> Life is made to be lived, not for working.

> Where people can have a decent life without being forced to work if it is not a choice.

Who will choose to work rather than get something for free?

I'll tell you: the same people who would pay taxes if it were not mandated by the threat of jail - that is, people who contribute to charity.

That is typically less than 1% of earnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...

I believe very few people will choose to work, and therefore "decent lives" for the masses can not be maintained with this little work.

>pay their fair share

Define fair share, it's not clear to me what that is.

At the very least the same percentage that a small business, less than 50 employees, pays in taxes.

There has to be more to it than that. You haven't even argued why this is fair by the way. "Fair share" is an emotionally charged political slogan that means something different to everyone. Probably why it's used by so many politicians.

I don't have to convince you.

That it is my opinion, and you can discard it.

But I believe that if we tax small business a certain amount, big corporations should pay, at the very least, the same amount.

Again, it is not a scientific argument, it is a political one, and honestly I don't want to be dragged in a technical discussion about taxation.

You say political, I say emotional.

And I suppose your political views are based purely on reason and logic?

Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.

>And I suppose your political views are based purely on reason and logic?

Yes actually. And I definitely don't try to couch my political views in moral stupidity like "fairness" which you are not even capable of explaining.

>Of course emotions are involved. That isn't inherently bad.

Of course it's not inherently bad. It's definitely bad when you can't even explain your position coherently but feel strongly enough about it to get into heated arguments.

It's delusional to believe you can form political beliefs without emotion coloring the decision in any way. In fact, a rational, logical being would be well aware of how emotions guide our behavior at a subconscious level, and that we can never be totally free from emotion-based decision-making.

That doesn't mean we've slaves to our emotions, or must make irrational decisions based on our whims.

But it is a foolish thing to say you are 100% free of emotions in your views, especially when that incorrect view is wielded as a cudgel against opposing viewpoints (which we apparently aren't even "capable of explaining").

> But it is a foolish thing to say you are 100% free of emotions in your views

No it's not. You just make all these statements that are baseless. I can say my political beliefs are based on rationality because my political beliefs are simple.

I never said my views are free from emotion. I said my views are 100% based on reason. I vote in my direct self interest, my values are based on my self interest, my goals are to advance my self interest.

I wonder whether you interact with other people, and if you do, what's in your self interest WRT their material and emotional state, free time etc, and then their that of their contacts, etc.

E.g. Is it in your self-interest, that people live in a system where 1/300 are toiling away till they can't, so a guy can sit on a rocket? Is it an incredibly simple answer?

when i go with a friend to get pizza and we each eat half pizza, we each pay one half bill, fair share. why then have we seen some concept of "fair share" in tax change to fit budget needs? "fair share" is fixed amount but i hear no fixed amount proposed.

I mean if my friend is Jeff Bezos or Rhianna, I might be a little surprised if they suggest we split the bill.

Then here we have core difference: I would have no such suprise. I think there is some fundamental difference in our understandings of fairness.

If it was Jeff Bezos, I wouldn't be surprised.

Because in public services everyone is worse off if someone doesn't get a good care - the pizza is infinite.

The whole point of taxes is solidarity. If you don't understand basic principles of being civil then good luck in your life.

Then you make a new contention that you want more money past a "fair share" because you have the policy goal. Fairness has not its definition set by government budget needs. What mean you here with "solidarity"? What has this to do with "civility" or its lacking?