12 ms·

I don't consider paying taxes to a bloated and inefficient government to be the "common good".

by sunsu 15y ago

jimworm 15y ago
Isn't a bloated and inefficient government a problem to be solved with elections though? Well, officially anyway.
- phillmv 15y ago
  I would think that that is the whole point of a democracy. Edit: I am sincerely curious about why I'm being downvoted. If you think your government is broken, work to fix it.
  - kiba 15y ago
    There are thousand of problems to fix. The infrastructure is going to collapse under the weight of non-maintenance, there are people infected with HIV virus, Africa needs help to develop, strong artificial intelligence might someday start making paperclip out of humans, etc. Yeah, it's a problem. The problem is we can't all work on every problem. Some of us have jobs, personal crisis, or is already working on one of those problem.
    - phillmv 15y ago
      You prioritize, you build institutions, you work within your community. >Some of us have jobs, personal crisis, or is already working on one of those problem. Most of us do fuck all. I should know, I'm sitting in my underwear past noon on a Sunday commenting on HN.
      - kiba 15y ago
        And some of us think democracy is a really stupid idea. Mostly, I just focus on internal improvement, since it is something that I can change within myself. Trying to take on the local corrupt buffoon of a government thinking you can rule the city better is a definition of hubris.
        phillmv 15y ago
        >Trying to take on the local corrupt buffoon of a government thinking you can rule the city better is a definition of hubris. It's no more arrogant than starting a company because you think you can make a better product or service than any of your competitors.
      - lurker19 15y ago
        Your case may be covered under "personal crisis".
    - jemfinch 15y ago
      > The problem is we can't all work on every problem. Which is exactly the point of a representative democracy. We elect other people to work the problems we can't. If they do an unsatisfactory job, then we should elect someone else.
phillmv 15y ago
Taxes are the price of civilization. Suck it up. I would spend more time being annoyed by all the people charging me rents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
- gyardley 15y ago
  I'll suck it up when the price I pay for civilization is the same as everyone else's. I don't pay 10x as much as my neighbor for the same candy bar or cell phone plan or pair of jeans. Why smart people consider it 'fair' for my neighbor to pay next-to-nothing for 'civilization' while I have to pay a substantial chunk of my income, I'll never understand. Same service, same price.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    Because you would benefit disproportionately from those same services due to the diminishing marginal utility of income. In real terms, if you don't engage in progressive taxation you are being subsidized by those poorer than yourself and subsidizing those richer than yourself.
    - gyardley 15y ago
      Is your belief in 'diminishing marginal utility of income' your real argument? The diminishing marginal utility of income is an assumption. In most cases it's a valid assumption, but not always. Let's say I could show you a situation where a certain individual's marginal utility of income increased with income - for a portion of the utility curve, the curve is convex, not concave. Such situations aren't typical, but they do exist - 'diminishing marginal utility' isn't a law of nature, it's just an assumption. In such a situation, maximizing utility means certain less well-off people (those on the concave portion of the utility curve) should be subsidizing the more well-off people (those on the convex portion of the utility curve). In other words, if the goal of taxation is simply to increase utility, in those situations the poor should be subsidizing the rich. If I can show you that for me, each additional dollar has increased utility, you should be willing to concede that that the poor should be subsidizing me. Yet I've never met a person who used the 'diminished marginal utility of income' argument who was willing to concede that. If you are, you'll be the first. In other words, arguing diminishing marginal utility's usually just a time-wasting distraction. While it sounds good, I suspect it's not the reason for your argument all.
erikpukinskis 15y ago
Do you ever receive packages from UPS? Do buy food from a grocery store? How do you think those things get paid for? You really think the $2 per pound you pay for tomatoes includes the true cost of growing a tomato and getting it into your car? If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
- kiba 15y ago
  Some people are not grateful for the roads that government build, like critics of suburban development, enemies of car culture, etc.
  - thematt 15y ago
    Please stop promoting this nonsense that our current level of taxation is needed because of infrastructure needs. Transportation accounts for a measly 4% of the federal budget. Most of our tax dollars go towards military and paying for the old people in society, both of which are politically-charged budget items that politicians refuse to address. http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/ http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/
    - lurker19 15y ago
      Lowering taxes does not stop the military. Spending is one side, taxing is the other. Bills that run up must be paid, or war fought over them. The solution to overspending is to find a way to stop the spending. Regarding old people, as a group they worked pretty hard to build the modern world and its conveniences and efficiencies that we enjoy, so I don't mind paying them dividends.
- sunsu 15y ago
  Of course I've received a package from the bankrupt and insolvent USPS and yes I also buy food from grocery stores that receive food over roads badly in need of repair. I didn't say that the government does not do or provide ANY good things. However that does not mean that paying taxes to a government that IS inefficient and bloated can or should be called the "common good". The same government spent over a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are those wars part of the common good? The same government spends half a trillion on welfare of various sorts. Is that welfare part of the common good? The same government got us almost 15 trillion dollars in debt. Is that debt part of the common good? Different people may say yes to one, two, or all of the three things above. I, however, would say no to all of them. To me, paying taxes to the government is most definitely NOT the common good.

