13 ms·

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Every government goon doing authoritarian dirty work collects a paycheck and wouldn't do their job without it.

palata 8mo ago
I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. > moves power from the people to the government In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. And needless to say, a non-functioning democracy is not a proof that the concept of democracy doesn't work.
- alphazard 8mo ago
  > I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. The problem is this is a collective negotiation, not a discussion about what to ask the genie for when we rub the lamp. If the middle class wants to decrease their own taxes (which is the political issue that objectively affects them the most, and how they lose their power), then they are going to have to meet the wealthy half way. Idealism is the enemy of the the common sense, rational, self-interested move. > And needless to say, a non-functioning democracy is not a proof that the concept of democracy doesn't work. Yes, democracy is a good idea precisely because imperfect implementations of it work well. If it worked in theory and not in practice, then it wouldn't be a good idea. Contrast it to communism, which is literally an info-hazard. If you try to bring it in to existence, you won't achieve your goal, and the system you do create will be much worse for you. Even if it works in theory, it's a bad idea because it doesn't work in practice.
  - felixgallo 8mo ago
    I'm having difficulty parsing what you're saying in your first paragraph. What is it to 'meet the wealthy half way'? Did the ultra wealthy meet the middle class or the poor half way when they essentially ended their tax obligations and legalized mass influence buying in Citizens United? What's the 'half measure' that is going to rein all that back in?
    - alphazard 8mo ago
      No they did not. It's easier for a small number of people to coordinate, than a large number. The wealthy have about as much power as the entire middle class, but can wield it better because they are more nimble. That doesn't change the state of the negotiation, which is that cutting taxes for the middle class will also require cutting them for the wealthy. If you optimize for your own personal notion of fairness, or retribution, you may very well fail to coordinate in your own self-interest.
      - mapt 8mo ago
        I don't really want to cut taxes for the working/middle class though. I want to tax the everliving fuck out of the hyper-wealthy, to the point that they cease to exist. The money should go into providing goods and services for the working/middle class, but collecting that money and lighting it on fire (or parking assets in a sovereign wealth fund) is a superior option to doing nothing. Neither our democracy nor our position as a world power survived capitalism eating itself and everything else. We are down to single individuals holding more nominal wealth than whole continents, and the worship of the billionaire has replaced the worship of Jesus Christ for most Americans, a palace cult committing national suicide on your behalf. If you want any of the things that America pitched as its merits in fighting for influence in the Cold War, you want this situation over with. Let them eat three commas and not a penny more. When you become a billionaire we give you a medal and confiscate every dollar above 1 billion. Using a carrier strike group if necessary.
        SV_BubbleTime 8mo ago
        This is just silly. Not many animals will stand completely still while you attack them. It sure sounds tough though! Literal war with people for being successful, how much time have you spent on this line of thought?
  - palata 8mo ago
    > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them That is a different debate. I think what the parent means is that taxing the rich is a way to prevent them from becoming too powerful. I do agree that it should be illegal to be too powerful. One should not be more powerful than an entire country, it makes no sense.
    - zozbot234 8mo ago
      There's no way that even the richest people in the world are "powerful" enough in that sense unless you're talking about literal royalty in resource-rich countries. Even Epstein's power was largely about his cronyism, not about directly expending his wealth.
      - Jensson 8mo ago
        Yeah, Epstein was removed since he didn't have much power compared to country leaders and so on. Even the richest people of the world has very little power compared to an authoritarian country leader.
  - ses1984 8mo ago
    > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them Everyone except about 90% of republican voters, aka temporarily poor millionaires
    - mulmen 8mo ago
      That’s unfair. Some of them are just racist.
  - nicoburns 8mo ago
    > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. I believe this attitude is pretty common in many parts of the world. That being said, I do think the extremes of wealth (there is a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire) have a particularly detrimental effect on society by completely distorting our economic system (there can be no such thing as a free market when such a small number of individuals control such a large proportion of the spending power).
    - alphazard 8mo ago
      > That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. This confusion is precisely why the middle class has less power than ever before. You and many others have been sold a meme that your tax dollars are in service to a greater good, and you are a bad person if you recognize this to be a scam. At an individual level, for each person in the middle class, 90% of the social programs they pay for are negative EV for them personally. It would be better for each of them if they just kept what they earned, and didn't expect to get it back "later" or "when they really need it" whenever that is. This is an empirical, testable claim, and the math will be slightly different for each person. You should check for yourself. If everyone turned off the news, and totally ignored the messaging around taxes and government programs and just looked at their own cash inflows and outflows to/from the government, the middle class would retain far more power than they do.
