Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I don't dismiss it as an option at all. I simply don't believe that "the rich have to serve my interests" is teamwork.

Bang, that strawman never knew what hit it.  Now try an actual point of view more along the lines of "the rich should have to give back to the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place".

[Eagle_eye]

The rich aren't obligated to serve my interests. I'm perfectly comfortable with what I have. They are obligated to place the survival of others above their own status symbols. Removing yourself from the system is wrong too; it makes it far harder to do anything to fix it. You're doing the same thing as all the other complacent people, abandoning the rest of society to advance your own interests.

[LordBucket]

try an actual point of view more along the lines of "the rich should have to
give back to the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place".

Ok. Clarify that thought. What exactly are you proposing?

Do you mean that:

A) Those who don't shall be jailed or generally have their stuff taken by force
B) Well, we're not actually going to engage in punitive measures, but society would probably be healthier on the whole if they chose to.
C) Something else?

If A...I can't agree with that, and I humbly offer you the suggestion that that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. As discussed earlier...you in your own life probably "have" a lot more than an awful lot of other people. Are you volunteering to be jailed for not selling your things to donate to charity? Or do you just expect that you personally are perfectly ok, and it's just people who have more than you who should be jailed if they don't give away their stuff? Where do draw the line? And do you understand that there are plenty of people who have more than you do who feel the same? People making 30k/yr generally don't think they're rich. People making 50k/yr generally don't think they're rich. People who make 100k/yr generally don't think they're rich. I know millionaires who don't think they're rich. It's an entirely subjective perspective.

If B...ok, that's nice. But your empty platitude has no effect on anything. Sure, life for some people would be nicer if rich people gave them money. My life would be nicer if my neighbor got naked and came to visit me right now. We already covered this. Saying "it would be nice if..." doesn't really amount to anything.

should have to give back to the society that allowed them to become rich in the first place".

How much do they need to give? What kind of giving qualifies? Mark Zuckerberg gave us Facebook. Is that sufficient "giving back" to society? Steve Jobs gave us the iPhone. Would you have jailed him for not giving enough back? What about a billionaire who employs several thousand people and gives a million or two every year to his favorite charities? Does he get a pass or fail? Where do you draw the lines? What are you expectations? And what happens if people don't meet them?

And most importantly...who decides where those lines are drawn? Shall we have starving children in africa decide what qualifies as "too rich" and therefore deserving of punishment? Maybe homeless people in LA? Why should you and your own very personal measuring stick be used to decide what is an "appropriate" amount of wealth? And if you're not willing to have others decide how much you're allowed to have...what qualifies you to be the one who decides how much they're allowed to have?

should have to

These are weasel words. What do you mean by them?

[Eagle_eye]

If you have an above average income, you should give that away. If you have less than average, you should receive more. Simple enough. And yes, jail is a perfectly acceptable response in my view.

[LordBucket]

If you have an above average income, you should give that away. If you have less than average,
you should receive more. Simple enough. And yes, jail is a perfectly acceptable response in my view.

...so you seriously want to throw people in jail who don't give away any money they make above the average?

If that's your solution, wouldn't it make more sense to forget about the whole "throwing people in jail" thing, and simply have a uniform state-mandated wage for all jobs? There would be certain problems with that. For example, our current business model would generally be incompatible. How does anyone start a new business or employ anybody? Do they eat less in order to save money to start one?

I suppose you could eliminate the traditional business model and simply have the government mandate and assign everything. Maybe get rid of money altogether and have compulsory, assigned jobs and government allocated resources. For example, you graduate from high school, then take a test to determine which career path you'l be assigned, then every citizen has a card redeemable at any vendor for X value of goods every week. Everybody works, nobody goes hungry, nobody has more than anybody else. There would be no "businesses" in the traditional sense, and instead you could simply have people assigned to the job of evaluating which services were lacking, and then simply allocate people to work jobs accordingly.

And of course, there would be enterprising individuals who would try to save money for a couple months in order to build a nest egg. And maybe some of those people would try to loan out that money to others at interest. Or maybe provide goods "on the side" above and beyond their assigned job in order to get ahead. You couldn't allow that of course, or else you'd be exactly back to square one with some people generating more income than others. So I suppose you could reset every citizen card at the end of every month, with all surplus lost, thereby ensuring that nobody ever got ahead of anyone.

