5 ms·

> Add to that the “you’re not paying you’re fair share attitude” which I’m definitely getting... there are days I feel like I should move our company to Florida

> Add to that the “you’re not paying you’re fair share attitude” which I’m definitely getting... there are days I feel like I should move our company to Florida or Texas. I can’t see myself living in a city that isn’t happy to have me. Hidden within this comment (in my reading) is the implicit assumption that you are paying your fair share. How exactly are you calculating this?

cltby 6y ago
The burden of proof isn’t on the rich to show that they’re doing their part; it’s on confiscationists to show that they’re not.
- discreteevent 6y ago
  If you pay for a burger did the seller confiscate your money?
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    I assume the intellectual basis for this is the "you didn't build that" philosophy. It's a garbage philosophy. Would that I should find paying my taxes was such a voluntary transaction as eating a burger! It does not justify charging businesses a blanket amount regardless of whether they use those services, and bundle in a bunch of unrelated spending and priorities, and calling that their "fair share." If the problem was really that people who build businesses were taking advantage of public services, the answer would be to charge them for the services rendered (and when possible, give them the opportunity to obtain them elsewhere). Yeah, there's a few public goods (in the strict economic sense) that this doesn't work for, like national security the like, but if you're just talking fire protection and tractor-trailer access to roads and the like, assessments for these are eminently straightforward. There are much better ways to justify the existence of taxes on businesses.
  - thrill 6y ago
    No, and neither did the wealthy pay 100x as much for the same product.
    - pc86 6y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    But burgers are not mandatory, and taxes are.
- effingwewt 6y ago
  Hahahahaha, thanks for the early morning laugh! Thanks to our tax laws the wealthy pay the least, are insulated the most from society at large and especially the legal system, all of which they have set up to further enrich themselves at the cost of the working class...and us simple plebs should simply take it as a given that our gracious overlords are of course taking care of the rest, as they have throughout all of history? How about I will believe that when the wealthy in my own family start doing their lawful duty (paying taxes, which is not theft) I will start believing this pearl-clutching rhetoric. Too funny =)
- pc86 6y ago
  There are some good arguments to lower taxes on certain people, even some high-earning ones. Reasonable people can disagree about optimal tax rates, and at the end of the day there's nothing wrong with just wanting to keep more of your money. Even had you made any of the myriad good arguments (which you didn't), going the idiotic "confiscationist" route destroys any shred of credibility or objectivity you may have potentially had. You simply cannot be taken seriously when you're using such ideological flame bait to describe your positions, or more accurately, your misunderstanding of your opponents' positions.

cltby 6y ago

The burden of proof isn’t on the rich to show that they’re doing their part; it’s on confiscationists to show that they’re not.

discreteevent 6y ago
If you pay for a burger did the seller confiscate your money?
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  I assume the intellectual basis for this is the "you didn't build that" philosophy. It's a garbage philosophy. Would that I should find paying my taxes was such a voluntary transaction as eating a burger! It does not justify charging businesses a blanket amount regardless of whether they use those services, and bundle in a bunch of unrelated spending and priorities, and calling that their "fair share." If the problem was really that people who build businesses were taking advantage of public services, the answer would be to charge them for the services rendered (and when possible, give them the opportunity to obtain them elsewhere). Yeah, there's a few public goods (in the strict economic sense) that this doesn't work for, like national security the like, but if you're just talking fire protection and tractor-trailer access to roads and the like, assessments for these are eminently straightforward. There are much better ways to justify the existence of taxes on businesses.
- thrill 6y ago
  No, and neither did the wealthy pay 100x as much for the same product.
  - pc86 6y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  But burgers are not mandatory, and taxes are.
effingwewt 6y ago
Hahahahaha, thanks for the early morning laugh! Thanks to our tax laws the wealthy pay the least, are insulated the most from society at large and especially the legal system, all of which they have set up to further enrich themselves at the cost of the working class...and us simple plebs should simply take it as a given that our gracious overlords are of course taking care of the rest, as they have throughout all of history? How about I will believe that when the wealthy in my own family start doing their lawful duty (paying taxes, which is not theft) I will start believing this pearl-clutching rhetoric. Too funny =)
pc86 6y ago
There are some good arguments to lower taxes on certain people, even some high-earning ones. Reasonable people can disagree about optimal tax rates, and at the end of the day there's nothing wrong with just wanting to keep more of your money. Even had you made any of the myriad good arguments (which you didn't), going the idiotic "confiscationist" route destroys any shred of credibility or objectivity you may have potentially had. You simply cannot be taken seriously when you're using such ideological flame bait to describe your positions, or more accurately, your misunderstanding of your opponents' positions.