4 ms·
That was a saying that the FDR welfare reform was for the rich rather for the poor. The poor in 1910's had little social safety net and were susceptible to vio
by ww520 16y ago
That was a saying that the FDR welfare reform was for the rich rather for the poor. The poor in 1910's had little social safety net and were susceptible to violent uprising. The welfare reform pacified generations of poor and made them docile these days.
That's why progressive taxation is a rational solution. The rich are benefited from an stable environment that they can make their wealth. It's only sensible that they pay to upkeep it. In war and violent uprising, wealth can disappear overnight.
- jacoblyles 16y agoThere's something thuggish about saying "Give us your stuff or things will get ugly. Don't forget, we poor people are very impulsive".
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ww520 16y agoWhat if "your stuff" are not yours to begin with? What if the stuff you "earn" relying on others to build a system to begin with? How much you are willing to pay to build such a system? Wealth people built are done in the framework of a society. You can live in an island all by yourself and be your own government and print your own billion of money, and no one would care. When you derive your wealth from a society with people, other people would care about you paying your share since they build the system and you benefit from it.
- hugh3 16y agoThe rich are benefited from an stable environment that they can make their wealth. It's only sensible that they pay to upkeep it. I can see how that could justify taxation somewhere between "poll tax" and "flat tax", but nothing more "progressive" than flat tax. If I have a hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, maybe I should pay $N. If I have five hundred thousand dollars, and I'm paying for the government to protect my assets, that's logically worth 5 times $N. The component of my taxes which go towards protecting my wealth can quite sensibly scale linearly with my wealth, but not super-linearly.
- borism 16y agoexcept costs of protecting more wealth grow exponentially, not linearly.
- hugh3 16y agoHow's that?
- borism 16y agobecause of larger number of counterparties whose contracts to enforce?
- yummyfajitas 16y agoWhy do you assume counterparties grow exponentially with wealth? This would also only apply to that portion of the tax burden associated with enforcing contracts (a very small fraction, basically just the police and judicial system).
- ww520 16y agoThe police and judicial system don't exist in vacuum. And where does the power of the judicial system and police come from in modern time? From the people. And what is the cost for them to grant power to such a system? A functional society that they feel supporting. Our tax is not just funding for the judicial system so that the rich can get their properties protected. Our tax is funding a functional society that's the basis for all these.
- ww520 16y agoBecause your ability to make mega millions hings on the scalability of wealth making a stable society provides. It is not an individual's own ability to make huge amount of money. Without a law abiding and stable society, you won't make your millions. If all the workers are uneducated and dumb, if all the contracts are out of the window, if all the banks collapse, if the money are worthless, if no court or police to protect your property, if no firefighter to rescue your burning home, how much millions you can make? How much are you willing to pay for those? If taxes are considered as a cost of doing business in a functional society, it won't be contested so much.
- hga 16y agoOn the other hand, in pretty much every way, the poor suffer much more from an unstable society (with the only exception being an all out successful class war revolution that wipes out the rich class ... many of whom are going to be able to flee anyway).
- ww520 16y agoTrue. But who have more to lose? The guy with nothing to start with or the guy with a billion dollar?
- hga 16y agoShort of that all out revolution, the "guy with nothing to start". He can lose his life, the lives of his family, etc. The "guy with a billion dollar" can afford to buy protection that keeps he and his family alive, unkidnapped, etc.
- ww520 16y agoThe French monarch found out how well their billions work in the French Revolution. Or the late Russian Tsars. If you think money can protect you in a class revolt, you are deluding yourself. The guys with gun simply shoot you and confiscate your money. The money guys can only survive if the system protect them. And here we are talking about how to maintain a system so that the money guys can continue to enjoy their wealth.