4 ms·

>He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. Sure.

>He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. Sure. But that's not what you're actually arguing for; the point you're making is instead that you are obliged to give your money to the government in the hopes that they will contribute to the maintenance of that society. If I or anyone else can and am/are willing to do it more efficiently than the government can or will, you would still demand it go through the government, for no more justification than the fig leaf of the will of the people, which is not a homogeneous thing in any case as you pointed out and therefore is not some sacred duty that only the government is morally authorized to perform. If a billionaire or anyone else can make their money work better for a society than the government can, they should be allowed to. >Then this whole thing somehow devolved into somehow trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest Except it didn't? I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government. I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing. It will result in more suffering than allowing tax breaks for philanthropy. My understanding is that you accept that this is true, and are saying that even though it is the case, it is still morally superior for that wealth to go to less effective government projects than more effective philanthropy. >I never said that philanthropy was wrong. So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy." Also, you think I'm strawmanning you? You've claimed that I assume moral superiority for not paying taxes, that I'm advocating for purely extractive economic activity and tax evasion from billionaires, and that my entire point is about masking greed through virtuous language. If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it. Taxes are not a moral good. They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force. If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions. There are things that tax is necessary for. Critical infrastructure, the unsexy parts of building and maintaining a society (roads, sewers, etc), legislative and executive matters, national defense. There are things that both public money and private money can be useful for - social welfare, education, research, etc. Often, the private money results in much better outcomes in fair trials; it is less bounded by realpolitik and is more agile in redeployment to more effective methods. Often, the tax money is much greater than what is actually necessary for the achieved purpose. The United States spends a roughly equal amount of its tax income on public healthcare as the UK does, and has nothing comparable to the NHS. When it tries to reduce spending, it does so not by adapting itself to the times, reinventing itself like any long-running institution should aim to do, but by accumulating another layer of cruft, becoming ever greater, ever less efficient. The system creaks under the weight of its debts, just as the VA offices creak under the weight of thousands of tons of paperwork, as the halls of power creak under the load of yet more stultifying regulation, presented only to entrench the powers that be. It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths. Pay your taxes. But don't pretend that paying taxes is morally superior to just giving money to a good cause.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> Sure. But that's not what you're actually arguing for; the point you're making is instead that you are obliged to give your money to the government in the hopes that they will contribute to the maintenance of that society. If I or anyone else can and am/are willing to do it more efficiently than the government can or will [...] Most individuals will believe that they can distribute that money more efficiently, partially because they are largely ignorant of vast swaths of things the government supports that keeps society running, partially because everyone suffers from Dunning-Kruger, and partially out of sheer selfishness. We collect taxes from everyone, pool it, and elect a body of representatives to determine how to allocate it for the betterment of all. Sometimes they will not do that, and I say that is on us as voters as much as it is them. It isn't perfect, but what does the alternative look like? What kind of system are you advocating for? > I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government. Yes. How else am I meant to take that quote except as an illustration that one can justify not paying taxes on moral grounds because they don't agree with the way they are spent? Case in point: > If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it. > It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths. How am I not supposed to read this, under the context of that Jefferson quote, as "the government does inefficient stuff sometimes, so that morally justifies not paying taxes". > I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing. I'm not 100% sold on that idea, simply because the "philanthropy" need not necessarily actually contribute positively to society. That person is effectively taking taxes that might be used to, say, pay for Medicare and redirecting it to, say, an evangelical organization that does nothing but pester people to convert to their religion. I am not sure we should encourage that, but I am not really against the concept either. > So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy." No one is preventing billionaires from using their money to try and make the world a better place, what is being argued is that maybe they shouldn't get tax breaks for it. Is it morally right that a billionaire only gives money to some cause (which again, may not actually be for the betterment of society) . > Taxes are not a moral good. ...I can't 100% agree with that statement. Taxes are a part of the social contract, and to that extent paying them is honoring the contract, which all else being equal is good. > They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force. Again, it is difficult to divorce this from the Jefferson quote. It sounds very much like you are saying you believe that taxes are