Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services?
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.
Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.