3 ms·

There’s a lot of talk about wether this is ‘fair’ or not - let’s set that aside and ask if it’s good policy to have so much of the country’s revenue depend on t

There’s a lot of talk about wether this is ‘fair’ or not - let’s set that aside and ask if it’s good policy to have so much of the country’s revenue depend on the income of so few people. Does this make the government more or less beholden to the rich? Does this put the government more or less at risk of exposure to financial events that only impact the wealthy? And does this incent the government to enact policies that increase the wealth of the top 3% over the bottom 30%? Those are the questions we should be focusing on - not what’s ‘fair’. Life isn’t fair - if it were the wealth of the top 3% would be determined by how hard they work and how much good their work does to society. That’s not how we live, so let’s get back to crafting our society based on what’s good for it as a whole instead of how we feel about how much tax someone else pays.

JamesBarney 8y ago
How would shifting the tax burden more onto the poor reduce the influence of the rich on the government? It seems like the wealthy's influence on politics is two fold. Indirect, people who get elected to Congress have wealthy friends, and interact more with wealthy people. I.e. they have way more friends that are doctors than burger flippers. Direct, wealthy people and directly contributing larges amounts of money to access politicians. It seems like the first would be unaffected, and the second would mbe made worse because the poor would have less, and the rich more disposable income to use to donate to and influence politics more.
simonh 8y ago
Well said. The way I see it, we are all very closely tied together economically at all income levels. The top few percent don’t carry their wealth off into space, they spend it in shops and restaurants, they invest it in businesses even if indurectly through pension plans and funds. They employ basically everyone else one way or another. On the other hand, they benefit from living in a stable society, with fair and equitable laws and a skilled healthy work force. We all do, but it has to be paid for somehow. Here in the UK we faced this issue the hard way in World War 1. Many young men called to service were malnourished, sickly and unfit for duty. It became clear that a national effort to educate, economically support and maintain the health of the general population was a matter of national security. The consensus around the national health service may have been catalysed by socialists, I’ll give them that, but it gained cross party support because it’s just good governance. Society doesn’t need to be a brutal zero sum game of haves versus have not’s. I’m a true believer in capitalism. It’s raised billions of people out of poverty. It’s based on basic principles of individual freedom and responsibility and it works. But it also works best I think when woven into a durable, fair and equitable social fabric. Capitalism needs an educated work force that is healthy and well nourished. To the extent that free markets can provide those things fine, but where they fail to do so ideology should not prevent necessary intervention in the national interest and that needs to be funded somehow.

JamesBarney 8y ago

How would shifting the tax burden more onto the poor reduce the influence of the rich on the government? It seems like the wealthy's influence on politics is two fold. Indirect, people who get elected to Congress have wealthy friends, and interact more with wealthy people. I.e. they have way more friends that are doctors than burger flippers. Direct, wealthy people and directly contributing larges amounts of money to access politicians. It seems like the first would be unaffected, and the second would mbe made worse because the poor would have less, and the rich more disposable income to use to donate to and influence politics more.

simonh 8y ago

Well said. The way I see it, we are all very closely tied together economically at all income levels. The top few percent don’t carry their wealth off into space, they spend it in shops and restaurants, they invest it in businesses even if indurectly through pension plans and funds. They employ basically everyone else one way or another. On the other hand, they benefit from living in a stable society, with fair and equitable laws and a skilled healthy work force. We all do, but it has to be paid for somehow. Here in the UK we faced this issue the hard way in World War 1. Many young men called to service were malnourished, sickly and unfit for duty. It became clear that a national effort to educate, economically support and maintain the health of the general population was a matter of national security. The consensus around the national health service may have been catalysed by socialists, I’ll give them that, but it gained cross party support because it’s just good governance. Society doesn’t need to be a brutal zero sum game of haves versus have not’s. I’m a true believer in capitalism. It’s raised billions of people out of poverty. It’s based on basic principles of individual freedom and responsibility and it works. But it also works best I think when woven into a durable, fair and equitable social fabric. Capitalism needs an educated work force that is healthy and well nourished. To the extent that free markets can provide those things fine, but where they fail to do so ideology should not prevent necessary intervention in the national interest and that needs to be funded somehow.