The Next Big Crash - Are You Prepared?

[freedom]

^^^ Agree... that's part of the self-enlightened interest process

In short you don't believe in cross subsidising while I think the able should help the less able. Not to the extent that it becomes unsustainable.

What you are saying is not true. The able ones already subsidise the less able ones by paying higher tax. But how much more should the able ones subsidise the less able ones? Or how much are you proposing as a threshold for sustainability?

Or another question, how does the able ones subsidising more to the less able ones benefit the society as a whole? Transferring wealth from the able ones to the less able ones does not produce wealth. No significant amount of money is hidden under someone's pillow. Not transferring additional money from the able ones to the less able ones does not prevent the money from circulating in the system.

My ultimate goal for the government is not to transfer or distribute wealth(that's a small part of their job scope, as most people are able to provide for themselves), but to provide a platform for everyone to utilize their ability to contribute to the society(the most important job scope).

Paying higher tax in absolute terms or %? I think it is right that the rich has to pay higher % of tax. You know the system is wrong when the tea lady pays a higher tax. And as discussed, poor spend much more on their consumption and food... so when we talk about higher tax rates, I'm talking about the % tax vs total income, including consumption tax and passive income... not just a simple tax rate.

You are misled by the phrase "transfer of wealth". When the able help the less able to fish, the society as a whole benefits. In physiological terms, if a disabled is able to walk and take care of himself, we will be able to free up resource for caretakers. And the disabled can contribnute to societies in ways we cannot phantom. That is unleashing the human potential

Wealth per se has to be created by one's innovativeness and hard work. This is the basis of meritocracy which I have no issue with. But we need to help those less fortunate to at least stand up to be on a fair platform to compete... am not suggesting getting them a ferrari to ride. I believe the children of the poor are just as smart as the rich if we can unleash the potentials by creating a better environment. I don't believe our potential (not smarts) is determined by genes, but by opportunities and environment. I believe people don't choose to be sick but wants a better life if they have a plausible go at it.

But if the society don't help them, those are massive opportunities lost. And the society might just be the loser. Steve Jobs wouldn't have a chance in Singapore's system. So was Sim Wong Hoo. But both flourished in US where opportunities and environment help even those who have nothing.

I realize that often our discussion derails to somewhere I believe non-essential.

In most of my discussion, I ignore those disabled ones. The disabled ones are really the minority in the society, less than 1%, I guess. They are well taken care and do not consume most of the government spending. I am not including the elder/retired ones, they are supposed to be mostly funded by themselves when they were young and able. The less able ones I refer to are those unemployed adults or those adults who "give up" their seek of employment.

Another question from me is that how more consumption on basic need and food benefits the society more than the business investment made by the riches? I heard the argument too many times, but I haven't seen a convincing argument yet. My simple understanding is that the human/society progress centers on technology and investment, which are not basic consumption or food.

Ultimately, if we trace the owners of the tax revenue, mostly are still from the riches. The riches do business investment, which creates jobs and income for the general population, which enables them to pay payroll tax and other taxes and consume other products and services. Of course, I am not saying that the riches provides 100% of the tax revenue. But the origin of the tax revenue often traces back to the riches partly. Or think from another perspective. If we remove the business investment from the riches, the economy provided by the government is much smaller, so is the tax revenue.