3 ms·

This is a case of apples and oranges. Modern people expect more from their government than the Athenians so more people need to pay taxes to finance it. I agree

This is a case of apples and oranges. Modern people expect more from their government than the Athenians so more people need to pay taxes to finance it. I agree that the more you earn the more you should pay in terms of percentage of income but the idea that only the rich need to pay taxes is unmaintainable. Also, when it comes to taxes no one is rich, just ask the high income people. There are plenty of people that earn 200k plus and feel that they don't have enough money left after taxes. And I'm sure there are many people in the million dollar plus club that feel the same. It's just human nature. No one likes to give away their stuff. It's better if someone else does it.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
> the idea that only the rich need to pay taxes is unmaintainable I'm not so sure. Taxes are for lots of things, but one of them is making sure a power hungry psycopath doesn't set themself up as king. We might end up spending less of it on weapons that cost thousands of dollars every time you pull the trigger if we taxed the problem away before it could gain momentum.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  High taxes historically result in revolts.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    Even when they're only high for 1% of the population?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      See the American Revolution.
      - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        Hmm touche.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  Interesting - a similar argument is that if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, and they actually had to tax citizens and explain to them what it was being spent on, wars would be way less popular and occur less often. You seem to think the dangerous psychopath is the independently wealthy rich person. They may be a psychopath, but the true danger is the psychopath who also gains government power - that is the real danger, which the US Constitution wisely put limits on. I believe power often corrupts, and I'm way more afraid of the bureaucrat than the aristocrat.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    Power is power. I'm not really trying to split hairs about what color it is. I'm just saying that we'd need to worry about the commons less (whether that's taxing the rich or putting a misbehaving government in check) if we were a bit more hygenic about how much power we allow to concentrate in the first place.
  - anothernewdude 4y ago
    > if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, The money is the governments. You can't remove that power - they're the ones with the power over the money, by definition. If someone else does, they essentially become the government. That money has value because they print it, and enforce controls over it. You're just holding some of it for a while. How you are expressing what you want is meaningless.
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      I agree that it's not phrased well. What are you going to do, revoke the ability to issue money... by fiat? But the goal is a good one. Make the government afraid that if they abuse our trust, we'll turn our backs on their token and find ourselves a less problematic social contract to value.
      - anothernewdude 4y ago
        Anyway, if your concern is quantitive easing, then your real problem should be with banks. Because of how loans work banks are creating 10x the money governments do. Banks are the problem, not governments. And frankly, once you make your own token, you're just a less trustworthy government.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mjfl 4y ago
  uh, how do high taxes preclude a fascist takeover? I fail to see the connection.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    I suppose it's possible that you could have a power hungry psycopath whose hunger only relates to institutional power. Somebody for whom limiting their economic power is not effective. So taxing the rich doesn't protect us from them. But I think we're talking about a pretty small group here. The two people I think of when I hear "fascist takeover" were both embroiled in tax evasion scandal on their way to the top.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

> the idea that only the rich need to pay taxes is unmaintainable I'm not so sure. Taxes are for lots of things, but one of them is making sure a power hungry psycopath doesn't set themself up as king. We might end up spending less of it on weapons that cost thousands of dollars every time you pull the trigger if we taxed the problem away before it could gain momentum.

WalterBright 4y ago
High taxes historically result in revolts.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  Even when they're only high for 1% of the population?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    See the American Revolution.
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Hmm touche.
monero-xmr 4y ago
Interesting - a similar argument is that if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, and they actually had to tax citizens and explain to them what it was being spent on, wars would be way less popular and occur less often. You seem to think the dangerous psychopath is the independently wealthy rich person. They may be a psychopath, but the true danger is the psychopath who also gains government power - that is the real danger, which the US Constitution wisely put limits on. I believe power often corrupts, and I'm way more afraid of the bureaucrat than the aristocrat.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  Power is power. I'm not really trying to split hairs about what color it is. I'm just saying that we'd need to worry about the commons less (whether that's taxing the rich or putting a misbehaving government in check) if we were a bit more hygenic about how much power we allow to concentrate in the first place.
- anothernewdude 4y ago
  > if you removed the ability for governments to arbitrarily print money, The money is the governments. You can't remove that power - they're the ones with the power over the money, by definition. If someone else does, they essentially become the government. That money has value because they print it, and enforce controls over it. You're just holding some of it for a while. How you are expressing what you want is meaningless.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    I agree that it's not phrased well. What are you going to do, revoke the ability to issue money... by fiat? But the goal is a good one. Make the government afraid that if they abuse our trust, we'll turn our backs on their token and find ourselves a less problematic social contract to value.
    - anothernewdude 4y ago
      Anyway, if your concern is quantitive easing, then your real problem should be with banks. Because of how loans work banks are creating 10x the money governments do. Banks are the problem, not governments. And frankly, once you make your own token, you're just a less trustworthy government.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mjfl 4y ago
uh, how do high taxes preclude a fascist takeover? I fail to see the connection.
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  I suppose it's possible that you could have a power hungry psycopath whose hunger only relates to institutional power. Somebody for whom limiting their economic power is not effective. So taxing the rich doesn't protect us from them. But I think we're talking about a pretty small group here. The two people I think of when I hear "fascist takeover" were both embroiled in tax evasion scandal on their way to the top.