Yes, we can.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

If they paid $1,000,000 and you paid $10,000, and they didn't receive the benefit of 100x more roads, military protection, etc. Then can you honestly say they deserve to pay even more? I know we use it as a way to even out the burden a bit, but how much is enough?

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Betty

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?

I wasn't suggesting we completely nullify the difference, just pointing out that there is already an inequality in usage to explain why people MIGHT object to changes that make it even worse.