4 ms·

Government is a service, and services work harder when they have to compete. Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to wor

Government is a service, and services work harder when they have to compete. Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to work to justify its spend. If it doesn't, the business and talent goes elsewhere. The proposed policy seems to be one thing pretending to be another. It is selling itself as a crackdown on big tech tax minimisation. Your description of it as a cartel arrangement is much more fitting.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to work to justify its spend. If it doesn't, the business and talent goes elsewhere. Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? The "value" in government is, in my opinion at least, ensuring rights (specifically equality irrespective of wealth) and services for all citizens, not only the very rich. Maybe you'd argue that the very rich care deeply about poorer citizens and would not leave a country that adequately provides for its poor, but I don't think history supports this generalization of the very rich. It seems like this is a recipe for exacerbating inequality--I'm not an ardent leftist, but I can't get down with "let the poor starve" nor can I bring myself to subscribe to the various economic trickle-down theories for caring for the poor. It seems to me that economic inequality must be limited and that the government is the only institution that has a chance at limiting it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  > Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. Right, but the point of this proposal is to limit that competition so governments can focus on improving lives of lower classes. I can't tell if we're in "violent agreement" or not. > how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, Or tax breaks and the rich build their own enclaves with low crime and amenities. I'm not advocating for this, on the contrary; however, this is an option that governments use to court the rich to the detriment of the rest of their citizens. > The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers. Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Or is that part of (2)?
    - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
      > Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Depends on your definition of "rich", but probably not. First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes [1]. There are many talks about "paying fair share", but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Second, I'm afraid even if we close loopholes and collect some more money, it won't help. New York, for example, is in top 10 states by collected income tax. Yet it has shitty (and expensive!) roads, shitty subway, not-so-good state university - well, you name it. Before asking for more taxes, I'd like to see current funds used wisely. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income... [2] https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        > First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes My understanding is that we are talking about the top 0.1%, not the top 1%, at least with respect to loopholes. > but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Agreed. I’m less concerned about “what is fair” and more concerned with making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare and that corruption is minimized. As far as I can tell, this means we should tax the rich (and probably even upper middle classes including me, happily) and severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc so the very rich can’t buy our democracy.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  The value of government in the United States is in ensuring the protection of natural rights not the creation of positive ones at the expense of those natural rights. People have the right to vote with their feet or vote with their dollars regardless of their economic status. This treaty seeks to dissuade and upend that. If people are starving, that's because of bad economic policy. No person should be required to stay or invest in an area if it's not to his liking particularly if it is to his economic loss.
Yoric 5y ago
> Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to work to justify its spend. If it doesn't, the business and talent goes elsewhere. Is it? I mean, if you believe that taxes are wasted money, it probably is, but if you equate taxes with hospitals, schools, roads, trains, police, research, ... then you probably feel that the underbidding tax war is really a bad thing that hurts communities.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to work to justify its spend. If it doesn't, the business and talent goes elsewhere. Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? The "value" in government is, in my opinion at least, ensuring rights (specifically equality irrespective of wealth) and services for all citizens, not only the very rich. Maybe you'd argue that the very rich care deeply about poorer citizens and would not leave a country that adequately provides for its poor, but I don't think history supports this generalization of the very rich. It seems like this is a recipe for exacerbating inequality--I'm not an ardent leftist, but I can't get down with "let the poor starve" nor can I bring myself to subscribe to the various economic trickle-down theories for caring for the poor. It seems to me that economic inequality must be limited and that the government is the only institution that has a chance at limiting it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
> Doesn't this mean that they're competing for the upper classes? Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Well, they are. It's a matter of fact. Upper and middle classes, I would say. Right, but the point of this proposal is to limit that competition so governments can focus on improving lives of lower classes. I can't tell if we're in "violent agreement" or not. > how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, Or tax breaks and the rich build their own enclaves with low crime and amenities. I'm not advocating for this, on the contrary; however, this is an option that governments use to court the rich to the detriment of the rest of their citizens. > The questions the government should solve are therefore (1) how do we attract more well-off people - whether it's through low crime rate, good health and education services or nice parks and clean air, (2) how do we use the limited resources we have to improve lives of not that-well-off and (3) how do we turn the poor ones into taxpayers. Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Or is that part of (2)?
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    > Isn't there an option in which we tax the super rich by closing loopholes? Depends on your definition of "rich", but probably not. First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes [1]. There are many talks about "paying fair share", but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Second, I'm afraid even if we close loopholes and collect some more money, it won't help. New York, for example, is in top 10 states by collected income tax. Yet it has shitty (and expensive!) roads, shitty subway, not-so-good state university - well, you name it. Before asking for more taxes, I'd like to see current funds used wisely. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/ https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income... [2] https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-tax-revenue
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > First, top 1% already pays 40% of all taxes My understanding is that we are talking about the top 0.1%, not the top 1%, at least with respect to loopholes. > but nobody is saying what is fair and how we determine it. Agreed. I’m less concerned about “what is fair” and more concerned with making sure everyone has access to essentials including healthcare and that corruption is minimized. As far as I can tell, this means we should tax the rich (and probably even upper middle classes including me, happily) and severely limit campaign donations, political advertising, lobbying etc so the very rich can’t buy our democracy.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
The value of government in the United States is in ensuring the protection of natural rights not the creation of positive ones at the expense of those natural rights. People have the right to vote with their feet or vote with their dollars regardless of their economic status. This treaty seeks to dissuade and upend that. If people are starving, that's because of bad economic policy. No person should be required to stay or invest in an area if it's not to his liking particularly if it is to his economic loss.

Yoric 5y ago

> Tax competition is a good thing. When raising taxes is hard, government has to work to justify its spend. If it doesn't, the business and talent goes elsewhere. Is it? I mean, if you believe that taxes are wasted money, it probably is, but if you equate taxes with hospitals, schools, roads, trains, police, research, ... then you probably feel that the underbidding tax war is really a bad thing that hurts communities.