undefined

[-]

Go on. What are these practical "ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way" options?

[-]

It is already done today. Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes. Are some of them politically motivated or have academic disagreements? Sure, all people have personal politics and biases. But that is better than throwing up ones hands and saying we should accept all bad taxes because good ones also exist. By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?

[-]

> Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes.

We have those, and they disagree almost as much as the general public does. Economists get plenty partisan; they're human!

> By that logic, any tax I suggest should be accepted by you, because there is no way to tell if it's good or bad right?

No. But I'm deeply skeptical of "bad tax!" assessments from someone who's calling random people Marxists on this thread!

[-]

Why are you taking Marxist as an insult? Maybe that's your first issue, it's an accurate label for someone who believes in the labor theory of value which is something Marx came up.

And yes, economists are human of course (unless they're now AI). Not sure how that changes what I said. Just because they disagree doesn't mean what they do isn't better than throwing your hands up and saying it can't be done.

[-]

Again, you asserted:

> There definitely are ways to look at each tax and determine its worth, in a non-partisan way.

You then asserted those are:

> Academic panels, economists writing papers on impacts of various policies like rent control, monetary policy, and yes, taxes.

But Marx himself is an example of that process - an economist, writing papers on all this. You clearly don't agree with his conclusions, so now we're... right back where we started?

[-]

Nowhere did I say I have to agree with their conclusions to think that the work they're doing on analysis of policy is worthwhile, while your logic seems to be that it is not, which is what I disagree with. If that's not your argument then apologies.

[-]

> Nowhere did I say I have to agree with their conclusions…

So your functional way to effectively assess good/bad tax is ... not so functional.

[-]

No? I'm not an economist or policy maker so why does it matter what I think? As long as the economists can broadly agree, which they do on many topics, and enact that into policy, then that's fine. And is what happens today, functionally. So I really don't see how your argument to throw up your hands makes any sense, seems like you don't trust professionals to do their job.

Anyway, you're seeming to misunderstand me when I asked you questions as well, such as why you took Marxist for an insult for example when it accurately describes what I was talking about. I'm not the only one that will answer your questions, seems like there is some sort of sealioning you're doing in this thread.