If we're paying more for our government than we are for our housing and food, we're doing it wrong.
-
Which side of the equation do you put the safety net, which is the biggest share of government spending, and a lot of which pays for food and housing?
Should we pay more for other people's food and housing than we do for our own family's?
-
-
Maybe. e.g., if you are rich and spend millions on food and housing, or if income inequality is tremendous, then a utilitarian rule could plausibly tax some individuals above their food+housing expenditure. I don't understand the basis for these rules.
-
If quality of government services is high, we could conceivably want to spend a very large share of our income on them. How can a categorical statement about spending on food and spending on government be valid? Both are highly heterogeneous in value.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Have you considered higher costs associated with patents vs. taxes? It’s strange to me the amount of worry that goes into public collected taxation vs. privately collected taxation. Desperately need to remember redistributive policies can flow from poor to rich as well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.