undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthemitigating3y ago0 comments

I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason.

For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done

Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'll be rich.

0 comments

onlyrealcuzzo3y ago

> For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are).

Top 1% earns 21% or income, pays ~40% of taxes (has ~34% of wealth): https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...

technothrasher3y ago

Even regardless of their motives, this statement is begging the question. The only way it is relevant is if that percentage (it's actually ~40%, if we're talking federal income taxes) is enough for them to be paying. So the argument is that they already are paying enough because they're paying enough. It's circular and therefor meaningless.

l33t23283y ago

That’s assuming people can’t be purely altruistic and principled and they must hold every position they do for personal gain.

AndyNemmity3y ago

It would not be altruistic to be for a person with a monopoly of assets to hold more of those assets while other people don't have homes.

Principled makes sense though.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse