Moreover, it's worsened because life is more expensive in subtle ways as you move down the income bracket. [3] Even municipal fines -- as emphasized by John Oliver recently -- contribute to the problem.
[1] http://mattbruenig.com/2013/06/13/whats-more-important-a-col... [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tira... [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
Another aspect is consumer responsibility and the way we tend to buy what we want but not think of the large scale consequences. People use gmail and facebook out of habit. They buy groceries in a big store out of habit. We use products dependent on petroleum yet expect someone else to fix global warming. Being interconnected and living in a rather fragile world where systems affect each other is not a responsibility us as individuals are ready for, and I haven't even touched on civic responsibility and the need for everyone to almost be lawyers and critical thinkers for law to function. There are so many complex interconnected parts and we always fall victim to the movements of the herd
we are morally justified in taxing success BECAUSE it is success. its not because we desire to punish or disincentivize success (and indeed we must take care not to tax it too harshly for this reason), but simply put, success generates surplus and we can tax surplus without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in taking from those who have extra because they have extra and can afford it.
on the flipside we are not morally justified in taxing failure BECAUSE it is failure. its not because we desire to reward or incentivize failure (and indeed we must take care not to make it too inconsequential to fail for this reason), but simply put, failure generates hardship and we cannot tax a person experiencing hardship without causing outsize additional suffering. we are justified in not taking from those who have nothing left bcause they have nothing left and cannot afford to have anything more taken from them.
do you understand the ethical dimensions of the argument now? what is most fair from a purely financial or economic point of view is not at all what is most fair from a humanitarian or ethical point of view. pragmatically speaking, we have need to generate revenue for the government and it makes the best sense to seek revenue from where money is plentiful, just because that's where the money actually is. its the same reason why consumer brands try to market to wealthier customers (because they have extra money that they can spend).
There's no moral standing in skipping out on the bill for something you're getting.
I'm curious what is your preferred solution for financing public infrastructure. All private? Every street and sewer line is a company's property?
Even human societies like hunter gatherers redistributed food within their groups so some of them could concentrate on child rearing and basic tool making while others acquired food. Even if duties were shared, they couldn't all be done at the same time.
Redistribution of surplus was a major contributing factor which led to the specialization necessary to develop early technology like agriculture, which ultimately led to where we are today.
It was certainly a critical part of the creation of the American middle class and consumer culture after the second world war.
> Every street and sewer line is a company's property?
Private infrastructure works good with Internet.
> Redistribution of surplus was a major contributing factor which led to the specialization
Redistribution != Exchanging. Market is okey because there are no forcing, everything is ultroneous.
Your confusion may arise from the following: In a robbery, someone takes something from you. With taxation, an organization takes something from you.
The difference is, in a robbery, you get nothing back. With taxation, you are getting something from the government, so you're actually just paying for that.
I'm never sign for that.
> The difference is, in a robbery, you get nothing back.
If robber give you something back - it will not be a robbery?
> so you're actually just paying for that
I'm actually just paying for government spying me, for forcing me to not to having ownership of myself and other "government goods".
Correct, your parents chose that for you, when they chose your place of residency when you were born. As a child, your parents had custody of you and the legal right to make that decision for you.
As an adult, now, you may renounce your citizenship and move to another place with no social contract; that is how you may terminate your obligations to the government where you live.