|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Person A grows up in a super-rich family and never works a day in his life and yet is a millionaire, lives high on the hog, and no-one bats an eye. Person B grows up in a not-rich family and doesn't work and lives on a pittance that costs the average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year.
Why all the rage against Person B and not A?
The rage probably should not be against Person B. There is a moral argument to be made regarding trying to convince people to not take advantage of things they "shouldn't", but I don't have a coherent view on that so I won't comment.
What we should rage at is the policy. Person A's behavior is productive for society and Person B's behavior is counterproductive. If what we don't like is the inequity represented by the difference between Persons A and B, we're in luck that a better way to create greater equity in aggregate is to let Person A behave in the proposed way if so desired while not aiding Person B in behaving in the proposed way.
|
Reply With Quote