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

[rowyn]

My state has both income and sales taxes. *sigh* I wish the government would pick ONE THING -- sales, income, real estate, WHATEVER -- and tax that, instead of taxing a bazillion different things in a bazillion different ways each with their own accompanying forms and exceptions and requirements. It's hard to believe this is the best way to do it. x.x

I do feel that the "taxes are a form of robbery" is essentially true, and it's true regardless of whether or not you directly benefit from government. OTOH, not having a government is much worse, so I don't see any rational alternative. But I am not so much concerned with whether taxes are 'fair' than whether they work -- whether they produce a system that provides the maximum benefit to the people. And by "system", I don't just mean the services that government provides directly, but the services and wealth that the private sector generates. I want the balance point to be the point where we're making the absolute most of both sectors.