[weberc2]

> just because they pay a lot doesn't mean they pay enough

So how do we fairly determine what is 'enough'?

[GunboatDiplomat]

Enough that the country isn't constantly running massive deficits, and can afford to invest properly in infrastructure and other needed areas. Which we're clearly not doing right now.

[goobsfoo]

So cut costs and your problem is solved.

[GunboatDiplomat]

That is not compatible with our necessary infrastructure investments, etc.

[weberc2]

This presupposes our existing expenses are all necessary.

[Frondo]

Through discussions. Debates. Elections. Hooray democracy!

[weberc2]

We've been discussing, debating, and voting about taxes and wealth distribution for hundreds of years. If the solution were so simple, wouldn't you expect the problem to be solved by now?

[Frondo]

Well, no. This is a problem that will never be solved, because it's not a problem with a single "correct" solution.

Each new generation has to hash it out for ourselves, the kind of society we want to build. The work is never done.

[weberc2]

So the OP says what society decides isn't fair, and you say that fairness is decided by society. It seems like there should be a less paradoxical way to reason about this.

[Latty]

Through debate, discussion, weighing up the pros and cons, and testing. We have tested our current set-up, and clearly it doesn't work for a large portion of society - now we alter it.

[LanceH]

More.

From "them."