Marginal tax? "Subsidized"? Only according to your ideology, not according to any rational definition of the word. So you won't see this simple fact; that's why our democracies are in increasing peril... As I said, I'm happy to "subsidize" you, via progressive marginal tax rates. If I'm earning more than you, I should pay a higher marginal rate of tax than you....obviously (I accept this is difficult for you grasp, with your belief in the primacy of the individual over community wellbeing*, aka everyman for himself, or there is no such thing as community etc etc * such a belief is as absurd as the Divine Right of Kings; you have just replaced it with the Divine Right of the Individual.
"Should" nothing What's difficult, that you want to get a cut of what others earn, that you think your neighbor owes you something, that you think what's mine is really yours?
Subsidization: legal transfer of funds FROM the commonwealth to specified groups or industries. Taxation: legal contribution by all citizens TO the commonwealth. You propositions above amount to a denial of the common-wealth. Maggie: "there is no such thing as society"; and "socialism eventually runs out of other peoples' money"....but she forgot to add: capitalism eventually runs out of people WITH money (the logical outcome of reward according to ability to compete in "invisible hand" markets). 1. Do I "want to get a cut of what others earn"? No. I accept the legal contribution by all to the commonwealth. 2. Do I "think your neighbour owes you something"? No. I accept the legal contribution by all to the commonwealth. 3. Do I "think what's yours is really mine"? How did you arrive at that absurd proposition... we already know - via your ideology of the primacy of individual liberty above the community welfare, of everyman for himself, of the Divine Right of The Individual....
Ah yes, hiding behind "commonwealth" to support your lust for other people's stuff. Never saw that before
"Lust for other peoples stuff"? No, that's just your own invention, a consequence of your "everyman for himself" ideology, the ugliness of which is now coming into full view. "Commonwealth" Never saw it before? Well its high time you look at it now.
That's not my argument at all: feel free to demonstrate where or how I have claimed "I deserve other people's stuff"? (I'll be interested to see where you go with that....)
That's what supporting progressive tax rates and tax based systems for healthcare and other societal programs means. You don't have to "claim" anything.
Yes, well, no matter how many parasites they are forced to carry on their backs, you can always blame them for not working hard enough or sacrificing enough to satisfy the parasites. If you run faster than your fellows on the treadmill, you may get ahead of them. But if everyone runs faster, the treadmill just goes faster.
I most certainly am. We are all forced to subsidize the privileged -- of which you are so obviously one. It is you who are robbing me, sunshine, and I will thank you to remember it. You are just so accustomed to legally stealing from me and everyone else that when I try to get your hand out of my pocket, you claim it is your pocket, and that the money in it is yours, not mine.
So you are equating "deserving other people's stuff" with progressive taxation. That's an erroneous equation. "Deserving other people's stuff" is your invention. No one has ever put forward that proposition as a general principle. So I ask again, can you NOW demonstrate, in logic, exactly how "deserving other people's stuff" equates to "supporting marginal tax rates", rather than merely asserting that is?
Your treadmill is an abstraction, a literary technique, but nothing more. But carrying on with your neat abstraction, you won't run faster anyway. You'll just petition whore politicians to take from those who have run faster, to give to you.
How do these violence-bent sociopaths consider themselves "liberal"? They are thugs. Nothing more. There is not one policy they advocate that doesn't involve thugs initiating violence against their peaceful neighbors.
So they're basically bandits who want to steal what others have produced? That makes sense, but I don't think the even recognize this. They think they're the "good guys" when they are, in point of actual fact, the thugs and bandits.
Just as I expected (although I'm still disappointed...haven't you got anything to offer?), you merely asserted the proposition (in a slightly different form) as "absolutely accurate", without explaining in logic WHY it is accurate.
I'm surprised you showed up. You still haven't explained how "societal prohibition of violence toward one's neighbour" is possible without rule of law. Nothing to do with "good guys", but everything to do with equitable contribution to the cost of government.
Obviously we need rule of law. I don't believe I ever said that we don't need law. Contributions extorted with truncheons and guns, right?