Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It doesn’t become weaker unless you can cogently express a limiting principle to your argument:

- Why isn’t it fair to take 99% of the highest earners’ income?

- Why isn’t it fair to take 50% of the median earner’s income? They, too, drive on roads and send their children to school.



view as:

Another good one: Why is it fair to take X% of earnings made over 2 years, but Y>X % if earned over 1 year, for the same total earnings?

Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.

Instead we should only look to what a taxation regime accomplishes.


> Looking for fairness to me is a fools errand. It’s not even a real thing, nor is it something any 2 people will universally agree on.

Maybe not from a distance, but there are ways for multiple people to come to a fair conclusion. The most basic example are two children who have to share something, where one cuts the thing to be shared, and the other is allowed choice of which half he wants.

The important thing is: incentives for unfairness must be removed. If someone can get ahead by being unfair, they will do so. The only way to get around this is to make sure the people deciding the rules do not know where they'll end up, so they must be as fair as possible to improve their own situation.


Legal | privacy