This article is a Candidate for the Forums.
This notice was posted on 20:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC).
How should a political community's resources be distributed? In the U.S. now, we have a market-based economy with a minimally (among developed nations) redistributive tax and transfer scheme. Should economic resources be allowed, through our laws and our tax system, to accrue in regressive distribution?
Well, there is plenty of evidence that high taxes and low taxes can both work, and not work.
What is also clear, and maybe more important than actual tax rates, is that taxes without purposes don't work, and political purposes without taxes don't work.
Rather than a huge debate on how much higher/lower our tax rates are than another, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off identifying what purposes should be funded, and which purposes should be defunded, the costs of each, and who should pay for how much of what, and let the resulting tax rates work themselves out. -bb
The root of this problem is a competitive, self-interested outlook rather than a democratic mutally-interested one. Rather than voluntarily offering and accepting mutually beneficial prices and wages, both customers and businesses choose to compete with each other and maximize their personal utility, resulting in both a global and personal loss of efficiency and wealth for all sides. On the other hand, when customers choose not to compete with greedy businesses, they lose even more.
I think the lack of competition - price or wage seeking - by customers or low-wage workers is more pronounced than we might expect. I think that both rational factors, such as preferring recreation and spending time with family to seeking more money, and irrational factors, such as a hopeless outlook, contribute the this.
There is probably little that the government, at least in its current top-down form, can do about this aspect of the problem. However, they can provide small welfare systems to help the poor with basic living, and they can remove some of the barriers to entry that favor the wealthy or professionals. -Jjensenii 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Income Equality and Community Health/Happiness --MUnky 05:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"The happiest electorates tend to have lower population density, a high proportion of people over 55, more females, more married people, and less income inequality."
"Average household income [average high or low] has little bearing — with the electorate of Wide Bay in Queensland, including Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Gympie, having the highest happiness score in the country, yet one of the lowest average household incomes."