4 ms·

That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. I

That makes the lives of gold-diggers easier too. If it were opt-in that would be fine, otherwise it's an invasion of privacy of most people who aren't rich. It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it.

lucideer 5y ago
> If it were opt-in that would be fine If it were opt-in it would be pointless. Surely that's obvious? > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. This is a fair point, but I think these are relatively small individual downsides, which are also much more visible (and potentially addressable). Bribery is probably a harder nut to crack, but the legal system favouring the rich (& lawyered up) is something that one can potentially work toward balancing/mitigating with legislative measures.
gota 5y ago
I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their money... this is a non-issue. Happy to debate it further, but it seems so silly and self-apparent that we shouldn't care at all about it > Invasion of privacy Arguably, but as long as only a minimum amount of whats is public, with only the lump-sums published, I think its fine in context. > It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. I think these are very different things, the difference is not just of severity. They are different classes of things. Financial information relates to money, which only makes sense in a society (money is for trade). A disease's effects are personal. When they aren't, you are obligated to disclose them and/or to comply to other rules (for example, to quarantine). > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. I think the experience where this has been applied is precisely the opposite - the rich are the ones affected the most. And - if your justice can be bought, the problem has less to do with the knowledge that the other can't find back and more to do with the legal system in the first place. > Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it. Can't argue with that, even if I wanted to, in fewer than 15 pages. Complex stuff!
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  > this is a non-issue. Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? > I think its fine in context. That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and yet you're stilling trying hard to trivialize it. > And - if your justice can be bought, Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Who are you to have the gall... Whoa, relax. ISTM GP is probably a typical human. "Gold-diggers" are not and have never been a major threat to reasonably well-adjusted people. For weirdos who temporarily possess more money than they deserve, perhaps "gold-diggers" are a spice of life. Fools and wealth are soon parted, but that's true no matter what gets published.
  - gota 5y ago
    I think you're being downvoted our of tone, rather than content. So let me respond in reverse order, as the first point seems to be the most emotional for you >Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff. I absolutely think that the core issue is that the legal system can 'be bought', i.e., it can bankrupt people even if they are right. Reforming that shouldn't be completely impossible and would by definition solve the niche problem you are describing. Btw, as a rule _any_ corporation can sue _any_ non-famously rich person and be sure that they threat of litigation costs will weight in their favor. Disclosed tax info worsens nothing from the current status quo. > That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It is opinion, yes. But all laws are someone's opinion 'deciding for other people'. And I mean absolutely all laws, even the most basic ones like the right to live or to have private property. It's all social constructs, and we decide which ones stand > Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? I must say I'm surprised this issue seems important to you (and again - completely irrelevant to me). I absolutely don't care about something that I've only ever heard about in soap operas and have never, ever, heard of an example that bothered me in real life. I'm curious what makes this a relevant issue in your view, but I understand if its personal and you don't want to explain. But if you don't have any personal biases, let me argue that the problem of gold diggers is primarily a problem for the gold-dug (?). If a rich person doesn't want to marry/have a relationship with a person that only likes them for their money... then don't. I don't care, and I think nobody should
xutopia 5y ago
Funny thing my STI results are shared with my sexual partners and their partners too. It doesn't bother me one bit.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  By you and them? Laudable and sensible. By the government? What business is it of the government to even know who my sexual partner(s) is/are (especially for a negative test result)?
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    We already know, and we knew even before you did. Two of them were sent to test your disclosure practices, and you failed. You're an absolutely terrible person. How dare you!? Good day to you, sir/madame. I said "Good day!" /s
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Communicable disease prevention. HIV infections are typically reported to the government, for example, and does not require patient consent (nor does such data sharing incur a HIPPA violation). > All 50 states require both physicians and laboratories to report to local or state health departments the names of persons newly diagnosed with Centers for Disease Control-defined AIDS [1]. However, because AIDS cases represent onset of the disease caused by HIV, HIV data is necessary to monitor the epidemic. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-law-striking-balance-between-legal-mandates-and-medical-ethics/2005-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-...

lucideer 5y ago

> If it were opt-in that would be fine If it were opt-in it would be pointless. Surely that's obvious? > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. This is a fair point, but I think these are relatively small individual downsides, which are also much more visible (and potentially addressable). Bribery is probably a harder nut to crack, but the legal system favouring the rich (& lawyered up) is something that one can potentially work toward balancing/mitigating with legislative measures.

