3 ms·

What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death? We're not talking about real (in the economic sense) limits here. The vast majo

by xxpor 5y ago

What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death? We're not talking about real (in the economic sense) limits here. The vast majority of people pay their electric bills fully and on time. The majority of people who fall behind are genuinely in dire straights. I seriously couldn't care less if a few "undeserving" people get subsidized heat.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death? If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Because that would be a tax on empathy. We shouldn't be taxing socially positive traits like empathy, but instead taxing negative traits like greed. In lieu of a moral balance for weighing souls, I'll accept a tax on accumulated wealth instead.
- xxpor 5y ago
  I agree with the sibling comment, but there's also a practical reason: I don't want to have to track down everyone that needs assistance and make a personal decision about who needs what. It's much more efficient to have a tax collector and bureaucracy. For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.
verve_rat 5y ago
But that sounds like a problem with the welfare system. People should have enough money to pay for power and gas. I don't see the use in mixing up utilities and welfare. Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.
- xxpor 5y ago
  The company in this case is owned by the government so it's all the same thing. The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.
- worik 5y ago
  Yes. But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.

by xxpor 5y ago

commandlinefan 5y ago

> What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death? If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?

dane-pgp 5y ago
Because that would be a tax on empathy. We shouldn't be taxing socially positive traits like empathy, but instead taxing negative traits like greed. In lieu of a moral balance for weighing souls, I'll accept a tax on accumulated wealth instead.
xxpor 5y ago
I agree with the sibling comment, but there's also a practical reason: I don't want to have to track down everyone that needs assistance and make a personal decision about who needs what. It's much more efficient to have a tax collector and bureaucracy. For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.

verve_rat 5y ago

But that sounds like a problem with the welfare system. People should have enough money to pay for power and gas. I don't see the use in mixing up utilities and welfare. Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.

xxpor 5y ago
The company in this case is owned by the government so it's all the same thing. The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.
worik 5y ago
Yes. But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.