      - throwway120385 8mo ago
        > At an individual level, for each person in the middle class, 90% of the social programs they pay for are negative EV for them personally. It would be better for each of them if they just kept what they earned, and didn't expect to get it back "later" or "when they really need it" whenever that is. This is an empirical, testable claim, and the math will be slightly different for each person. You should check for yourself. This whole "expected value" concept when taken to the extreme is just rationalist patter. It's a useful exercise when you're running a business, but there is more to life than fiscal efficiency. Empiricism, when taken to an extreme, is as dystopian as anything else. 90% of those social programs are what keep us from being killed in the street for our watches and jewelry. They keep people less fortunate than us from becoming desperate. They level the playing field so our children aren't all victims of the circumstances of their birth. By those metrics, which are my preferred metrics and not the size of my paycheck, they are a huge benefit. Also one could argue that the US military is the world's largest social service program in that it provides jobs for a large part of the country that otherwise has no prospects for a good life.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  >In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. The U.S. are a republic not a democracy. The people vote for the government but are not expected to be directly involved with it after the fact.
  - palata 8mo ago
    I think you're confused about the meaning of "democracy".
    - zozbot234 8mo ago
      I think GP is confused about the meaning of republican government. In a democracy like ancient Athens the people are directly involved in governance, but that's not what we have in the U.S. and other advanced countries. We elect representatives.
- prometheus76 8mo ago
  The government is the majority of people. So the government very well can be against 49% of the people and it would still fit your definition. If 100 people were about to embark on a journey on a ship, what makes you think 51 of them know who should run the ship if none of them have ever even been on a ship?
  - macNchz 8mo ago
    There are a variety of ways that democratic governments are structure that make this an inaccurate characterization of how things work. The US, for example, apportions representatives and votes for President in a way that overweights less populated states, and there are various aspects of parliamentary systems that help avoid landing in a two-party system where a simple majority gets the say in everything—they force compromise and coalition building among disparate groups. Additionally, Constitutional systems will enumerate the rights of its citizens such that they cannot simply be taken away by a simple majority of any body. Democratic countries are also basically never "pure" democracies where everyone votes on every decision as in your Plato's ship analogy—we elect people who audition for the role of running the ship, ostensibly those among the people who are best suited to the task.
    - iso1631 8mo ago
      > , Constitutional systems will enumerate the rights of its citizens such that they cannot simply be taken away by a simple majority of any body. Only if those are enforced. The wealthiest are the ones with the power, as they can pay for the guns.
      - palata 8mo ago
        Again, we're talking about a functioning democracy. If you take an example of a non-functioning democracy, it's not a good way to describe a functioning democracy.
        iso1631 8mo ago
        So how do you stop a function democracy becoming a non functioning democracy Ultimately it comes down to who has the power. The more that power is concentrated the more fragile it becomes. It doesn't change overnight.
torben-friis 8mo ago
The natural flow of money tends towards pooling on certain individuals and groups, because accumulating capital is significantly easier when you start with capital. This is unwanted, first because it produces individuals powerful enough to topple the people’s will, and second because it is not in the interest of society for wealth to be accumulated rather than moving. By first principles you need a system to limit accumulation and redistribute it. That’s taxation. The money not being extracted from the right places, or not being distributed where it should, is a sign that the government is unwilling or incapable or working for the people. It is the people’s collective responsibility to prevent and fix that problem.
- program_whiz 8mo ago
  Agree, I think the issue is that taxes specifically flow to "the government" in the abstract. If there was a simple law like "95% of income or gains above $10M are taxed and redistributed equally via check / IRS rebate to every citizen automatically" then it could be a high-trust system that helps out everyone. Politicians, though greedy and self-interested, would have little choice but to continue the program untouched, similar to social security. I'd also feel a lot better about "Elon gets $200B payout", because he gets $2B and $198B goes to tax payers -- seems pretty fair. $2B is still more than anyone ever needs to live a lavish life of luxury and/or start any reasonable self-business, or buy off any politicians.
  - zozbot234 8mo ago
    Most super-wealthy folks are not going to spend anywhere on the order of $200B or even $20B (in the broad timeframe of Elon's payout) on their own consumption. Even if Elon spent $100B on a mission to Mars or whatever it is that he cares about, would you really have reason to object to that, any more than if the money was spent by NASA? (The whole Apollo program and surrounding stuff probably cost on the order of that amount of money once you control for inflation, so there's plenty of precedent.)
    - program_whiz 8mo ago
dauertewigkeit 8mo ago
Weird post. Who is saying YOUR taxes or MY taxes should go up? Our taxes should go down. Billionaires should be taxed more instead.
iso1631 8mo ago
