The flaw in our society lies not with the system, but within ourselves. Voting to spend another's wealth has little merit beyond the illusion of getting something for nothing, an idea dismissed by most thinking adults.
I doubt many would hesitate to offer support to those who are unable to help themselves. A low or no tax level, established to alleviate an unsupportable tax burden falling on those with incomes already inadequate, rightfully comprises part of any fair taxation strategy.
The question remains: If some pay less, who pays more? Currently, the burden of supporting those who cannot or should not pay falls on the relatively few high earners. My point is that if society as a whole wants to free certain people from paying, (as it should) then society as a whole should foot the bill. Simply put: Decisions have costs. When a majority of voters decide, a majority of voters should pay.
Cheers, PW.
P.S. A few years ago, I saw the results of a poll (in Canada) where a random sample of people were asked what fraction of their income the wealthy should pay in taxes. Most felt 40% was appropriate. They were surprised to discover that the highest marginal rate was 54%, and that it was reached at C$60,000. (U$40,000) |
