Originally posted by: TaylorD
But a lot of the inequality that we have is currently structurally in capitalism, and attempts to run a system that adheres to principles of free-market economics. Dollars don't have equal values to un-equal people; never have, never will.
Isn't it ingrained in capitalism that some people will have more than others? And our current taxation system attempts to ever so *slighltly* even out the playing field, ie redistribution of wealth.
Inequality is built into capitalism, and so is
the freedom to change your own status. The inequality is what drives capitalism, because people want the best for themselves and their families; they want to do better than everyone else. Without some inequality there would be no need for hard work; no competition.
I'll take being at the low end of the income bracket with at least the potential to move up over everyone getting the same any day.
And if dollars don't have equal value, why does everyone pay the same for a newspaper? Should it be more expensive for rich people so that they have to spend the same "need %" as a poor person?
BTW, I am still waiting for anyone to touch the stealing a car from a guy with 10 cars vs stealing a car from a guy with only one.
Well in the most practical sense, the guy with 10 cars will still get to work in the morning, so if you're talking about potential real consequences, the answer is obvious. Legally of course, breaking the law is breaking the law, and one crime is not really more serious than another.
If you understand capitalism you will understand why newspapers are sold for the same price to all people (this is the point of open markets, not to determine that everything changes hands for it's real value!!!), even though they are probably 'worth more' to a rich person than a poor one. Assuming the relative equality of various reputable papers, and treating them as substitutes, one might expect a wealthy person to subscribe to more different newspapers than a poor one (cost =
marginal value, not "Value").
Taxes are not user fees. They are not paid for the purposes of providing services directly back to individuals.
Taxes are essentially collected for two purposes: public goods and infrastructure construction and maintenance, for goods that are needed but cannot effectively be created by individuals (highways, military protection, court systems, etc), and income redistribution / social safety-net spending.
It's important to understand the difference between pure income redistribution and social safety nets; one is a form of structuralized socialism, the other is an insurance policy against temporary events with potentially devastating consequences, and should be viewed as a way to avoid social and economic instability that occurs due to illness, sudden unemployment, etc.
Long-term welfare programs for most people are not productive; they simply create a class of people who are chronically unemployed and a drag on society (why this happens is a matter of incentives and other more complex effects, and is also unimportant). I'm against structuralized welfare programs for all but a very small portion of the population which may find itself permanently unable to support itself (think Christopher Reeve if he started out as a gas jockey).
Social safety net programs, like short-term unemployment insurance and job-training programs can alleviate disastrous outcomes that aren't even modelled in pure capitalism, which ignores the fact that people can starve to death. These sevices can't be considered on a return-on-premiums basis, because that would be irrational. They can only be considered on the basis of how much suffering and instability they prevent.
Veering a little off-topic:
Note that I left out health-care; heath-care is a very strange 'market' indeed, and is unfortunately controlled in most western nations by corporations, "college of physicians" bodies, and other groups. Couple relatively high delivery costs, limited supply of expertise (further limited artificially by meidcal schools around the world), and life-or-death choices, and you have a breeding ground for drug-resistant bacteria... wait, I mean a market that produces failures, and operates as a monopoly/cartel
in some cases.
Coming from Canada, I have a bias towards all citizens having the right to health care, and therefore to paying for this through taxes, which I agree is a form of income redistribution. I am not opposed to the recent addition of regressive (in %-income terms, still progressive in total-payment terms) health-care premiums, because I think people need to understand and respect the cost of delivering health care, and that it should not be simply financed on the backs of the wealthy.
I would be cautiously supportive of a private system that removed the monopoly and cartel aspects inherent in current western systems, and provided quality health care at truly competitive rates. But I have strong doubts that this could be accomplished.
Facebook
Twitter