If you use progressive taxation to control the accumulation of wealth, then you might take away the incentive to work. It would be a matter of very fine-tuning. Also, to make the whole system really fair, you'd have to be sure there were no advantages of education given to one group or another.
BobW --- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Doug asks:
>
> > Really - do you think a just society should allow
> some people to
> > coast by on the labor of others?
>
> I do. In fact, I think it's central to my "one
> question political
> test" ...
>
> What is to be one with people who will not or cannot
> work?
>
> It seems to me that there's a certain level that's
> humane and just and
> affordable ... and insufficient for the significant
> majority of people
> who want more than that. But really, I think we're
> at the point where
> there's not enough work to be done by all the people
> we have, so better
> it should be done by people who want to do it -- and
> thus get more than
> whatever the minimum is. But the minimum should be
> way higher than it
> is today.
>
> It would be a bold experiment, but I don't think it
> would be hard to
> figure out what the right level is, and I'm not just
> talking about the
> stigma of that nasty yellow cheese. Housing,
> medical care, food. It
> really shouldn't be that hard to provide that for
> anyone who wants it
> and still encourage those who want more than that to
> keep doing what
> they are doing. You've said it before: it seems
> inconceivable to you
> that there are people who will work for more even
> when they have more
> than they could spend.
>
> So why not take advantage of that instead of
> wondering why?
>
> There's some precedent for it: people paying more
> than their "fair"
> share for things they don't use. Education,
> transportation, emergency
> rooms, homeland security: "rich" people would claim
> they pay too much
> for how much they use, and yet ... there's no tax
> revolt in the US. It
> could go a few steps further, I think.
>
> But it would mean having a cleaned up tax system;
> I've said it before,
> but to recap:
>
> - One tax, a progressive income tax, for the entire
> budget
> - No regressive "payroll" taxes
> - All costs on-budget (no SSA carveouts)
>
> Doug: what's wrong with people who don't want to
> work? Did your mother
> work? Ok, cheap shot: mine did. How about your
> grandmother?
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>