Well, if you’re planning on changing terminology, you might start by refraining from calling the people who pay for just about everything, “freeloaders”.
I don’t object to the progressive tax at all, but I don’t think the endless bashing of high income earners who fund the whole social security system, is actually useful. You really don’t want them to leave. That would be really bad.
Individually yes, collectively no.
Peoples capabilities are actually incredibly unequal.
That sucks a bit, but such is life.
Both sides of politics seems to be deluded about this in their own way. The left seems to just deny it and claim discrimination causes everything, and the right seems to think they should just work harder and everything will work out. Both are dreadfully incomplete explanations.
At a policy/political level, we deal with the collective.
This is the same reason we consider educational attainment and other skill indicators for immigration.
So they’re “bludgers” now, when they question whether they should be paying all the tax?
Offending people is not a good motivator.
Sounds like a Stalinist slogan, so probably not.
Acknowledgement of the scale of their contribution, combined with strategy to lift median wages might go a long way.
You’re playing silly word games.
The fact that I don’t object to a progressive tax does not mean there is no problem or that a minority of the population isn’t aware they are paying for most everyone else.
My concern with this right from the start is being confirmed. You don’t want to use new words to better communicate reality. You want to use new words to paint a convenient lie.
And then you spin this conversation to suggest we haven’t been talking about the frame at all. Next thing you’ll be telling me that love is hate.
As far as you’ve been able to show, the lie is that anyone needs “relief” from paying their fair share. Some might sulk about being required to pay according to their capacity, but that’s all you’ve come up with.
So, who is the target audience for this new wording?
It can’t be the people paying most of the tax, because so far you’ve described them as sulky, conservative, bludgers, would-be freeloaders and it’s clear you think they’re all replaceable, and don’t really care what they think as long as they pay up.
So is the new wording supposed to target the recipients of this welfare?
Is it to make them feel better about receiving welfare?
Who’s perspective do you want to change?
Huh? I didn’t say anything if the sort, besides which it’s irrelevant, because if you are trying to change public perception, then what matters is public opinion, particularly amongst those being expected to pay.
And the target audience for the “tax relief” propaganda is obviously the 10% of workers paying 50% of the tax that you’ve spent most of this conversation marginalising while I keep pointing at them as the obvious target.
I’ve also laid out the facts behind many of their concerns. If your response to my laying these things out is indicative of the new language you have in mind, then I don’t think you’re on a winner.
I want to see how you will frame this.
They already know that they lose 50ish% as tax on any new income they might strive for and they’re wondering why they should bother.
You can’t frame that out of existence.
You’d need the framing to somehow express what they’re getting in return in a way that they’d care about. Almost by definition, people in that pay range are intelligent, competitive and results driven.
There’s your profile.
What frame do you have for them?