this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
1049 points (97.5% liked)
worldnews
4870 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Raising taxes on the people that chronically find ways to never pay taxes. Not raising taxes on regular people. Nice try framing the argument the way you think it ought to go.
You said it yourself.
Regular people range in age, income, education, districts where they live, various kinds of health, ethnic background and so on. Dunno why I wrote that.
How do you determine "regular" in the law, in simple unambiguous words?
I believe taxes for the top 3 (if not 4) quintiles in the US should be higher.
So yeah, regular people don't pay enough in taxes
OK. I'm in general against raising taxes, but if yes, then top 4, because market incentives (share of the tax income) work on governments too.
That doesn't really make any sense as a response. My concern with the second quintile is damaging social mobility, which is key to a growing economy
For you, but I explained why. The same reason as why something controlled by people from the upper quintiles may become "too big to fail".
The more you are taxing people, the more you want their income not to tank. I think this is obvious.
Again this makes no sense
I am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.
I didn't say I didn't understand you. I said what you said doesn't make sense. It's a nonsensical argument.
Pigouvian, taxes for example, do not depend on you having any income whatsoever.
Moreover the idea that "too big to fail" has anything to do with taxation is beyond absurd.
If you want to be taken seriously, know what you're talking about, and speak with specificity.
I am a proud neoliberal, and focused on evidenced-based policy, not a leftist.
Since you don't know what a pigouvian tax is, it's a tax designed to disincentives certain behaviors. "Sin" taxes are pigouvian. They're designed to address externalities not borne by the initial transaction.
I'm not surprised you have little understanding of terms, but perhaps instead of doing this limp-wristed slap fighting you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above.
The point of a pigouvian tax is not to fund the government, but to shape behavior and address externalities. Revenue is not the intent.
Again you're not saying anything meaningful or specific. You can just say "I was talking out of my ass and barely remember the conversation." It's fine.