zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. throwa+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-02-14 21:55:46
It is free labor. You giving your income to the government is equivalent to doing free work. And of course, some level of that is required. I'm not anti-tax, I'm anti wasteful tax. And to my mind, requiring 30%-50% of everyones created value, just to maintain society, is enormously wasteful. There is no way in hell an efficient society actually requires that level of income tax of everyone.
replies(1): >>sofixa+V2
2. sofixa+V2[view] [source] 2024-02-14 22:08:25
>>throwa+(OP)
> There is no way in hell an efficient society actually requires that level of income tax of everyone

If there's no way in hell you can sure back up that claim with sources? I personally cannot think of a single country with what I would consider to be a somewhat efficient society that has a significantly lower tax rate. On the contrary, as established upthread, in the US which many Americans pride themselves on being low tax, the effective tax rate is not far off, and American society is drastically less efficient or comfortable than e.g. Dutch one.

replies(1): >>throwa+R3
◧◩
3. throwa+R3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 22:13:38
>>sofixa+V2
The burden of proof is on the people claiming that level of taxation is required in the first place. If taxes need to be that high, its on high tax proponents to justify it, not on everyone else to justify why we shouldn't raise them higher.

If you stop to think about it, there are only 3 possibilities: 1) Taxes are perfectly calibrated to exactly what they need to be. 2) Taxes are less than they need to be. 3) Taxes are more than they need to be.

Perfect calibration is nearly impossible. So that leaves 2 and 3. Which do you think is more likely of a corruption-prone organization that takes income through the implicit threat of physical violence?

replies(2): >>bojan+p5 >>dhc02+I6
◧◩◪
4. bojan+p5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 22:23:59
>>throwa+R3
> The burden of proof is on the people claiming that level of taxation is required in the first place

The proof is there and it's called the annual budget of the country. As far as I know it's public information, not that anyone ever bothers to look at it (and rightfully so - we are paying via taxes people to look at it, and another group of people to control it).

replies(1): >>throwa+0a
◧◩◪
5. dhc02+I6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 22:31:09
>>throwa+R3
I think this a great frame to examine taxes though: Are taxes perfect, too high, or too low?

Now that we have the question, how to we decide the answer? I think there are several possibilities, but one that comes to mind is happiness. A subjective and flawed metric to be sure, but a metric all the same.

Thankfully, we do not have to resign ourselves to thought experiments with no opportunity for real data collection, as in "Would the average US citizen be happier or less happy if taxes were 10% lower?" We don't even have to settle for logical exercises such as you pose here: "What is more likely, that corruption inevitably makes more government worse than less government, or vice versa?"

Instead, we can examine the beautifully diverse set of data-rich, large scale experiments known as sovereign nations to find how well taxation correlates to happiness.

And voila, your criticism of the article is an argument in favor of the article.

replies(1): >>throwa+N9
◧◩◪◨
6. throwa+N9[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 22:50:41
>>dhc02+I6
>your criticism of the article is an argument in favor of the article.

I never criticized the article, which is about social safety net and child happiness. I'm criticizing the claimed taxation level required to have nice things.

Wasteful/not wasteful is mostly orthogonal to high/low. If high taxes, in a wasteful system, results in happy people, then that means you can get the same result for less. Meaning people get the same benefits, while keeping more income. Or more benefits, for the same taxes.

People seem to think that high taxes correlated to happiness is evidence of a non-wasteful government, but it's not. Happiness is not the only metric that matters. If it was, then being happy with corruption would be a virtue.

replies(1): >>111010+MC
◧◩◪◨
7. throwa+0a[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-14 22:51:54
>>bojan+p5
The existence of a budget is NOT proof that the expenditures in the budget are priced accurately. If it was proof, then there would never be instances of companies defrauding the taxpayer through government contracts.
◧◩◪◨⬒
8. 111010+MC[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-15 02:38:23
>>throwa+N9
If you have a non linear map, then the nice properties of orthogonality can disappear...
[go to top]