not working for the betterment of society and are basically theft. As far as I am aware, we are talking about real billionaires in the real world with real governments, not some hypothetical totally corrupt and practically unelected show-democracy. > If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I am weary of the idea that any given person's choice of where that money should be spent will be better. Especially since I find it difficult to disagree with others in this thread saying that no one gets to be that wealthy without being a bastard in some regards, so I'm especially weary of letting them skip out on their obligation to society in favor of whatever they think is more important. As flawed as it is, I trust the government to allocate those resources better for society because we have at least some measure of control over it via democracy. Aside from the above mentioned line about sycophants and psychopaths, I agree that our government could be a lot better. However, I seriously doubt that putting our faith in billionaires to be generous is the way forward on that. Ok, we keep going back and forth on this stuff so let me sum up my position: Taxes are part of the social contract, so anyone in society should pay them if they are taking advantage of the infrastructure and services that society provides. The elected government of a democracy is not a perfect system for allocating taxes for the betterment of society, but it is the best system we have. I don't trust billionaires, who almost certainly attained their wealth in large part by being ruthless and exploiting loopholes, to not exploit tax-deductible charity, and they certainly have enough wealth to not need to.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> Sure. But that's not what you're actually arguing for; the point you're making is instead that you are obliged to give your money to the government in the hopes that they will contribute to the maintenance of that society. If I or anyone else can and am/are willing to do it more efficiently than the government can or will [...] Most individuals will believe that they can distribute that money more efficiently, partially because they are largely ignorant of vast swaths of things the government supports that keeps society running, partially because everyone suffers from Dunning-Kruger, and partially out of sheer selfishness. We collect taxes from everyone, pool it, and elect a body of representatives to determine how to allocate it for the betterment of all. Sometimes they will not do that, and I say that is on us as voters as much as it is them. It isn't perfect, but what does the alternative look like? What kind of system are you advocating for? > I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government. Yes. How else am I meant to take that quote except as an illustration that one can justify not paying taxes on moral grounds because they don't agree with the way they are spent? Case in point: > If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it. > It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths. How am I not supposed to read this, under the context of that Jefferson quote, as "the government does inefficient stuff sometimes, so that morally justifies not paying taxes". > I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing. I'm not 100% sold on that idea, simply because the "philanthropy" need not necessarily actually contribute positively to society. That person is effectively taking taxes that might be used to, say, pay for Medicare and redirecting it to, say, an evangelical organization that does nothing but pester people to convert to their religion. I am not sure we should encourage that, but I am not really against the concept either. > So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy." No one is preventing billionaires from using their money to try and make the world a better place, what is being argued is that maybe they shouldn't get tax breaks for it. Is it morally right that a billionaire only gives money to some cause (which again, may not actually be for the betterment of society) . > Taxes are not a moral good. ...I can't 100% agree with that statement. Taxes are a part of the social contract, and to that extent paying them is honoring the contract, which all else being equal is good. > They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force. Again, it is difficult to divorce this from the Jefferson quote. It sounds very much like you are saying you believe that taxes are not working for the betterment of society and are basically theft. As far as I am aware, we are talking about real billionaires in the real world with real governments, not some hypothetical totally corrupt and practically unelected show-democracy. > If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I am weary of the idea that any given person's choice of where that money should be spent will be better. Especially since I find it difficult to disagree with others in this thread saying that no one gets to be that wealthy without being a bastard in some regards, so I'm especially weary of letting them skip out on their obligation to society in favor of whatever they think is more important. As flawed as it is, I trust the government to allocate those resources better for society because we have at least some measure of control over it via democracy. Aside from the above mentioned line about sycophants and psychopaths, I agree that our government could be a lot better. However, I seriously doubt that putting our faith in billionaires to be generous is the way forward on that. Ok, we keep going back and forth on this stuff so let me sum up my position: Taxes are part of the social contract, so anyone in society should pay them if they are taking advantage of the infrastructure and services that society provides. The elected government of a democracy is not a perfect system for allocating taxes for the betterment of society, but it is the best system we have. I don't trust billionaires, who almost certainly attained their wealth in large part by being ruthless and exploiting loopholes, to not exploit tax-deductible charity, and they certainly have enough wealth to not need to.