(no subject)

Date: 2007-05-23 08:19 am (UTC)
kjn: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kjn
Well, the second disagreement really needed another clause, that of the marginal value of money. That is, the value of each part of your income for personal means diminishes once a certain threshold has been reached (which is basic living expenses of a good standard). A 10% wage increase would be valuable to me, given my current modest wage - it'd immediately increase the standard of living and economic safety for me and my family. However, for the very rich, the only thing a 10% increase can do is either increase gratutious spending or put on the pile, doing no good whatsoever[1].

The same is true on basically every income level, and so it makes sense for the state to take that money just lying in a pile, doing no good whatsoever, and put it to actual use.

The next thing to consider is that the majority of the total taxes will be paid by the middle class. Each will not pay very much, but there're plenty of them (if you only have poor and very rich, then the poor get seriously screwed). You have to get them onto the tax system, and the best way to do that is to tax the rich - a lot.

[1] This is where the amazing expansion of the capitalist economy is hidden. The capitalists can use that extra money by investing it, and thus make even more money. But right now we're talking personal money only, not capital.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
No Subject Icon Selected
More info about formatting

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 10:21 am