8 ms·

How much are you willing to pay for this? If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove to you that it was all going to care for those less fortun

How much are you willing to pay for this? If Congress voted for 50% taxation and could somehow prove to you that it was all going to care for those less fortunate than you, would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? What quality of life are you aiming for the recipients? Do they each get a cot in a shelter? Their own room? Their own apartment or house? Do they get it with no strings attached or do they have to try to improve their own lot while the taxpayer helps them? How long do we want to extend lives for? Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. Should a 95 year old get hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend their lives for 6 months? These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now.

Bjartr 2y ago
These are questions with long standing answers arrived at iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that results in net improvement to American society? Probably not.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  These questions have not been answered, that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending
  - Bjartr 2y ago
    It's not like we rolled dice to get the spending we had. Decisions were made based on information available. There are detailed explanations available for all sorts of spending. Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing. That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength. Edit: > that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      New information is available, we've incorporated it and decided the spending isn't worth the cost. We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.
      - Bjartr 2y ago
        Yep, and we could have gotten there with a lot fewer people being hurt in the process.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        In theory, maybe? In reality, no it has never worked before.
      - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        I'm sure this what your gut told you. Why don't you explain the plan to the rest of us, using facts. This is a technical site. Last time I checked, 25% of the current debt is caused by the current guy conducting the largest wealth transfer in history from the young to the old. But somehow that translates to "Fed government too big." Try selling that to people that don't read, anyone here can read the CBO reports.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        Good point, here are the technical details of the plan: 1- Campaign on promise of mass deportations and massive cuts to Fed gov 2- Win the election 3- Begin presidency 4- Deliver campaign promises to cut spending & deport illegal immigrants <--*We are here* It's not more complicated than that.
        jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        And somehow politicizing the federal government is cutting spending? When 95% of that spending is the military and two social insurance programs, and most of the debt is caused by a tax cut for the super wealthy? That's just a failure to understand math.
  - ribadeo 2y ago
    You don't have the data nor the right to claim WHY 1% marginally preferred candidate x to candidate y.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      I don't have the right to make a claim on an internet opinion board?
gazpacho 2y ago
I would gladly pay 75% taxes if they went to the right thing. I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both. I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  What's the right thing? Are you sure that you and I agree on that? Do you and Elon Musk agree? The tax pool is taken from everyone. In practice, I believe you would find a 50% tax distasteful because it's pretty much guaranteed that it's not going to be spent exactly as you direct. What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.
  - roboror 2y ago
    What specific time period and location before "vast income tax regimes and welfare states" are you talking about? And who gave money to what?
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      I'm referring to much of the Western world prior to 1950, and you see this behavior in the middle east today (obviously, they disagree with you about "the right thing"). This is usually enforced socially, by communities and churches. The social safety net that governments provide today used to be a function of community charities and churches. Even modern healthcare has an analogue here.
cemerick 2y ago
> Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. That is absolutely not a given. The currently in-power minority earnestly believe that people are only due the level of healthcare they can personally fund and afford, period. > These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. Which Americans? There's no grand debate happening right now, just a table-flipping tantrum. It's a fun exercise to do the chin-stroking thing of asking about efficiency and tax rates and so on, but it's so disconnected from the reality of the federal budget that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a cynical tactic. Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending, and there are effectively no limits to it. Meanwhile, extremely high-leverage foreign aid (like the HIV-related treatments that have been mentioned) are always first on the chopping block, along with things like school lunches and early childhood education that have been demonstrated to be effectively free in terms of how much spending on remediating bad outcomes later in peoples' lives.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  The "grand debate" happened, Americans voted, and now the guy who won is delivering on his campaign promises. Whether you agree with Trump or not, this should not be a surprising outcome. He told us he was going to do this. >Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    But he isn't. This isn't framed as a "we need to bring down costs and stop paying for things and that's just going to be hard" initiative. This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs. In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      The idea you have is nice, but congress doesn't pass real budgets any more. That means that there is a lot more ability to make the money slosh around.
op00to 2y ago
50% of billionaires wealth? Hell yeah.
1659447091 2y ago
> would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? Why ask about raising individual American taxes while turning a blind eye to Trump gunning at lower corp taxes even more than he already had? And we know it will happen because he gets it done, for America *cough oilarchs* I would be okay with Trump raising the corporate tax rate, instead of saving some 296 of the largest US companies $240B in taxes between 2018-2021[0]. Though this time should be even more, right? He's going to take it to a whole new level of lowest tax rate for Corporates than "any nation on earth". Can't wait for him to lower the tax burden on Big Corp even more, Those C-suites, investors, have such a hard life scrapping by the way they do. No wonder they can't afford better wages for the workers. Let's keep the tax burden on the middle class where it belongs so we can Make America Great Again. [0] https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/ https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-...
llamaimperative 2y ago
> These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. No they’re actually not. You made those questions up as absurd examples, and they’re absurd.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Llama! I was wondering when you'd show up. We comment on all the same stories
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    <3
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
These FUD arguments are ridiculous. Americans are already paying far more in privatised taxation - tribute - to healthcare companies, landlords, fossil fuel companies, and loan sharks of various kinds - than they would pay with higher federal tax rates investing in R&D, infrastructure, education, clean energy, and public health. There's nothing hypothetical about pointing out that the billionaire economy is massively distorted and extractive, and is caused huge public harm which will literally remain visible for geological timescales.

