4 ms·

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.[0] [0] https://n

by kiwih 2y ago

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I think a more reasonable interpretation might be "the government knows about expensive cars (i.e. that they are registered, have numberplates etc), and so charges some annual tax on the owners of those cars."

tastyfreeze 2y ago
Describing wealth tax reasoning with an absurd example of the same reasoning on an individual level is an attempt to get people to understand what wealth taxes are. The government that is supposed to work for you thinks you have accumulated too much stuff and is trying to make it legal to take a percentage of your physical wealth annually.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government. Without the government and the economic system it cultivates, you’d never have it.
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    >You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government This is simplistic nonsense. No, the majority of wealthy people didn't accumulate their wealth because high and mighty lord government willed it into their existence. They did it within a system of laws and regulations that government admittedly does create for fostering such wealth creation. However, this still often requires strenuous effort by these people for their own ends. If it were otherwise, many more people would be rich just by virtue of living under a government. There is a real place for giving people credit for the wealth and capital accumulate, well beyond what government offers. It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
    - Rumple22Stilk 2y ago
      Your argument is built on a flawed premise that ignores the foundational role government and society play in enabling wealth creation in the first place. The counterfactual is simple: without government, without the legal and social structures upheld by a functioning society, there would be no stable mechanism for accumulating wealth at all. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force. If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation. Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy. So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.
    - goodpoint 2y ago
      > strenuous effort by these people strenuous effort by their employees or are you telling me that the average billionaire works 50000 hours a day?
      - AlexandrB 2y ago

by kiwih 2y ago

tastyfreeze 2y ago

Describing wealth tax reasoning with an absurd example of the same reasoning on an individual level is an attempt to get people to understand what wealth taxes are. The government that is supposed to work for you thinks you have accumulated too much stuff and is trying to make it legal to take a percentage of your physical wealth annually.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government. Without the government and the economic system it cultivates, you’d never have it.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  >You only accumulated and maintain the wealth because of the government This is simplistic nonsense. No, the majority of wealthy people didn't accumulate their wealth because high and mighty lord government willed it into their existence. They did it within a system of laws and regulations that government admittedly does create for fostering such wealth creation. However, this still often requires strenuous effort by these people for their own ends. If it were otherwise, many more people would be rich just by virtue of living under a government. There is a real place for giving people credit for the wealth and capital accumulate, well beyond what government offers. It's contradictory and absurd to argue that people accumulate wealth because of the government while at the same time arguing that we live in a situation in which we need more government control of people's earnings to prevent oligarchy since government doesn't do enough.
  - Rumple22Stilk 2y ago
    Your argument is built on a flawed premise that ignores the foundational role government and society play in enabling wealth creation in the first place. The counterfactual is simple: without government, without the legal and social structures upheld by a functioning society, there would be no stable mechanism for accumulating wealth at all. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force. If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation. Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy. So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.
  - goodpoint 2y ago
    > strenuous effort by these people strenuous effort by their employees or are you telling me that the average billionaire works 50000 hours a day?
    - AlexandrB 2y ago