[vdaniuk]

This argument doesn't have merit. Tragedy of commons/game theory provides us the basis to understand that individual/group efforts are insufficient. Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

Advocating for across the board changes for everyone is a more efficient strategy.

[powertower]

> Voluntary donations to government from well-meaning individuals will put them at a disadvantaged position against those who are not concerned with the well-being of the others.

The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

What I'm point out is hypocrisy.

[vdaniuk]

>The people that hold your position also say that the privileged can't be disadvantaged.

Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate please?

[powertower]

I work for myself, and after I pay my taxes, I have about 2-5K left in my bank account. Then I live month-to-month from what I take in and what I chip away at.

If he can afford to pay more taxes, if he makes so much more than I, he can't be disadvantaged to me or the rest of us who can't afford to pay more taxes - by paying what he claims he wants to (but yet does not).

[vdaniuk]

>he can't be disadvantaged

The point is not that they are disadvantaged in absolute terms, but in comparison to those who value profit above all else. Voluntary gifts to gov diminishes relative power of those more compassionate and increases relative influence of those who are less inclined to help others.

Also, the increase in taxation in question could be applied only at the top of income ranges.

Moreover, if you have $2-5K left in your bank account you may be considered privileged by some standards.