If you’re assuming that taxes are otherwise just a constant portion of your income, or really any tax system that’s specified to be the same in both cases, then there is a difference. However, the two systems are the same modulo tax method. In other words, in one case the homeless guy gets money from Bull’s land, and in the other he gets money from welfare.
Nope, not the same with the addition of welfare either. People on welfare often face effective tax rates in excess of 100% - if they start working and making money, they lose benefits worth more than their incremental income.
I don’t understand.
Perhaps the government has such license from you, but they don’t have it from me, or a great many other people.
People on welfare often face effective tax rates in excess of 100%
That is a problem with how welfare is currently done. It would still be welfare if they didn’t do it like that. I’d just implement it as taxes going into the negatives.
Perhaps the government has such license from you, but they don’t have it from me, or a great many other people.
So, they’re not allowed to collect income tax from you?
That is a problem with how welfare is currently done. It would still be welfare if they didn’t do it like that. I’d just implement it as taxes going into the negatives.
Yes, if it were very different than what it is, it could the same as something it currently is different from.
Here’s what you said originally:
It has the license to just take what it wants in the form of taxes. I would expect that to work as a license to keep what it wants.
Here’s my response:
Perhaps the government has such license from you, but they don’t have it from me, or a great many other people.
Your last question just doesn’t follow at all. Where did I suggest they’re not allowed to collect income tax from me?
Yes, if it were very different than what it is, it could the same as something it currently is different from.
My point is, they’re allowed to do taxes and welfare however they want. Unless you’re suggesting limiting their power in that regard, the difference between something you consider just and something you consider unjust is something you are okay with them doing.
Your last question just doesn’t follow at all. Where did I suggest they’re not allowed to collect income tax from me?
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The government is allowed to take income tax from you. Since they are already allowed to take money from you, it doesn’t much matter if they’re allowed to withhold giving something to you.
Looking at the rest of the conversation, it’s possible you were referring to the fact that they can only take income tax if you have an income, so your version is essentially different in that it establishes a minimum amount that the government has to do for poor people.
If you’re assuming that taxes are otherwise just a constant portion of your income, or really any tax system that’s specified to be the same in both cases, then there is a difference. However, the two systems are the same modulo tax method. In other words, in one case the homeless guy gets money from Bull’s land, and in the other he gets money from welfare.
I don’t understand.
Nope, not the same with the addition of welfare either. People on welfare often face effective tax rates in excess of 100% - if they start working and making money, they lose benefits worth more than their incremental income.
Perhaps the government has such license from you, but they don’t have it from me, or a great many other people.
That is a problem with how welfare is currently done. It would still be welfare if they didn’t do it like that. I’d just implement it as taxes going into the negatives.
So, they’re not allowed to collect income tax from you?
Yes, if it were very different than what it is, it could the same as something it currently is different from.
Here’s what you said originally:
Here’s my response:
Your last question just doesn’t follow at all. Where did I suggest they’re not allowed to collect income tax from me?
My point is, they’re allowed to do taxes and welfare however they want. Unless you’re suggesting limiting their power in that regard, the difference between something you consider just and something you consider unjust is something you are okay with them doing.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The government is allowed to take income tax from you. Since they are already allowed to take money from you, it doesn’t much matter if they’re allowed to withhold giving something to you.
Looking at the rest of the conversation, it’s possible you were referring to the fact that they can only take income tax if you have an income, so your version is essentially different in that it establishes a minimum amount that the government has to do for poor people.