Think of it like this. Imagine three people wanting to look over a fence to see a parade: a short person, a middling person and a tall person. If we find a box of exactly the same size for each of them to stand on, then the short person still can't see over the fence, and the tall person has a great view. That's "fair" because we made sure each of them had the same size box — but the short person is left staring at the fence.
Then imagine if we gave two boxes to the short person, and the tall person just stood on the ground. Each person could see the parade because we made sure that we took their individual needs into account. That's being fair, too.
So which sort of fairness is best? Treating everyone exactly the same or treating people according to their needs? The right of politics prefers people to be treated the same. The left thinks we ought to take some account of individual needs so everyone can get a fair go.
I hope at least some of her students have the wits to point out that height is an accident of birth. I am myself the person who would need two boxes to see over the fence.
But in real life I've never be needy in terms of tax redistribution because before marriage I was almost constantly employed. After marriage we had children we could afford, didn't spend what we didn't have, and have stayed together.
Some degree of good fortune, maybe. But where people fall in the "individual needs" stakes is very much influenced by factors within their control. Unlike race, gender or ... height.
12 comments:
And so what happens to the middlesized person? He gives up his box to the shorter man but he himself cant see over the fence unless he keeps jumping up and down for a fleeting glimpse.
So it is with taxation.. the rich and the poor often make common cause to rob the middle man.
JC
Fairless - less than 10% of Kiwis paying for everything for everyone else
Paying for food. Paying for housing. Paying for education. Paying for housing. Paying for super, Paying for KiwiStealer. Paying for "interest free loans" (really, interest paid by nett taxpayers).
Paying paying paying paying paying
And even Jamie Whyte has said more about incest than he has about the fact that a majority of Kiwis and a vast majority of nett taxpayers want the welfare state to end
All income over $100,000 should be tax free.
And stupid MSM communist pundits wonder why half the country won't vote.
Income is not normally distributed.
There is not one short one medium one tall person.
There are ninety "short" people - bludgers.
There are nine "medium" people - one box each.
There is one "tall" person - with ten boxes.
That is the mathematical reality of income and wealth in NZ. And communist like this say let the middle person keep their box, all ten boxes off the tall person, smash half them into pieces and burn them, then give give boxes to one of short people - the Labour party / Union rep.
I would argue that it is not the government's job to provide a box for anyone...it's the government's job to watch our back while we procure our own box.
There is, afterall, nothing to stop a decent tall person from aiding a short person in need - help in finding a box, a set of shoulders to sit on, etc.
nothing to stop a decent tall person from aiding a short person in need
there's one tall person for every 90 short people.
I would argue that it is not the government's job to provide a box for anyone
In which case, your political views are apparently so far off he scale that they are shared by no political party in NZ, including ACT or the now-defunct libz
Russell in her example includes the taxation of children at the same rate as adults to the tune of $6250 obviously to make the counter argument seem futile.
She forgets entirely that the taxation system we have right now is far from fair because it is adapted by clever accountants.
Flat tax ensures everyone wins because it taps into human nature to obtain more. Boxes for everyone.
Russell in her example includes the taxation of children at the same rate as adults to the tune of $6250 obviously to make the counter argument seem futile.
Sounds like a damn fine argument to me.
Kein Arbeit, Kein Essen.
Kein Gelt, Kein Kinder.
She forgets entirely that the taxation system we have right now is far from fair because it is adapted by clever accountants.
No, it's far for fair because so-called rich - the 10% of nett taxpayers pay for everything for everyone else!
Flat tax ensures everyone wins because it taps into human nature to obtain more. Boxes for everyone.
Also long as its a true flat tax - say $5000 for everyone, not a "proportional tax" of like 25% or 33% or 60%; not a hidden tax like petrol tax or GST or taxes on fags; a not a tax that pays for a cent of "welfare" for anyone.
Boxes for everyone
You don't get it. There isn't enough money for boxes for everyone. There just isn't.
The problem with decades of NZ policy is that the discussion revolves around fighting over who should get what slice of the pie. Who should get which of 3 boxes. All the time other countries are making more boxes. They are creating more wealth and relatively speaking NZ is not.
Russell neglects to mention that she expects the medium person to give his box to a 4th person as payment for the 'service' of taking the box from the tall person and giving it to the short person. Whereas there is nothing to stop the short person or even all 3 of them from making 20 boxes and telling the 4th person to piss off and do something productive to create wealth.
actually one person brings her own box, so the other two vote to introduce a tax on privately owned boxes to provide boxes for themselves. Not only is that fair, its democratic.
Post a Comment