Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
First, it is important to define the nature of the two sides. The two opposing viewpoints are producers vs. the needy. The argument for things such as universal healthcare, welfare, social security etc. is that the recipients have needs. It is quite clear what the needy receive from the compromise; but in what way do the producers benefit?
|
Speaking as a "producer" - one who for most of his working career has been in a higher than average tax bracket (though by no means rich) - I have no issues paying my fair share so that society as a whole is bettered.
In part, this is due to the fact that - as a human being with some degree of compassion for those who have less than most - I feel "good" about helping my fellow man, and feel a tax system that directs funds to social programs is the best, most efficeitn way to do this.
I also recognize that if the lower income earners of society were left with nothing, no net, crime would be likely to rise, and people would get sicker and die younger - all of which damages society as a whole.