> Is it reasonable for society, through taxes, to take more than half of what you earn?
So long as you have more than enough to live on, absolutely. If you make a billion dollars, then the govt taking 501 million is the absolute minimum that should be expected. Better they take 999 million and leave you the million dollars, as you don't need more than that to survive.
Further, the only reason you made a billion was from not paying the workers a living wage. The government's job is to redistribute the money so that everyone gets a fair share.
The point of people being wealthy is that they get to take risks based on their judgement and we hope that benefits everyone. Without a reward nobody will take risks. Governments don't take political risks so you cannot expect them to be the sole chance takers in the economy.
What we obviously don't want is people who find a way to dump risk on everyone else so that they cannot fail. Not paying a living wage is a way to do that for example.
Yup. $1M/yr (the example I provided above) is a massive reward, so taxation in this way (leaving the risk taker huge rewards) is a great way to encourage entrepreneurship while ensuring a better society by using the extra money (taxed) to give him better streets, lower crime, and a better educated workforce/neighbours.
That prevents a person from taking their next bigger risk e.g. building a factory and hoping that the products it makes will sell. If we only had better streets we'd be a bit like the Romans - bogged down trying to satisfy everyone with centuries old technology.
So long as you have more than enough to live on, absolutely. If you make a billion dollars, then the govt taking 501 million is the absolute minimum that should be expected. Better they take 999 million and leave you the million dollars, as you don't need more than that to survive.
Further, the only reason you made a billion was from not paying the workers a living wage. The government's job is to redistribute the money so that everyone gets a fair share.