3 ms·
I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes
by themitigating 4y ago
I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason.
For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done
Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'll be rich.
- l33t2328 4y agoThat’s assuming people can’t be purely altruistic and principled and they must hold every position they do for personal gain.
- AndyNemmity 4y agoIt would not be altruistic to be for a person with a monopoly of assets to hold more of those assets while other people don't have homes. Principled makes sense though.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago> For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). Top 1% earns 21% or income, pays ~40% of taxes (has ~34% of wealth): https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-the-rich-pay-taxes https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...
- technothrasher 4y agoEven regardless of their motives, this statement is begging the question. The only way it is relevant is if that percentage (it's actually ~40%, if we're talking federal income taxes) is enough for them to be paying. So the argument is that they already are paying enough because they're paying enough. It's circular and therefor meaningless.