A new tax would halve the income of the top 1% and double the income of the bottom 20%. The total wealth in society stays the same.
0 votes worldwide
Not enough votes yet to show a result.
Vote on this dilemma
You haven't voted on this one yet β cast your choice and see how it splits.
Vote now βRead the expert analysisPolitical Philosophy
This isn't a vote about whether inequality matters β almost everyone agrees it does. It's a vote about which lever is legitimate. The math here is symmetric: same total wealth, just redistributed. So the disagreement is purely about whether the state may target some incomes to lift others, even when the affected group remains comfortably well-off.
Why people split
Procedural-fairness intuitions and outcome-fairness intuitions diverge here. A person can fully agree that the bottom 20% need more and still resist a mechanism that singles out a specific group. Another can think the principle of non-targeting matters less than the concentration it leaves in place. Neither position is hidden indifference.
Educational perspective, not professional advice.
Send via messages, stories, or copy link
Was this dilemma interesting?
β‘ Challenge a friend!
Send them the link β they'll see your result only after they vote.
More share optionsInstagram, TikTok, X, WhatsApp, Discord, Telegram, story card
π± Share as Story
Download a 9:16 card for Instagram Stories or TikTok.
Auto-posting is not available from the web. Upload the PNG manually.
What the split says
No legal answer is the same as a moral answer here β both have to be argued. Once votes come in, this section will show how voters split between rule and exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Who is the rule protecting, and who is paying for it?
- Is mercy a kind of justice here, or its opposite?