On Sunday 25 March 2007 16:41, ken barber wrote:
> although i do think no tax at all is better.
>
> why should distributing wealth be one of the purposes
> of taxes?
> i agree that it is, but why should it be?
>

Hi Ken,

Is it not a duty (as a member of the human race) to consider "others" as well 
as ourselves? (I know you will agree). ;-)

The fact I have a comfortable life has very little to do with whatever meagre 
talents I may have been born with, and an awful lot to do with 
the "circumstances" of my life, i.e. my upbringing, education, family wealth 
& influence ("class" as this is the UK!!), health, and serendipitous 
opportunities. All things over which I had very little control.

Just as it would be false for me to claim much credit for my wealth, equally, 
someone with a much less comfortable life should not be "blamed" for that 
fact.

Given that too great an inequality in society is inevitably destructive, 
leading either to social unrest (crime, revolution, war), or loss of freedoms 
(as the State attempts to quell social unrest), a healthy society should 
ensure the gap between rich and poor is kept at an equitable balance. Direct 
taxation of wealth and high public spending on education, health, and 
welfare, is the most efficient way to redistribute this wealth.

Cheers

Deri

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy