Goal vs Means

[rowyn]

[Poll #1763592][Poll #1763593]
If you answered 'no' to either question, I would be very happy to hear your reasons.

I know that these scenarios are ridiculous; I am not 100% convinced about pretty much anything in my life.  But I am curious if anyone finds the non-economic reasons for these things (and ones certainly exist!) to be compelling even in the absence of economic benefit.  I tend to look at reasons like "high taxes on the rich are akin to stealing and therefore wrong" or "the rich benefit most from social order and therefore should pay more" as less 'sufficient justification by themselves' than as an explanation of why one system or the other would be better from a total economic perspective. I am curious whether or not others feel the same way.

Posted via LiveJournal app for Android.

Comments

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Reliance on sales tax means than the people who pay the highest percentage of their money in taxes are those whose money gets spent - all or almost all of it, no savings - and those who do not have enough money to spend it or save it outside of that jurisdiction. So sales taxes disproportionately hurt the poor.

As for robbing the rich to pay for social programs: if those social programs aren't there, the poor still need to eat, so they generally turn to crime, and guess who they're stealing from? It's cheaper to pay for subsidized housing, food stamps, and welfare, than it is to cut that person off and make them live on charity or have them turn to crime.