Higher corruption tends to be associated with lower tax-to-GDP ratios, which seems the opposite to your assertion. Of course there's the cause and effect issue -- does the high corruption cause lower tax, or do the lower taxes enable the corruption.
nicoburns 8mo ago
> Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Absolutely. The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way. If there was less wealth inequality there'd be much less scope for this. Note: I believe this would be the case even if the money was literally burnt/disappeated rather than being given to the government (not that I suggest that's what we do). Politics has it's fair share of corruption too. But at least in my country (the UK) it's the lesser evil. And even if you look at a country like the US where there is a lot more political corruption, the source of a lot of that seems to be private money influencing elections.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  > Note: I believe this would be the case even if the money was literally burnt/disappeated rather than being given to the government No need to literally burn the money, either: just use the entirety of that increased tax revenue on paying down the national debt, and lower the debt ceiling by the exact same amount so it can't go back up. This is an even better deal if you think "interest rates are too high, the Fed should cut a lot more". It all fits. And we managed this throughout the 1990s.
- Jensson 8mo ago
  > The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way This is so wrong, its not expensive to bribe politicians so higher taxes wouldn't stop this at all. The problem is that its possible to bribe politicians, meaning government has too much power, taxes would make that worse not better. And even more important most bribes doesn't come from individuals, it comes from super PACs and corporations, and those would exist regardless how much you tax rich people. What you need is a less centralized government so its harder to bribe a few key people to get what you want, and a more direct democracy that can eliminate politicians that takes bribes. When voters can't punish bad politicians since the incumbents has so much power to draw voting lines and decide who is on the ballots then corruption will always escalate out of control.
triceratops 8mo ago
Only if the government is allowed to spend the tax money. What if they were forced to give it away?
mrcartmeneses 8mo ago
Taxation is what moves power from the powerful to the people. All of the Epstein crap was proceeded by Reagan and Thatcher and their trickle down BS that made the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful while everyone else could languish
lm28469 8mo ago
Power concentration can happen regardless of taxation level though. You can have relatively high taxes and relatively low authoritarianism. But you can also have low taxes and full blow dictatorship. Taxes are much lower in Belarus and Russia vs western Europe, and they're much more authoritarian, coupled with third world tier public services outside of their capitals.
elliotec 8mo ago
Money is power. So to answer your question literally, if MY taxes went up, I would not have more power, but if the rich's did, I would because they'd have less power.
- alphazard 8mo ago
  That's only true in relative terms. In reality tax rates go up or down on everyone at the same time, because that's how the negotiations shake out. If taxes go up on everyone, the rich are still the ones that manipulate the government, but now they have control over more tax revenue. If taxes go down for everyone, the rich are still the ones that can manipulate the government, but now the government has less revenue and can't cause as much damage.
  - elliotec 8mo ago
    > In reality tax rates go up or down on everyone at the same time, because that's how the negotiations shake out. This is absolutely false, especially in the US. Progressive tax brackets, breaks for the rich, and targeted changes for capital vs. income, deductions, etc. are the norm. Tax rate change is _always_ selective.
lux-lux-lux 8mo ago
If that were true, then the wealthy and political establishment wouldn’t fight tax increases so damn hard. Over my lifetime, I’ve repeatedly watched wealthy individuals spend more money fighting tax increases than they’d end up paying.
mulmen 8mo ago
I don’t want my taxes to go up. I want billionaires to pay taxes that are as uncomfortable to them as mine are to me. Share the burden.
IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago
Take that to the next level. How about taxing the...Government ? For example: I am a teacher. I run for office. I win. Now, as a consequence of my win, my tax bracket for the rest of my life, is 100% after i exceed the higher of either: a) my elected official salary, OR b) the average last 5 years of W2 income, OR c) the average last 2 years of W2 income. You'd delete inmediately all the grifters getting into government to be rich. And because those narcissists griefters people would self select themselves out of the running; it gives breathing room to those willing to actually do their DUTY for country. Those willing to sacrifice lifetime income. This is pathway to the less charismatic, but more duty-oriented people that would not mind working in the govt and also do a good job. Under these rules, you dont care if I stay in govt forever, either. Limited terms have no point, when you can't grift. This also takes care of those pesky post-election speaking fees, as well!
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  This would have deeply weird and counterproductive effects on election candidacies; ultimately, people are willing to do their duty for the country, but not at the expense of their entire future income growth. It's the constituents' job to vote for better candidates, there are no foolproof rules beyond that.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago
    i think you underestimate how many silent heroes and patriots walk among us in the end , the people running for office should decide if its a price they are willing to pay it used to be a celebrated virtue to be a company man. why cant it be the same to be a "government" man ?

