Egregoros

@WandererUber

I had to go to my computer to answer this because it's annoying to type so much on my phone.

The OP's purpose is to highlight that the nature of the current government is completely misaligned with things the average person cares about. In this case, the average person is upset that wealthy people pay less taxes as a percentage of wealth than they do. I am making a statement that the government could do something about this as at least one method they use to avoid taxation is well known and easily identifiable, but they choose not to because it's not actually a problem they want to solve (even though people care about it). In fact, floating suggestions like an asset tax is just a method to get lower income asset holders nervous about ANY potential changes.

That was the scope of the OP. Now we're asking questions about what is good or bad, which falls outside the original scope. I'm gonna try to be as explicit as possible where I can be.

The first question is "is it bad that wealthy people aren't paying more taxes?"

Yes.

I believe it is bad that the wealthy have successfully insulated themselves from the people they are meant rule in the benefit of.

"It's better the government also has the money? They're also hostile."

Yes.

The point of the OP was highlighting that the (hostile) government ignores the issue because the (hostile) wealthy are in league with each other. If the government did actually target the wealthy in ways that really hurt them financially it would imply there was some disruption happening. This is way into hypotheticals now, and I'm not trying to present this as a "hopeful step forward." Just that in the even that chud's law has already been violated (government targeting the elite class) that this would be some kind of an improvement, insomuch that ANY change in the current status quo could be construed as an improvement.

"We can't lower our taxes but we can increase there taxes?"

The point of the OP was to make the case that the government has the ability to tax this class of people, and opts not to do so. A primary assumption here is that no, the government cannot lower spending therefore lowering lower/middle class people's taxes to be more in line with wealthy people's is not possible.

Conversation spiraled around this point because I made an additional point that the wealthy class in both insular and hostile, so making them feel the effects of their hostile behavior could disrupt their insular nature. The point I think you're making here is that if you have the power to do one you have the power to do the other. I don't actually think this is true. From the current status it seems to me that increasing taxes even marginally on the moneyed classes is easier than lowering them. Stuff like this already happens to a degree, which is why people even talk about wealth flight.

@WandererUber

Ok I'm going to do some order of ops here.

>I make an OP that operates under some assumptions
>nugger quotes making the is/ought distinction (if only it were so easy))
>sbb comes in with some stupid unrelated bullshit so I ask if he's aware of the "problem" the op mentions because (in my estimation) he's missed the forest for the trees
>you ask me "why is this even bad"
Answer: It isn't if we had a cohesive noble class, but because we don't it would be good to pressure them if we want to take the current tax system seriously.
>Again this answer is "ought" under constraints, but we are now shifting goal posts from the OP because we are moving towards reasoning (upstream of the OP). Why? Because we're moving past the "is" of the current conditions. "Why doesn't everyone pay less" because we are slaves that have to support niggers and jewish wars. So we (little people) cannot pay less. It's a silly question, but answered it anyway.
>The next post is more less a restatement of your original question.
>I answer further upstream of the OP (we are now on a different field) the goal posts have shifted. I don't really know what you want from me here. The conversation is now in a different place.

This is my reading of the conversation. I don't know how I'm supposed to take "goalpost shifter" seriously here. I think a lot of issues of hellthreads arise where people talk past each other due to having is/ought problems and this one was a bit weirder because the OP was highlighting an is/ought solution that would a be a minor compromise to the "is" and not something I think is a definitive good which then devolved, but I don't believe I took it there.

@WandererUber The tax issue was operating off one set of hypothetical constraints. "Nothing in the system changes but we really really really want to address the issue of not being able to tax extremely rich people who hold assets instead of operating under traditional taxable means"

The "why is this bad" is pretty easy to say. Wealthy people being able to continually insulate themselves from the poor decisions they make has to be addressed. "Wait you guys actually PAY taxes???" In effect, if you think it's bad then THEY need to think it's bad or it won't ever be good. I pay taxes, so I want Bezos to pay taxes, so maybe someone will do something about how much tax I pay.

@WandererUber In theory it's not bad. No one should be taxed to the level that they are currently. But a system that allows these people to run roughshod over the society they are meant to be stewards of needs to be done away with. So under the current conditions, things like offshoring, hiring immigrants, and indeed, not paying taxes (equivalent to what would be expected) should be punished by death. They've used their wealth to separate their fates from that of their countrymen. They should die for it.