TheRealMafoo said:
Let ask you this. If I make $300,000 a year, and you take everything I own, am I better off or worse off then the guy who makes $20,000 a year losing everything he owns? I would say making sure those who can't quickly replace the things they need is far more important then those who have the means to recover quickly. |
Well you would value your safety more highly than someone who earns 20k thats for sure. A police force is more valuable to someone whos moved well beyond the basic food, warmth, shelter needs and therefore shouldn't people pay by how much they value something? Even though a police force is a public good and the marginal cost to protect one extra household is minimal, a wealthier household is more likely to want additional protection so why shouldn't they pay extra for the level of protection they desire?
A poorer household has neither the ability or willingness to pay for the same level of protection that a wealthy household does.
Not only that, but the only reason why that wealthy household exists is because they benefit disproportionately from government services. Without basic government services its very unlikely that society would have progressed as far as it has today because the individual acting towards his own best interests does not act towards societies best interests all the time. Would the human, capital and energy concentration of a city like New York exist without 'a' government?
Tease.
