Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf it were the same for everyone we'd each owe X dollars, after you've paid that it's all yours, what a fantastic incentive we'd see some productive effort then, rather than whipping people more and more just because they're doing well.
The principle of equality before the law is trivially satisfied because the tax laws are the same for everyone.
Originally posted by WajomaNo. The laws concerning murder are the same for everyone, but not everyone is convicted of murder.
If it were the same for everyone we'd each owe X dollars, after you've paid that it's all yours, what a fantastic incentive we'd see some productive effort then, rather than whipping people more and more just because they're doing well.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't believe this has anything to do with "special protection", I only believe we should be consistent on our support for values and principles such as that of equality under the law. Like I said many times in the past, the heinous concept of "social justice" is nothing but an euphemism for the worst kinds of arbitrary justice, the persecution of certain groups by ideological thugs is not only in total contradiction with the principles of an equitable society but are additionally bound to be disastrous in the long term.
Why do the affluent get special protection in the ideal conservative economy?
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoThis is what you wrote:
I don't believe this has anything to do with "special protection", I only believe we should be consistent on our support for values and principles such as that of equality under the law. Like I said many times in the past, the heinous concept of "social justice" is nothing but an euphemism for the worst kinds of arbitrary justice, the persecution of ce ...[text shortened]... iples of an equitable society but are additionally bound to be disastrous in the long term.
My support for such system is based on its practicality rather than its principle of social justice, and Im sure other conservatives here will agree with me that ultimately the search should be for a system which works more effectively while not being too restrictive on the more affluent.
Here is my paraphrase:
My support for an economic system is based on it's practicality rather than any moral principles. The conservative way is to search for an economic system which works more "effectively" - as long as we make sure not to "restrict" the more affluent.
You have a clause at the end specifically intended to protect the affluent, even at the expense of the "effectiveness" of the economy. What did you mean by that? I don't see any similar clause for the poor. Why do you think the affluent should get special attention from conservatives even at the expense of the economy?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUnder a system of progressive taxation the tax burden on the less affluent is already alleviated, hence there is no need for a statement on the subject (of any protection of the less affluent). I don't believe the existence of reasonable tax rates necessarily hinders the effectiveness of the economy, on the contrary, it stimulates individuals to spend more and opens the door wide open to all kinds of investments, ultimately necessary for a prosperous market.
This is what you wrote:
My support for such system is based on its practicality rather than its principle of social justice, and Im sure other conservatives here will agree with me that ultimately the search should be for a system which works more effectively while not being too restrictive on the more affluent.
Here is my paraphrase:
...[text shortened]... uent should get special attention from conservatives even at the expense of the economy?