If their use of public goods and services are greater that people making less money, is that use at a rate that would justify taking 70% of their income? Sincerely curious....
Your mental model of taxes is wrong, or at least unconventional.
Taxes aren't a bill for public services personally consumed. For instance, we don't charge poor welfare recipients more tax because they use more services, and to do so would be nonsensical. Taxes typically also serve an economic leveling function.
I think that overstates things, you'd have to venture pretty far into libertarianism before you find much of the latter view.
Having universal health care is good because a healthy society can function better, when done correctly it can also improved the level of medical care that the wealthy receive if only due to the fact that private healthcare now needs to be that much better.
Same goes for education more people with better education means a richer society as a whole.
Even public housing and unemployment benefits are a societal security improvement tool people with homes and with food on their tables are less likely to resort to criminal activities.
If anything you need to go pretty much to the left to find people that think that taxes are or should be used as a direct means of wealth redistribution.
I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done by force through the state. The second being that any new program needs to be funded by the wealthy - also by force of the state.
I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D
We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process.
> I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D
In some ways that may depend too much on noblesse oblige to work (i.e. that the corporations won't subvert the goals of the incentives to benefit themselves) and in other ways be too much like a command economy (government closely directing private industry).
Why are you suspicious on the noblesse of people who run companies but not on that of people who run governments?
Bureaucrats are not noble angels who came from heaven to help us. They are people acting on their own self-interest like everyone else.
Exactly the problem. If the people with the big resources were taking care of the big problems, government would have a lot less to do.
And although I get that the taxation system is ultimately undergirded by the threat of force, so is most property ownership. E.g., consider John McCcain's 4-8 houses. [1] He obviously could only be in 1 at a time. If homeless people took the rest over, they would be ejected by force. Government force in specific. That's how democracy works: we come to agreements on how things should be run, and people who disagree sufficiently end up complying at the point of a gun. Libertarians who get the vapors at the violence underlying taxation but not property are not actually concerned about violence.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/mccain-unsure-how-man...
With regards to: >We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process.
I believe it's the democratic part that bothers me - as, and excuse me if this is a poor analogy, like 3 wolves an one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
I don't want you to think that I am ignorant of the fact that we do need some level of economic leveling for a well functioning society. My concern is how to best achieve that while preserving an individual liberty.
Again, appreciate the response.
Also why are all these people who object to use of "of force" to levy and collect taxes but not you know, literally everything else that the state uses force to do?