Is wealth in fewer hands better than "spreading the wealth around"?

[Kantor]

Squilliam said:

It depends on ones perspective.

Socialism / Capitalism are not diametrically opposed ideas. We know that unrestrained socialism would never work and we know that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work either. Both have been tried.

Anyway the real question seems to be one of taxation. Do you support a progressive tax system? That seems to be the bulk of what is really being discussed because that is the primary method in recent times of spreading the wealth around. I support progressive taxation because those whom are taxed more heavily are the ones whom benefit disproportionately more from the government and its services.

 

The trouble is that, at least in the UK, they're not.

State schools are, of course, paid for by the government. Somebody with a lower income will be far less likely to send their child to a private school, because they simply cannot afford it. Somebody with a high income may still send their child to state school, but this would naturally become less common the higher up the income ladder you travel.

And then, the NHS. The fact that it somehow manages to spend £70 billion every year and get precisely nothing done, ignores several serious conditions and often puts you on year-long waiting lists means that, again, the wealthy usually opt for private insurance. Those who earn less will probably not take private insurance, because it is an expense they cannot afford.

So, actually, the government gets more tax from people who take less advantage of the system.

I am a believer in progressive taxation, but I think it's ridiculous that the government is planning to raise the no-tax threshold to £10,000 without considering the fact that the starting rate is probably higher than in any other country in the world, and the higher rate is a ridiculous 40%, and begins at £40,000.