It’s not just luck, it’s also a result of a system that favors the ones who come from rich families. That’s not a random factor, it’s something that can be changed or at least mitigated with a different fiscal policy.
At least that one now is 
Yes, that is my point. I look at it from an individual level.
Everyone is where they are because of luck. We should accept that and try to improve the living standards of as many people as possible.
And I don’t think it favors just the rich, there are tons of other factors preventing equal access to opportunity (e.g. ethnicity, gender, …).
Also homelessness people tend to live in cities.
Sure these are also big factors, but I don’t think those other factors can be easily influenced by a different fiscal policy.
Taxes don’t have a racial bias (unless you live in the Netherlands apparently 
).
Yes but that’s something where we can use the tax money to improve things, and have a fairer society.
… I’m on the way and I could not find a per capita map. But you can see that California has 25% homeless but only 12% of population. Anyway, next time I’ll try to fact check before posting.
The world is becoming a place with the highly paid high-skilled workers (dare I say lucky?) on one side, and the low-wage unskilled workers on the other side, with hardly anybody in between. Yet nobody knows what to do about it.
And the topic is very hotly debated. One “wrong” word and one is quickly labeled a communist, a Trumpist, or worse.
My issue with our tax system is that saved income is taxed twice: first as income, then as wealth.
Considering that some cantons like for example Basel-Stadt don’t tax cars as wealth, like for example Zurich does, we have a fiscal system that encourages people to spend.
Now it could be argued that this is short-term good for the economy. But not long-term good for the people.
It seems to me that the government is strong where it should be weak, and weak where it should be strong,
Most people agree that those with lots of money should be forced to share it with people that don’t have that much.
The very same people wouldn’t however agree that those with many kids should be forced to share them with people that don’t have any. Where I said kids put any other asset they have…
The rationale is very straightforward: people only care about unfair stuff when it affects them. Everybody loves socialism when they don’t have to foot the bill. As Margaret Thatcher used to say The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
It’s a losing battle to try to explain that paying taxes is actually theft and that the government is not far from being a mob that plunders citizens in exchange of protection.
I’m BTW saying all of that and I’m far from being rich.
I’d argue it’s good in the long term to push people with a lot of money to spend or invest it so that it doesn’t sit idle in the bank account.
That is after they’ve contributed enough to their pension fund so that we don’t need to bail them out once they retire.
That’s not an argument I think. If you assume the amount of money that the state needs is fixed, they can get it from income tax, wealth tax, or any combination of the 2. It’s not taxed twice, it’s taxed partially immediately when you earn it and then partially later as part of your wealth.
Agreed. I can even sense my own opinion shift from a libertarian “everyone fighting for themselves” to a more socialist approach to support less fortunate people. It has a lot to do with my age and with the realization that there are some events affecting me that are not a matter of just working/fighting/struggling harder to mitigate them. Acceptance of things that are is becoming my new normal. Also due to the pandemic 
You forgot VAT (personally I don’t see it as an issue, they serve different purpose/provide different incentives).
My experience is that there are at least two kinds of thinking developed by different people. Some are thinking in terms of “how can I contribute to help the situation?”, others in terms of “what benefits do I get out of it?” I find that the two can’t understand each other’s thinking, so I won’t try to convince you that some (many) people are actually willing to put their resources on the table to contribute to the global well being. I know I am and am always amazed when I see budgets that include savings but no line for charity contributions…
Money is taxed at nearly every step and this isn’t bad.
The alternative to a wealth tax is a capital gains tax. I prefer a wealth tax because it is simpler and incentivices to invest the money.
You don’t need to convince me for I already know those people exist.
The question is why people that don’t belong to that group are forced to contribute?
I for one would be more than happy to give some money to the charity of my choosing rather than being forced to give it to the government.
Because we don’t have a way to prevent them from benefiting from the services they’d refuse to finance. We live in a society where the rules are made after debates, education is necessary to ensure that the most possible people are able to grasp the impact of what decision has to be made so that the most possible beneficial decision is being made (or the least worse).
Sure, the many rule the few and the wealthy have lobbying money to weigh in more but the people with convincing power also have an edge in democracy, and particularly in direct democracies like Switzerland.
So, yes, we all have to contribute to the military budget because the land we’re living on is safe because of it. We have to contribute to social budgets because the riots that could otherwise spring are quenched as a consequence of it. If we were not paying “the state” to finance its budgets, it’s other people, not the state, that would be stealing from us, and they would be stealing much more.
I’m willing to put my weight toward allowing people to both not follow the law and get no protection from the law (enforcement of the law is paid for by taxes). That would mean you’re free to do whatever you like but also that whoever wants it can do whatever they like with you, like putting you in slavery, or killing you. There are a lot more of other people who could harm you than there is of yourself and the close ones who would defend you.
Governments and charities serve different purposes…I’ve never seen a charity who takes care of bad roads.
But you can still give your money to the government of your choosing, just by moving your residence to that country.
That business is a monopoly of the state and monopolies don’t like competition.
Of course, everybody is allowed to choose between familia Corleone and familia Tattaglia.