palata 8mo ago

I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. > moves power from the people to the government In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. And needless to say, a non-functioning democracy is not a proof that the concept of democracy doesn't work.

alphazard 8mo ago
> I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. The problem is this is a collective negotiation, not a discussion about what to ask the genie for when we rub the lamp. If the middle class wants to decrease their own taxes (which is the political issue that objectively affects them the most, and how they lose their power), then they are going to have to meet the wealthy half way. Idealism is the enemy of the the common sense, rational, self-interested move. > And needless to say, a non-functioning democracy is not a proof that the concept of democracy doesn't work. Yes, democracy is a good idea precisely because imperfect implementations of it work well. If it worked in theory and not in practice, then it wouldn't be a good idea. Contrast it to communism, which is literally an info-hazard. If you try to bring it in to existence, you won't achieve your goal, and the system you do create will be much worse for you. Even if it works in theory, it's a bad idea because it doesn't work in practice.
- felixgallo 8mo ago
  I'm having difficulty parsing what you're saying in your first paragraph. What is it to 'meet the wealthy half way'? Did the ultra wealthy meet the middle class or the poor half way when they essentially ended their tax obligations and legalized mass influence buying in Citizens United? What's the 'half measure' that is going to rein all that back in?
  - alphazard 8mo ago
    No they did not. It's easier for a small number of people to coordinate, than a large number. The wealthy have about as much power as the entire middle class, but can wield it better because they are more nimble. That doesn't change the state of the negotiation, which is that cutting taxes for the middle class will also require cutting them for the wealthy. If you optimize for your own personal notion of fairness, or retribution, you may very well fail to coordinate in your own self-interest.
    - mapt 8mo ago
      I don't really want to cut taxes for the working/middle class though. I want to tax the everliving fuck out of the hyper-wealthy, to the point that they cease to exist. The money should go into providing goods and services for the working/middle class, but collecting that money and lighting it on fire (or parking assets in a sovereign wealth fund) is a superior option to doing nothing. Neither our democracy nor our position as a world power survived capitalism eating itself and everything else. We are down to single individuals holding more nominal wealth than whole continents, and the worship of the billionaire has replaced the worship of Jesus Christ for most Americans, a palace cult committing national suicide on your behalf. If you want any of the things that America pitched as its merits in fighting for influence in the Cold War, you want this situation over with. Let them eat three commas and not a penny more. When you become a billionaire we give you a medal and confiscate every dollar above 1 billion. Using a carrier strike group if necessary.
      - SV_BubbleTime 8mo ago
        This is just silly. Not many animals will stand completely still while you attack them. It sure sounds tough though! Literal war with people for being successful, how much time have you spent on this line of thought?
- palata 8mo ago
  > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them That is a different debate. I think what the parent means is that taxing the rich is a way to prevent them from becoming too powerful. I do agree that it should be illegal to be too powerful. One should not be more powerful than an entire country, it makes no sense.
  - zozbot234 8mo ago
    There's no way that even the richest people in the world are "powerful" enough in that sense unless you're talking about literal royalty in resource-rich countries. Even Epstein's power was largely about his cronyism, not about directly expending his wealth.
    - Jensson 8mo ago
      Yeah, Epstein was removed since he didn't have much power compared to country leaders and so on. Even the richest people of the world has very little power compared to an authoritarian country leader.
- ses1984 8mo ago
  > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them Everyone except about 90% of republican voters, aka temporarily poor millionaires
  - mulmen 8mo ago
    That’s unfair. Some of them are just racist.
- nicoburns 8mo ago
  > Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. I believe this attitude is pretty common in many parts of the world. That being said, I do think the extremes of wealth (there is a big difference between a millionaire and a billionaire) have a particularly detrimental effect on society by completely distorting our economic system (there can be no such thing as a free market when such a small number of individuals control such a large proportion of the spending power).
