Quote:
Originally Posted by JayJamJah
That is so ridiculous. That logic assumes one of two things indisputably.
A) People who make less money are less capable biological then their more fiscally productive counterparts.
B) People should be punished for success.
Which is it?
There is no reason anyone regardless of income should have to pay a higher or lower percentage of the money they earn to the government. The government should have to budget and spend wisely just like the rest of us.
And of course government is inherently corrupt. It is a position of great power people seek great power to A) make use of it B) exploit it
When 50% hell likes say 10% of your applicants are group B some are going to slip through the cracks. Recent history suggests the first number is more accurate then the second.
|
No, the poor are not biologically less able to make money than the rich; they are circumstantially less able to make money from the rich. Someone who comes from a very affluent background has a very easy time of making money compared to someone who's parents are living odd of welfare to be able to afford rent and food since their minimum wage jobs don't cover expenses.
And if you're going to argue technicalities in the issue of government being inherently corrupt, you're doing it wrong.
A government itself is not inherently anything. It is the framework by which the people create a means of controlling a larger body of people. The people who make it up may be corrupt, but no government itself is inherently corrupt, as it can not have any human failings attached to it until there is a human present.