gota 5y ago

I disagree almost completely. I understand your concerns - but they are based on weighing personal freedom above all else, and I just don't. I think there's a tradeoff there and it is favorable in favor of disclosing tax information. To your points: > gold-diggers I'm not sure if this is an idiomatic term and out of my grasp, but if you mean that people will get romantically involved with others because of their money... this is a non-issue. Happy to debate it further, but it seems so silly and self-apparent that we shouldn't care at all about it > Invasion of privacy Arguably, but as long as only a minimum amount of whats is public, with only the lump-sums published, I think its fine in context. > It's almost as bad as having medical conditions and STIs test results listed publicly. I think these are very different things, the difference is not just of severity. They are different classes of things. Financial information relates to money, which only makes sense in a society (money is for trade). A disease's effects are personal. When they aren't, you are obligated to disclose them and/or to comply to other rules (for example, to quarantine). > Facilitating public exposure of counting other people's money doesn't help anyone except the rich to know if you can fight them in court or how much to bribe them. I think the experience where this has been applied is precisely the opposite - the rich are the ones affected the most. And - if your justice can be bought, the problem has less to do with the knowledge that the other can't find back and more to do with the legal system in the first place. > Fight wealth inequality with income-&-holdings-proportional fines; simple, government-calculated graduated taxes without complicated exemptions; elimination of corporate/wealth welfare; and expand economic-advancement-oriented welfare to those who aren't super-rich who can use it. Can't argue with that, even if I wanted to, in fewer than 15 pages. Complex stuff!

failwhaleshark 5y ago
> this is a non-issue. Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? > I think its fine in context. That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It's the only number that matters and yet you're stilling trying hard to trivialize it. > And - if your justice can be bought, Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Who are you to have the gall... Whoa, relax. ISTM GP is probably a typical human. "Gold-diggers" are not and have never been a major threat to reasonably well-adjusted people. For weirdos who temporarily possess more money than they deserve, perhaps "gold-diggers" are a spice of life. Fools and wealth are soon parted, but that's true no matter what gets published.
- gota 5y ago
  I think you're being downvoted our of tone, rather than content. So let me respond in reverse order, as the first point seems to be the most emotional for you >Nope, you automatically lept entirely in the wrong direction: it's not the justice who can be bought that is the problem, but the rich knowing how to calculate exactly how to exploit and buy-off the poor. Think Indecent Proposal or Bhopal rather than some Western movie about a crooked town sheriff. I absolutely think that the core issue is that the legal system can 'be bought', i.e., it can bankrupt people even if they are right. Reforming that shouldn't be completely impossible and would by definition solve the niche problem you are describing. Btw, as a rule _any_ corporation can sue _any_ non-famously rich person and be sure that they threat of litigation costs will weight in their favor. Disclosed tax info worsens nothing from the current status quo. > That's your opinion that you're deciding for other people. It is opinion, yes. But all laws are someone's opinion 'deciding for other people'. And I mean absolutely all laws, even the most basic ones like the right to live or to have private property. It's all social constructs, and we decide which ones stand > Who are you to have the gall to claim conclusive knowledge of an unknowable without a shred of evidence? How do you think gold-diggers and con-artists work, hang-around at airports, golf-courses, and investment brokerages waiting for rappers with the most gold chains? I must say I'm surprised this issue seems important to you (and again - completely irrelevant to me). I absolutely don't care about something that I've only ever heard about in soap operas and have never, ever, heard of an example that bothered me in real life. I'm curious what makes this a relevant issue in your view, but I understand if its personal and you don't want to explain. But if you don't have any personal biases, let me argue that the problem of gold diggers is primarily a problem for the gold-dug (?). If a rich person doesn't want to marry/have a relationship with a person that only likes them for their money... then don't. I don't care, and I think nobody should

xutopia 5y ago

Funny thing my STI results are shared with my sexual partners and their partners too. It doesn't bother me one bit.

sokoloff 5y ago
By you and them? Laudable and sensible. By the government? What business is it of the government to even know who my sexual partner(s) is/are (especially for a negative test result)?
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  We already know, and we knew even before you did. Two of them were sent to test your disclosure practices, and you failed. You're an absolutely terrible person. How dare you!? Good day to you, sir/madame. I said "Good day!" /s
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Communicable disease prevention. HIV infections are typically reported to the government, for example, and does not require patient consent (nor does such data sharing incur a HIPPA violation). > All 50 states require both physicians and laboratories to report to local or state health departments the names of persons newly diagnosed with Centers for Disease Control-defined AIDS [1]. However, because AIDS cases represent onset of the disease caused by HIV, HIV data is necessary to monitor the epidemic. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-law-striking-balance-between-legal-mandates-and-medical-ethics/2005-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/hiv-and-health-...