Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Right, but they aren't asking that only they pay the higher taxes. It only makes a difference if everybody has to do it.Jason Harvestdancer said:Nothing is stopping them from just cutting a check to the government.
You see a burning building across the street, and you know you and all your neighbors on this side of the street have a lot of water to spare. But it won't make any difference if you just dump your water on the fire. It would only make sense if the rest of your neighbors also dumped theirs at the same time as you. Everybody's extra water is needed to make it worth anybody individually contributing theirs.
(also you stole the water from poor and middle class workers and they are the ones in the burning house across the street)
And the winner of "Worst Analogy this Forum has Ever Seen" goes to that post.
Nothing is stopping them from just cutting a check to the government.
Should all taxes be voluntary then? You only pay based on your perception of the value of the services that you receive?
There is a reason that contributions that benefit everybody generally have to be mandatory for all concerned. Free rider. There are plenty of examples of taxes and regulations that are generally agreed upon by a majority as necessary but for which there has to be a mandatory component.
In the discussion at hand, there is already a mandatory involuntary level of taxes ... and these people want to pay even more.
Actually, what everyone can see but nobody can say is that they are actually saying "I want you to raise his taxes, even if it hurts me." But they're making such a big show of the "virtue" of saying "raise my taxes" that nobody will say that out loud.