6 ms·

> We propose that half of the resources freed up by this agreement are allocated to a global fund, under UN supervision, to address humanity’s grave common prob

• go_elmo 5y ago
  I agree that many people would perceive it in this way, but the truth is that your country would be paying as one, but receiving from many in a crisis. Thats the whole point of it.
• saurik 5y ago
  > I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself. This seems like a very strange model for taxes; maybe it works for military spending? I feel like if this were truly the goal one would not pay taxes at all, as the entire premise of paying taxes is to solve a shared problem--in this case, I am presuming "peace in our time" (I am using the Ultron reference on purpose, btw) as opposed to "a new rail line"--that some people will assuredly benefit from more than others.
  • FredPret 5y ago
    Yes it is to solve a shared problem. But it myst be a problem shared by the person paying the taxes, otherwise it’s simple extortion / social engineering
    • MauranKilom 5y ago
      Does "support disabled people" count as a problem shared by you if you (and your family) are not disabled? Or is that social engineering/extortion?
      • FredPret 5y ago
        That’s a form of insurance that covers me
        • SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
          Wouldn’t a global fund for any disaster in the world also be a form of insurance that covers me? I would be happy that there’s a global fund for me if my country goes down the shitter.
          • nradov 5y ago
            By the time your country goes down the shitter the corrupt unaccountable bureaucrats who manage that global fund would have embezzled all the money.
            • SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
              Wouldn’t that apply to any kind of disaster or disablement fund? I don’t get it.
              • FredPret 5y ago
                Smaller scale is better. It’s closer to the non-politician voters. The UN is many layers removed from me and I have no actual control over what they do or who works there, whereas I can write to and vote for the person who runs my neighbourhood, city, etc.
                • MauranKilom 5y ago
                  That's a reasonable take, but a far cry from "extortion".
      • donw 5y ago
        That depends on many factors. What do you mean by "disabled"? Unable to work? As declared by whom? Merely needing reasonable accommodation? Is that a universal? A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. Speaking frankly, they're just lazy and worked the system so that they could focus on their real passion: porn and drugs. A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense, because a lawyer was running around and filing suit against any business that didn't adhere completely to ADA requirements. It's... a climbing gym. If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line. Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma. Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma. At least in the latter case, your family and friends can pull together to put more money into grandma.
  • m4rtink 5y ago
    That's a Neville Chamberlain reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Our_Time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_in_Our_Time
    • saurik 5y ago
      Ok, I do know/appreciate that it is was itself in that context a Neville Chamberlain reference (though he said "for", not "in" ;P), but I think the contemporary Marvel reference was what people would try to make fun of me for (if they didn't know I "walked into it willingly") because Ultron was a bad idea that caused lots of suffering, particularly among people from an Eastern European country that were already experiencing massive strife due to foreign intervention (a la Ukraine, which was what is being discussed here).
  • HideousKojima 5y ago
    "Peace in our time" isn't from Ultron (originally). It's a quote from Prime Minister Chamberlain justifying his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany.
    • saurik 5y ago
      Ok, I do know/appreciate that it is was itself in that context a Neville Chamberlain reference (though he said "for", not "in" ;P), but I think the contemporary Marvel reference was what people would try to make fun of me for (if they didn't know I "walked into it willingly") because Ultron was a bad idea that caused lots of suffering, particularly among people from an Eastern European country that were already experiencing massive strife due to foreign intervention (a la Ukraine, which was what is being discussed here).
  • lettergram 5y ago
    > This seems like a very strange model for taxes It’s been the basis of taxes for all time. You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return they try to protect you, such that you keep paying them. Beyond that, you probably wouldn’t pay taxes. You’d buy something. It would be much more efficient to buy some shared solution to a problem, as opposed to let someone take your money by force to solve some problem that may or may not impact you.
    • saurik 5y ago
      Oh, "because I am forced to at gunpoint" is not at all how I read "I pay taxes to protect myself" in the context of public safety / war expenditures.
      • wombatpm 5y ago
        Classic Libertarian argument. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of force that they employ to obtain tax revenue. The proof of the statement lies in what happens if you don't pay taxes. Eventually, someone with guns will place you in custody or garnish your wages or seize your property.
        • saurik 5y ago
          I am not claiming I haven't heard that argument before or that I don't understand it: I am claiming that I don't think this is what the person I was replying to meant when they said they pay taxes to help themselves and not other people, particularly given the explicit explanation "don't tax people in one country to help another".
      • HKH2 5y ago
        Being forced to buy protection doesn't mean you wouldn't buy it anyway; you just can't shop around.
    • Retric 5y ago
      That line of thinking breaks down when you consider people can generally move somewhere else. Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.
• ohCh6zos 5y ago
  I wish my taxes went to protect myself.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• friesfreeze 5y ago
  I, for one, pay taxes so I don’t wind up in jail.
• olliej 5y ago
  > I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself. You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military. The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to supporting the common good, not some naive idea of protection.
  • xboxnolifes 5y ago
    I have this strange feeling you could switch two sections in there and make the exact opposite argument. ----- You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military. The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to protection, not some naive idea of supporting the common good. ----- Also note how all of your examples are nationally bound, not global services.
• arcticbull 5y ago
  > I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself. Not really. You pay taxes to fund the fabric of society. That means self-defense, but it also means other common goals such basic infrastructure and social services. You may not want to, but you do, and your individual want isn't the sufficient to change where your contributions actually go. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules even if the minority is vocal and irritated by that majority decision. Subject to the constitution, of course.
  • rgrieselhuber 5y ago
    Fortunately, the Founders were smart enough to know that absolute rule by majority is a disaster and did not set things up that way.
    • arcticbull 5y ago
      Yes, it's limited by the constitution as I indicated in the final sentence.
      • rgrieselhuber 5y ago
        It just seemed somewhat contradictory because the limitations placed by the Constitution specifically are designed to prevent the rule by majority statement you made in the beginning.
• burntbridge 5y ago
  >I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself. Helping people in other countries does protect yourself. Having stable regional neighbors for example is very desirable. Any money used to keep things this way is very well spent. Trying to stem the flow of thousands of refugees or dealing with conflict is hugely expensive.
• barbazoo 5y ago
  > I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself. Whatever helps you justify paying taxes but that doesn't make much sense in view. Protect yourself from what? Taxes pay for public services, infrastructure, often health.
• trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  I work in natural science and have fled a very repressive state, where I grew up. In my experience a lot of scientists who grew up and live in more open and liberal societies are incredibly naive when it comes to authoritarianism and politics in general. The worst we can do is listen to these people's opinions regarding geopolitics, it plays right in the hands of evil regimes. Listening to some of my colleagues explaining the world to me often reminds me of the 'Actors Guild' in Team America. That's exaggerating a bit of course, but you may get my point. They have no idea what they're saying, they are a danger to society and themselves when it comes to this topic. There worst part is many are otherwise genuinely smart people and are of course convinced they can't be wrong. And the general public tends to listen to them because they're respected in their fields and have won awards. Add to that a good dose of Western arrogance, it's a recipe for disaster.
• lewispollard 5y ago
  > don’t tax people in one country to help another. It won’t be popular. I know you're expressing a common sentiment that likely the majority of people in most countries share, but planetary emergencies don't care what country you're in. The country model is ill-equipped to deal with emergencies on a global scale - I mean, just look at the past 2 years as a case study...