8 ms·

> This is the same argument as ”if you want higher taxes why don’t you donate money to the state?”, which is of course a non-argument. why is it a non-argument

> This is the same argument as ”if you want higher taxes why don’t you donate money to the state?”, which is of course a non-argument. why is it a non-argument if everyone knows that talking the talk is different from walking the walk? Higher taxes is not a means to itself, it has a specific goal of funding causes that you care about. Now, if there's a cause that you deeply care about, why wouldn't you donate your own money towards that cause as a matter of your exercising your free will instead of desiring that everyone else are unuiformly forced into following your ideals?

alkonaut 5y ago
Taxes and charity are two completely different things. People can indeed donate. But arguing “I think there should be more public spending on X and I’d be willing to pay higher taxes for it” a political position. Not sure if you are insinuating that anyone who holds this political position but does not donate money towards the cause are somehow hypocrites? “Desiring that everyone else are forced to follow your ideals” is basically what most politics is about when it comes to public spending and taxes.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  > Taxes and charity are two completely different things. I couldn't agree more with it. One is a compulsory extortion, another is a voluntary action. > Not sure if you are insinuating that anyone who holds this political position but does not donate money towards the cause are somehow hypocrites? I'd like to understand why certain people would rather prefer a compulsory extortion for everyone than a voluntary action for themselves and other like-minded people. Even at the level of the mentioned politics, public spending is not especially effective and efficient approach towards funding your causes [1]. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2019/4/4/21211167/no-relief-as-pricey-park-bathrooms-put-pressure-on-taxpayers https://www.thecity.nyc/2019/4/4/21211167/no-relief-as-price...
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > I'd like to understand why certain people would rather prefer a compulsory extortion for everyone than a voluntary action for themselves and other like-minded people I think if you don’t understand that already, it’s likely I can’t help you understand either. I suggest traveling to and reading about functioning welfare states and high-tax societies. Perhaps it’ll clear up. If not, reading and traveling is rarely a waste!
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      > I think if you don’t understand that already, it’s likely I can’t help you understand either. But expressing your reasoning here doesn't have to be predicated purely on your percieving my capacity to understand it. You could just express it in a token of good will. I've switched three countries with three different languages so far. Coming from one of the currently non-existing Soviet states, I think I've got a pretty useful cultural and political background to understand and see the real difference between welfare- and small-government states than most of westerners by birth out there.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        I'm just one data point, and I'm all for a large-ish government and high-ish taxes but I'd be happy to answer a concrete question if you have one. Was it approximately "why would anyone vote for higher taxes to fund a larger state", was that correct? You should be able to find around 50% of the people around you ready to vote for that (regardless of what the current tax level is!)! That was my point - given that's basically the position of half the humans around you are you seriously wondering that, or is it rhetorical?

alkonaut 5y ago

Taxes and charity are two completely different things. People can indeed donate. But arguing “I think there should be more public spending on X and I’d be willing to pay higher taxes for it” a political position. Not sure if you are insinuating that anyone who holds this political position but does not donate money towards the cause are somehow hypocrites? “Desiring that everyone else are forced to follow your ideals” is basically what most politics is about when it comes to public spending and taxes.

ghostwriter 5y ago
> Taxes and charity are two completely different things. I couldn't agree more with it. One is a compulsory extortion, another is a voluntary action. > Not sure if you are insinuating that anyone who holds this political position but does not donate money towards the cause are somehow hypocrites? I'd like to understand why certain people would rather prefer a compulsory extortion for everyone than a voluntary action for themselves and other like-minded people. Even at the level of the mentioned politics, public spending is not especially effective and efficient approach towards funding your causes [1]. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2019/4/4/21211167/no-relief-as-pricey-park-bathrooms-put-pressure-on-taxpayers https://www.thecity.nyc/2019/4/4/21211167/no-relief-as-price...
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > I'd like to understand why certain people would rather prefer a compulsory extortion for everyone than a voluntary action for themselves and other like-minded people I think if you don’t understand that already, it’s likely I can’t help you understand either. I suggest traveling to and reading about functioning welfare states and high-tax societies. Perhaps it’ll clear up. If not, reading and traveling is rarely a waste!
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    > I think if you don’t understand that already, it’s likely I can’t help you understand either. But expressing your reasoning here doesn't have to be predicated purely on your percieving my capacity to understand it. You could just express it in a token of good will. I've switched three countries with three different languages so far. Coming from one of the currently non-existing Soviet states, I think I've got a pretty useful cultural and political background to understand and see the real difference between welfare- and small-government states than most of westerners by birth out there.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      I'm just one data point, and I'm all for a large-ish government and high-ish taxes but I'd be happy to answer a concrete question if you have one. Was it approximately "why would anyone vote for higher taxes to fund a larger state", was that correct? You should be able to find around 50% of the people around you ready to vote for that (regardless of what the current tax level is!)! That was my point - given that's basically the position of half the humans around you are you seriously wondering that, or is it rhetorical?