Getting down to the root of the matter, you are in favour of the income tax solution because you think it is fairer. Don't forget, I am opposing (in principal) a tax cut (and a considerable one too) because I am one of the few lucky ones. I oppose it, because of the greater good - it benefits more people
Fairer, isn't always better. Take the idea (which I support in principal only) for example. People say that gender shouldn't be a factor in car insurance premiums. Is it fair that women get charged less for car insurance, because they won the gender lottery? Of course not. Is it in everyone's best interests? Yes. If this enforced equality takes place, will men get a discount? No, women will pay more. Okay, until you look at the real world data. In quite a few households, men are the only source of income, and in the majority of the rest, they represent the bigger income. If this fairer car insurance system comes into affect, rather than improving men's lives, it will harm them because they'll be paying more, than the sexual-discriminatory previous system. Men and women will be paying more, and so be poorer. Noone wins, except for batchelors who will have their morale boosted a bit.
The idea is to burden as few a people as possible, not to burden everyone fairly. A fairer tax system that makes many poor people poorer. Is that a good idea?
Oh, one last point (I promise)
Quote:
|
Ok, getting to the roots. If your mate has no money this weekend, do you buy him a beer?No, because if he can't afford a beer so tough doo-dah or yes, cos that's the decent thing to do. Extrapolate that out........
|
It depends, does he
deserve a beer? There are a lot of people I am sure, can't afford a beer - do I have to go out and buy them all beers? What if my mate doesn't deserve a beer, do I still have to buy him a beer, even though I have more than him?
We should help the needy, by all means, but the emphasis should be on people that deserve our help and support - not supporting everyone regardless of the situation.