3 ms·

Wouldn't that benefit everyone?

• grondilu 11y ago
  You end up in a situation where a minority is coerced to pay for everyone. It's morally wrong.
  • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    No, the minority pay si that can benefit, it just happens that others who haven't paid benefit too. Like when a country act to reduce their industrial impact on the atmosphere, their citizens benefit with cleaner air/water or whatever but there's a benefit to the rest of the world too. Being altruistic leads to greater overall benefit. Being miserly leads to global detriment. Applying Kant's Imperative as the moral measure leads to say it's morally wrong not to pay as if no-one were to pay we all lose out.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • grondilu 11y ago
      It's not so much about altruism or the moral validity of taxation. It's about equality and fairness. If some people can take advantage from the expropriation of others, then who gets to say who can be expropriated and who can't? With taxation the justification comes more or less from the revenues and wealth differential, basically it is assumed that rich people can pay because they suffer less from the requisition of a small part of their wealth. But if the criteria is only nationality, I'm not sure they will accept it that easily.