3 ms·
I don't agree. Taxes are not the same thing as social charges, here's why. If you make 250k a year, you pay a lot in social charges, but not as much in percent
by carlob 14y ago
I don't agree. Taxes are not the same thing as social charges, here's why.
If you make 250k a year, you pay a lot in social charges, but not as much in percentage (usually retirement charges are regressive) and in exchange you get unemployment checks and retirement that are proportional to how much you've put in. In short you get back what you've put in.
On the other hand income taxes are usually progressive (the richer you are the larger the percentage you pay) and richer people benefit less from them, in that they go to finance public transportation, education and hospital which rich people tend to use as much if not less than commoners.
- reitzensteinm 14y agoExcept your lifetime worth of contributions is one policy shift away from becoming worthless. Unlike a superannuation scheme, paying into it now guarantees you nothing in the future. Nobody making moderate capital gains would pay these charges voluntarily, in exchange for benefits it gives them. Thus it makes complete sense to lump it in with the other capital gains taxes when discussing incentives. From Wikipedia: "The mandatory state pension is an unfunded contributory penison based on redistribution of contributions from those working to those in retirement. The scheme aims to provide up to a maximum of 50% of the retirees highest earning years up to a limit of 35,000€ annually (in 2010)."
- carlob 14y ago> Nobody making moderate capital gains would pay these charges voluntarily, in exchange for benefits it gives them. Almost nobody who pays taxes would pay them voluntarily, especially the rich who get no benefits from paying them. Yet we force them to, it's the redistributive nature of taxes.