  - alphazard 8mo ago
    > That's not true at all. I make a good salary as a software engineer, I absolutely think I ought to be taxed a little more than I am, and would gladly pay that money to live in the better society I believe that would create. This confusion is precisely why the middle class has less power than ever before. You and many others have been sold a meme that your tax dollars are in service to a greater good, and you are a bad person if you recognize this to be a scam. At an individual level, for each person in the middle class, 90% of the social programs they pay for are negative EV for them personally. It would be better for each of them if they just kept what they earned, and didn't expect to get it back "later" or "when they really need it" whenever that is. This is an empirical, testable claim, and the math will be slightly different for each person. You should check for yourself. If everyone turned off the news, and totally ignored the messaging around taxes and government programs and just looked at their own cash inflows and outflows to/from the government, the middle class would retain far more power than they do.
    - throwway120385 8mo ago
      > At an individual level, for each person in the middle class, 90% of the social programs they pay for are negative EV for them personally. It would be better for each of them if they just kept what they earned, and didn't expect to get it back "later" or "when they really need it" whenever that is. This is an empirical, testable claim, and the math will be slightly different for each person. You should check for yourself. This whole "expected value" concept when taken to the extreme is just rationalist patter. It's a useful exercise when you're running a business, but there is more to life than fiscal efficiency. Empiricism, when taken to an extreme, is as dystopian as anything else. 90% of those social programs are what keep us from being killed in the street for our watches and jewelry. They keep people less fortunate than us from becoming desperate. They level the playing field so our children aren't all victims of the circumstances of their birth. By those metrics, which are my preferred metrics and not the size of my paycheck, they are a huge benefit. Also one could argue that the US military is the world's largest social service program in that it provides jobs for a large part of the country that otherwise has no prospects for a good life.
zozbot234 8mo ago
>In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. The U.S. are a republic not a democracy. The people vote for the government but are not expected to be directly involved with it after the fact.
- palata 8mo ago
  I think you're confused about the meaning of "democracy".
  - zozbot234 8mo ago
    I think GP is confused about the meaning of republican government. In a democracy like ancient Athens the people are directly involved in governance, but that's not what we have in the U.S. and other advanced countries. We elect representatives.
prometheus76 8mo ago
The government is the majority of people. So the government very well can be against 49% of the people and it would still fit your definition. If 100 people were about to embark on a journey on a ship, what makes you think 51 of them know who should run the ship if none of them have ever even been on a ship?
- macNchz 8mo ago
  There are a variety of ways that democratic governments are structure that make this an inaccurate characterization of how things work. The US, for example, apportions representatives and votes for President in a way that overweights less populated states, and there are various aspects of parliamentary systems that help avoid landing in a two-party system where a simple majority gets the say in everything—they force compromise and coalition building among disparate groups. Additionally, Constitutional systems will enumerate the rights of its citizens such that they cannot simply be taken away by a simple majority of any body. Democratic countries are also basically never "pure" democracies where everyone votes on every decision as in your Plato's ship analogy—we elect people who audition for the role of running the ship, ostensibly those among the people who are best suited to the task.
  - iso1631 8mo ago
    > , Constitutional systems will enumerate the rights of its citizens such that they cannot simply be taken away by a simple majority of any body. Only if those are enforced. The wealthiest are the ones with the power, as they can pay for the guns.
    - palata 8mo ago
      Again, we're talking about a functioning democracy. If you take an example of a non-functioning democracy, it's not a good way to describe a functioning democracy.
      - iso1631 8mo ago
        So how do you stop a function democracy becoming a non functioning democracy Ultimately it comes down to who has the power. The more that power is concentrated the more fragile it becomes. It doesn't change overnight.

