6 ms·

> because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some

> because it implies that there's some entity out there that's actually good at spending money No, this is the weird framing. As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it. The government is taking money from individuals for their supposed benefit.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? Society (that's us) want things for society and it turns out they cost money. We would love to pay for these things with razor-like efficiency but we live in an imperfect world. (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.) The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society. (And here the increasing wealth disparity we have been seeing is almost certainly bad for societies health.)
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? I don't have property. The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. > The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society Yeah this post is about some billionaire dodging taxes. Billionaires are the obvious scapegoat but the fact is tax increases on billionaires are not enough to fund the multi trillion dollar ambitions of the government. The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    I didn't understand the OP to have said that all people that say that are paid shills. To be sure though, people who do complain about wasteful government spending are in fact playing into the interests of the wealthy who want to keep more of their billions. I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want. > The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases. I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large. It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. No, it wasn't.
    - brigadier132 3y ago
      Someone made that claim and the original poster seems to believe that "government waste" is a myth.
      - larkost 3y ago
        No, please don't generalize like that. It is not clear which "original poster" you mean, but all of the ones in this chain seem to be arguing that there is waste, but that there is no evidence that the government is not inherently more wasteful in its spending than other large organizations. It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Someone did make a claim approximately to that effect, but not a parent of this comment. It didn't start this discussion. And the you're mischaracterizing the comment about government waste as well.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    Sure they are, we just need a wealth tax. Done and dusted.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.) It could equally well be spent by me if left in my wallet rather than taxed away and wasted.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Sure, but what about the billionaires. When they get a huge tax break do they go down to the local diner and give the waitress a $1,000,000 tip? Probably not -- they invest it into making more money -- consolidating more wealth for themselves.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Because you have to deal with and eventually depend upon other people's kids.
camgunz 3y ago
The government is the people. Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. For example, none of the infrastructure investments in the IRA, the Medicare block grants in the ACA, etc. Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I think it's pretty clear that most of those are predatory and enshittified. Are you arguing that corporations that are in no way beholden to us voters would be more responsive to our needs than a democratic government? Maybe my tone is coming across as too incredulous, but most libertarians I get in front of tend to shut down when I challenge their ideology, so I'm earnestly curious here.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > The government is the people The government is the majority. > Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. Uh, I have a simpler explanation. People vote for things that are good for themselves and come up with contrived arguments for why that's moral. > To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? This is overly simplistic. > Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? Have I advocated for this? > Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I have not made that argument once. I've made the argument that government spending is wasteful. Unsurprisingly the government choosing private corporations to execute government services is also wasteful. It seems you think I'm a libertarian because I don't like giving my money away? > complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? I'm glad you think society is complex, so do I. Can you give examples of large completely centralized successful societies?
cool_dude85 3y ago
>As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it How much money have you ever earned all by yourself? If not for the government, me and a few buddies would come and take it. Hell, I bet you even got all that stuff in the first place from a corporation that only exists due to governmental regulation, who has to follow a contract to pay you because if they don't, you'll sue them in government courts.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? Society (that's us) want things for society and it turns out they cost money. We would love to pay for these things with razor-like efficiency but we live in an imperfect world. (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.) The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society. (And here the increasing wealth disparity we have been seeing is almost certainly bad for societies health.)

brigadier132 3y ago
> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Am I unfairly framing your argument? I don't have property. The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. > The only real issue I see is how we balance the tax burden in a fair and equitable way that also benefits society Yeah this post is about some billionaire dodging taxes. Billionaires are the obvious scapegoat but the fact is tax increases on billionaires are not enough to fund the multi trillion dollar ambitions of the government. The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  I didn't understand the OP to have said that all people that say that are paid shills. To be sure though, people who do complain about wasteful government spending are in fact playing into the interests of the wealthy who want to keep more of their billions. I know it sounds naive, but we are the government. Don't like what services are elected leaders are spending tax dollars on? Replace them. Bernie Sanders as you probably know requested a 10% cut in the military budget — elect more people like him if this is what you want. > The real tax base of our society is generated by the middle and upper middle class and they will be the ones that will bear the largest brunt of tax increases. I am much more sympathetic to people who call for, "Lower taxes for the working class!" When you include the billionaire-class as also-victims of high taxation (and they would of course disproportionately benefit from lower taxes) then it sounds to me like you're essentially carrying water for them to the detriment of society at large. It seems when most people I hear talk about cutting government "waste" they really mean cutting out government services they disagree with — not really streamlining those services.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >The whole thing that set this entire discussion off was the parent poster that stated everyone that implied the government was wasteful was a paid shill by billionaires. No, it wasn't.
  - brigadier132 3y ago
    Someone made that claim and the original poster seems to believe that "government waste" is a myth.
    - larkost 3y ago
      No, please don't generalize like that. It is not clear which "original poster" you mean, but all of the ones in this chain seem to be arguing that there is waste, but that there is no evidence that the government is not inherently more wasteful in its spending than other large organizations. It is a common refrain in parts of the Republican Party that government spending is inherently wasteful, and we should make government more like companies, or alternately "small enough to drown in a bathtub". And this is the myth that is being addressed.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Someone did make a claim approximately to that effect, but not a parent of this comment. It didn't start this discussion. And the you're mischaracterizing the comment about government waste as well.
- camgunz 3y ago
  Sure they are, we just need a wealth tax. Done and dusted.
sokoloff 3y ago
> (The "waste" however still goes into someone's wallet and can be in turn spent at a local restaurant or on groceries.) It could equally well be spent by me if left in my wallet rather than taxed away and wasted.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Sure, but what about the billionaires. When they get a huge tax break do they go down to the local diner and give the waitress a $1,000,000 tip? Probably not -- they invest it into making more money -- consolidating more wealth for themselves.
krainboltgreene 3y ago
> Why take your property taxes to educate our nation's children when you don't even have children? Because you have to deal with and eventually depend upon other people's kids.

camgunz 3y ago

The government is the people. Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. For example, none of the infrastructure investments in the IRA, the Medicare block grants in the ACA, etc. Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I think it's pretty clear that most of those are predatory and enshittified. Are you arguing that corporations that are in no way beholden to us voters would be more responsive to our needs than a democratic government? Maybe my tone is coming across as too incredulous, but most libertarians I get in front of tend to shut down when I challenge their ideology, so I'm earnestly curious here.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brigadier132 3y ago
> The government is the people The government is the majority. > Time and time again people vote for services even if it means higher taxes (especially on the rich and on corporations). This is because some things don't really work if they're only funded by individuals. Uh, I have a simpler explanation. People vote for things that are good for themselves and come up with contrived arguments for why that's moral. > To turn your point around, can you point to any large nation with low taxes and good outcomes? This is overly simplistic. > Do you have good examples to the contrary, like not one-offs but large, complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? Have I advocated for this? > Is your argument that corporate services would outperform government services? I have not made that argument once. I've made the argument that government spending is wasteful. Unsurprisingly the government choosing private corporations to execute government services is also wasteful. It seems you think I'm a libertarian because I don't like giving my money away? > complex societies working via voluntary contribution alone? I'm glad you think society is complex, so do I. Can you give examples of large completely centralized successful societies?

cool_dude85 3y ago

>As if the money has to go to some entity other than the individual that earned it How much money have you ever earned all by yourself? If not for the government, me and a few buddies would come and take it. Hell, I bet you even got all that stuff in the first place from a corporation that only exists due to governmental regulation, who has to follow a contract to pay you because if they don't, you'll sue them in government courts.