...I got in an argument with a fellow about fare collectors.  Anyway, 
that's not the interesting part.

What really made me stop and think was when I realized that most 
everyone agrees that things "should" be "fair", but disagree what "fair" 
means.

To one camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same price for the same 
service.  Ie, a gallon of gas costs Donald Trump the same X dollars as 
Joe Blow next door.  Since it's X for both guys, it's "fair".

To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage* 
of their income for certain goods.  I pay X% of my income in taxes for 
the benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%.  Since 
X is the same, it's "fair".

I don't see how the second group can honestly support an economy based 
on hard work, innovation, or success.  Yet, every time someone suggests 
a tax as a solution for a problem, that's essentially the argument 
they're using.

"Bill Nigh has lots more money than I do, so why *shouldn't* he pay more 
for his electricity than I do?" type arguments.

Someone mentioned in Warp's thread on Music that it's just as much a 
crime to rob the rich as it is the poor(3).  Yet, Americans love 
"Rooting for the underdog", and look for any possibility of "sticking it 
  to the man."  The general idea, of course, is that it's a "noble" 
thing to take advantage of the success of others, and no great sin to do 
them wrong.  As if the fact of their success excuses our pettiness 
towards them.




(1) Of course, whether or not the roads are really that good is very 
questionable, especially around here...

(2) I'm well aware that the extremely rich could end up paying vastly 
different amounts of taxes compared to what I pay, but I don't see the 
point in complaining that someone only pays 10% taxes, totaling 
millions, when I pay around 30%, totaling a few thousand.

(3) I wish the Democrats would get over their "Robin Hood" mentality and 
figure this out.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message