this post was submitted on
936 points (77% like it)
1,323 up votes 387 down votes
shortlink:

Libertarian

unsubscribe59,038 readers

283 users here now

Subscribe to /r/GaryJohnson

Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

Frequently Asked Questions

IRC CHANNEL: #rlibertarian on irc.freenode.net

Webchat Link: /r/libertarian IRC channel

/r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

  • Please don't downvote comments. As much as you disagree with a comment, no one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them.
  • Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian.
  • Report spam, not content or comments you disagree with.
  • Don't be afraid to check out the new queue to get good content to the front page.

Related Subreddits:

Topics:

Types of Libertarianism:

People:

On Authority:

On War:

Around the World:

Informed Discussion:

Major Subreddits:

External:

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

935
936

The raptor has nailed it. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by spatchcock

all 161 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]Alphaiv 21 points22 points ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

[–]TotalBro420 10 points11 points ago

So we should tax inelastic things? I guess that means we should tax oil, sex, and food.

[–]CalmSpider 18 points19 points ago

If there was a way to tax sex, it would be taxed.

[–]geezusfreeek 10 points11 points ago

Prostitution?

[–]szczypka 6 points7 points ago

Earnings from prostitution is taxed in some countries.

[–]legba 3 points4 points ago

Nail. Head.

[–]drphungky 1 point2 points ago

You need a new prostitute if there are any nails involved with getting head.

[–]KevvyLava 0 points1 point ago

As far as I'm aware, it is usually the other way around with prosties.

[–]I_hate_alot_a_lot 0 points1 point ago

LEGALIZE IT! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, LEGALIZE IT!

[–]verveinloveland 0 points1 point ago

condoms, birth control, morning after pill

[–]timoumd 2 points3 points ago

Double on the oil since its use often comes with a negative externality (pollution).

[–]Alphaiv 0 points1 point ago

I'm not saying that its more acceptable to tax things that are inelastic merely that its a fallacious argument to imply that because taxing cigarettes reduces demand for cigarettes the same applies to working. Not everyone has the liberty of working less hours and indeed people who are struggling to get by and have no obvious way of reducing expenditure might need to work more hours in response to a tax rise.

[–]HospitableJohnDoe 0 points1 point ago

Yes pretty much. It has less dead weight loss.

[–]Skyler827 2 points3 points ago

Yes and no, because as you look at the longer and longer term of things, more and more things are more elastic. Even things deemed as necessary as income can be demanded less when sufficiently taxed. This is more evident, for example, among people in higher tax brackets, than lower earners.

[–]TruthSon 1 point2 points ago

Working and investment become more elastic as social services increase.

[–]sleepeejack 14 points15 points ago

Actually, the raptor didn't nail it. Depending on the taxpayer's preferences, a tax on earnings can actually spur them to work more. Economists will tell you this has to do with the relative substitution and income effects, but the idea is actually quite intuitive: If someone values a certain after-tax income more than they value the extra hours worked, an earnings tax will lead them to work more hours.

[–]N69sZelda 5 points6 points ago

You are correct on the income effect (although I think that it is overstated) however it does not really apply to this meme and the state of unemployment (which I assume is the complaint here.) And a simple side note - people simply working more would not really be desired in this country but productivity instead is what is valued. Still - good point.

[–]sleepeejack 2 points3 points ago

Why doesn't the income effect really apply? Economics textbooks will tell you otherwise, and although I recommend skepticism toward the economics establishment, their logic on this matter is a lot better than "it doesn't really apply," which is the entirety of what you've given.

Of course people working more is not valuable in itself. I never said otherwise.

[–]N69sZelda 1 point2 points ago

The income effect applies but it isnt really what the meme was referring to. It wasnt suggesting the amount of work or "need" to work but instead on a voluntary action. It was saying that by placing a tax on labor you reduce its value. That is true even with the income effect. While people may end up working more as a result that is the same as saying that people who smoke will end up paying more after taxes are implemented (which may be true.) The short of it is - Increase taxes on labor; Decrease value of labor.

[–]lfasonar 2 points3 points ago

Increase taxes on labor; Decrease value of labor.

sure, but that doesn't mean that people will work less. people may actually work more to compensate

[–]sleepeejack 0 points1 point ago

The short of it is - Increase taxes on labor; Decrease value of labor.

No, you're wrong. The verb "to deter" means "to discourage or prevent," not "to lessen the value of something".

You're right that saying people may end up working more is very similar to saying that smokers will pay more. But the crucial difference is that cigarettes are not income and do not factor into the labor-leisure tradeoff, and so the meme's implicit assertion that labor and cigarettes are relevantly similar is mistaken.