Bjartr 2y ago

These are questions with long standing answers arrived at iteratively over decades. Should those answers continue to be questioned and iterated upon? Absolutely. Is throwing the baby out with the bathwater all at once while crying "taxes bad!" likely to be an iteration that results in net improvement to American society? Probably not.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
These questions have not been answered, that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending
- Bjartr 2y ago
  It's not like we rolled dice to get the spending we had. Decisions were made based on information available. There are detailed explanations available for all sorts of spending. Refusing to seek that out isn't the same as it not existing. That's not to say the decisions were perfect, far from it. But thinking we can arrive at better outcomes by just throwing it all away and ignoring all we've learned is the height of insecurity and arrogance, not a sign of strength. Edit: > that's why Americans just voted for someone who vowed to decrease spending The number of people that voted as they did that would switch their vote if only someone would explain where their taxes went in more detail is extremely small.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    New information is available, we've incorporated it and decided the spending isn't worth the cost. We will find a new equilibrium. It will likely not be 0 spending and will hopefully not be the spending regime we have today.
    - Bjartr 2y ago
      Yep, and we could have gotten there with a lot fewer people being hurt in the process.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        In theory, maybe? In reality, no it has never worked before.
    - jaybrendansmith 2y ago
      I'm sure this what your gut told you. Why don't you explain the plan to the rest of us, using facts. This is a technical site. Last time I checked, 25% of the current debt is caused by the current guy conducting the largest wealth transfer in history from the young to the old. But somehow that translates to "Fed government too big." Try selling that to people that don't read, anyone here can read the CBO reports.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        Good point, here are the technical details of the plan: 1- Campaign on promise of mass deportations and massive cuts to Fed gov 2- Win the election 3- Begin presidency 4- Deliver campaign promises to cut spending & deport illegal immigrants <--*We are here* It's not more complicated than that.
        jaybrendansmith 2y ago
        And somehow politicizing the federal government is cutting spending? When 95% of that spending is the military and two social insurance programs, and most of the debt is caused by a tax cut for the super wealthy? That's just a failure to understand math.
- ribadeo 2y ago
  You don't have the data nor the right to claim WHY 1% marginally preferred candidate x to candidate y.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    I don't have the right to make a claim on an internet opinion board?

gazpacho 2y ago

I would gladly pay 75% taxes if they went to the right thing. I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both. I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
What's the right thing? Are you sure that you and I agree on that? Do you and Elon Musk agree? The tax pool is taken from everyone. In practice, I believe you would find a 50% tax distasteful because it's pretty much guaranteed that it's not going to be spent exactly as you direct. What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.
- roboror 2y ago
  What specific time period and location before "vast income tax regimes and welfare states" are you talking about? And who gave money to what?
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    I'm referring to much of the Western world prior to 1950, and you see this behavior in the middle east today (obviously, they disagree with you about "the right thing"). This is usually enforced socially, by communities and churches. The social safety net that governments provide today used to be a function of community charities and churches. Even modern healthcare has an analogue here.

cemerick 2y ago

> Surely we all agree on medication and life-saving care for children. That is absolutely not a given. The currently in-power minority earnestly believe that people are only due the level of healthcare they can personally fund and afford, period. > These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. Which Americans? There's no grand debate happening right now, just a table-flipping tantrum. It's a fun exercise to do the chin-stroking thing of asking about efficiency and tax rates and so on, but it's so disconnected from the reality of the federal budget that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a cynical tactic. Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending, and there are effectively no limits to it. Meanwhile, extremely high-leverage foreign aid (like the HIV-related treatments that have been mentioned) are always first on the chopping block, along with things like school lunches and early childhood education that have been demonstrated to be effectively free in terms of how much spending on remediating bad outcomes later in peoples' lives.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
The "grand debate" happened, Americans voted, and now the guy who won is delivering on his campaign promises. Whether you agree with Trump or not, this should not be a surprising outcome. He told us he was going to do this. >Military spending is the overwhelming majority of non-discretionary spending This is so wildly wrong and easily disproven that I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  But he isn't. This isn't framed as a "we need to bring down costs and stop paying for things and that's just going to be hard" initiative. This is framed as a mechanism of eliminating DEI programs. In the US spending is controlled by Congress. The Congress was voted on by the people. The idea that Trump throwing bombs into the federal budget is democracy but following Congress' passed budget isn't is ridiculous.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    The idea you have is nice, but congress doesn't pass real budgets any more. That means that there is a lot more ability to make the money slosh around.

op00to 2y ago

50% of billionaires wealth? Hell yeah.

1659447091 2y ago

> would you be okay with that? 75%? 90%? Why ask about raising individual American taxes while turning a blind eye to Trump gunning at lower corp taxes even more than he already had? And we know it will happen because he gets it done, for America *cough oilarchs* I would be okay with Trump raising the corporate tax rate, instead of saving some 296 of the largest US companies $240B in taxes between 2018-2021[0]. Though this time should be even more, right? He's going to take it to a whole new level of lowest tax rate for Corporates than "any nation on earth". Can't wait for him to lower the tax burden on Big Corp even more, Those C-suites, investors, have such a hard life scrapping by the way they do. No wonder they can't afford better wages for the workers. Let's keep the tax burden on the middle class where it belongs so we can Make America Great Again. [0] https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-tax-law/ https://itep.org/corporate-taxes-before-and-after-the-trump-...

llamaimperative 2y ago

> These are real questions that Americans are trying to answer right now. No they’re actually not. You made those questions up as absurd examples, and they’re absurd.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Llama! I was wondering when you'd show up. We comment on all the same stories
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  <3

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

These FUD arguments are ridiculous. Americans are already paying far more in privatised taxation - tribute - to healthcare companies, landlords, fossil fuel companies, and loan sharks of various kinds - than they would pay with higher federal tax rates investing in R&D, infrastructure, education, clean energy, and public health. There's nothing hypothetical about pointing out that the billionaire economy is massively distorted and extractive, and is caused huge public harm which will literally remain visible for geological timescales.