What is the response to this?

[John_James]

@Wheylous

I also think that sometimes you don’t read what others write:

I strongly disagree that “there are times when tax increases, from an economic point of view, are justifiable”.

You likely don’t: We’re simply working under different definitions of “economic.” The poster meant government economics, where the government wants to maximize revenue. It doesn’t mean that government economics are a good thing that should exist. It just means that IF we want the government to maximize its money, it sometimes may need to raise taxes. Again, IF.

Just because I take what he says and interpret it to mean what he says in terms of the commonly understood definitions of the words he uses, while you claim to know “what he really meant” doesn’t mean I didn’t read what he wrote. I can assure you I’ve read everything in this thread.

Personally I fail to see how you could possibly presume to know “what he really meant” by the few sentences he provided. My comment was “I fail to see how you could justify having people pay more taxes” and his response was that there are times when higher taxes are justifiable “from an economic point of view.” Most people would interpret that to mean a “utilitarian” point of view…as in from the perspective of the good of the economy as a whole.

If his whole argument was that “there are times when tax increases are justified from a tax collector’s point of view” then (a) I would think he would say that, and (b) it’s not even really an argument. As, I would think if all you’re concerned about is the tax collector’s point of view, I don’t see when taxes would ever not be justified…as in, if it’s just up to the tax collector, what exactly is the justification that is needed? It’s just what the collector says.

Usually when you are arguing that there is “justification” for something, you’re claiming that there is an outside reasoning that makes the decision valid. In other words, justification literally refers to something other than just want the person performing the action wants.

So a I’m not exactly sure how someone would argue that the justification for raising taxes comes from looking at it from the point of view of the tax collector.

Correct assumption.

Great. So I was right. You’re in favor of raising taxes (at least for some people). I am not. This is a source of disgreement. This is why there is not “Yay for arguing without disagreeing!”

I made that statement considering the follow options:

1. Close deductions

2. Leave deductions

So you admit to legitimizing the same false dilemma that the Huffington Post, Democrats, Republicans, and David Sherin prescribe to.

Government deductions create a “correct morality” of living, which governments should never be allowed to do. Because in the same line of reasoning, government can, for example, cut taxes on GM cars to 0 so that more people buy GM cars so that the government has more money to play with.

But, government’s should be allowed to take your money against your will, right? Because in the same line of reasoning if government “shouldn’t be allowed” to do something, then you will argue against it.

Hence, I believe it better, if not from an economic (government economy or Austrian economy) standpoint, from an ethical standpoint I think it’s better to remove deductions.

Great. So it’s ethical to take even more money from people against their will. Got it.

Given the option, of course, I would choose to level the other higher taxes and then lower all of them collectively, of course.

You know, for someone who makes fun of others for not rtff, and who accuses others of doing so, you really seem oblivious to what has been said.