[–]buster_casey 4 points5 points ago

Why do we want to work more hours? Wasn't that the whole point of unions and collective bargaining? To work less hours? It's not about working more, it's about being more efficient, and getting the most work done with the least amount of man-hours.

Also, if taxes spur a person to work more, why don't we tax at 70, 80, or even 90% to spur that person to work even harder and more hours? Surely they will be motivated to work that much more if they have that much taxes taken out.

[–]GreenBrain 2 points3 points ago

Another thing not really understood by the OP is that taxing income affects every job you could hold in your country. Whereas taxing cigarettes affects only one product. Having a choice means that supply will tend to be influenced by taxation creating a dead loss in the cigarette industry. With employment no choice means people who want jobs get jobs no matter the tax level.

[–]TheJucheisLoose 1 point2 points ago

This is incorrect. Crime, for example, is not susceptible to income tax. Neither are jobs/people who have the wherewithal to exploit tax loopholes or foreign tax credits, or who simply bribe politicians/tax collectors, etc. Those are just off the top of my head, but clearly there are many ways to earn money tax free. So, if we follow your logic here, we would see that income taxation increases the instance of "illegal" moneymaking activites, which is exactly what it does.

[–]GreenBrain 0 points1 point ago

That makes no sense. You are saying that I have a choice between getting taxed and criminal activities, and that tax increases my desire to do crime. What about morals, consequences to criminal activities, and other negative influences on my supposed choice to do crime?

This is the primary problem with assuming a simple system in order to understand economic principles. The system is never simple. Yes, theoretically an increase in income tax will influence the supply/demand curve for employment, but the reality is that those who partake in crime have a variety of incentives that are not considered by the supply/demand curve. To anticipate every element is impossible and absurd.

[–]TheJucheisLoose 0 points1 point ago

You have gone outside of the arugment's scope here. I was discussing the previous point that "you have to work somewhere, so taxation affects everyone equally." My point is that there are many ways to work outside of the taxable system. Criminal activity is work, it just isn't taxed.

You then refer to personal desire. That is outside the scope of the argument. I was discussing economic INCENTIVE. This is separate from subjective desire. Everyone has different morals (but if you are seriously arguing that people's individual moral code will prevent criminal activity you are either hopelessly naive or your name is Barack Obama), but the objective incentivization is not subject to moral quandaries. The moment the value of criminal activity exceeds for me the value of taxed labor, I will engage in criminal activity. It's true that morals and other things may alter my calculus there, but clearly taxation alters it as well -- towards making criminal activity more likely. This, for example, is why there are still many millions and billions of dollars made in selling bootleg whiskey and cigarettes, although these are legal.

I agree with you about a simple system to understand economics as a whole, but there is nothing wrong with reductionism when we are discussing a single principle or idea. The argument that "it's too complex to understand!" is neither helpful nor true.

[–]AmoDman 4 points5 points ago

I'm not going to argue your economics, but I am going to argue your understanding of the raptor's logic. The meme states If X, Then Y. Assuming that you can prove Y False, that does not invalidate the conditional. The only way you can invalidate the condition is if you demonstrate that X is true and Y is not.

For example, if the claims in X and Y are logically the same yet pointing at different subjects (smoking and working), then it appears that if X is true than Y ought to (or is likely to) be true as well.

That's basically the conversation this meme is attempting to set up. To deny its conditional, you must first demonstrate that X is true and Y is not, and (hopefully) follow that up with why the logic of X's claim holds true in the context of the real world and the logic of Y's claim does not.

[–]sleepeejack 7 points8 points ago

I think your explanation is pretty tortured. Yes, it's possible to phrase the meme's implicit argument in the form of a syllogism, but all that accomplishes is awkward pedantry. But I'm good at that, too, so I'll continue.

Your syllogization of the meme is highly dubious. I think most people would read the meme as arguing for the implicit conclusion that "taxes on earnings deter working," not for the conclusion that "If taxes on cigarettes deter smoking, then taxes on earnings deter working." In this case I don't have to argue against the conditional, but can instead directly attack the argument's conclusion. But even assuming your reading is right, my criticism is still well-founded because I cast doubt on the consequent (taxing earnings deters working) and there's an implicit stipulation that the antecedent (taxing cigarettes deters smoking) is true.

Your analysis is also problematic because you appear to be inappropriately modulating between deductive and inductive logic, but I don't see a point in wading into that thicket unless I know I didn't just scare you off.

