|
|
|
|
|
|
by kip_
4961 days ago
|
|
|
The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income, don't you think that person should be paying more than a 1/(population of the United States) share of the taxes? |
|
|
I don't understand this argument. The infrastructure benefits everyone. The opportunity to succeed from that infrastructure is available to everyone. The road that leads to the grocery store benefits the grocer and the countless consumers who use it. Who gets the better side of the bargain and how do you determine the magnitude of that inequality?
If anything, public infrastructure tends to help the little guy. Historically, when public services weren't provided, the rich paid for their own needed infrastructure, protective services, etc. Those services were geared exclusively to help the wealthy land owners. If you got protection from the watch patrolling the nearby keep, you were lucky because they weren't really there for you.