So if I believe in luck I will be more inclined to pay high taxes? I don't think that's how it works.
I mean of course people with money who realise not everyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy bums will be more inclined to help a "poor person" than they would if they believed all poor are lazy bums. But does that mean they will accept high taxation? Say I am rich and narcissistic, I believe I'm better than everyone and that my skill put me on top. I then realise that other who are skilled are poor and I want to help them become richer. Do I believe that paying the government to use my money for welfare to be the most effective use of my money to fulfil this end? Probably not in that case.
Furthermore some people are lucky, some unlucky. This does not mean that no effort but mere luck goes into building an empire. If luck was the only factor then sure, this argument or taxation might hold. But there's a lot more than luck to it, which is much more in the control of the individual.
If you can't see luck as deciding factor in being extremely rich or poor, your world-view will dictate that hard work and discipline can get you out of poverty. Therefore, there is no need to help other people and the only tax you need to pay is the minimum needed to keep the nation state you depend on afloat. If you see luck as a factor, then you either understand that those with good luck need to give a bit more (=pay more tax) so that those with bad luck are better off, or you are a cruel person and just say "well, unlucky you, go to rot, I don't care." So yes, accepting luck as a factor in life plays a fundamental role, including your (possible) willingness to pay tax. At least, if you posses some kind of empathy.
> Furthermore some people are lucky, some unlucky. This does not mean that no effort but mere luck goes into building an empire. If luck was the only factor then sure, this argument or taxation might hold. But there's a lot more than luck to it, which is much more in the control of the individual.
The point here again is that for the extremes the luck factor becomes dominant over anything else: If you are among the very worst off, you probably didn't just accrue that due to being lazy (or, in fact, anything within your control, assuming you are not somehow mentally handicapped - which is bad luck, again...). And similar for the opposite end: There are a significant number of persons with nearly the exact same abilities and ambitions as the very top performers, so the final "selection" of who gets to be the top performer depends far more on luck than on those skills (as the article outlines, by the way).
No.This was exactly the response I was expecting and giving more does not equal pay more taxes.
Putting an equal sign between helping your peers/being altruistic and paying taxes is the logical flaw in my opinion.
I argue that paying taxes is not the most effective way of helping others and therefore whether I believe becoming rich is a matter of luck or not becomes irrelevant in regard to whether rich should pay high taxes or not.
Though of course not everyone will have my views on that matter and therefore a subset, however big, will follow your line of thought instead, meaning the number of happy-to-pay-tax people would increase if their perception of luck changed as proposed in the article.
However what I'm arguing against is that A >necessarily< leads to B. As it does depend on other factors too.
I mean of course people with money who realise not everyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy bums will be more inclined to help a "poor person" than they would if they believed all poor are lazy bums. But does that mean they will accept high taxation? Say I am rich and narcissistic, I believe I'm better than everyone and that my skill put me on top. I then realise that other who are skilled are poor and I want to help them become richer. Do I believe that paying the government to use my money for welfare to be the most effective use of my money to fulfil this end? Probably not in that case.
Furthermore some people are lucky, some unlucky. This does not mean that no effort but mere luck goes into building an empire. If luck was the only factor then sure, this argument or taxation might hold. But there's a lot more than luck to it, which is much more in the control of the individual.