3 ms·

> The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resourc

by jsbg 1y ago

> The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resources to accomplish them. Spending on irreplicable research has an opportunity cost that most taxpayers wouldn’t choose. Framing it as empathy to forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic.

beej71 1y ago
Another way to look at this is that a country that only spends research money on profitable ventures is going to lose to a country that spends exploratory research money. I, for one, willingly give my cash. You don't get breakthroughs by being timid with this.
- jsbg 1y ago
  assuming the government is already maximizing tax revenue on the laffer curve, what would you be willing to give up so that it could spend more on theoretical science research?
  - beej71 1y ago
    It's almost certainly not maximizing tax revenue, but I'd trade some defense for research.
thisisit 1y ago
>most taxpayers wouldn’t choose How do you know that? Tax paying is a larger subset of people who voted in this election because migrants also pay taxes. The popular vote count was 49.8%. So, however you want to dice it "most taxpayers" aren't choosing here. > forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic Forcibly take? That is a right-wing point you seem to be repeating without seeing the irony. The whole point of electing a government is that it can allocate taxpayers money maybe to causes you don't agree with. If government reallocating resources is "forcibly take" then "most taxpayers" - the 50.8% people who didn't vote for this government can also claim their taxes are being "forcibly taken" by this government as well? Or is it that right wing voices matter more than others? As I said lack of empathy and callousness is a hallmark of this government and its supporters.

by jsbg 1y ago

beej71 1y ago

Another way to look at this is that a country that only spends research money on profitable ventures is going to lose to a country that spends exploratory research money. I, for one, willingly give my cash. You don't get breakthroughs by being timid with this.

jsbg 1y ago
assuming the government is already maximizing tax revenue on the laffer curve, what would you be willing to give up so that it could spend more on theoretical science research?
- beej71 1y ago
  It's almost certainly not maximizing tax revenue, but I'd trade some defense for research.

thisisit 1y ago

>most taxpayers wouldn’t choose How do you know that? Tax paying is a larger subset of people who voted in this election because migrants also pay taxes. The popular vote count was 49.8%. So, however you want to dice it "most taxpayers" aren't choosing here. > forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic Forcibly take? That is a right-wing point you seem to be repeating without seeing the irony. The whole point of electing a government is that it can allocate taxpayers money maybe to causes you don't agree with. If government reallocating resources is "forcibly take" then "most taxpayers" - the 50.8% people who didn't vote for this government can also claim their taxes are being "forcibly taken" by this government as well? Or is it that right wing voices matter more than others? As I said lack of empathy and callousness is a hallmark of this government and its supporters.