I think it’s pretty paternalistic to think that you’re a better judge of what is good or bad for someone than that person themselves. There are plenty of people who are anti union because they’ve rationally concluded they would be worse off.

I'm genuinely curious to read what your edit would have been so that it didn't appear that I was putting myself into one of these groups.

Sorry, I probably shouldn’t have used “you.” I meant generally… “people who make this argument”

The answer is that such policies are more nuanced than just help or harm. Some people weigh effects differently than other people, leading them to believe that for their specific situation, one outweighs the other.

Completely agree. There are also people who would give everything and anything to be ideologically consistent - worse off on every metric, but right with themselves and the way they see the world. It can be very difficult to relate to them due to that very experiential chasm.

Not P, but I agree. One does not have to like a billionaire or even dream about being one to disagree with disproportionate taxation out of other principles or concerns.

It goes the other way around too. There are billionaires in favor of increased taxes on billionaires.

And the IRS allows you to contribute as much as you prefer to the treasury. It's voluntary and no one is compelling you.

So that group of billionaires who think the government can use their money more efficiently than they can in order to advance American society are absolutely free to do so! Go them! They don't need the government to compel them. They can form their own Philgubernatorial group -set their own donation rules and taxation (donation) bands and percentages and come tax season give it to the feds.

How do you know that don't? Really though, they shouldn't. That's pissing in the ocean on an individual level, and the government doesn't run it's budget off rando Treasury donations. They are not just advocating more taxes on themselves but on the very wealthy in general. A systemic change in taxation.

These same people likely also donate a huge amount of money to charities and etc. On an individual basis it's easier to draw a line between funds donated and outcomes.

> They don't need the government to compel them.

Do they? Do you? Why not just make the government a charity then.

I've never understood this either. It's like they only want it to happen if its forced on everyone, which is the opposite of the social altruism that they are claiming to advocate for.

I mean, that's the great thing about the rule of law right? That we agree to do stuff together that we might not individually?

> It's like they only want it to happen if its forced on everyone

Well if we take a law to mean "forced on everyone" that's really the definition of "it to happen".