[–]brunetter 0 points1 point ago

His explanation was basic logic. The if x, then y statements are taught in philosophy, computer science, mathematics, etc. It's also obviously the structure of this meme. No offense, but I thought AmoDman's explanation was more lucid and accurate.

[–]sleepeejack 2 points3 points ago

You're mistaken. The meme is only superficially similar to if/then statements as used in computing, philosophy, and mathematics. This is because the meme poses an if/then statement as a rhetorical question instead of as a factual assertion. There's a sense in which the meme can be understood as a kind of inductive argument, but those arguments are inherently weak, I gave good reason to disbelieve the argument regardless, and those aren't the kind of if/then statements as used in computer science and most mathematics anyway.

[–]brunetter 1 point2 points ago

I probably shouldn't have used the word "obviously," but the meme's message is basically, "If taxes deter smoking, then taxes deter working," I think we can agree on that. I don't disagree with you on the economics part, taxes lead to more working hours, etc., but if you had read AmoDman's comment more carefully you would have seen the logic agrees with you. I didn't see why you called his explanation "tortured" and called his analysis "problematic" (also, your explanation took longer for me to untangle than AmoDman's) when its conclusion - the raptor is false - helps your case.

[–]-Borfo- 0 points1 point ago

"If X is true, is Y then also true?" Is not the same as "If X is true, then Y is also true."

...and "federal tax on cigarettes" isn't the same as "federal tax on earnings" in any event - you can't properly infer that "a federal tax on earnings deters working" from the premise "a tax on cigarettes deters smoking". You've framed it as "If taxes deter smoking, then taxes deter working." You're missing the step where you establish that smoking is like working. Without that, these are just two totally disconnected assertions.

[–]lfasonar 1 point2 points ago

but you're absolutely wrong. its well known to economists that higher taxes can actually cause people to work more.

a simple example: the only things you enjoy are having a roof over your heard and watching tv. your apartment costs $X a month, and your cable costs $Y. if your taxes go up, then you have to work more hours to pay X + Y a month. but, since you really like tv, its worth it to you to watch a few less hours of tv (spend it at work) than have no tv at all (cause you cant afford to pay the bill). the result of the higher taxes is that you work more.

[–]brunetter 1 point2 points ago

If you read my comment carefully, I did not say anything about economists, taxes, etc., but instead just wanted to clarify understanding of the meme itself. Even though it's posed as a question, it's essentially saying, "If taxes deter smoking, then taxes also deter working." X = taxes deter smoking, Y = taxes deter working

The meme's logic itself is silly since - see, I agree with you, higher taxes have shown to increase working hours - Y is false, therefore the whole statement is false. The raptor is wrong, which, if you had correctly read AmoDman's comment, you would have deduced.

I only wanted to comment on this in the first place because sleepeejack called AmoDman's explanation "tortured," and gave a more confusing explanation.

[–]redog -1 points0 points ago

if your taxes go up, then you have to work more hours to pay X + Y a month.

If taxes go up then usually so does the cost of X & Y. You can't always just work more. If you lose your job because you couldn't afford X and you need the more expensive Y then is that working more?

[–]TheJucheisLoose 0 points1 point ago

This doesn't seem to be a "benefit" of taxation. Working harder to achieve the same results seems counterproductive. For example, why not simply compel people to work for TV and a roof over their heads, and cut out the middle man of paying a salary?

[–]lfasonar 0 points1 point ago

i'm not arguing that taxes are good. i'm just arguing that taxes dont' necessarily decrease work.

[–]lfasonar -1 points0 points ago

I'm not going to argue your economics, but I am going to argue your understanding of the raptor's logic

don't you think the economics is more important

[–]reaganveg 1 point2 points ago

Well, philosoraptor is comparing the wrong two things here.

He should be comparing money spent on cigarettes vs. time spent working.

Cigarette taxes reduce smoking, no doubt. But do they reduce the money spent on smoking? Possibly sometimes (by breaking the feedback loop of addiction), but usually probably not.

[–]Zifnab25 1 point2 points ago

I think it fails on the other side, too. When you're addicted to cigarettes, your consumption isn't going to be tied so tightly to price. It's not like there are a lot of non-cigarette alternatives to sate your craving, and the additional price point is a minor barrier when compared to the compulsion brought on by chemical dependency. :-p

[–]fuckrpolitics_again 0 points1 point ago

Or find ways to avoid the tax. I know when I smoked I didn't work harder to pay the tax - I simply purchased my tobacco online and produced my own cigarettes, denying the government even more revenue than they would have gained at the already ridiculous tax rates that they had applied.

