Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmitrygr | Hacker News Reader

You conveniently forgot to make an argument against your second point #3. That is understandable, since there is none. USA income tax started by attacking only those making over $3000 when median yearly pay was $670, but over time it grew to afflict everyone. It will expand and it will one day hurt you..

Everyone thinks that redistribution is great, because they look at the wallets of those better off and cannot wait to get a slice, forgetting that below them there are many looking at their wallets...

View on HN

I'm not interested in redistribution, I'm interested in public goods. I want public transit, public housing, public health, and public internet.

Why? Because it benefits me when other people have housing, can get around without cars, and aren't unnecessarily catching and spreading communicable diseases. These things aren't "worth" it on a purely financial basis, but they're absolutely worth it on a social basis.

How do you defeat the prisoner's dilemma? You make a binding, enforceable pact. How do you prevent the tragedy of the commons? You cap the amount people can graze their animals on public land, and remove privileges from those that violate the cap. How do you improve the quality of life of literally every person in the country? You make policy and infrastructure, and then you fund it and maintain it.

No, that's just the slippery slope argument.

My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests? Instead, you're voting in Bezos's interests. You are not Jeff Bezos. You will never be Jeff Bezos. You will never benefit for the policies you seem to be defending.

But no, it's "if Bezos has to pay 10% taxes, they migh tcome next for my $120,000".

It's wild to me that the slippery slope argument manages to somehow trump arguments of both self-interest and morality.

> My question for you is: why don't you vote in your interests?

Not the person you asked, but I can respond for myself.

I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest.

I'm completely uninterested in class warfare stuff. I admire very wealthy people, I hope to be one someday.

Meanwhile, increasing the size, scope and power of the federal government has nothing but negative consequences for me and my family.

> I honestly, truly believe that limiting the size and reach of government is voting in my own self interest.

I guess you don't like roads, bridges, courts, fire departments, GPS, the Internet, modern medicine or stable food prices then.

This whole "limited government" fantasy is such a uniquely American delusion. It's crazy. It's propaganda sold to you by wealthy people who want to be able to poison your drinking water because it increases their personal wealth from $30 billion to $31 billion.

It borders on libertarianism, which, if that's what you're talking about, is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy.

I am actually curious though: how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"?

> I guess you don't like roads, bridges,

That's a pretty tired old straw-man you're dragging out. Like, because I believe in limited government I somehow hate bridges.

You can do better.

BTW, roads etc... account for about 6% of state budget, and states provide 3/4 of the total funding [1].

> ... libertarianism .. is such an incredibly naive and ridiculous political philosophy.

Why?

>how exactly is big government creating "negative consequences for [you] and your family"?

- Censoring social media [2]

- Driving up inflation and the cost of food [3]

- Poisoning my kids with junk at school lunches [4]

- Bankrupting the nation with debt [5]

- Permits for everything! I can't add a railing to my front porch or remove a dead tree from my yard without permits.

- Ruinous taxation

That's hardly an exhaustive list, just some things that come to mind.

[1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-whi...

[3] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi...

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/lunch...

[5] https://www.usdebtclock.org/

I'm from Europe, I pay 50% in taxes and I can assure you that even here you can get rich. I can also attest that there's nothing wrong with the government having money for universal healthcare, infrastructure, security, mitigation climate change and housing.

> why don't you vote in your interests?

I am... I just understand history, and you seem to either not, or pretend not to. Right now they promise to only steal from those worth over $100M (which sadly indeed does not affect me), it will be down to $10M within my lifetime, which would affect me. And thus my interest is to vote against it...

It doesn't even require an appeal to a slippery slope. All I need to do is to look at the historical inflation rate and its pretty obvious that my grandchildren will require a net worth greater than $100M simply to retire.

The US is a democracy. Unpopular laws are not enacted. Why do we need any other argument for why an unpopular version of this popular law wont be enacted?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com