But shouldn't living standards be determined by what people contribute? And shouldn't people who contribute more get more? Rather than being penalized for their hard work and success?
Look, my students are mostly liberal-democrats in their political sympathies and mostly middle to lower-middle class in socio-economic status. And when I ask them to do a debate on progressive taxation they cannot defend it. The anti-side always wins, hands down. The idea that people who are more able to pay should pay is connected to the idea that those more able to pay have more than they should have anyway. And this is not an idea Americans have an easy time articulating or even formulating. What is a luxury but what everybody covets? And why should those who do get some have to give anything up to others? Ellen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Taxes should be based on ability to pay, aside from the payroll tax, which is a contribution towards insurance benefits. The alternative is taxes NOT based on the ability to pay. Try defending that one. mbs > > >I like talking about rocks and "necessaries, decencies, and >luxuries". Point out that if you had a load of rocks to carry up a >mountain, and there were three people, say a small boy, a 115 pound >woman, and a 265 pound linebacker, it would be wrong to force the boy >to carry as much as the woman, and the woman as much as the >linebacker. Each should carry what they can bear: in this case the >boy might carry 10 pounds, the woman 50 and the man 150. > >Nassau Sr.'s categories added to this make you aware that there are >gradations in goods and services that people buy. Some are things >that people must buy --- necessaries. Decencies are things people >should have. Luxuries are things it would be nice to have. We must >to ensure that everyone has enough to buy necessaries, hence we give >more of a break to the poor. We should ensure everyone has enough to >buy decencies. And, if enough is left over, same for luxuries. Fair >is fair, after all. > > >Bill > >
