[jfk13]

In favour of the vast number of low-paid workers who could really use decent employment benefits.

If the trade-off is that the IT guy billing six-figure sums ends up with a bit less cash in his pocket, because he's required to contribute more to the system that takes care of everyone, well... I won't be losing any sleep over that.

[controversy]

You shouldn’t pervert justice just because someone is poor. If you’re ok with not following justice, but rather an emotional sense of vengeance, then why allow income at all? Let the state provide the needs and have the citizens provide the ability? At some point you either have to admit that you’re ok with theft by the state for the greater good or that you have created some arbitrary line in the sand where theft is not linger okay. The second option is hypocritical, but own that too.

[adwn]

> At some point you either have to admit [...] or that you have created some arbitrary line in the sand

Life in a society is full of arbitrary lines in the sand. When is a person allowed to drink alcohol? Where does your lot of land end and your neighbor's begin? How fast are you allowed to drive on this particular piece of road? Why do you consider the tax rate, of all things, to be so arbitrary?

For a functional society, you have to draw the line somewhere. Ideology instead of pragmatism is a recipe for failure. Being pragmatic is not hypocritical.

[controversy]

I actually want to see most of the lines you cite removed. Property lines are not arbitrary they are contractual. Now where the ruling body politic set those contractual lines might be arbitrary but that is beside the point.

You’ve constructed a straw man. You say your view is practical and mine is idealistic. I say yours is idealistic and mine is practical because mine will allow people to practice more freely.

[vidarh]

Equivalently those people on average salaries will tend to think one shouldn't pervert justice to cater for people like us on well above average incomes.