I did the same thing with the earning tax. Instead of working more hours to increase my income, I moved into the gray market.

So the raptor nailed it in my case. The federal tax on working (among others) did, in fact, discourage me from working - at least in ways that would benefit the government at my expense.

[–]narcberry 1 point2 points ago

You still see people smoking too. The point is you can't argue for taxing as a deterrent when it comes to social behavior, but ignore your own argument for labor.

Really all this argues is to remove the cigarette tax.

[–]sleepeejack 0 points1 point ago

The fact that people still smoke cigarettes even when they're highly taxed doesn't show that taxes don't affect their behavior. And I've already argued why the equivalence between cigarettes and labor in this context is faulty. You're not comprehending what I'm writing -- otherwise, you'd argue against it instead of making irrelevant points. If you want to make this subreddit about more than just a circlejerk among libertarian ideologues, you'll have to actually get into the arguments.

[–]reaganveg 1 point2 points ago

Also, nobody suggests cigarette taxes cause smokers to spend less money on smoking. Only that they cause them to smoke less.

[–]Regime_Change 3 points4 points ago

I use that argument all the time. If I'm debating someone who is very much into environmental issues, I might change cigarettes for gasoline. Works just as well.

Just as the top post says. Inelastic things are less sensitive to taxing but the effect is still the same. Nothing is completely inelastic or completely elastic though so the principle still applies.

[–]reaganveg 1 point2 points ago

The argument is a fallacy.

The relevant quantity is not how much people smoke, but how much money they spend on cigarettes. If they spend the same amount of money, they will smoke less the higher the price is. But they're still spending the same amount of money.

Likewise, if people spend the same amount of effort on work, they will have less income to spend the higher their tax rate is. But they're still spending the same amount of effort on work.

[–]Regime_Change 0 points1 point ago

But they don't spend the same amount so your argument is a fallacy. They shift their consumption to and from other goods. If your rent doubled, you wouldn't slash your house in half, would you? More likely you would stop consuming other things. So price elasticity is very important. Smoking have a high elasticity so price does not affect quantity that much, probably because it is addictive. Still the same principle applies because nothing is perfectly elastic or perfectly inelastic. Look up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oj_lnj6pXA for a short video on elasticites.

EDIT: Wages also affect hos much leisure time you have. If you could earn the same amount you earn in a day in one hour, you would probably work less than you do now. But you would stills earn more because you wouldn't just work one hour. You would work more than an hour because of the marginal benefit for working which has increased. But the benefit of leisure time has also increased, at least if you take into consideration that the money you earned determine the quality of your leisure time.

[–]0zXp1r8HEcJk1 51 points52 points ago

Let's put the raptor over in /r/libertarianmeme where it belongs.

[–]alwaysf0rgetpassw0rd 52 points53 points ago

This is actually one of the more insightful macros I have seen on here.

[–]Masher88 8 points9 points ago

The tax on cigarettes was never intended to deter smoking.

"On July 1, 1862, the United States Congress passed excise taxes on many items including tobacco. This occurred as a result of the Template:Union (American Civil War) army’s increasing debt during the American Civil War and the Federal government’s need for additional revenue. After the war, many of these excise taxes were repealed but the tax on tobacco remained. In fact, by 1868 the Government’s main source of income came from these lingering tobacco taxes.[2]"

Wiki

[–]snookums 14 points15 points ago

Yes, but the increases in the cigarette tax after the lawsuits against the cigarette companies were intended to deter smoking.

[–]dugmartsch 10 points11 points ago

In 1862, you're right, they were just an easy item to tax that everyone consumed but no one really needed. Its tough to start a riot over a cigarette tax. But in 2012, absolutely, one of the reasons that increases in cigarette taxes are advocated is to stop smoking.

That's all moot of course, because intentions don't matter in policy. You could intend your tax to cure cancer, but if it doesn't cure cancer it doesn't matter what your intention was. In this case, the jury is mixed. It seems like there's a case to be made that taxes deter youths and low/middle income smokers, but not people with disposable income.

[–]draftermath -2 points-1 points ago

but it fit so good with the narrative in /r/Libertarian before you had to inject your facts into the conversation.

[–]Masher88 7 points8 points ago

Shit, I'm sorry. I'll leave now.

[–]Lokgar 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, get outta here, we don't take kindly to facts 'round these here parts.

[–]Offensive_Brute -3 points-2 points ago

we should start calling them fagts.

[–]reaganveg -2 points-1 points ago

It's not insightful. It's a fallacy. It's making a basic mistake of logic, by comparing the wrong quantities.

The quantity to compare is not the amount of smoking, but the amount of money spent on smoking.

[–]JoCoLaRedux 25 points26 points ago

No, let's vote the dumb, pseudo-clever meme straight to the top of /r/libertarian!

As it stands, its already got more upvotes than Glenn Greenwald's article about Obama's Justice Department granting immunity to Bush's CIA torturers that was submitted the other day.

Sure, that's incredibly important and deserves more attention, but that's Greenwald's fault for not figuring out a way to have Annoying Facebook Girl convey that story.

[–]buffalo_pete 13 points14 points ago

I notice you didn't have any comment on the Greenwald story either. Maybe that's why memes get more traction.

[–]JoCoLaRedux 8 points9 points ago

Nope, I had nothing to add to it, and it's just one example - I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find more articles that deserve to be better received than this.

There's nothing remotely clever, funny, insightful or informative about this. At all. It's just dumb. This meme is superbly, immensely dumb. It is dumb to compare sin taxes on what amounts to a luxury item, to a Federal tax on people's livelihoods. And I'm sure it will end up getting twice as many upvotes as it currently has.

It reminds me of that article Douglas Adams wrote about how he was getting sick of stand up because there were all these hacks making jokes like "Why don't they make the plane out of the same stuff they make the black box flight recorders out of?", which can be instantly deconstructed and revealed as stupid by anyone with an elementary understanding of physics.

And that's what memes do. They are to internet discourse what the "Did you ever notice?" template is to stand up comedy - they make it really easy for anyone to sound like a completely unfunny, uninsightful hack.

[–]buffalo_pete 3 points4 points ago

Nope, I had nothing to add to it

That is another aspect of why that story got fewer upvotes. If it does nothing but make you nod your head, you're probably just gonna move on with your day. You might not like it, but this meme generated more discussion and interest than the article you linked. Them's the breaks.

There's nothing remotely clever, funny, insightful or informative about this. At all. It's just dumb. This meme is superbly, immensely dumb. It is dumb to compare sin taxes on what amounts to a luxury item, to a Federal tax on people's livelihoods. And I'm sure it will end up getting twice as many upvotes as it currently has.

People seem to disagree with you. Sorry.

And that's what memes do. They are to internet discourse what the "Did you ever notice?" template is to stand up comedy in that they allow anyone to sound like a completely unfunny, uninsightful hack.

They do something else (as I mentioned above). They leave room for a discussion that amounts to more than mere head-nodding. I am generally much more interested in the discussion around any particular post than I am the link itself. If I see a link with 30 comments, I'm more prone to check it out than I am a link with 0. People are interested in interesting things, and people like to talk.

The story you linked, although I found it enlightening and a worthwhile read, just wasn't interesting. It didn't present a new viewpoint or tell me anything I didn't know or couldn't guess. At the end of it, I nodded and moved on.

[–]JoCoLaRedux -2 points-1 points ago

People seem to disagree with you. Sorry.

And they're fucking wrong. It's dumb, and they're being dumb in upvoting it.

They do something else (as I mentioned above). They leave room for a discussion that amounts to more than mere head-nodding.

And part of that discussion will be "move this crap over to/r/libertarianmeme" and other comments about how stupid the meme is.

You know what else facilitates discussion? Submissions that are actually intelligent & informative. Even self posts are better than memes, because at least feels like an actual person is speaking, whereas this is the equivalent of seeing somebody's idiotic bumper sticker on the back of their car.

[–]tekende 5 points6 points ago

And they're fucking wrong. It's dumb, and they're being dumb in upvoting it.

Have you thought about going into politics? I think you'd be really good at it.

[–]JoCoLaRedux -1 points0 points ago

Nope, but if I did, I'd hire meme authors to work in my campaign. Dumb slogans and almost-clever talking points make for great pandering.

[–]depotman 0 points1 point ago

You argue about this so much that I even have you tagged as "guy that hates memes"

[–]JoCoLaRedux 0 points1 point ago

I'm glad I've made your reddit experience that much more fulfilling.

[–]TacticalMoniker 1 point2 points ago

But..but..... I like bumper stickers.

[–]30pieces 5 points6 points ago

NOW WITH USER FLAIR

[–]Kazaril 4 points5 points ago

It's too late for this subreddit, too many idiot posters upvoting too many memes. I just created /r/truelibertarians if anyone is interested.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Truelibertarians/

[–]Sephyre 1 point2 points ago

Why can't we just remove the law of libertarianmemes? I like them - what's the point of having a separate subreddit?

