These are things that everyone want, they don't really distinguish those who complain about taxes from those who don't.

I'd propose, simplistically, that people who demand tax cuts have in common the following characteristics:

- they may be confused about the role(s) of taxation

- they may not have sat down with pen and paper to try and figure out how to work a government's finances

- they may not be aware that a lot of the information they're demanding is public, or may not know where to find it

- they may not have a clear idea of which services to cut, or might not fully appreciate the importance of the services they'd like to cut

Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes:

- have a clear understanding of at least some of the roles of taxation

- have a specific idea what budget item they would like to see it spent on

> Conversely, it is highly probable that the people who support tax hikes:

There is no evidence supporting this assertion. A massive swath of people currently support raising taxes on the wealthy solely to take their money away (“reducing income equality”) without having a particularly sound way to spend it or one that even makes mathematical sense.

https://twitter.com/iamscottenglish/status/12358062448179159...

Income inequality is a destabilizing force. One of the purposes of taxation is wealth redistribution, and that can be "mathematically" quite useful if you like your system to have an equilibrium state.

There's a way to look at this non-vindictively.

We have plenty of ways to spend money: housing, food, healthcare, infrastructure, public transportation, even jobs. Providing the above for free could be a thing.

Every penny is useful.

Having a list of shit you want the government to spend every spare penny on does not make you informed or particularly intelligent. That’s just a grown-up version of a Christmas wish-list.

The government randomly spending money in bits here in there is not productive.

>even jobs

The last thing you want is the government to add 10 million jobs for only 12 weeks during normal employment.

> infrastructure

Expanding infrastructure that isn’t needed is just more maintenance cost and a waste of money. You need concrete plans for infrastructure that isn’t just a maintenance burden.

> public transportation

Again, this needs actual plans and should provide value. You want HSR from Ely, NV to Portland, OR?

Vague hand-waving of “the government should just spend X billion on Y” is just a perfect way to promote boondoggles.

I think there's a non-trivial (and certainly non-zero) portion of the population who would specifically enjoy tax hikes on other people who have become, in their judgment, too successful.

Envy is a powerful force, to be sure.

Huge success is only possible in the context of systems and infrastructure that enable it. There are no billionaires in Mad Max because society has crumbled - you can't leverage an educated workforce to build your widgets or a working interstate highway system to move them around. Is it so much to ask that those that benefit the most from the legal, financial, law enforcement, and military infrastructure of a country contribute proportionally more of the fruits of their success back to the maintenance of those systems?

That's not even mentioning those that are successful and wealthy in part because of government subsidies and support (e.g. green credits for Tesla).

>of a country contribute proportionally more of the fruits of their success back to the maintenance of those systems?

They already contribute more than proportionally. Proportionally is a flat tax rate and the rich already contribute far in excess of that.

This is the dilemma of living in a complex modern economy. We cooperate with a system that makes great wealth possible, not because that wealth is a right, but because of a social theory that the same system lets the rest of us live in relative security and decency.

We could pull the plug on that system, but only by driving ourselves into utter poverty, so in some sense we are hostages of the system that we created. On the other hand, if that system fails to serve an agreeable social purpose, it's our prerogative to moderate it.

For your logic to be true there must be no billionaires in low tax countries. HK has billionaires and a very low tax rate - ergo, the amount of taxes needed to pay for “the system” to become rich are actually quite low.

On the other hand, the converse is even more plausible.

So the only possible position for an informed, intelligent person is “higher taxes”?

Let’s go for broke and make them 100% then?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting.

What I'm saying is that when applying first-order thinking, it sounds like "more tax" would hurt. Therefore people who ask for more tax are most likely thinking a bit farther than the tip of their nose.

On behalf of all us low-tax simpletons, I must ask if you have considered that there might be undesirable second-order effects of high tax rates.

But perhaps that idea is further than the tip of one’s nose.