Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the very fact that you mention the word "net" means that there's a calculation going on. And part of that calculation involves the negative effect on the economy which the mere fact of taxation causes.
While technically true, it's a ridiculous and utterly useless perspective. You
have to sum vectors for the data to be useful.
And you have to know what those vectors are before you can calculate that sum, right?
Quote:
It's an argument that bows move arrows backwards because they must be drawn first.
Except that what's being drawn backwards isn't the same thing that's being propelled forward. A more accurate ancient war analogy would be that in order for 100,000 citizens of your kingdom to survive the barbarian hordes, 10,000 of them must suit up for battle and fight them. And while we can certainly say that the net result is a savings of lives, it's kinda relevant to recognize the numbers who lost their lives so that result could occur.
The danger in failing to recognize that is that while we may be willing to sacrifice those lives in that situation, we might not be willing to in a situation where the number of civilian lives at risk are not so great. Assuming that "going to war" is always going to result in a net positive of lives saved is a mistake in that situation, right?
Same deal with assuming that "the economy" is going to be improved as a result of taxation. Taxes always take away money from the economy, just as warfare always takes lives. While the end result might be "better", it is pure folly to fail to recognize the components of what you're doing when assessing whether a given action is a good one.
Quote:
It's an argument that in exchanging a twenty dollar bill for two tens I have lost money because I am temporarily down a twenty dollars before the transaction is complete.
Lol... Have you ever handled money? Failing to understand this is the cornerstone of how short change scams work. Idiots who don't realize that the "you give me $500 so I can release $1M, and I'll give you $500k back" means that they are first losing money are the ones who get scammed. You couldn't have picked a worse example btw. Of *course* you are losing that money when you exchange it. That's why you do so at a reputable location and pay close attention to how much you hand out and how much you get back.
I'm frankly not sure why you're arguing this. It's doubly silly when were talking about a situation where largely one group pays the extra taxes, and a completely different group reaps the benefits of those taxes. Looking at the whole is kinda unfair to those who are paying the taxes, isn't it?