[Kibalchich]

Aspiringlawstudent appears to be one of those parasites that doesn't want to contribute anything to society.

[thenumber2goose]

(Original post by miser)
Because rich people are allowed to be rich by society because a system of wealth is generally considered beneficial to that society. Aside from that there are various arguments for taxing rich people - all of them utilitarian to some degree or another. For example, there is the economic argument that the economy is better off if you tax people with a low propensity to spend (rich people) and distribute that money to people with a high propensity to spend (poor people), and there is the argument from social mobility that by taxing rich people, poor people are able to be provided more equal opportunities. Then there's the argument that Marx set out, "from each according to his ability." Another is the argument that by taxing rich people to a greater degree than poor people, society is able to bring about greater social equality, which has been shown to increase a society's average quality of life. The argument that convinces me the most, though, is the first one that I mentioned - that as a society, we as a collective must decide what is best for ourselves. Rights to land, property, posessions, etc. - they're not magically endowed upon us by virtue of existence, the same as they aren't to other animals. These rights are endowed to us by virtue of us granting them to ourselves, because we collectively agree that this is a sensible system under which to govern ourselves.

What does that argument mean? I've heard the phrase before, but I never really understood it. Thanks.

[miser]

(Original post by thenumber2goose)
What does that argument mean? I've heard the phrase before, but I never really understood it. Thanks.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an idea that Marx put forward that means that each person should contribute to society in accordance with how much they are reasonably able to do so, and each person should receive benefits from society in accordance with how much they are reasonably said to require those benefits. The most obvious example is taxes - rich people are able to contribute more money than poor people (and so they are to be taxed more), and poor people require more financial help than rich people (and so for example are provided with council housing and other benefits). Another example is socialised healthcare, where tax money is contributed by everyone in order to cover the medical costs of treating people that become ill. The idea was part of Marx's ideas for communism in the late 19th century.

[TimHuak]

because who else is going to pay for my free stuff OP?

[unclej]

(Original post by A.sniper)
Perhaps she should of thought of that, BEFORE SHE HAD KIDS. The business owner worked extremely hard to get to his position and can now enjoy the benefits.

The opportunity is there for EVERYONE, if you don't see it, you don't deserve it.

I'm sure you worked very hard to be born into a wealthy family and had the same opportunities and support as children born into poverty

[Rainbow Stalin]

Why should they pay the same amount of tax as those who they extract surplus value from?

You should be grateful the demands posed by the mainstream political "left" are as flimsy and pathetic as progressive marginal income taxation