Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Almost no liberal believes in absolute equality of wealth, but since money buys opportunity, it's ridiculous to say that the current system is anything resembling equal opportunity.
I'm not saying the current system is providing equal opportunity. I don't even think equal opportunity is theoretically possible in a society of any scale at all. Actual equal opportunity is and always will be unobtainable given the different family and personal circumstances everyone will experience.
I even agree that the most efficient path toward equal opportunity is through equality of wealth, but I do not believe this is fair to those who have grown their own wealth and it is least fair to those who have diverged upwards in wealth from the average of their opportunity.
My argument against wealth redistribution relies on my personal preference to react to historical inequality with fair and equal current policies, but not to harm those who succeeded under the system of unequal opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ludacris
Supposing that one does support government funded childcare, education, and healthcare: Why isn't a progressive tax system 'equal' considering the marginal utility of money? Taxing money as a function of utility is more equitable than taxing a flat percent.
This is a fair point. There is still no reason for tiers rather than dynamic percentages if that is your goal. You also have a bit of an issue with the fact that every individual will have somewhat different curves. I guess the fairness of taxing it based on dollars vs. utility is all a framing and perspective issue. I could see myself considering both fair and equal in their own ways.