[–]LockeAndKeyes 5 points6 points ago

Because people who like free speech and free markets can't, for some reason, can't apply the concepts in their own forum.

[–]0zXp1r8HEcJk1 -2 points-1 points ago

By far the most misinformed comment in this discussion.

Nobody in this comment chain is advocating for a moderator-enforced ban on memes. Whenever someone does propose such a ban, they get loudly shouted down by the community AND the mods.

Part of believing in free speech and free association is voicing disapproval over speech and associations that you don't like, and trying to persuade others to feel the same way.

[–]tekende -2 points-1 points ago

Nobody in this comment chain is advocating for a moderator-enforced ban on memes.

Maybe no one in this thread, I'm not going to take the time to check, but others have advocated for exactly that.

[–]0zXp1r8HEcJk1 0 points1 point ago

Read my sentence immediately after the one you quoted.

[–]buffalo_pete 1 point2 points ago

You don't like that people like this content, and that's just too damn bad.

[–]Zifnab25 0 points1 point ago

Memes are the cancer that is killing /r/Libertarian.

[–]Throwahoymatie -3 points-2 points ago

You're not a libertarian.

[–]Zifnab25 -1 points0 points ago

k

[–]buffalo_pete -4 points-3 points ago

Obviously dying, yes. Give it a rest.

[–]Corvus133 1 point2 points ago

Seriously, people hate memes hear but predictably the first comment is always a whiny complaint about it

[–]chucklehead04 1 point2 points ago

Let's crosspost it to advice animals so that the rest of reddit can enjoy.

[–]Econometrickk 4 points5 points ago

This is something almost every economist will agree with, and it's why they suggest a means-tested, socially-progressive consumption tax in lieu of an income tax.

There is no reason to tax what you want more of.

This is not an academic source, but it signals general support within the discipline. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

[–]stevenwalters 1 point2 points ago

earnings isn't something you buy, and working isn't something people do because they want to. I would argue that lower taxes would deter working because less work would get you the same amount, and despite what free market advocates wishfully think, not everyone gives a shit about constantly trying to make more money.

[–]bokabo 0 points1 point ago

No Free Marketer would tell you that if they had the slightest idea what the words meant

[–]0zXp1r8HEcJk1 0 points1 point ago

Yeah - this is exactly how the labor market works. Everyone has needs, and does exactly enough work to fulfill them. If you want your economy to produce more, just raise taxes so people have to do more work in order to satisfy their needs.

If that doesn't work, we should just start confiscating their wealth so they have to get off their lazy bums and work harder.

/s

[–]nascent 0 points1 point ago

So... we have this shortage of positions to workers. Wouldn't it be nice if these people could meet their needs sooner so others can work towards their needs?

[–]WorldaccordingtoGorn 1 point2 points ago

Ah, yes sexy sexy raptor. Um, I've been watching you earthie's T.V. 'n stuff, an all I wanna know is this: Why does the "good guy" always win? You've gone so far as to make simpathetic "bad guys". Realy? The only thing I ever learned from Star Wars was, that there are a finite number of cool people in the universe, they all know each other; and you are not one of them, you medichlorian deficiant mugle. Goodness indeed! See, you THINK you are Batman, in reality you are on suvivor and yer gonna eat the last twinkie. Yeah, I'll vote you up, but only because it will increase the amount of dispair.

[–]tekende 0 points1 point ago

Uh. What

[–]lochlainn 0 points1 point ago

Either /r/fifthworldproblems or /r/trees is leaking.

[–]nevermoreraven 1 point2 points ago

TheFB commentary about the raptor, however, does not reveal a unity of minds on the subject.

[–]FrabriziovonGoethe 0 points1 point ago

Been reading Taxation the People's Business by Mellon and it is interesting to see that a lot of the surtaxes and such that he advocated ending back in the 1920's are still around and still having the negative impacts that he noted back then except that there are even more now than at that time. Why is it that we can't learn as a society from the past so that we can improve the future. I realize a part of it is how history books are manipulated into show one side of an issue but there has to be a way we can get people to be better informed.

[–]kaijunexus 1 point2 points ago

That's assuming cigarettes are taxed in order to deter people from smoking.

They're not. Cigarettes are taxed because many, many people smoke and it is extremely addictive. The government is making tons of money on a substance they know many people have to buy in order to sustain their addiction, and they do it under the guise of "trying to deter smoking".

Don't be naive.

[–]tekende 1 point2 points ago

We know this. But publicly they state it's to deter smoking. So this meme is using their own stupid rhetoric against them.

