3 ms·

> As if the natural state of things is for the government to tax everything and whatever it doesn't is being subsidized. Why shouldn't everyone pay their shar

> As if the natural state of things is for the government to tax everything and whatever it doesn't is being subsidized. Why shouldn't everyone pay their share? If I'm paying my share and you aren't paying yours, I'm subsidizing your government services.

kailuowang 11y ago
Not the same thing here. The rich people already pay their share in tax that supports public education that they don't benefit from. The people who go to public education don't pay anything more. Now the author is arguing that the rich people needs to pay more tax because they pay for their own education by going to a private school? That doesn't make sense to me.
- hackuser 11y ago
  It depends on how you define a 'fair share'. In my mind, it's defined as everyone making the same amount of sacrifice. Equal sacrifice does not mean an equal amount of money; $1K is much more of a sacrifice for someone with $10K than for someone with $10 million. It does not mean the same percentage of tax; again, 20% of your income is a much larger sacrifice if you make $10K than if you make $10 million. > The rich people already pay their share ... I'm not sure we can say that without first defining their share? Maybe they are paying less or more than their share. > public education that they don't benefit from I disagree strongly. The wealthy have benefitted much more from public services than everyone else, including from education. Could you imagine a country without education? Without public education who would be their employees? Who would be their customers? Their vendors? Who would provide the endless network of services on which our economy and their wealth is built, from banking to research to roads to the political and legal systems to security to technology ... Even the wealthiest have built only a tiny edifice on a massive foundation built by our predecessors, and are wholly dependant on our contemporaries.

kailuowang 11y ago

Not the same thing here. The rich people already pay their share in tax that supports public education that they don't benefit from. The people who go to public education don't pay anything more. Now the author is arguing that the rich people needs to pay more tax because they pay for their own education by going to a private school? That doesn't make sense to me.

hackuser 11y ago
It depends on how you define a 'fair share'. In my mind, it's defined as everyone making the same amount of sacrifice. Equal sacrifice does not mean an equal amount of money; $1K is much more of a sacrifice for someone with $10K than for someone with $10 million. It does not mean the same percentage of tax; again, 20% of your income is a much larger sacrifice if you make $10K than if you make $10 million. > The rich people already pay their share ... I'm not sure we can say that without first defining their share? Maybe they are paying less or more than their share. > public education that they don't benefit from I disagree strongly. The wealthy have benefitted much more from public services than everyone else, including from education. Could you imagine a country without education? Without public education who would be their employees? Who would be their customers? Their vendors? Who would provide the endless network of services on which our economy and their wealth is built, from banking to research to roads to the political and legal systems to security to technology ... Even the wealthiest have built only a tiny edifice on a massive foundation built by our predecessors, and are wholly dependant on our contemporaries.