torben-friis 8mo ago

The natural flow of money tends towards pooling on certain individuals and groups, because accumulating capital is significantly easier when you start with capital. This is unwanted, first because it produces individuals powerful enough to topple the people’s will, and second because it is not in the interest of society for wealth to be accumulated rather than moving. By first principles you need a system to limit accumulation and redistribute it. That’s taxation. The money not being extracted from the right places, or not being distributed where it should, is a sign that the government is unwilling or incapable or working for the people. It is the people’s collective responsibility to prevent and fix that problem.

program_whiz 8mo ago
Agree, I think the issue is that taxes specifically flow to "the government" in the abstract. If there was a simple law like "95% of income or gains above $10M are taxed and redistributed equally via check / IRS rebate to every citizen automatically" then it could be a high-trust system that helps out everyone. Politicians, though greedy and self-interested, would have little choice but to continue the program untouched, similar to social security. I'd also feel a lot better about "Elon gets $200B payout", because he gets $2B and $198B goes to tax payers -- seems pretty fair. $2B is still more than anyone ever needs to live a lavish life of luxury and/or start any reasonable self-business, or buy off any politicians.
- zozbot234 8mo ago
  Most super-wealthy folks are not going to spend anywhere on the order of $200B or even $20B (in the broad timeframe of Elon's payout) on their own consumption. Even if Elon spent $100B on a mission to Mars or whatever it is that he cares about, would you really have reason to object to that, any more than if the money was spent by NASA? (The whole Apollo program and surrounding stuff probably cost on the order of that amount of money once you control for inflation, so there's plenty of precedent.)
  - program_whiz 8mo ago

dauertewigkeit 8mo ago

Weird post. Who is saying YOUR taxes or MY taxes should go up? Our taxes should go down. Billionaires should be taxed more instead.

iso1631 8mo ago

Higher corruption tends to be associated with lower tax-to-GDP ratios, which seems the opposite to your assertion. Of course there's the cause and effect issue -- does the high corruption cause lower tax, or do the lower taxes enable the corruption.

nicoburns 8mo ago

> Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Absolutely. The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way. If there was less wealth inequality there'd be much less scope for this. Note: I believe this would be the case even if the money was literally burnt/disappeated rather than being given to the government (not that I suggest that's what we do). Politics has it's fair share of corruption too. But at least in my country (the UK) it's the lesser evil. And even if you look at a country like the US where there is a lot more political corruption, the source of a lot of that seems to be private money influencing elections.

