Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seretogis
As far as "overly simplistic" views in general, freedom and dedication to espousing its virtues is very simple indeed. It is when issues are clouded with unnecessary [and ultimately immoral] complexity that freedoms are taken away and replaced with conditional "freedoms." Taking earned property (taxing) one group in order to provide for the well-being of another is immoral, and a very simple issue. It is only when the issue is muddled with ridiculous rhetoric ("What about the one-legged pregnant single mother who can't provide for herself?") and induction of guilt (Christianity and other self-destroying ideologies) that those in favor of the infinite ballooning of government can hope to win.
|
No, suppose you can tax everyone for about 20% of their income, and use that money to generate an additional 5% per year economic growth.
After 4 years, everyone is as well off as if they didn't have the 20% tax. After 5 years, they are better off. Etc.
Or what about a 20% tax that increases the average income by 50%, in a highly distributed manner? (it could easily be the case that 20% of the nation's income could provide for cheap and difficult to meter resources, like high quality roads, water purification, and sewage. You know, "public goods".)
As an aside, what do you base your morality on?
Are your claims about morality based off economics, or off gut feeling, or philosophical thoughts?
Just wondering if you have some useful information for me to learn!