4 ms·

(I wrote this comment as a _reaction_ to yours -- it turned out not to be a _response_ to it, so I apologise if I seem to put words in your mouth.) I have this

(I wrote this comment as a _reaction_ to yours -- it turned out not to be a _response_ to it, so I apologise if I seem to put words in your mouth.) I have this idea rummaging about that I have never quite seen articulated in these discussions. The earnings of "rich friends" are often seen as a singular, isolated achievement, and fairness is then discussed as relative to that: "they earned it, so is it fair to take X%?" It seems to me that society at large facilitates those earnings. The roads that their workers drive on, the water facility that supplies the school that their employees send their children to. The unemployment safety net that lets employees take risks and take the job of the industrialist... The list is endless. All this is the net sum of what was _also_ given to (taken by?) the person that makes a billion dollars. In this context I think the "fairness" argument against taxation becomes weaker.

twoodfin 3y ago
It doesn’t become weaker unless you can cogently express a limiting principle to your argument: - Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income? - Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.
- taxinaut 3y ago
  Another good one: Why is it fair to take X% of earnings made over 2 years, but Y>X % if earned over 1 year, for the same total earnings? Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on. Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on. Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants. The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jrmg 3y ago
It didn’t go well for Obama when he made that argument publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
- kjandersen 3y ago
  Thanks for the link, the core idea of Warren presented there is exactly my sentiment. I am not at all surprised by the timeline of events on that page, though! I liked this one: > ... a humor website later commented on the fact that the stadium where the GOP hosted the "We Built It" theme at the convention was constructed using 62% taxpayer financing.

twoodfin 3y ago

It doesn’t become weaker unless you can cogently express a limiting principle to your argument: - Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income? - Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.

taxinaut 3y ago
Another good one: Why is it fair to take X% of earnings made over 2 years, but Y>X % if earned over 1 year, for the same total earnings? Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on. Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on. Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants. The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jrmg 3y ago

It didn’t go well for Obama when he made that argument publicly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

kjandersen 3y ago
Thanks for the link, the core idea of Warren presented there is exactly my sentiment. I am not at all surprised by the timeline of events on that page, though! I liked this one: > ... a humor website later commented on the fact that the stadium where the GOP hosted the "We Built It" theme at the convention was constructed using 62% taxpayer financing.