[–]Cryptic0677 -1 points0 points ago

Im going to play devils advocate here and point out that this analogy is not clean cut. For instance cigarettes are a "hobby" or luxury that you can quit and actually improve your life quality, while everyone has incentive to earn more, even when the returns on labor become increasingly diminished from a progressive income tax.

[–]Totenglocke42 0 points1 point ago

Labor economics theory contradicts that. Greg Mankiw (a well known Economist) wrote an article a year or so ago talking about just that and how higher taxes on wealthy people discourages work because if you can already live comfortably, why work an extra hour if you're only going to get say 10% (for people who say the rich should pay 90% income tax) of the money earned by that extra hour of work?

[–]beyond_hate 0 points1 point ago

I love that people ignore the definition of "taxing"... it's like... so you want to tax productivity... you want to slow it down?

[–]Elranzer -1 points0 points ago

The tax on cigarettes doesn't deter smoking.

It just makes a profit off of suckers.

[–]narcberry 0 points1 point ago

It's too simple and obvious to do anything but piss off a liberal.

[–]ReverendEnder -2 points-1 points ago

Yes.

[–]TacticalMoniker 5 points6 points ago

no, there are a lot of reasons that the income tax is stupid but this isn't one of them. The income tax doesn't deter working, because people need to work to survive, and the harder they work, even with the income tax, the more they make. People need money for necessities. Taxing luxuries on the other hand, very much deters people from buying, so they have more for necessities.

[–]execute85 0 points1 point ago

To an addict, smoking is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I've seen how hard smoking can be to quit first hand.

[–]TacticalMoniker 0 points1 point ago

and to some people work is a luxury, and in those cases the taxes do the opposite, but we are talking about how it affects the majority of the population and the majority are not addicted to nicotine.

[–]bitbutter -1 points0 points ago

Income tax reduces the marginal value of expending labour. That's how it deters people from working if they're attempting to obtain more money by doing so. As others have pointed out it doesn't necessarily deter working as such--the higher tax may mean people may end up working more to maintain an existing standard of living. In this sense it may stimulate working as such, at the same time as it discourages working-more-in-order-to-earn-more-money.

EDIT: No that doesn't quite work!

[–]lpk25 -3 points-2 points ago

This is a rather silly assumption. Cigarette taxes are voluntary - if you don't want to pay the tax, you can choose not to smoke. Working is a necessity, not only to generate income personally, but to produce a good or service to benefit the economy. Taxes don't discourage working, but they do make it more difficult to prosper as a result of working.

[–]SocialistsLOL 11 points12 points ago

Working is a necessity

No it isn't. You can collect welfare if you like.

[–]never_comment 2 points3 points ago

Working is a necessity if you have any respect for yourself and don't plan on living a shit live (aka the overwhelming majority).

[–]jsttsee 2 points3 points ago

Not as overwhelming as it used to be.

[–]drownballchamp 3 points4 points ago

But welfare numbers are down even as wages have decreased.

[–]b3team 0 points1 point ago

source?

[–]N69sZelda -1 points0 points ago

you really should stick to your username.

[–]thajuggla 0 points1 point ago

I remember back in the day people used to carry a piece of paper that said FOOD STAMP. Now they have a debit card. I don't think you lose too much respect using the same form of payment as the person behind you in line at a grocery store.

[–]xProphet 2 points3 points ago

Getting shot is voluntary - if you don't want to get shot, you can choose to live in safer places.

[–]Moonj64 -1 points0 points ago

The comparison doesn't translate. One cannot control when someone might try to shoot them however a person can control whether they buy cigarettes or not.

[–]xProphet 1 point2 points ago

It's still blaming the victim. That's a false dichotomy.

[–]Krackor 3 points4 points ago

One doesn't have to perform wage labor for a living. It's possible to subsistence farm (though the government certainly will make it difficult for you in ways other than taxation...). The choice to collect a wage or not is just as voluntary as purchasing cigarettes.

[–]Zifnab25 1 point2 points ago

Working is not necessary. It's the consuming - specifically, food and clothing and shelter - that is necessary. Smoking creates a chemical addition which, in turn, adds "getting nicotine" to your list of things you feel you absolutely need to function. But if you could find all your needs just laying around on the street, work (beyond the minor effort of picking everything up and using it) would be unnecessary.

What working provides is a vehicle for trade. You can produce a surplus of food. I can produce a surplus of clothes. Guy 3 can produce a surplus of shelter. So we all produce and then trade the remainders to meet all our needs. The "taxes reduce the desire to work" argument really only makes sense if you can claim that the marginal utility of working an extra unit no longer provides sufficient reward. And that statement tends to hold true for people with massive surpluses. A farmer, for instance, that produces way more food than he actually needs doesn't see the merit in working an extra acre of land if he's already got more than enough to trade for shelter and clothes.

