| 
"Who has the right to state that anyone has reached a point where "society" deems them rich enough and attempt to limit their expansion based on this? That is a lack of freedom." The person with that right is our democracy. Lets take a concrete example. Its the 1930s, the Great Depression has hit, unemployment is clocking at 20%. Many people are below the poverty line, children are malnourished. Are we going to let the rich stay that way because they're lucky? "To generalize that most rich people were born into it is firstly incorrect, and secondly if they are indeed born into it that is their luck, and society has no right to punish them for it." Its not punishment, its equalizing. Just as I believe people should receive compensation if a random (unpredictable) natural disaster/disease afflicts them. If I need surgery to repair my arm after a freak accident, shouldn't I be entitled to some help? We are a civilized society, we should as far as is practical attempt to reduce arbitrary inequalities. I'm all for free market capitalism, in fact, I find the act of striking disgusting and I am for limiting worker's so called 'rights' as much as possible. However, I also think that fairness is extremely important to the legitimacy of capitalism. And it simply isn't fair for people born into poverty to have to pay as much taxes as those born into wealth. The question is, how much more do you pay when you are a X amount richer? You've answered that question by proportinality. Why is proportion fair? By your reasoning, the most fair (not dependent on wealth) would be each person pays the exact same amount.
"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"
|