I don't think you are really making an argument on "fairness." You are making an argument about entitlement. Who is entitled to what? That is a different issue. Any system that does not discriminate against people for irrelevant or unchosen things is "fair," at least in a narrow sense. It is not fair to let the wealthy go without being taxed, because wealth is not necessarily chosen. It is fair to tax people based on their income, especially progressively, because you choose to make money, and your choices increase as you gain income.
If my parents die when I'm 2 months old, and leave me 100,000 dollars, am I entitled to that money? Yes, subject to relevant laws, like taxes. Is it fair that I get that money, and lil' orphan jimmy doesn't get squat from his dead parents? No, neither of us chose our fate.
Countries determine their laws, which determines legal entitlement. I like entitlement to follow fairness when possible, and like you, I want programs that can be given to people equally. I just think more of those things are a good idea than you do, and help to compensate for the natural unfairnesses of one's birth situation, health condition, natural intelligence, and other things largely beyond one's control. Education, health care, infrastructure, policing... the rich get universal health care the same as the poor, just like they get roads, police, clean water and air. I'm hardly in favour of grand socialist boondoggles, and I *certainly* do care who pays for it.
Maybe if we could find a way to tax the idle rich, we'd be set. Sadly, as you correctly point out, they have ways to escape taxation. Consumption taxes do not seem like a good solution. The rich will simply spend their money outside the country, the middle classes will take vacation junkets (I saw this in Uruguay, where high sales taxes led people to buy luxury goods in free trade areas in Paraguay), and the poorest will end up taking the brunt, as they buy the most, save the least, and have the least mobility, although well thought out exemptions could take the sting out of it. A smart tax system would have to be able to understand and compensate for all the various ways to hide money, and that is a tough job, for which consumption taxes, I think, are inadequate, and progressive income taxes are not especially bad.
Some countries have stupid laws, France being a good example. Their "socialism" is in need of a serious revamp. It is not only economically stagnating, but it is creating the very problems it purports to solve, notably high unemployment. People are not being treated fairly, because the system favours the entrenched interests over others for no good reason. Some times, the wrong people are entitled by poorly made laws. The United States is nearly as bad, as you pointed out, where accountants (decidedly employees of the wealthy) can make taxes vanish, though this is a function of your arcane tax code more than some socialist conspiracy. Canada, for instance, has a much less loopholed tax code, and much lesser problems with tax sheltering, although it is still an issue.
The rest of my intended post I junked for being snippy. We shouldn't have to take shots at each other.
One last point, though...
A logical argument is supposed to lead us from shared assumptions (premises), via logic, to shared conclusions. If your assumptions contain your conclusions, then what you have is an assertion. You may believe your assertion is correct, but that's not a very good reason for anyone else to join you in that belief, especially if they're criticising some part of it, or are unable to trace it back to any assumptions of their own.
-Jester
If my parents die when I'm 2 months old, and leave me 100,000 dollars, am I entitled to that money? Yes, subject to relevant laws, like taxes. Is it fair that I get that money, and lil' orphan jimmy doesn't get squat from his dead parents? No, neither of us chose our fate.
Countries determine their laws, which determines legal entitlement. I like entitlement to follow fairness when possible, and like you, I want programs that can be given to people equally. I just think more of those things are a good idea than you do, and help to compensate for the natural unfairnesses of one's birth situation, health condition, natural intelligence, and other things largely beyond one's control. Education, health care, infrastructure, policing... the rich get universal health care the same as the poor, just like they get roads, police, clean water and air. I'm hardly in favour of grand socialist boondoggles, and I *certainly* do care who pays for it.
Maybe if we could find a way to tax the idle rich, we'd be set. Sadly, as you correctly point out, they have ways to escape taxation. Consumption taxes do not seem like a good solution. The rich will simply spend their money outside the country, the middle classes will take vacation junkets (I saw this in Uruguay, where high sales taxes led people to buy luxury goods in free trade areas in Paraguay), and the poorest will end up taking the brunt, as they buy the most, save the least, and have the least mobility, although well thought out exemptions could take the sting out of it. A smart tax system would have to be able to understand and compensate for all the various ways to hide money, and that is a tough job, for which consumption taxes, I think, are inadequate, and progressive income taxes are not especially bad.
Some countries have stupid laws, France being a good example. Their "socialism" is in need of a serious revamp. It is not only economically stagnating, but it is creating the very problems it purports to solve, notably high unemployment. People are not being treated fairly, because the system favours the entrenched interests over others for no good reason. Some times, the wrong people are entitled by poorly made laws. The United States is nearly as bad, as you pointed out, where accountants (decidedly employees of the wealthy) can make taxes vanish, though this is a function of your arcane tax code more than some socialist conspiracy. Canada, for instance, has a much less loopholed tax code, and much lesser problems with tax sheltering, although it is still an issue.
The rest of my intended post I junked for being snippy. We shouldn't have to take shots at each other.
One last point, though...
Quote:Who doesn't assume their conclusions are correct?
A logical argument is supposed to lead us from shared assumptions (premises), via logic, to shared conclusions. If your assumptions contain your conclusions, then what you have is an assertion. You may believe your assertion is correct, but that's not a very good reason for anyone else to join you in that belief, especially if they're criticising some part of it, or are unable to trace it back to any assumptions of their own.
-Jester