Of Social Programs

Would you be okay with everyone paying higher taxes if it meant better social programs?

  • Total voters
    36
I live in Québec so I basically already have this and I'm all for it.

To be clear the best system isn't one where everyone pays higher taxes to fund these social programs. The taxes should be levied from those who can most afford to pay them.

 
Canbec said:
To be clear the best system isn't one where everyone pays higher taxes to fund these social programs. The taxes should be levied from those who can most afford to pay them.
Click to expand...
This, pretty much.

I'd consider it a success if all or most people can get services for less than they would if they had to shop for them on the open market.

 
I must respectfully disagree with the above comments from an ideological standpoint.  The only fair tax rate is a flat one.  However the complexities of the tax systems I'm familiar with would prevent it being fair.  Therefore a carefully designed progressive system with attention to closing loopholes, all with a view to flattening it out as much as possible is the way to go imo.

As an aside I think it a travesty that anyone needs to seek aid/intervention from a government rather than their family and/or community, though unfortunately many such instances occur.  Regardless, I do not begrudge anyone a single cent of government support should they be in need or otherwise entitled.  Better off in the hands of the public than the government's inept mits. 

 
I'd happily pay more for a better safety net for those in need, better health care system that isn't the leading cause of personal bankruptcies, etc.  The problem is systemic waste in government problems due to the lack of incentive to ensure efficiency.  There are a lot of layers to this including fair taxation, loopholes exploited by by wealthier people with access to advisors/better advisors relative to those who are less affluent, etc.  Great question!

 
Etat said:
As an aside I think it a travesty that anyone needs to seek aid/intervention from a government rather than their family and/or community, though unfortunately many such instances occur. 
Click to expand...
At what point does "community" end and "government" begin? Maybe those of us who favor government safety nets just view them as a more formalized community support structure, with economies of scale built in.

 
Yes. But I'd also prefer it if a) existing social programs were made to be more efficient and b) there was a progressive tax system where wealthy people pay more than they currently do.

 
Lets face it, most of the rich and the super rich don't care about anything but getting richer and spending stupid amounts of money on stupid shit. Elon Musk spent $44 billion on twitter just so he could swing his dick some more when he could have made a much bigger impact by spending a couple of billion to fund social programs and helped so many people in need, especially in current times. 

 
Marcus Aurelius said:
At what point does "community" end and "government" begin? Maybe those of us who favor government safety nets just view them as a more formalized community support structure, with economies of scale built in.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting question.  I think the differences between community and government can be best looked at from the perspective of voluntarism.  There is also an unique power differential between the citizen and the state wholly in favour of the state.  It is not that I do not wish formal safety nets for those who need them, though the use of the term safety net suggests a relationship with the government that I cannot abide...that of ongoing paternalism.

 
Who Me said:
Lets face it, most of the rich and the super rich don't care about anything but getting richer and spending stupid amounts of money on stupid shit. Elon Musk spent $44 billion on twitter just so he could swing his dick some more when he could have made a much bigger impact by spending a couple of billion to fund social programs and helped so many people in need, especially in current times. 
Click to expand...
Ngl, I'd say he has no obligation to donate anything at all. The thing that makes me dislike the super rich is that people with that kind of money have effective monopolies over an industry/stomp out competition and usually exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes too.

 
Back
Top