I'm not sure how it would work for vacations, since it's kind of your job as the contractor to earn enough to set aside your own vacation time. Parental leave should be administered as a public insurance pool that ICs pay into through self-employment taxes.
I think they want the government to provide those, rather than employers. If society decides that this is the bare minimum someone should have, then society should provide it.
Also known as people and organizations paying their fair share.
Please. I'd love to redistribute my wealth to subsidize people's healthcare instead of subsidizing a tiny minority's bank account. Because that's what my low tax rates are doing right now - that and bombs.
> One idea behind "ability to pay" is that those who have enjoyed success should be willing to give back a little more to the society that helped make that success possible.
The idea of 'ability to pay' rubs some people the wrong way. On its face, some view it is "take more from the rich" without any underlying principle, much less any notion of fairness.
However, there is an underling principle that (imperfectly) justifies ability-to-pay taxation. It goes like this:
1. People profit from society unequally
2. This profit is often largely to rule of law and societal spending (i.e. public education, infrastructure, etc)
3. Therefore, tax the people who reap the benefits at a higher rate
To be fair, a moral philosopher should be prepared to defend why a higher rate is warranted -- as opposed to simply a higher total amount. I'm going to skip this aspect for now.
There are many ways to implement a tax based on whatever fairness criteria you choose. For example:
> Most taxes can be divided into three buckets: taxes on what you earn, taxes on what you buy, and taxes on what you own.
I'd like to see more public debate about asset versus income taxes -- however; tracking assets tends to be viewed as more difficult than tracking income.
Also, one could add 'taxes based on what you do' ... but these are often called 'fees'; e.g. driver license fees.
Two or your comments are "SCI-FI_AUTHOR's world incoming". I must be missing something. This is supposed to be related? Funny? Perhaps you can take the time to explain what you mean.
Have you read moral philosophy or political economy? I'm not saying these are the only way to approach the ideas, but at least these provide a common ground for discussion.
I guess I just didn't think references to Avancs and Grindylow and Mosquito people to be all that relevant to the discussion. But to your point, I have read some Mieville.
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
This quote assumes that what held true for most of history holds true today, when machines and computers can complete the tasks necessary for ensuring the flourishing of our species orders of magnitude more efficiently than ever before. Why should we assume that poverty would be the normal condition of man today?
> Why should we assume that poverty would be the normal condition of man today?
Because if it wasn't for a complex network of trading & specialization, we would be in poverty. That network uses trade & profits to organize itself. Those machines and computers you cite are created and maintained by people who are seeking to make themselves wealthy. None of this is a given.
Free trade and specialization is what gives us the abundance we have today. Your average North Korean or Venezuelan standard of living is what you would observe if you forced people away from free trade & specialization.
I don't think people appreciate how delicate supply chains are, or how much starving and poverty would happen if trade was disrupted.
Indeed, but I also think that such a system also depends on having a civil society and a number of other things that are provided by society as a whole: The entitlement of corporations (e.g., liability limitation), the modern money system, and a relatively prosperous consumer class providing demand for goods and services. We're living on top of a huge pile of what can only be described as technology.
Consider cell phones. The richest person in the world could not have a phone that they can carry in their pocket and make a call to another rich friend from anywhere in the world, if not for the widespread consumer demand that drove the construction of the cell phone system.
I'd like to mention an important argument for some degree of wealth distribution:
A skewed wealth distribution monetary has a tendency to corrupt both government and markets. Therefore, it is in society's interest to prevent high levels of inequality. (I'm assuming some flavor of a representative democracy paired with some degree of capitalism.)
To some, this feels like a rather blunt instrument. Many, of course, advocate for more targeted policies: regulation of mergers, inter-generational wealth taxes, campaign finance reform. In my view, all of the above sound good, in practice, because making progress is hard work.
Not all wealth redistribution is equal. There are a number of areas of wealth disparity I would not mind seeing flattened a bit in the interest of societal well-being. Some of those would come at my own expense as an upper middle class homeowner. A lot would come at the expense of the wealthy and corporate tax shelters. You don't necessarily need the kind of taxes you see in prosperous EU countries to make meaningful improvements here.
To use the playing field analogy, leveling the playing field could mean one team does not get an unfair advantage in the game. I agree the reward for winning or losing should not be the same. But winner takes all is not good either.
