4 ms·

The notion that taxation should be predicated on whether the government or the person can 'better use' the person's money is damn scary. Why is it scary? Your

by dkarl 14y ago

The notion that taxation should be predicated on whether the government or the person can 'better use' the person's money is damn scary. Why is it scary? Your tax dollars go to the government because other citizens wish their tax dollars to go to the government, because they believe the government is the most efficient way to provide certain goods. Basically, they believe the government can spend their money better than they can, at least a certain amount of their money spent for certain purposes. Taxes aren't completely consensual, of course. They're government policy, and like any government policy, they can't depend on unanimous approval. However, the will of the people, as expressed through every democratic system on Earth, does support some degree of taxation and government spending. The natural question for a voter to ask when their vote affects taxation is whether it is more efficient to accomplish certain things through the government rather than through private spending -- essentially, whether the government can "better use" money for certain purposes than taxpayers can themselves. What's wrong with that?

gwright 14y ago
Taxes are entirely not consensual. And that is the crux of the matter. Because they are not consensual there needs to be some sort of mechanism to limit the ability for the majority to simply appropriate money and property from the minority. Suggesting that the only limiting factor is whether the government (even a democratically elected one) thinks it can use the money better than you can, really isn't a limit. When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. -- Benjamin Franklin
- dkarl 14y ago
  You're arguing the old maker versus taker canard, which doesn't reflect reality at all. Taxation would not exist without the consent of a large number of economically productive taxpayers. If you think politics in the United States is run by poor people, or by mysterious forces that somehow nullify and overcome the economic power of a preponderance of American taxpayers, you are kidding yourself. You'd be better off engaging with American taxpayers who want the government to play a certain role and want to pay for it than pretending we don't exist. If you persist in believing that government is a conspiracy by parasites against the productive, then you are going to be perpetually confused and disappointed by American politics. Warren Buffet is trying to help you out, to clue you in to the fact that the politics surrounding government spending and revenue are not determined by the economic divisions you think they are. Accept that a large number of prosperous Americans (such as Warren Buffet) are willing taxpayers who approve of many forms of government spending, and I promise you, things will become a lot clearer. You might even be able to frame your arguments in a form that a presidential candidate wouldn't have to apologize for repeating.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I don't think the majority of people who politically support the current tax code are currently making as most of their income and a sizable portion of net worth 50-500k/yr in wage income from non-government (direct or one level removed) sources, however. (it's primarily retirees who are now a combination of state beneficiary and investment income earners, people who work for government or direct vendors to government, and is funded by people who make most of their money as capital gains or carried interest.) This is true for both major parties, and has been true for at least 40 years, though. Socially and intellectually, the people I mostly identify with are professionals and other middle to upper class wage earners (doctors, lawyers, engineers); the exception being startup equity. And the people who earn wages (vs. capital gains) in this bracket pay the highest marginal taxes of anyone. If tech people weren't able to shift income into capital gains, 50%+ taxation would be a much bigger deal.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  If you don't like the taxes, go somewhere else, or into the black market.
  - gwright 14y ago
    Really? You think that tax policy is some verboten topic that is outside the scope of public debate and that anyone who dares to question the 'government' should 'leave' (or become a criminal)?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

by dkarl 14y ago

gwright 14y ago

Taxes are entirely not consensual. And that is the crux of the matter. Because they are not consensual there needs to be some sort of mechanism to limit the ability for the majority to simply appropriate money and property from the minority. Suggesting that the only limiting factor is whether the government (even a democratically elected one) thinks it can use the money better than you can, really isn't a limit. When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. -- Benjamin Franklin

dkarl 14y ago
You're arguing the old maker versus taker canard, which doesn't reflect reality at all. Taxation would not exist without the consent of a large number of economically productive taxpayers. If you think politics in the United States is run by poor people, or by mysterious forces that somehow nullify and overcome the economic power of a preponderance of American taxpayers, you are kidding yourself. You'd be better off engaging with American taxpayers who want the government to play a certain role and want to pay for it than pretending we don't exist. If you persist in believing that government is a conspiracy by parasites against the productive, then you are going to be perpetually confused and disappointed by American politics. Warren Buffet is trying to help you out, to clue you in to the fact that the politics surrounding government spending and revenue are not determined by the economic divisions you think they are. Accept that a large number of prosperous Americans (such as Warren Buffet) are willing taxpayers who approve of many forms of government spending, and I promise you, things will become a lot clearer. You might even be able to frame your arguments in a form that a presidential candidate wouldn't have to apologize for repeating.
- rdl 14y ago
  I don't think the majority of people who politically support the current tax code are currently making as most of their income and a sizable portion of net worth 50-500k/yr in wage income from non-government (direct or one level removed) sources, however. (it's primarily retirees who are now a combination of state beneficiary and investment income earners, people who work for government or direct vendors to government, and is funded by people who make most of their money as capital gains or carried interest.) This is true for both major parties, and has been true for at least 40 years, though. Socially and intellectually, the people I mostly identify with are professionals and other middle to upper class wage earners (doctors, lawyers, engineers); the exception being startup equity. And the people who earn wages (vs. capital gains) in this bracket pay the highest marginal taxes of anyone. If tech people weren't able to shift income into capital gains, 50%+ taxation would be a much bigger deal.
MaysonL 14y ago
If you don't like the taxes, go somewhere else, or into the black market.
- gwright 14y ago
  Really? You think that tax policy is some verboten topic that is outside the scope of public debate and that anyone who dares to question the 'government' should 'leave' (or become a criminal)?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]