Consider what you might choose to do for the public good with the 30% of your income that is taken from you in the name of the public good.
Philanthropy is a predictable outcome of an individual having met the basic needs of Maslow’s hierarchy. Consider how many more philanthropists would be created by returning this 30% back to individual discernment.
> Consider what you might choose to do…
Emphasis on might.
Evidence suggests "a giant boat and some helicopters" is the more likely result.
I’d love to pay off my house early instead of giving 200% it’s worth to the banks in interest to hire the guys with the yachts.. Call me selfish.
And your house value doesn’t benefit from taxes? No utilities? No road? No regulations protecting you from shitty neighbors? No army keeping you safe?
Lol, the reaction that you are getting to your post...
They sure have a pretty dim view of their fellow humans while paradoxically believing in the goodness of the gubberment.
One tiny correction to your post. While it's true that most income tax is in the region of 30%, the cumulative taxes would be of the order of 60% of what of what one could potentially earn. Cumulative taxes = income + payroll+ property taxes etc.
Well my taxes go to roads, healthcare for people who can’t afford, schools, and the fire department. I would consider those public goods.
Not to mention the one meal per day that many children would otherwise not eat. And sometimes the free breakfast that keeps their gnawing hunger at bay long enough for them to learn something in school.
Which 30% are you talking about? Taxes? If so: From what do you build things like infrastructure?
If you've ever worked with a church you know that donation and good will is not a way to ensure anything is structurally sound. Donations always come with asterisks.
Nobody wants to make sure the roof is shingled and doesn't leak but everybody leaves money for new stained glass windows or the organ that nobody knows how to play.
The billionaires out there are being revealed as paedophiles quicker than they are solving world health problems.
I’d prefer not to rely on them.
> Consider how many more philanthropists would be created by returning this 30% back to individual discernment.
Many, many fewer than you assume.
Libertarians like to make lots of good-sounding promises to justify their favored radical policy, but it's bullshit and the promises don't pan out when tested [1]. By that point, the libertarian has gotten what he wanted and moved on.
[1] Or their policy was already tried and already failed, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46876387, leading to reforms to fix the problems that they're now mad about and want to undo.
Is there evidence that it happens? And that it serves the public good, not the personal interests of the wealthy? Do we need another $100 million given to a health program accessible only to the wealthy, or funding for public health? To a business school or art museum, or to arts programs for public schools?
Philanthropy is anti-democratic; the people don't choose what is important to support, the wealthy few do. You can see that in the relatively poor public goods in the US, which has much lower taxes relative to peers.
A lot less because they'd be dead from easily preventable diseases in their water supply?