zozbot234 8mo ago
> Note: I believe this would be the case even if the money was literally burnt/disappeated rather than being given to the government No need to literally burn the money, either: just use the entirety of that increased tax revenue on paying down the national debt, and lower the debt ceiling by the exact same amount so it can't go back up. This is an even better deal if you think "interest rates are too high, the Fed should cut a lot more". It all fits. And we managed this throughout the 1990s.
Jensson 8mo ago
> The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way This is so wrong, its not expensive to bribe politicians so higher taxes wouldn't stop this at all. The problem is that its possible to bribe politicians, meaning government has too much power, taxes would make that worse not better. And even more important most bribes doesn't come from individuals, it comes from super PACs and corporations, and those would exist regardless how much you tax rich people. What you need is a less centralized government so its harder to bribe a few key people to get what you want, and a more direct democracy that can eliminate politicians that takes bribes. When voters can't punish bad politicians since the incumbents has so much power to draw voting lines and decide who is on the ballots then corruption will always escalate out of control.

triceratops 8mo ago

Only if the government is allowed to spend the tax money. What if they were forced to give it away?

mrcartmeneses 8mo ago

Taxation is what moves power from the powerful to the people. All of the Epstein crap was proceeded by Reagan and Thatcher and their trickle down BS that made the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful while everyone else could languish

lm28469 8mo ago

Power concentration can happen regardless of taxation level though. You can have relatively high taxes and relatively low authoritarianism. But you can also have low taxes and full blow dictatorship. Taxes are much lower in Belarus and Russia vs western Europe, and they're much more authoritarian, coupled with third world tier public services outside of their capitals.

elliotec 8mo ago

Money is power. So to answer your question literally, if MY taxes went up, I would not have more power, but if the rich's did, I would because they'd have less power.

alphazard 8mo ago
That's only true in relative terms. In reality tax rates go up or down on everyone at the same time, because that's how the negotiations shake out. If taxes go up on everyone, the rich are still the ones that manipulate the government, but now they have control over more tax revenue. If taxes go down for everyone, the rich are still the ones that can manipulate the government, but now the government has less revenue and can't cause as much damage.
- elliotec 8mo ago
  > In reality tax rates go up or down on everyone at the same time, because that's how the negotiations shake out. This is absolutely false, especially in the US. Progressive tax brackets, breaks for the rich, and targeted changes for capital vs. income, deductions, etc. are the norm. Tax rate change is _always_ selective.

lux-lux-lux 8mo ago

If that were true, then the wealthy and political establishment wouldn’t fight tax increases so damn hard. Over my lifetime, I’ve repeatedly watched wealthy individuals spend more money fighting tax increases than they’d end up paying.

mulmen 8mo ago

I don’t want my taxes to go up. I want billionaires to pay taxes that are as uncomfortable to them as mine are to me. Share the burden.

IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago

Take that to the next level. How about taxing the...Government ? For example: I am a teacher. I run for office. I win. Now, as a consequence of my win, my tax bracket for the rest of my life, is 100% after i exceed the higher of either: a) my elected official salary, OR b) the average last 5 years of W2 income, OR c) the average last 2 years of W2 income. You'd delete inmediately all the grifters getting into government to be rich. And because those narcissists griefters people would self select themselves out of the running; it gives breathing room to those willing to actually do their DUTY for country. Those willing to sacrifice lifetime income. This is pathway to the less charismatic, but more duty-oriented people that would not mind working in the govt and also do a good job. Under these rules, you dont care if I stay in govt forever, either. Limited terms have no point, when you can't grift. This also takes care of those pesky post-election speaking fees, as well!

zozbot234 8mo ago
This would have deeply weird and counterproductive effects on election candidacies; ultimately, people are willing to do their duty for the country, but not at the expense of their entire future income growth. It's the constituents' job to vote for better candidates, there are no foolproof rules beyond that.
- IG_Semmelweiss 8mo ago
  i think you underestimate how many silent heroes and patriots walk among us in the end , the people running for office should decide if its a price they are willing to pay it used to be a celebrated virtue to be a company man. why cant it be the same to be a "government" man ?