5 ms·

Too big, too ineffective. If it was a good use of capital. more people would pay voluntarily higher taxes. No one does because it's where value in the form of c

Too big, too ineffective. If it was a good use of capital. more people would pay voluntarily higher taxes. No one does because it's where value in the form of capital goes to die.

ravenstine 5y ago
It's essentially the same kind of alienation Marx talks about. Replace "workers" with "taxpayers" and it perfectly describes the situation. Even if taxes did go towards useful things, the average taxpayer is simply too detached from their rewards. There's a lot I don't agree with Marx on, but I think he was right on the aspect of alienation.
- jl2718 5y ago
  There is a difference. Capitalists are not allowed to arrest and/or kill for non-compliance. Well... (noting the date) not anymore at least.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    Capitalists are in control of the state, so of course they do. Try taking over your workplace, the police will come for you.
    - chii 5y ago
      > Try taking over your workplace aka, try stealing, and you get arrested.
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        So the ruling class (capitalists) have defined what theft is and have armed bodies to enforce it. Profits aren’t somehow defined as theft, despite all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce.
        chii 5y ago
        > all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce only if you believe that the capital being used to produce value - including the wages being paid upfront - are valueless.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        Is that capital also not produced by workers, in the past? It’s a form of crystallised labour. Also, does a fixed initial investment entitle one to a fraction of all future (variable) value produced? Why?
        chii 5y ago
        All investments entitle one to all future productivity produced from said investment. This is the central idea of ownership. The new capital is _produced_ by the workers, but it was done with initial capital that is _owned_ by the capitalist. So unless you agree that these initial capital is not worth anything (despite it being required), how can _all_ capital belong to the workers that made it? After all, the workers agreed to receive their wage in exchange for producing, using the seed capital supplied by the capitalist.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        The initial capital entitles the investor to a fraction of all labour, in perpetuity? Without any further work or investment? Yes, this appropriation is central to the capitalist idea of ownership. Another word for that is theft.
greesil 5y ago
I would voluntarily pay higher taxes for more services. How else would you purpose large infrastructure projects to be handled? It's precisely scale that's needed to get good ROI. Look up the word monopsony. Also consider the word network, and it's effects, in "transportation network", and consider how scale plays into that as well. As for the rest of your ideas, citation needed.
- slickrick216 5y ago
  Depending on where you are you can make a voluntary donation to the government. In some places it’s actually similar to a charitable donation so has a tax writeoff. However in response to your point and in fairness to OP you can’t in the overwhelming majority of places decide where your money goes. It’s just pooled and used for whatever government wants to do with it. This is what most people have a problem with. Personally I can see the merit in having some shared system but it should voluntarily always. Compelling people’s money through state sanctioned force which includes fines and imprisonment is sick. It promotes a parasitic relationship with government where people don’t feel part of it. Instead they feel smothered by it.
  - daenz 5y ago
    It would be cool if you had to pay $X in taxes, but there were different sliders for allocating where your taxes went (10% to infra, 20% to green initiatives, etc). That way people can support things that they believe in, and they feel more invested in the outcomes.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      It would also be cool if people had long, complex, ongoing conversations (and meta-conversations) about feasible improvements like this to the design of our governments. Petty polarizing arguments arguments are soon much more appealing though. :(
      - mistermann 5y ago

Too big, too ineffective. If it was a good use of capital. more people would pay voluntarily higher taxes. No one does because it's where value in the form of capital goes to die.

ravenstine 5y ago

It's essentially the same kind of alienation Marx talks about. Replace "workers" with "taxpayers" and it perfectly describes the situation. Even if taxes did go towards useful things, the average taxpayer is simply too detached from their rewards. There's a lot I don't agree with Marx on, but I think he was right on the aspect of alienation.

jl2718 5y ago
There is a difference. Capitalists are not allowed to arrest and/or kill for non-compliance. Well... (noting the date) not anymore at least.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Capitalists are in control of the state, so of course they do. Try taking over your workplace, the police will come for you.
  - chii 5y ago
    > Try taking over your workplace aka, try stealing, and you get arrested.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      So the ruling class (capitalists) have defined what theft is and have armed bodies to enforce it. Profits aren’t somehow defined as theft, despite all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce.
      - chii 5y ago
        > all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce only if you believe that the capital being used to produce value - including the wages being paid upfront - are valueless.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        Is that capital also not produced by workers, in the past? It’s a form of crystallised labour. Also, does a fixed initial investment entitle one to a fraction of all future (variable) value produced? Why?
        chii 5y ago
        All investments entitle one to all future productivity produced from said investment. This is the central idea of ownership. The new capital is _produced_ by the workers, but it was done with initial capital that is _owned_ by the capitalist. So unless you agree that these initial capital is not worth anything (despite it being required), how can _all_ capital belong to the workers that made it? After all, the workers agreed to receive their wage in exchange for producing, using the seed capital supplied by the capitalist.
        lucian1900 5y ago
        The initial capital entitles the investor to a fraction of all labour, in perpetuity? Without any further work or investment? Yes, this appropriation is central to the capitalist idea of ownership. Another word for that is theft.

greesil 5y ago

I would voluntarily pay higher taxes for more services. How else would you purpose large infrastructure projects to be handled? It's precisely scale that's needed to get good ROI. Look up the word monopsony. Also consider the word network, and it's effects, in "transportation network", and consider how scale plays into that as well. As for the rest of your ideas, citation needed.

slickrick216 5y ago
Depending on where you are you can make a voluntary donation to the government. In some places it’s actually similar to a charitable donation so has a tax writeoff. However in response to your point and in fairness to OP you can’t in the overwhelming majority of places decide where your money goes. It’s just pooled and used for whatever government wants to do with it. This is what most people have a problem with. Personally I can see the merit in having some shared system but it should voluntarily always. Compelling people’s money through state sanctioned force which includes fines and imprisonment is sick. It promotes a parasitic relationship with government where people don’t feel part of it. Instead they feel smothered by it.
- daenz 5y ago
  It would be cool if you had to pay $X in taxes, but there were different sliders for allocating where your taxes went (10% to infra, 20% to green initiatives, etc). That way people can support things that they believe in, and they feel more invested in the outcomes.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    It would also be cool if people had long, complex, ongoing conversations (and meta-conversations) about feasible improvements like this to the design of our governments. Petty polarizing arguments arguments are soon much more appealing though. :(
    - mistermann 5y ago