KS II - I hate to do it, but your analogy is incorrect.
Quote:
|
There's little practical difference in between, for example, a 1% sales tax (that goes to run social welfare) and a 1% price hike on the part of the shop to compensate for all the shoplifters. Buying power is equally reduced.
|
A 1% sales tax everyone ends up paying because that tax is charged by everyone. However, a 1% price hike is going to apply to the retailer in question, and thus the customers of that retailer. All a person must do is choose NOT to buy from the higher priced source, and thus the retailer not only has the initial loss, but also more loss trying to recoup the original theft.
Also - the problem is compounded when you say "well they can afford it" better. Ever heard of death by a thousand paper cuts? In essence, what your saying is that its somehow more "acceptable" if it doesn't "hurt" as bad. Theft is theft, regardless of how much one person can "afford" it over another. It is wrong, and a crime, regardless. Trying to make some moral argument that one is "less bad" than the other is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize a wrong act.
Its like a kid who hits another kid and says "Well I didn't do it as hard as I could - so I shouldn't be in trouble". Or lets say you own 2 cars - someone steals one because hey, you can afford 2 of them. That makes it somehow "less" of a crime?
You can try to take the arguement into the "tangible effect" comparison - but the bottom line is that stealing is wrong, its also a crime, and as such should not be condoned by society.
This is not directed at KS2 by any means - but I guess I shouldnt be suprised - just one more assault on the whole concept of private ownership.