an increase in tax would only create an increase in product prices as the wealthy try to recoup their losses. This would adversely affect the very people you would be trying to help. The middle class whose support you wold require would also be affected negarive and the proposal would be then over turned.
Increasing taxes would not work.
The top 10% of humanity accumulates 30% of the worlds wealth. 20% of the humanity dies from preventable, premature death (and suffers horribly)
The proposition...
10% of the top 10% had all their wealth taken from them (lottery selection process) They are forced to work as hard and effectively as they had previously and were given only enough of the profits they produce to live modestly. They lose everything and work for 5 years and recieve 10% of original wealth back The next 10% of the top 10 % is selected The wealth taken is used to ensure the survival of the 20% dying from preventable premature death.
In this scenario 1% of people are forced to live modestly in order to save up to 20% of humanity. No-one need to kill or be killed.
It would probably be reasonable to say the top 20% of earners would be against this proposal. The majority of the bottom 40% would be in favour. If your reading this you are likely on of the other 40% of humankind who can choose to support or reject the proposal. What would you say?
I am aware there are many holes in the proposition (unintended consequences etc) however this is a hypothetical that is based on a real situation that exists now that we are all contributing to in one way or another.
It appears that we live in a world where not only will most people refuse complicity in a disaster in order to save more lives, but where many people reject outright the idea that they should have any considered set of moral standards for making hard choices at all.
We live in a world where most people refuse complicity in a disaster in order to “maintain a certain quality of life even though it costs many lives”.
Perhaps this is the reason for opting out of answering the question, acting is just to hard. The decision and its consequences is for someone else. For most people this is the life they live. The power to think about and decide what to do in a disasterous situation is always in someone elses hands and is therefore not needed to be considered or contemplated at all.
I see this as one of the worst aspects of centralized power arrangements in communities because “complicity” of all citizens in man made disasters either through direct actions or inaction should be understood and acknowledged by all. Perhaps then prevention or a change in behaviour would produce better outcomes.
Then again, probably not.
I was aware of the many possible negative consequences such an action could have ( and the impossiblity of it ever having a chance of happening) however if there was a majority support across a society above 75% would the basic idea of sacrificing a small number of people to a modest lifestyle in order to save a large number of people be something you could support. Would a bloodbath be triggered with such support. I pose the question and think its a meaninful question because it is in a “general” sense a decision societies and civilization as a whole ( and by extension all individuals) are making every day.
I spend $70 a month on entertainment. If I redirect this money I could save 7 people a month from a preventable premature death. We all make these decisions. If the question was a choice between throwing the fat person in front of the trolley of yourself in order to save people which would you prefer.
Also remember it is the “fat person” or wealthy that propels the trolley into these people to varying degrees.