This is such a good point. It's as if the argument is that more taxes is good no matter what rather than knowing what/why you're taxing in the first place.
Yes exactly, it's like everyone is arguing past each other with different assumptions about how taxes will be used. Take this quote from the article:
> “We need the wealth that has been generated in the city to be shared more broadly with workers and residents”
This person seems to assume the taxes will be shared with the workers and residents. Would they still support these taxes if that were not the case?
Others (in this discussion) seem to think the taxes will be thrown at things that don't benefit the city. Maybe so? Would they be more supportive if they knew it was for something they believed in?
I absolutely love the historic example of taxes that Benjamin Franklin talks about in his biography: he says he went to all his neighbors' houses and asked if they wanted to chip in a nickel a week and have one of the neighborhood boys sweep the street for everyone's benefit every week. Most said yes and paid the fee. This is literally what tax is in the most simplistic form (let's pool our money to get something we couldn't otherwise have - military, roads, other infrastructure).
Unfortunately, now we live in a world where we just talk about taxation for the sake of putting money into the pot and have no real idea or influence over how that pot of money is spent. A government that can move towards this Benjamin Franklin kind of simplicity of taxes would make its country such a better place.
> “We need the wealth that has been generated in the city to be shared more broadly with workers and residents”
This person seems to assume the taxes will be shared with the workers and residents. Would they still support these taxes if that were not the case?
Others (in this discussion) seem to think the taxes will be thrown at things that don't benefit the city. Maybe so? Would they be more supportive if they knew it was for something they believed in?