxation
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    >> I can. I do give to charities. I don't think that's what syshum is talking about. You said, "Send the tax man to my house and all my peers. We can afford it just fine". There is no need for the tax man to come to your house. Go to https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html. There's a link there, you can even use PayPal if you want. Figure out what the additional amount is that you think you should be paying in tax, and make the payment. You can do it this very minute. Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      This is a strawman that gets leveled at people that want to increase taxes. It's an attempt to paint me as a hypocrite and therefore not acting rationally. It's flawed reasoning. I invite you to consider: If my stated goal is to increase the tax on wealthiest folks with the intent of distributing more to the lower class and reducing wealth inequality. Should I: a) Spend 100% of my surplus income on gifts to the tax authority or b) Spend 100% of my surplus income on organizations that will organize community efforts to achieve my goal. It's a concept called the 'opportunity cost' -- option A is acting in the spirit of my goal, but does nothing to achieve my goal. If I am a rational player (and I'd like to believe I am), to achieve my goals it's considerably more effective for me to spend my money giving to charities that align with my objective. Therefore, I spend my surplus income on community organizing, land trusts, and other efforts that will build support for my goals. Edit: This is the same reason why I don't ask people who care about the national debt to just open their pocketbooks. If that's a cause you care about, I'd expect you to advocate for it and give your time/money towards groups that make it happen. I happen to think it's a ludicrous thing to care about. We can aggressively disagree about policies and still agree that we are acting in a rational way respective to our worldviews. There is room for both of our opinions here, but we should be able to discuss them without relying on these sorts of goofy strawmen.
      - rufus_foreman 6y ago
        >> If my stated goal is to increase the tax on wealthiest folks with the intent of distributing more to the lower class and reducing wealth inequality That's not exactly "Send the tax man to my house" now is it? You want the government to take my money and use it for your ideological purposes that I do not believe in, to implement socialism in America, that's what I think you're saying. Am I wrong here? Sending the tax man to your house vs. doing that, those are two very different things. We can find common ground here, send the tax man to your house, we can agree on that at least can't we? And you can do that right now, this very minute, PayPal over what you think the correct amount is.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  Bullying? You couldn’t find a more powerful word to describe the state taking away your goodies? Making public goods into voluntarist things like charities isn’t benevolence. Robber barons have no problem giving a pittance to the poor, I’m sure, as long as that keeps them from being “bullied”.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
you are the problem. please set up a charity. feel free to part from your money. there are many of us who cant...unlike some americans, some of us have responsibilities..aged parents living overseas, children, relatives..i would rather use my wealth to make sure that my parents and in laws and aunts and uncles live well before they die. what i am is because of the people who raised me and i owe them a debt before i owe some random homeless person on the street shooting up. please be generous. the world needs more people than you. immigrants have a different mentality when it comes to familial responsibilites. i have two sets of grandparents and three dozen aunts. and i dont even know how we are related. extended families are really really really extended. and i derive so much pleasure in making their lives better and happier. why should i trade my pleasure for your philanthropy disguised as milking me for tax dollars. hundred dollars fed half a dozen people in my indian home state for a month. californians complained that $1200/month isnt sufficient. i know where i want to send my money. i feel like what i do is real redistribution of wealth. so..no to your idea. if you really want to help people, reach out to me..i know where you can send your extra dollars to other parts of the world where people have no job, no means of feeding themselves and their families and their govts are too powerless to take care of all their millions.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  Someone who earns 500K a year and who wants to be taxed more isn’t the problem. They are a principled social democrat. A thing that a country like the US could use more of. People who look out for themselves and their family only and who wants to make public goods into a voluntarist thing through charities are the problem. They are of no use to anyone except their immediates and are only holding progress back.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    I am not a flaggelist. You must have confused me with someone who would be affected by what you wrote. I don’t expect to carry everyone’s burden because I don’t suffer from a Saviour Complex. I believe in human beings ability to be resilient and survive against odds. By themselves. YMMV.
  - 6y ago

syshum 6y ago

You do know you can voluntarily pay more in taxes today, right now... Giving money to government is not compasssion, Helping people get food, shelter, healthcare,etc yourself is compassion. Voting for government to use guns to force people to pay what you have perceived as "their fair share" in order to provide those things to people is not compassion, it is self-righteous bullying.

Pfhreak 6y ago
I can. I do give to charities. But me giving had a much, much smaller impact than me pushing for everyone to give. It's not just about their fair share. Income inequality is a feedback loop that has a predictable and quite unpleasant outcome. I'd much rather introduce mechanisms to slow that feedback loop down. The parent poster argued that "don't the wealthy know they'll get taxed more?" I'd propose that "don't the bottom 95% know they'll experience a steady decline of income and purchasing power if we don't tax the wealthy more?"
- syshum 6y ago
  >> much smaller impact than me pushing for everyone to give. The problem here is the fact you are not pushing for everyone to "give", giving is a voluntary act, taxation is compulsory done under the explicit threat of violence. It is not an act of "giving" it is an act of taking. >"don't the bottom 95% know they'll experience a steady decline of income and purchasing power if we don't tax the wealthy more?" History does not show this to be the case at all, The World is becoming a better place for everyone [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5s6aZCPSg
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    > History does not show this to be the case at all, The World is becoming a better place for everyone [1] Driven predominantly by growth, which will taper off. We are an unusually explosive period of growth at the moment, and it's already starting to recede. Growth is fueled in many cases by population expansion which has almost completely stalled in many places. For an introductory read on the topic, I recommend Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. > The problem here is the fact you are not pushing for everyone to "give", giving is a voluntary act, taxation is compulsory done under the explicit threat of violence. It is not an act of "giving" it is an act of taking. I believe that the taxes you pay were never your money to begin with. I'm not giving the government my money, the government is ensuring that society has what it needs to care for everyone. The mechanism that it uses to do this needs to tap into either wealth or streams of finances, but neither is theft or taking from what I see. An analogy, salmon ladders in dams allow an important resource to flourish and don't generate power. You might call that 'theft' or 'taking' power from the dam. I see it as 'never the dams to begin with'. (In case it's not clear, the water is money, you are the dam. Are you entitled to all the water that flows to you? You say yes, I say no, we disagree but I don't think there's an objectively correct answer.) Counter to the opinion that taxes are theft, I believe that austerity is theft. We can agree to disagree here if you'd like.
    - syshum 6y ago
      WOW, where to even begin. Money is not a resource like water, money is a medium of value exchange. In the case of income money is the medium where I exchange my Time, Knowledge, and labor for a given quantity of money which I then use for trade to obtain things others have used their time, money and knowledge to create It is a simpler and more abstract instead of me having to grow wheat to exchange with a baker for bread Given this, I do 100% believe I am entitled to 100% of my Labor, time and knowledge. You seem to have the belief that I am a subject or property of the government, as this the only conclusion one can draw in order for your world view to square with what money really is. I believe it is unethical to take by force or taxation a persons labor, and thus by extension it is unethical to take a person income by theft or taxation
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  >> I can. I do give to charities. I don't think that's what syshum is talking about. You said, "Send the tax man to my house and all my peers. We can afford it just fine". There is no need for the tax man to come to your house. Go to https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html. There's a link there, you can even use PayPal if you want. Figure out what the additional amount is that you think you should be paying in tax, and make the payment. You can do it this very minute. Be the change that you wish to see in the world.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    This is a strawman that gets leveled at people that want to increase taxes. It's an attempt to paint me as a hypocrite and therefore not acting rationally. It's flawed reasoning. I invite you to consider: If my stated goal is to increase the tax on wealthiest folks with the intent of distributing more to the lower class and reducing wealth inequality. Should I: a) Spend 100% of my surplus income on gifts to the tax authority or b) Spend 100% of my surplus income on organizations that will organize community efforts to achieve my goal. It's a concept called the 'opportunity cost' -- option A is acting in the spirit of my goal, but does nothing to achieve my goal. If I am a rational player (and I'd like to believe I am), to achieve my goals it's considerably more effective for me to spend my money giving to charities that align with my objective. Therefore, I spend my surplus income on community organizing, land trusts, and other efforts that will build support for my goals. Edit: This is the same reason why I don't ask people who care about the national debt to just open their pocketbooks. If that's a cause you care about, I'd expect you to advocate for it and give your time/money towards groups that make it happen. I happen to think it's a ludicrous thing to care about. We can aggressively disagree about policies and still agree that we are acting in a rational way respective to our worldviews. There is room for both of our opinions here, but we should be able to discuss them without relying on these sorts of goofy strawmen.
    - rufus_foreman 6y ago
      >> If my stated goal is to increase the tax on wealthiest folks with the intent of distributing more to the lower class and reducing wealth inequality That's not exactly "Send the tax man to my house" now is it? You want the government to take my money and use it for your ideological purposes that I do not believe in, to implement socialism in America, that's what I think you're saying. Am I wrong here? Sending the tax man to your house vs. doing that, those are two very different things. We can find common ground here, send the tax man to your house, we can agree on that at least can't we? And you can do that right now, this very minute, PayPal over what you think the correct amount is.
Privacy846 6y ago
Bullying? You couldn’t find a more powerful word to describe the state taking away your goodies? Making public goods into voluntarist things like charities isn’t benevolence. Robber barons have no problem giving a pittance to the poor, I’m sure, as long as that keeps them from being “bullied”.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

you are the problem. please set up a charity. feel free to part from your money. there are many of us who cant...unlike some americans, some of us have responsibilities..aged parents living overseas, children, relatives..i would rather use my wealth to make sure that my parents and in laws and aunts and uncles live well before they die. what i am is because of the people who raised me and i owe them a debt before i owe some random homeless person on the street shooting up. please be generous. the world needs more people than you. immigrants have a different mentality when it comes to familial responsibilites. i have two sets of grandparents and three dozen aunts. and i dont even know how we are related. extended families are really really really extended. and i derive so much pleasure in making their lives better and happier. why should i trade my pleasure for your philanthropy disguised as milking me for tax dollars. hundred dollars fed half a dozen people in my indian home state for a month. californians complained that $1200/month isnt sufficient. i know where i want to send my money. i feel like what i do is real redistribution of wealth. so..no to your idea. if you really want to help people, reach out to me..i know where you can send your extra dollars to other parts of the world where people have no job, no means of feeding themselves and their families and their govts are too powerless to take care of all their millions.

Privacy846 6y ago
Someone who earns 500K a year and who wants to be taxed more isn’t the problem. They are a principled social democrat. A thing that a country like the US could use more of. People who look out for themselves and their family only and who wants to make public goods into a voluntarist thing through charities are the problem. They are of no use to anyone except their immediates and are only holding progress back.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  I am not a flaggelist. You must have confused me with someone who would be affected by what you wrote. I don’t expect to carry everyone’s burden because I don’t suffer from a Saviour Complex. I believe in human beings ability to be resilient and survive against odds. By themselves. YMMV.
- 6y ago