I agree with you but I find medical coverage far more necessary to life than television or even a car with insurance (depends whether you live somewhere with good public transport or not), and the state of medical care in the USA is an appalling manifestation of income inequality and the powerlessness and degradation of the poor.
I agree with this 100% and have literally 0 issue with having my taxes raised to sustain universal healthcare. I'm not sure that this rendition (more bastardization) of ObamaCare is the solution, but we'll have to wait and see I guess. Honestly, I straight up don't understand how people can justify any taxes and not justify a tax to take care of our fellow man. Yes, corruption will occur but not sure why fear of a negative ever overshadows the potential of the positive.
As a welfare queen whose parents are unemployed and disabled: classist people have a particular way of expecting poor people to subsist in a way they would never find acceptable for their own standards of living
Here is where I don't understand your points. The "classist people" is a gross generalization (literally the same as "omfg all feministsts!!111 but hey) but ignoring that, why does this matter at all, or better yet, why is this even remotely relevant? I'll play along with this generalization for now and speak from the perspective of these "classist people." It doesn't matter if X, making 120k a year with 20k bonus, wouldn't find it acceptable to live on a 30k salary. This boils back a bit to the first point, in that I believe taxing is justifiable to sustain a citizen's welfare, but not necessarily provide for that citizen's happiness. I could sustain myself on a 30k salary and I would not be happy (probably), or maximally happy. I'm not sure why this is relevant though? My job as a salaryman in capitalism isn't to ensure you welfare queens's happiness, but I am more than willing to help make sure you can live. I can accept you asking me to be empathetic to your plight and asking for assistance to survive. You wanting to take free money for me to sustain your happiness is honestly you asking for too much...(note I'm using I, me and you generally here).
and scrutinising/judging poor people for every choice they make while ignoring their own circumstances and generally hypocritical financial decisions.
Again, why does this matter? If I earn my dollar myself, I can spend it however I wish, whether on travel, food, or heroin. If X works 10 hours and makes 80 dollars, I will never question how he spends that 80 dollars, whether or rent, food, or heroin. However, if X decides not to work and gets free money from my taxes and spends his 80 dollars on heroin, why shouldn't I question that....even if I spend my own money on heroin??
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by own circumstances so you'll have to fill me in there.
The myth of the welfare queen was exaggerated for political gain
I'm not going to argue the validity of this statement, only because I don't think it's necessary. I'm not sure what the impression poor people have of people in higher brackets is, but a lot of people in higher brackets don't have much of an issue with paying higher taxes to ensure the impovershed get healthcare, food, and shelter. The issue we have is when free money is given and spent on superfluous items (iphones or timberlands) instead of food and rent. And again, just because we buy iphones and Allen Edmonds dress shoes and Prada glass frames, this doesn't make us hypocritical because we are spending our earned money on these items, not freely given money.
and to frighten such 'respectable' hard workers,
Lol...no comment. Not sure why anyone would ever quote respectable when it is in front hard workers...
and poor people (in my country, especially PoC) are increasingly deprived of autonomy and adulthood through paternalistic expenditure control policies.
Please explain this in depth...I'm really curious to know what you mean by expenditure control and how it is "paternalistic" and how poor people are deprived of autonomy?
I don't know about your country but in the united states a poor person has outs to improve his life. They may not be
easy, but they exist and can be taken full advantage of. For example, various welfare programs help with obtaining food, salary based rent, and money for education. Even if you don't qualify for money for education, community college is 70-130 bucks a credit, and you can work for a year or two before going to CC for 2 years and transfering to a state school (fully funded) for 2-3 more years to finish off your bachelor's. This option is available in nearly every state in the USA (I haven't found a state that doesn't provide this 2 year cc -> 2 year funded state school finish BS option).
I'm not sure how we terrible paternalistic higher bracket income people are supposed to spend our money but I think agreeing to raise our taxes to make sure the improvershed can eat, sleep, and go to school cheaply should count as enough?
Or do we have some unstated moral obligation based on some preconceived notions of empathy to make your paths to autonomy much much easier?
Naturally this results in further financial dependence.
Again, can't speak for your country, but poor people have actual outs in the states. the 2 year cc -> 2 year state program is offered in nearly every state, and even if you can't afford 2 year cc initially, you can work for 1-3 years and save to be able to afford it. I won't say that a BS is a sure out but it is at least an improvement over complete poverty.
As for this topic, I will say whining about top company CEO salaries is so hilariously lacking in a basic understanding of not math but literal arithmetic that I want to cry. Let's say there is a small business owner and he is actually successful, with money exchanging hands from his business to and from his clients in the 50 - 200k level. Note I am specifically not mentioning gross or not profits because on a single year term, that doesn't matter. If this small business owner gives himself a 1k bonus for being able to handle this 50-200k money flow, there is literally no outcry. However, if say, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, which owns 2.3 trillion in assets and yearly has money exchange hands from business to customers on the level of 20+ billion dollars, gives himself a 30 million salary, there is a problem? 1k of 200k is .5%.... .5% of 20 billion dollars is 100 million dollars. That is merely the yearly money flow, not the overall assets owned and maintained.
Small business owners tend to, on relative terms, take bigger bonuses than the average CEO of the larger corporations (.5-5% bonuses of business costs + revenue, vs. much less for CEOs). You guys are aware that top level (executive level) management salaries as based on
dollar value input, not simply "hey, your job is this" right? The actual outcry over CEO salaries is a politically motivated stunt if anything.
You can argue that the issue is big corporations existing...but big corporations employ the lower and middle class as well. Whether or not they do a great job of this is up for debate obviously, and things like raising the minimum wage might help (but lol, anyone who takes a basic macroeconomics class knows the issues with minimum wages), but I'd prefer that people realize that the issue with big business or big corporations isn't big business itself, but only the
instances of big business.
That is a significant differentiation that people tend to not make when arguing the income inequality is due to big businesses.