3 ms·

> It will inevitably be abused, loopholed, and twisted The unwillingness to do the right things, to head the right direction, for fear that the things is not p

> It will inevitably be abused, loopholed, and twisted The unwillingness to do the right things, to head the right direction, for fear that the things is not perfectly done is a paralysis to be avoided. There's two issues you raise that get conflated: 1. The above, that it will be loopholed, and dodged. Yet for many of the very rich it will have a meaningful impact. I'd rather start, than worry. 2. The fear that this gets used to extract wealth from the middle class. This is where the bulk of your words reside. Yet, even far-left democratic-socialist US politicians like Bernie Sanders only proposes taxing the top 0.1%[1], those presently making over 32m$. To be so bound up in fear & uncertainty, to make oneself unwilling to act or try, to hold the belief of doom & misery as the only outcome of trying: it's far short of what a peoples should permit themselves. [1] https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/ https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/

pdonis 5y ago
> The unwillingness to do the right things Taxing people so the government can waste more money is not "the right thing". > even far-left democratic-socialist US politicians like Bernie Sanders only proposes taxing the top 0.1% As the GP pointed out, this is exactly how income tax was originally pushed through: by saying, oh, don't worry, it will only apply to the very top earners. Now look at it. The fundamental problem with taxation of any sort is that, most of the time, the government is worse at spending the money than the people that it gets taxed away from. I don't see why a wealth tax would be any different.
uejfiweun 5y ago
Strongly disagree. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Moreover, you are actually proving my point. Sure, it starts out as a tax on the top 0.1% making over 32M. What happens with inflation, when 32M has the same value as 1M today? Who is to say the 0.1% might not become 1%, then 10%, then 100%? To ignore these possibilities is to be naïve. We have very recent historical PROOF of the fact that these goalposts get moved, in the income tax.
- rektide 5y ago
  Bernies' Extreme Wealth Tax says a couple with worth of $32m would taxed ~$5000 a year. That sounds like such a pittance. Worlds smallest fiddle playing for your slipperly slope government-is-evil shitholeness, this aspersion that this would be some terrible plight. It's a toxic straw man you've propped up. I don't see your fearmongering as an entertainable idea: it is meant to intimidate & bully, and it's so far, so very very many magntitudes, outside the intent & nature of what's really being discussed. We have to start doing something. The current situation is catastrophic. The 0.1% need to contribute, needs to chip in to the society they benefit from having around & working/selling-to, and in large part this super-strata of society is so busy re-investing their capital that they rarely have to directly help our society, fund our government; they face less tax burden than most. A wealth tax is a basic, simple, easy idea to make the well-monied investor class contribute something to society. Ultimately government has to be able to respond & adapt. Once a law stops fitting it's purpose it needs to be amended, fixed, rewritten. To simply say we should admit defeat & give up government is defeatism that gets us nowhere. We need progress. We need progressivism. We need to be able to enact laws easier, to monitor their impact, to adjust them as we go. Legislating in my lifetime has been roadblocked by the most shrill, hostile, negative, condescending anti-government forces imaginable. At some point we need some space & time when we decide we are going to allow governing, when we will let ourselves make & adapt & improve laws. That has not happened in modernity, and that, that is the poison eating us away, and that is why disbelief is such a reigning popular toxin. When we say government degrades, saying things get worse, we're mistaking the symptom of this popular toxic anti-governance roadblocking for a cause; it's not government's fault it's been unable to make progress, to govern: it's been by design, by specific factions within America.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

pdonis 5y ago

> The unwillingness to do the right things Taxing people so the government can waste more money is not "the right thing". > even far-left democratic-socialist US politicians like Bernie Sanders only proposes taxing the top 0.1% As the GP pointed out, this is exactly how income tax was originally pushed through: by saying, oh, don't worry, it will only apply to the very top earners. Now look at it. The fundamental problem with taxation of any sort is that, most of the time, the government is worse at spending the money than the people that it gets taxed away from. I don't see why a wealth tax would be any different.

uejfiweun 5y ago

Strongly disagree. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Moreover, you are actually proving my point. Sure, it starts out as a tax on the top 0.1% making over 32M. What happens with inflation, when 32M has the same value as 1M today? Who is to say the 0.1% might not become 1%, then 10%, then 100%? To ignore these possibilities is to be naïve. We have very recent historical PROOF of the fact that these goalposts get moved, in the income tax.

rektide 5y ago
Bernies' Extreme Wealth Tax says a couple with worth of $32m would taxed ~$5000 a year. That sounds like such a pittance. Worlds smallest fiddle playing for your slipperly slope government-is-evil shitholeness, this aspersion that this would be some terrible plight. It's a toxic straw man you've propped up. I don't see your fearmongering as an entertainable idea: it is meant to intimidate & bully, and it's so far, so very very many magntitudes, outside the intent & nature of what's really being discussed. We have to start doing something. The current situation is catastrophic. The 0.1% need to contribute, needs to chip in to the society they benefit from having around & working/selling-to, and in large part this super-strata of society is so busy re-investing their capital that they rarely have to directly help our society, fund our government; they face less tax burden than most. A wealth tax is a basic, simple, easy idea to make the well-monied investor class contribute something to society. Ultimately government has to be able to respond & adapt. Once a law stops fitting it's purpose it needs to be amended, fixed, rewritten. To simply say we should admit defeat & give up government is defeatism that gets us nowhere. We need progress. We need progressivism. We need to be able to enact laws easier, to monitor their impact, to adjust them as we go. Legislating in my lifetime has been roadblocked by the most shrill, hostile, negative, condescending anti-government forces imaginable. At some point we need some space & time when we decide we are going to allow governing, when we will let ourselves make & adapt & improve laws. That has not happened in modernity, and that, that is the poison eating us away, and that is why disbelief is such a reigning popular toxin. When we say government degrades, saying things get worse, we're mistaking the symptom of this popular toxic anti-governance roadblocking for a cause; it's not government's fault it's been unable to make progress, to govern: it's been by design, by specific factions within America.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]