2 ms·

We shouldn't have laws that target N number of people. The law should be fair and unbiased. Suppose for example that N=1. Would it be ok to target one person

We shouldn't have laws that target N number of people. The law should be fair and unbiased. Suppose for example that N=1. Would it be ok to target one person with tax increases? What about 10, 100, or 1000 people? I'm not part of the 1% and never will be. But we should make just laws. Some people will think "yeah, but the rich people don't pay taxes" which is exactly my problem with it. Again, we've created a situation in which the law only applies to some. The solution isn't to reverse the situation, but to balance the law.

alecst 5y ago
This doesn't target N people. It targets wealth above a certain limit, and notably wealth that is typically in an asset class that makes it easy to avoid taxes. This is exactly what you describe -- a way of balancing the law so that the rich pay taxes. Maybe you don't agree with the implementation but you've expressed exactly the sentiment behind the law so...
tacostakohashi 5y ago
https://www.congress.gov/private-laws/111th-congress https://www.congress.gov/private-laws/111th-congress N=1 is not a hypothetical example.
adamhp 5y ago
> "Again, we've created a situation in which the law only applies to some." That is partly the problem. The law definitely needs to be changed to address the fact that the people who have generated massive amounts of wealth have done so by avoiding taxes, and then lobbying for favorable outcomes for themselves that are in direct contradiction to the welfare of society—e.g. increasing the price of insulin making it difficult for people to afford it, when the cost has not increased and it is purely for profit. The law only ever "applies to some". That is the point. Driver's license laws only "apply to" people over a certain age. Accredited investor regulations only apply to people of certain means. Citizenship laws apply under a specific set of conditions. The list goes on. That is literally the point of "law". Conditioned restriction on behavior to sustain order and welfare amongst mass amounts of human beings.

alecst 5y ago

This doesn't target N people. It targets wealth above a certain limit, and notably wealth that is typically in an asset class that makes it easy to avoid taxes. This is exactly what you describe -- a way of balancing the law so that the rich pay taxes. Maybe you don't agree with the implementation but you've expressed exactly the sentiment behind the law so...

tacostakohashi 5y ago

https://www.congress.gov/private-laws/111th-congress https://www.congress.gov/private-laws/111th-congress N=1 is not a hypothetical example.

adamhp 5y ago

> "Again, we've created a situation in which the law only applies to some." That is partly the problem. The law definitely needs to be changed to address the fact that the people who have generated massive amounts of wealth have done so by avoiding taxes, and then lobbying for favorable outcomes for themselves that are in direct contradiction to the welfare of society—e.g. increasing the price of insulin making it difficult for people to afford it, when the cost has not increased and it is purely for profit. The law only ever "applies to some". That is the point. Driver's license laws only "apply to" people over a certain age. Accredited investor regulations only apply to people of certain means. Citizenship laws apply under a specific set of conditions. The list goes on. That is literally the point of "law". Conditioned restriction on behavior to sustain order and welfare amongst mass amounts of human beings.