But if he's already producing vast surpluses, there's really no economic need for him to farm that extra acre anyway. So who cares if he's less inclined to produce? He's already hyper-productive.

By contrast, a farmer that produces just enough to feed himself but still needs clothing and shelter will continue working despite any but the most confiscatory of taxes. He needs clothing and shelter to survive, so high taxes don't deter him until he's meet his basic needs.

[–]mainsoda -2 points-1 points ago

It's not about what is or isn't voluntary, it is about the government having it's cake and eating it too. It cannot have it both ways without the raptor noticing it's glaring hypocrisy.

[–]lfasonar 3 points4 points ago

i don't know what this unitary entity you think "the government" is, but every economist knows this, and every policy maker at the fed knows this. congresspeople i can not vouch for.

that said, its not inconsistent to believe in taxes on earnings and taxes on cigarettes: taxes on earnings are good because its easy to make it progressive. higher taxes discourage people from working, but its worth it because revenue can be put to good use. taxes on cigarettes are good because cigarette smoke has negative externalities (public health, air pollution, etc).

of course, most people here probably don't agree with the position, but i wanted to point out that its not hypocritical.

[–]buffalo_pete -1 points0 points ago

having it's cake and eating it too

without the raptor noticing it's glaring hypocrisy

"Its." The possessive has no apostrophe.

[–]mainsoda 0 points1 point ago

Damn, I am usually so careful with these things. Thanks for the correction!

[–]SargonOfAkkad -3 points-2 points ago

Is this why so many libertarians are unemployed?

[–]CurLyy -2 points-1 points ago

No. Its because we care so much we have become clinically depressed by the state of our nation which led to us all getting fired from our jobs.

Its a tough life.

[–]SargonOfAkkad 2 points3 points ago

But I thought taxes discouraged you from working.

[–]lfasonar 0 points1 point ago

working isn't a binary thing. if your marginal tax rate is 10%, and you make $10 an hour, your effective salary for an extra hour of work is $9. if your marginal tax rate is 50%, then its $5. if you can control your hours (which most people can not) then a high marginal tax rate makes it less likely you will work an extra hour.

i don't think anyone believes that the existence of income taxes means that people won't work at all, just like no one believes that the existence of cigarette taxes means that no one will smoke.

[–]SargonOfAkkad 1 point2 points ago

So are libertarians choosing to earn lower salaries because they don't want to pay taxes on those salaries?

[–]thajuggla 0 points1 point ago

I know that I'm not making the salary I would like. I hate paying taxes, but it's not going to stop me from working.

[–]CurLyy -2 points-1 points ago

We weren't always libertarians. Obama had a really good ad campaign in 08.

[–]SargonOfAkkad 2 points3 points ago

Wouldn't taxes discourage pretty much anyone from working?

[–]empathica1 1 point2 points ago

well, its not like cigarette taxes make it so that nobody smokes, isn't it?

[–]SargonOfAkkad 1 point2 points ago

The OP implies that income taxes discourage people from working.

[–]empathica1 2 points3 points ago

ok?

Wouldn't taxes discourage pretty much anyone from working?

so? what is the conclusion of this statement? if yes, then nobody works? less people work?

[–]SargonOfAkkad 2 points3 points ago

what is the conclusion of this statement?

The conclusion is that taxes discourage people from working. If that's not true, the OP is wrong.

[–]empathica1 1 point2 points ago

The conclusion is that taxes discourage people from working. If that's not true, the OP is wrong.

your argument is trivial. if taxes discourage pretty much everyone from working, then taxes discourage people from working.

is there some substantive argument you are trying to make?

[–]DublinBen 1 point2 points ago

Does one have to smoke?

[–]HiImDan 11 points12 points ago

I'm pretty sure you don't have to work either.

[–]DublinBen 5 points6 points ago

Nope, you can just live on welfare.

[–]N69sZelda 1 point2 points ago

It isnt that easy - Welfare doesnt pay that much... However, you can always choose to work in other ways (e.g. Walter White)

[–]tzan 1 point2 points ago

an interesting take on this is Agorism.

[–]xXSJADOo 6 points7 points ago

no. but our welfare and unemployment system seems to think we don't need to work either.

[–]sahilamin -2 points-1 points ago

I am actually tempted to upvote this just for the fact it doesn't have that stupid memegenerator watermark.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 11905 on app-195 running 8e56ab8.