Hacker News Reader

Comment by baisq | Hacker News Reader

Lower taxes is not a utopia, it's perfectly feasible, unless you think that you owe something to the poor just for existing.

View on HN

Taxes aren't just about "the poor".

Decent infrastructure benefits everyone.

People that aren't poor participate in the economy and help business.

I shouldn't have to explain it only money terms, but in that way it makes sense.

Why should society pay more to keep people poor, the numbers don't add up.

Unless it's not about the money at all but about punishing people?

It's about spending less money. When you have a whip of "you will be homeless and starve", people will accept odious salaries and work conditions much more easily.

I don't think I owe the poor anything for existing, I think they should be taken care of as fellow humans. We live in a society, we should take care of each other.

And that's where I disagree. It's not "they" taking care of the poor, it's you and I with money that they take from us whether we like it or not.

And you don't like it why? You're probably just not paid enough to maintain current lifestyle should you pay some "for the poor", is that correct?

So, ultimately, it's a decision of some boss somewhere?

You owe much of what you are to the society that supports you. It is a fantasy that anyone living in a society achieved their successes in a vacuum.

I'm happy for the money to be taken from me to help take care of people that, for whatever reason, find themselves in an awful situation against their will.

Well of course they're feasible. The Soviet Union was feasible. Ancient Mesopotamian societies were feasible. The Aztec Empire was feasible. Feasibility is the lowest bar for picking a solution. All it means is that it's not physically impossible to implement it.

Why should poor people not come into your house and simply take your things? If you don't care about them, then why should they care about you?

It's not "for existing". Taken collectively, their work underpins the conditions for the lives of those better off.

Remove "the poor" from the equation, and it's likely your quality of life would collapse. The market as operating doesn't recognise that in their remuneration because negatives are easy to externalise, and then roll down hill.

If Amazon workers collect food stamps, it means Jeff Bezos "just existing" owe them quite a lot of money. Also, bussiness and innovation requieres good infrastructure. For some reason most tech startups do not start in tax heavens like Somalia, but in highly developed countries.

I don't think you owe the poor directly. But you probably owe a fair chunk of your success to society (fundamental research, education, health, infrastructure). Then society decide how to spend that money. I might not like how that money will be spend but the game seems fair.

You do owe them to some extent, because if you deprive them enough, they will revolt, which will be much more disruptive to your life than higher taxes.

Your taxes could go to help the poor, or to police them. Both cost money.

So you're a #2 :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com