3 ms·
Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me e
by skore 15y ago
Tims post has two parts. The first part is him explaining why he has wrote it (Hey, I've read the NYT piece as well!) and then what he has to say (Hey, let me elaborate on the theme of taxation).
The NYT piece is not a premise in his argument, it's simply the reason why he writes about taxation.
- carbocation 14y agoAs I stated, I read the article and am familiar in fact with the bold "hey, I said I'd give you my personal opinion" transition that he makes midway through. He has no actionable thesis, just a vague "we should look out for each other" message that makes it easy to read into it whatever you want to see. Yes, we should look out for each other. We compel this via taxation. If we aren't compelling corporations to do what we actually want given the rules we have set up, let us change the rules. In other words, the actual problem that he is talking about, whether he chooses to address it or not, is that systemically we have a taxation problem. That's the only interesting thing to discuss here.
- skore 14y agoNow I'm profoundly confused - That is precisely what he is doing: Arguing that we should establish that tone of conversation in order to get some change going. The real problem is that it is somewhat presentable to pay as little taxes as you can. Tim is trying to spark a conversation where that changes. Before you can change tax law, you have to get people engaged in caring about tax law. Because for the last decades, big corporations have invested a lot of money in having people either not care, or care in a direction that directly hurts them.