2 ms·

I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those

by lumb63 4y ago

I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. For the upper half of taxpayers who pay 97% of the cost of those public goods, they’re losing. Regarding subsidization of low-income earners by welfare, I see it as a moot point. The cost of their labor has been artificially decreased by the presence of the welfare system. Society as a whole still pays the cost of that labor, just Walmart gets to get away with not being the one paying it. I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason.

chongli 4y ago
I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.
- lumb63 4y ago
  Assuming you believe prices represent value, then if you believe that high-income earners get more out of roads than they pay for them, either low income earners get less out of them than they pay for (regressive taxation), or the price of roads is simply too low. Either you think the premise is wrong, or I’m missing something.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I'm not talking about income earners, I'm talking about business owners. You can be a billionaire owner while drawing a $1/yr salary. Steve Jobs was one famous example. He got far more benefit (net billions) out of the infrastructure of the US than an average person (who will not get anywhere near a billion in their lifetime). Percentages are misleading when it comes to economic status. Look at it this way. Say you have 2 people, one who works retail and earns $10/hr and pays 10% taxes, pocketing the other $9/hr. The other person owns $2 billion worth of stock and cashes it out and pays 12% capital gains tax, pocketing the remaining $1,760,000,000. Even though the billionaire paid higher tax as a percentage, they received far more benefit from having a safe, stable, secure society than the retail worker. Why do so many people with money choose to move to the US from 3rd world countries? Even when they could stay home and pay no taxes and live like kings due to their purchasing power, they choose to come to the US where their wealth instantly shrinks (lower purchasing power) before even paying a cent in taxes. It's because they recognize the enormous benefits of low corruption, security, safety, education, health care, and infrastructure that the US has that their home country lacked.

by lumb63 4y ago

chongli 4y ago

I’m using the term beneficiary to mean “someone who gets out of it more than they put into it”. I’m talking about the same thing. If you’re a business owner, you’re getting far more out of infrastructure and stable government than an average person. Without all of that, you have no business at all! I am also yet to meet even the hardest-core of libertarians who don’t believe the government has business funding roads. Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are separate things for a reason. Of course not! Because anarcho-capitalists are principled in their stance. Libertarians just want to get rid of anything they, personally, don’t benefit from directly. In other words, they want to tear up the social contract. It’s not a valid philosophy at all, it’s just naked hypocrisy.

lumb63 4y ago
Assuming you believe prices represent value, then if you believe that high-income earners get more out of roads than they pay for them, either low income earners get less out of them than they pay for (regressive taxation), or the price of roads is simply too low. Either you think the premise is wrong, or I’m missing something.
- chongli 4y ago
  I'm not talking about income earners, I'm talking about business owners. You can be a billionaire owner while drawing a $1/yr salary. Steve Jobs was one famous example. He got far more benefit (net billions) out of the infrastructure of the US than an average person (who will not get anywhere near a billion in their lifetime). Percentages are misleading when it comes to economic status. Look at it this way. Say you have 2 people, one who works retail and earns $10/hr and pays 10% taxes, pocketing the other $9/hr. The other person owns $2 billion worth of stock and cashes it out and pays 12% capital gains tax, pocketing the remaining $1,760,000,000. Even though the billionaire paid higher tax as a percentage, they received far more benefit from having a safe, stable, secure society than the retail worker. Why do so many people with money choose to move to the US from 3rd world countries? Even when they could stay home and pay no taxes and live like kings due to their purchasing power, they choose to come to the US where their wealth instantly shrinks (lower purchasing power) before even paying a cent in taxes. It's because they recognize the enormous benefits of low corruption, security, safety, education, health care, and infrastructure that the US has that their home country lacked.