I don't consider paying taxes to a bloated and inefficient government to be the "common good".

by sunsu 15y ago

I don't consider paying taxes to a bloated and inefficient government to be the "common good".

jimworm 15y ago

Isn't a bloated and inefficient government a problem to be solved with elections though? Well, officially anyway.

phillmv 15y ago
I would think that that is the whole point of a democracy. Edit: I am sincerely curious about why I'm being downvoted. If you think your government is broken, work to fix it.
- kiba 15y ago
  There are thousand of problems to fix. The infrastructure is going to collapse under the weight of non-maintenance, there are people infected with HIV virus, Africa needs help to develop, strong artificial intelligence might someday start making paperclip out of humans, etc. Yeah, it's a problem. The problem is we can't all work on every problem. Some of us have jobs, personal crisis, or is already working on one of those problem.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    You prioritize, you build institutions, you work within your community. >Some of us have jobs, personal crisis, or is already working on one of those problem. Most of us do fuck all. I should know, I'm sitting in my underwear past noon on a Sunday commenting on HN.
    - kiba 15y ago
      And some of us think democracy is a really stupid idea. Mostly, I just focus on internal improvement, since it is something that I can change within myself. Trying to take on the local corrupt buffoon of a government thinking you can rule the city better is a definition of hubris.
      - phillmv 15y ago
        >Trying to take on the local corrupt buffoon of a government thinking you can rule the city better is a definition of hubris. It's no more arrogant than starting a company because you think you can make a better product or service than any of your competitors.
    - lurker19 15y ago
      Your case may be covered under "personal crisis".
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    > The problem is we can't all work on every problem. Which is exactly the point of a representative democracy. We elect other people to work the problems we can't. If they do an unsatisfactory job, then we should elect someone else.

phillmv 15y ago

Taxes are the price of civilization. Suck it up. I would spend more time being annoyed by all the people charging me rents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

gyardley 15y ago
I'll suck it up when the price I pay for civilization is the same as everyone else's. I don't pay 10x as much as my neighbor for the same candy bar or cell phone plan or pair of jeans. Why smart people consider it 'fair' for my neighbor to pay next-to-nothing for 'civilization' while I have to pay a substantial chunk of my income, I'll never understand. Same service, same price.
- phillmv 15y ago
  Because you would benefit disproportionately from those same services due to the diminishing marginal utility of income. In real terms, if you don't engage in progressive taxation you are being subsidized by those poorer than yourself and subsidizing those richer than yourself.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    Is your belief in 'diminishing marginal utility of income' your real argument? The diminishing marginal utility of income is an assumption. In most cases it's a valid assumption, but not always. Let's say I could show you a situation where a certain individual's marginal utility of income increased with income - for a portion of the utility curve, the curve is convex, not concave. Such situations aren't typical, but they do exist - 'diminishing marginal utility' isn't a law of nature, it's just an assumption. In such a situation, maximizing utility means certain less well-off people (those on the concave portion of the utility curve) should be subsidizing the more well-off people (those on the convex portion of the utility curve). In other words, if the goal of taxation is simply to increase utility, in those situations the poor should be subsidizing the rich. If I can show you that for me, each additional dollar has increased utility, you should be willing to concede that that the poor should be subsidizing me. Yet I've never met a person who used the 'diminished marginal utility of income' argument who was willing to concede that. If you are, you'll be the first. In other words, arguing diminishing marginal utility's usually just a time-wasting distraction. While it sounds good, I suspect it's not the reason for your argument all.

erikpukinskis 15y ago

Do you ever receive packages from UPS? Do buy food from a grocery store? How do you think those things get paid for? You really think the $2 per pound you pay for tomatoes includes the true cost of growing a tomato and getting it into your car? If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

kiba 15y ago
Some people are not grateful for the roads that government build, like critics of suburban development, enemies of car culture, etc.
- thematt 15y ago
  Please stop promoting this nonsense that our current level of taxation is needed because of infrastructure needs. Transportation accounts for a measly 4% of the federal budget. Most of our tax dollars go towards military and paying for the old people in society, both of which are politically-charged budget items that politicians refuse to address. http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/ http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/
  - lurker19 15y ago
    Lowering taxes does not stop the military. Spending is one side, taxing is the other. Bills that run up must be paid, or war fought over them. The solution to overspending is to find a way to stop the spending. Regarding old people, as a group they worked pretty hard to build the modern world and its conveniences and efficiencies that we enjoy, so I don't mind paying them dividends.
sunsu 15y ago
Of course I've received a package from the bankrupt and insolvent USPS and yes I also buy food from grocery stores that receive food over roads badly in need of repair. I didn't say that the government does not do or provide ANY good things. However that does not mean that paying taxes to a government that IS inefficient and bloated can or should be called the "common good". The same government spent over a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are those wars part of the common good? The same government spends half a trillion on welfare of various sorts. Is that welfare part of the common good? The same government got us almost 15 trillion dollars in debt. Is that debt part of the common good? Different people may say yes to one, two, or all of the three things above. I, however, would say no to all of them. To me, paying taxes to the government is most definitely NOT the common good.