Re:When Accessibility Gets Labeled Wasteful
by AlgorithmicTime on Thursday March 10, 2016 @08:36AM
(#11259064)
That's worse. "Everyone pays this tax, but only a tiny minority are allowed to benefit" is a horrifically unjust way to run a country. Either everyone should benefit equally, or the services should be done away with.
Re:When Accessibility Gets Labeled Wasteful
by IanCal on Thursday March 10, 2016 @09:33AM
(#11259380)
This is how a huge number of incredibly successful countries work. You tax people on their ability to pay and spend the money on those who need it.
Re:When Accessibility Gets Labeled Wasteful
by thescribe on Thursday March 10, 2016 @11:52PM
(#11264710)
I don't see how this doesn't create a country where there always exists a person who would be better off defecting?
Defecting how? Going to another country where there are no taxes at all?
You're also assuming that these things don't provide a net benefit. If my taxes save a life at the age of 20, then we get a huge number of years of productivity and haven't "wasted" all the money on their education. Money used to help drug addicts reduces crime and policing costs. This is not some zero sum game, £1000 from me given to those who need it more than I do can end up benefiting us both.
And finally, I donate to charity not because I think it'll necessarily directly benefit me financially, I just think it's the right thing to do. I would be better off if I didn't, but that doesn't stop me.
Defecting how? Voluntarily stepping on a land mine so they can use free wheelchair services?
Regardless, "a person" is not a major inefficiency.
Re:When Accessibility Gets Labeled Wasteful
by PhasmaFelis on Thursday March 10, 2016 @10:35AM
(#11259763)
I've never understood why people think that social Darwinism is somehow "just." It's might-makes-right dressed up with platitudes.
Although I think you're being a bit cheeky here in saying "a tax on every able bodied person" when it's really a tax on everyone. Everyone pays the higher price, when it only benefits a few.
> it ends up taxing every single person who doesn't use or need those features.
Yes, which sounds bad when you think of most regular features, implementing things that only benefit a few people. But the problem is those few people need these features on many products, and without them have massively reduced access to a huge range of things.