To me that argument is a bit of a stretch. Me not having to pay 2000 a month for hyrdo is different than me arguing that a flat tax is still paying a fair share into a system. Do you think someone should pay more for groceries because they make more money?
I'm confused on the hyrdo thing. Clarify please.
We talked about the groceries. In a bracketed system, both the poor and rich person's "grocery money" would not be taxed high or at all because it would be the first bracket (the 20k or whatever amount) so that isn't a problem.
explain how a person making 100k - paying 20k into fed taxes reduces someones chance into the labor market AND what prevents that person who overcomes barriers to not take the same stance as me when they achieve monetary success.
I guess my analogy was a little off in direct comparison and didn't serve to help my point. All I was trying to say in that is we put rules in place in our society to keep the game going and allow everyone to participate (economically, politically, etc, it's one of the greatest things to set in place). A safety net is a way of allowing individuals to keep playing the game rather than dropping off into a liability.
For levels of extreme, I'll give the example poorer African areas. Giving a person a bicycle drastically ups their production immediately and has shown to help pull them out of poverty. Now, there could be an argument to let this person save up for a bicycle for however long it may take (could be a very very long time for some of these people) OR you could let them have this instrument which ups their production and makes them more self sufficent and less of a burden.
We are trying to pull people out of poverty as fast as possible as that's where the net loss is. To do that, you want to give as less burden as possible on that group. So essentially, we aren't talking about the higher 100k guy as much as we are talking about the 20k. I already stated a two bracket system with 20k being taxed lower or not at all with a second higher bracket above 20k is insanely better than a simple flat tax because it acknowledges trying to help the poorer person bounce back faster.
Now there are those who argue to even push farther and provide welfare and income assistance to these people in order to make them bounce back even faster or just to help them in general. This is an entirely different topic but the bike example kinda plays into it. The danger with this is you could say people get comfortable with this. In our tax argument, I can assure you the 20k person is not comfortable whether they are being taxed 20% or 0%. They are miserable and likely trying to get out of that situation as fast as possible. The tax slows that process down.
I appreciate your altruism but i can not support a system that suggests because someone reaches success, they get exponentially and exorbitantly taxed more for it.
There's a difference between blindly caring for others and caring for a system which gathers the highest benefit. I'd say it's effective altruism at best. I'd argue it's actually caring for the collective in the longrun cause it grants safety to all. It isn't charity as much as it is preserving the well being of the entire system.
