TirithRR wrote:
Well, the force behind that punch is the same, regardless of what your target is (the "buying power). See? But the harm done by that force changes based on who it hits.
Only because you are defining "harm" relative to total wealth. Again, that's the very assumption I disagree with, so using an analogy that assumes this is true doesn't really clear things up.
Quote:
If some local government decided that driving a car to work each day resulted in a 100 dollar a week fine, I could pay that and continue getting to work easily. I make enough that while I would not enjoy it, it would not hurt me nearly as much as it would my mother who makes significantly less than me. And if the goal was to make people stop doing "X" (in this case, driving a car each day), then it would not deter me from doing so, but would probably deter a person who really needs that 100 dollars. (Imagining a scenario where one cannot circumvent this fine, assume 100% enforcement). You can afford the fine, it makes the punishment a relative slap on the wrist, and doesn't create the same deterrent effect, because the relative harm is not the same, even though the amount of the fine is the same.
Again, the harm is identical. Some people can handle more harm, is all. I know that may seem like a mere semantic difference, but I happen to think it represents a significant difference in how one views relative wealth/value/currency/etc. As I've said a few times, the reason why you might teach someone to view monetary harm as relative to relative wealth is to make that person more easily accept higher taxes on wealthy people. It's about manipulating people by changing the language.
If it wasn't a significant difference then why argue it so vehemently? It's like some people need to believe that they aren't really doing more harm to someone just because that person pays more dollars in taxes. The next question you might want to ask yourself is: Why would someone want me to believe that? What policies does that make me more willing to accept as "fair"? Why not just admit that the person paying twice as many dollars in tax is being harmed twice as much? It's what's actually happening, right? I'll suggest (again) that this semantic difference is entirely about making it easier for you to support higher tax rates on "the rich", ironically under the guise of it somehow being "fair".
It's not fair. Not at all. That doesn't mean that we can't (and even maybe should) have an unfair tax system. But lets be honest that we're taxing some people more than others and move forward from there. The need to deny that this is what we're doing is somewhat amusing, but also kinda scary. Like I keep saying, this looks to me like a tool for denial. Nothing more.
