undefined | Better HN

0 pointszivkovicp3y ago0 comments

> That's true, but the same argument can be made about anything, so it's not a useful statement.

That is precisely what makes it useful. We often overlook the obvious, and discount it. The system is what provides the foundation of success, therefore it should be maintained, hence taxation.

I am not suggesting that the government is going to do a good job of allocating funds to maintain and grow the health of the system... I am merely suggesting that all participants are OBLIGED to "give back" to the system that makes their prosperity possible; and the more you get, the more you should give.

People also, not just corporations.

0 comments

refurb3y ago

But it's not useful because it says nothing about how much to give back or any rational way to determine whether someone has given back enough.

It's a platitude that can be used to justify anything.

It's like saying "All humans deserve respect". Ok, so if Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive, I should respect him? What does that even mean? If I execute him humanely is that "respecting him"? Is keeping him in jail "respecting him"?

Amazon paid almost $5B in taxes in 2021. Is that enough? If not, why?

Last year 57% of Americans paid no federal income tax (yes, I know they pay other taxes - that's beside the point). Are they giving back enough? If yes, why? They are giving back $0 in income tax. Why is tax the right measure for Amazon but not for individuals?

chii3y ago

> The system is what provides the foundation of success, therefore it should be maintained, hence taxation.

taxation is the system that maintains peace and stability and international commerce that enabled the success of amazon. But they are a product of the peace, stability and globalization of commerce - taxing them more doesn't increase the ease with which new amazons could come about. Taxes are fungible, and gets spent on things that may not help, so a company (or individual for that matter) would not just blindly pay more tax, and hope for the best.

Gov't should firstly set out the policies that they think will allow for the growth of more amazons and such, fund it, _then_ tax the population after the fact. Because tax dollars obtained without any difficulty is often merely just wasted in gov't.

zivkovicpOP3y ago

> so a company (or individual for that matter) would not just blindly pay more tax, and hope for the best.

Of course not, but I'm saying that you shouldn't even have that choice.

If you want to participate in the system and enjoy everything it has to offer, then you MUST pay taxes. It is not a matter of wanting to.

If you decide that the tax burden is too high, you always have the option of not operating in that system; but nobody will opt-out because even if they pay 80% tax, the 20% income that can be made in a G7 economy is SO MUCH MORE than tax-free in an underdeveloped one.

20 years ago I would have had a different opinion, but the system has been abused and gamed to a point where most of the participants are suffering, and I happen to think that a healthy society provides a stronger base for future prosperity, so I support taxation as a form of funding public health and education. I guess that's the caveat though, the tax revenue should actually boost standard of living for the bottom 80%.

It's a very difficult subject, far too nuanced for a comment section, but interesting to see the different opinions nonetheless.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse