undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrobertlagrant2y ago0 comments

> Well it's not a matter of the people existing, it's whether they are rich or not. They can exist without the money.

I meant people with a certain amount of money. I don't think we should be assessing pros or cons of economic systems based on whether people get to keep their money.

> Anyway, if you don't think it matters if they are of benefit

I don't know what this means.

> then why did you bring up the fact that they pay taxes?

I bring it up because saying they pay less in income taxes doesn't matter if they're spending money on stuff that employs people (which creates lots of tax) and gets VAT added to it. Everything is constantly taxed, at many levels, all the time. Pretending we don't live in a society where not much tax is paid seems ludicrous. Lots of tax is paid. If it's paid as VAT instead of income tax - who cares?

0 comments

depr2y ago

What I meant is:

>I don't think we should be assessing pros or cons of economic systems based on whether people get to keep their money.

but earlier you said:

>They are also, for everything they buy, and everyone they employ, paying tax.

So if we should not assess the economic system based on whether people keep their money, i.e. pay tax, then why mention that they pay tax? It doesn't seem relevant.

robertlagrantOP2y ago

> So if we should not assess the economic system based on whether people keep their money, i.e. pay tax

Not just pay tax. People lose money over generations for all sorts of reasons.

I brought up tax in the context of "redistribution", as there's a growing worldview that says tax is not as a thing to pay for central services, but more just to take money from people who have more of it than they do.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse