Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This response does not answer either question.



I'm sure if you're dissatisfied to my answers then you'd have no problem coming up with some of your own examples.

Edit: Wait, you want me to define a utility function for people? That was your first question? That's just a stupid question. Define your own utility function. I don't care what it is. And your second question is stupid too. Sorry, I'm not a keeper-tracker of tax evasion. So let's say "any time a poor person evades taxes." Or many of those cases. If you want a specific example, too bad. If the lack of a specific counterexample of the kind you specified is actually the barrier preventing you from changing your opinion about this, then you shouldn't bother trying to have opinions about things. The fact that some people get more value in government services than they pay in taxes is proof that there are people whose tax evasion would benefit society at large. This is a simple mathematical truism.


> I'm sure if you're dissatisfied to my answers then you'd have no problem coming up with some of your own examples.

I was challenging you on this point because I don't believe you can come up with an actual example of a company's tax evasion benefiting society.

> Wait, you want me to define a utility function for people?

No, I wanted to prompt you to think about defining a single utility function for 300 million people. There is no way to do it, because you cannot compare interpersonal utilities. Your statements about governments having utility suggests that your thinking on this topic is muddled.

> If you want a specific example, too bad.

No empirical evidence, then?

> The fact that some people get more value in government services than they pay in taxes is proof that there are people whose tax evasion would benefit society at large.

It would not benefit society at large; the benefits would be private to the evader and everyone else's tax bill would go up.

> This is a simple mathematical truism.

Not only is it false, but I don't think you know what a truism is. A truism is a tautology.

> stupid ... stupid ... you shouldn't bother trying to have opinions about things

SamReidHughes, there is a saying that to know a little economics is worse than to know none at all. I think you are overconfident in your theories and should be more humble and polite in dialogue with others.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: