5 ms·

It's a big leap from shifting numbers on someone's tax returns to locking them up for years based on a lifestyle choice. If we were debating full-blown socialis

by lukifer 18y ago

It's a big leap from shifting numbers on someone's tax returns to locking them up for years based on a lifestyle choice. If we were debating full-blown socialism, it might be comparable, but it's not (necessarily) irrational to say that in one arena the social contract is unfair to the individual, and that in another it is unfair (or suboptimal) for society as a whole. Reality is more complicated than either/or, and the devil is always in the details.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Sure thing it's complicated. As an example, some made the case that in every major war we've been in, we've run up the debt and then raised taxes to pay for it. "The rich doing their patriotic duty" as some describe. Problem is, I must have missed the war that raised the debt to the $10 Trillion mark and am somewhat astonished that we're planning to double that in the next ten years with new programs. So obviously, to me at least, war is one thing and the decay of democracy by folks voting themselves programs we can't afford is something else entirely. So yes, absolutely it's more complicated. But when you say it's more complicated, then the onus is on you to explain where you draw the line -- where is the foundational principle that socialism violates and that progressive taxation does not (to use your example)
- lukifer 18y ago
  I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. But in a nutshell, I think the $10 trillion debt is not a problem of public will run amok; rather, it is a reflection of how little influence public will has over the lumbering behemoth that is our government, compared to banks, military contractors, privatized prisons, industry lobbies, large unions, et al. It's a failure of our particular democratic process, not our system of taxation. Ultimately, I don't think there is a clear distinction between progressive taxation and socialism, in the same sense that there is no clear distinction between a fetus and a human. It's a spectrum, and there is no "correct" solution, but rather a large panoply of potential solutions, some of which are less bad than others. In my personal opinion, the progressive tax system we have right now is actually a pretty good one (corporate loopholes notwithstanding), and the changes that have been proposed are pretty damn minor (yes, it could be a slippery slope, but so can absolutely anything). What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts).
  - jibiki 18y ago
    > What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts). My sentiments exactly. The US government can achieve efficiency when it gets its act together, but right now it seems kind of corrupt.
    - robotrout 18y ago
      The US government is not corrupt. It is, however, a government. Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Show me a machine or electronic circuit or software without feedback, and I will show you a system that either does not work at all, or, in order to work, has been over-engineered (that's code for not an optimal solution == inefficient). Complex systems must be closed-loop in order to be efficient, else, even if they magically were engineered optimally as open-loop, some non-linearity in the system will eventually undo that miracle. Governments are open loop. I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well!
      - jibiki 18y ago
        > The US government is not corrupt. Fannie Mae? > Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Elections? Defaults? > I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well! I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        A single entity with hundreds of different concerns working on a multi-year feedback loop which only replaces individual participants beats thousands of different entities working on a single concern with a monthly (or daily) feedback loop which has a do-or-die result? hmmmm.

by lukifer 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Sure thing it's complicated. As an example, some made the case that in every major war we've been in, we've run up the debt and then raised taxes to pay for it. "The rich doing their patriotic duty" as some describe. Problem is, I must have missed the war that raised the debt to the $10 Trillion mark and am somewhat astonished that we're planning to double that in the next ten years with new programs. So obviously, to me at least, war is one thing and the decay of democracy by folks voting themselves programs we can't afford is something else entirely. So yes, absolutely it's more complicated. But when you say it's more complicated, then the onus is on you to explain where you draw the line -- where is the foundational principle that socialism violates and that progressive taxation does not (to use your example)

lukifer 18y ago
I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. But in a nutshell, I think the $10 trillion debt is not a problem of public will run amok; rather, it is a reflection of how little influence public will has over the lumbering behemoth that is our government, compared to banks, military contractors, privatized prisons, industry lobbies, large unions, et al. It's a failure of our particular democratic process, not our system of taxation. Ultimately, I don't think there is a clear distinction between progressive taxation and socialism, in the same sense that there is no clear distinction between a fetus and a human. It's a spectrum, and there is no "correct" solution, but rather a large panoply of potential solutions, some of which are less bad than others. In my personal opinion, the progressive tax system we have right now is actually a pretty good one (corporate loopholes notwithstanding), and the changes that have been proposed are pretty damn minor (yes, it could be a slippery slope, but so can absolutely anything). What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts).
- jibiki 18y ago
  > What matters more to me is that the money raised by taxation of whatever kind is spent on smart things (education, infrastructure, technology R&D), and not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts). My sentiments exactly. The US government can achieve efficiency when it gets its act together, but right now it seems kind of corrupt.
  - robotrout 18y ago
    The US government is not corrupt. It is, however, a government. Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Show me a machine or electronic circuit or software without feedback, and I will show you a system that either does not work at all, or, in order to work, has been over-engineered (that's code for not an optimal solution == inefficient). Complex systems must be closed-loop in order to be efficient, else, even if they magically were engineered optimally as open-loop, some non-linearity in the system will eventually undo that miracle. Governments are open loop. I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well!
    - jibiki 18y ago
      > The US government is not corrupt. Fannie Mae? > Governments do not achieve efficiency because they have no feedback mechanism to allow them to. Elections? Defaults? > I like the circularity of your statement though. As soon as it's working well, then it will be working well! I merely meant to point out that the government has the potential for greater efficiency.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        A single entity with hundreds of different concerns working on a multi-year feedback loop which only replaces individual participants beats thousands of different entities working on a single concern with a monthly (or daily) feedback loop which has a do-or-die result? hmmmm.