> 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.
