Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.


Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 5th, 2018, 5:19 am

Steve3007 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 5:17 am
Do you understand the difference between fiat money and commodity money?


User avatar
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Tax

Post by ThomasHobbes » July 5th, 2018, 5:21 am

The relationship between tax and spend is notional, not numerical.

Posts: 5640
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Tax

Post by Steve3007 » July 5th, 2018, 6:29 am

mr533473 wrote:That's what really blew me away looking at the article, I had no idea so much went to 'Social security and welfare'. My instant impression was that if I was allocating how my tax money was spent the ratios would be very different across the board.
Yes, social security and welfare eats up a large proportion of total tax revenues in other countries too. So it seems reasonable, at first glance, to simply declare that we're going to reduce the proportion that is spent on it. But it's never quite that easy is it? There are reasons why so much is spent on it. One of the main ones (at least where I live) is increased life expectancy and the large proportion of the welfare bill that is consequently spent on state-funded pensions. That's why the state-pension retirement age is gradually being increased.

User avatar
Posts: 3154
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Tax

Post by LuckyR » July 5th, 2018, 5:19 pm

mr533473 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 2:49 am
LuckyR wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 2:36 am
You're being too hard on yourself in my opinion. I think that exploring what folks think are the best allocations of public revenue are a very legit philosophical topic. My comment was that if for example I feel that foreign aid is a high priority and give it a 30% share (assuming that 25% is average and 15% is low), then I needlessly look like an idiot since current spending is <1%.
Why would you look like an idiot in differing from the current spending amounts? Unless someone holds the current spending allocations as the ideal, a different opinion is not idiotic (even is the difference is 29%) Granted, no individual is capable of taking into consideration all the necessary information to make as informed a decision but I'm after a collection of informed decisions that are made individually. I didn't want for someone to reconcile their opinion with the norm. If you thought to give 30% to foreign aid, that's what I was after, not for you to think 30%, see that the actual is less than 1% and tell me you opt for 5%
I get your point (always did). I totally see why 30% would be a valuable number (as opposed to 5% in the example you gave) as far as my feelings about foreign aid is concerned. But since you stipulated percentages (as opposed to currency amounts) this is a zero sum game, in the sense that I would be obligated to (but many likely wouldn't) seriously consider where the extra 25 - 29% was going to come from.

Good topic and nice speaking with you.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply