Will wrote:Regarding the tiered system, I don't think it is fair for an ordinary worker on $38k a year paying the same amount as a plastic surgeon on $1 million a year. The value of money is relative to how much you have. If you have more, you can afford to pay more. Punishments such as speeding fines are eant to be a deterent. If I was rich, a $200 fine would not put me off speeding, because the monetary equivalent would be like paying $10 now as a student.
But then you'd have a system whereby the same offence is worth different amounts to the government when committed by different people. The law simply cannot be randomly applied based on subjective factors determined by the government of the day. Do you index for inflation? What about people with substantial assets but little income? Do the unemployed not pay any fines? At what point is a worker no longer considered ''ordinary'? If offending is more likely to occur in lower income brackets, why would you impose lesser fines upon the very people who are more likely to offend? And so on.
And regarding home ownership, my proposal is based on my belief that home ownership is for everyone, not just the rich. I would hate to live in a society where working people can work as hard as they can yet never own their own home. I feel that such grants actually serve to inflate the price of property which negates their purpose to begin with.
I agree with you that all these home-buyer grants have contributed to rising prices to some degree, but so too has an entitlement mentality that empowers people to stick their hand out to the government for assistance in the first place rather than keeping a tighter reign on one's finances and having realistic expectations in the first place. Even allowing for the upward pressure of grants on prices, if a person has to be propped up by government to be able to afford a home, then they shouldn't be buying one in the first place.