I acknowledge that such a system could be made to work. But I'm not certain I'd want to live in it.

[Neonivek]

Ahh yes the conflict between the rich and the not rich.

The Rich fear the poor because the poor have all the power
The poor fear the rich because the rich have all the power

both my statements are completely true and have no contradiction.

[Hanslanda]

Ahh yes the conflict between the rich and the not rich.

The Rich fear the poor because the poor have all the power
The poor fear the rich because the rich have all the power

both my statements are completely true and have no contradiction.

Indeed. The rich hold all the money, and thus all the social power. But the poor are numberless and angry, thus holding the violent power of... Violence?

[GreatJustice]

The "wealthy" are a rather broad group.

Honestly, I'd say that if they earned their money fairly, either through hard work or creativity as opposed to subsidies, friends in high places or abuse of political influence then they ought to keep it.

A lot of you are also ignoring the fact that those rich who are businessmen (the ones some of you want to have give their "fair share") have already contributed through the use of voluntary exchanges in the economy. Was either party of the exchange worse off from it? Was coercion involved? If not, then they have no obligation to give away anything, no more than the poor or middle class at any rate.

Its also worth mentioning that trying to tax the hell out of the rich rarely works out. The absurdly rich (hundreds of millions, billions, etc) are effectively beyond the law in most cases, as they are either rich enough for the government not to be willing to mess with for economic reasons or they have the influence/power to control the government outright. Check out who the biggest political contributors for both parties are; banks don't much care about laws or taxes because they practically own the FEC and a sizable portion of congress, not to mention the president. It's a similar thing for big pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. Naturally, though, the super rich are often in favour of higher taxes and regulations since (A) it crowds out their smaller competitors and (B) it indirectly gives THEM more influence, as even the world's richest people can't be quite as powerful just through the market as working indirectly through the government. When was the last time you saw one of those crooked banksters get sent to jail for fraud after foreclosing on a house that was making its mortgage payments? Yeah, exactly.

What it does is hurt the modestly rich (250k-couple million) and entrepreneurial types, which isn't a good thing for the economy as it ultimately results in stagnation. It's also largely immoral, as it presumes that people "owe" everyone else solely because they were successful.

[Ancre]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

All the things you listed aren't signs of wealth so much as stuff you need in order to live. You will die without food. No access to clean water is a serious health hazard. Having no shelter is a quick way to die

So yeah, since those things are actually basic needs, I feel everybody deserves them, because nobody deserves to die because their lives' basic needs aren't met. These are things you really can't do without. Having them isn't really a sign of wealth. Considering that it is, it's scary : it basically means living is a luxury and that you should feel privileged for being able to.

Power doesn't see it that way. Power is completely impartial and cares not one tiny bit whether you or anybody else starves or freezes to death. The ability to feed yourself is power. The ability to put a roof over your head is power. The ability to procure gold chandeliers encrusted with diamonds is power.

There's no basis upon which to draw an arbitrary line between "power needed to survive" and "power to do anything else."

Power doesn't work that way.

Being able to feed yourself is totally different from, say, owning an ipad,

To you, maybe. To a $100 bill, or the strength to lift a weight, or the knowledge to grow food...there is no difference. Power cares not how it is used.

those things are actually basic needs, I feel everybody deserves them, because
nobody deserves to die because their lives' basic needs aren't met.

Your feelings have no effect on the nature of power. You might "feel bad" if a 10,000 pound truck crushes you to death. Nevertheless, the force of the truck may be sufficient to kill you.

You might "feel" that people deserve to have basic needs met. Your feelings have no bearing on the reality of whether those needs are, or are not met. But if you choose to use power for the purpose of feeding someone, or keeping them warm, then they will be fed and warm, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Power is completely and totally impartial. It is unproductive to attempt to assert your own "feelings" about how things "should" be while ignoring the nature of power.

You're completely missing my point. I'm talking about wealth and how being able to survive doesn't make you wealthy. Not really about power. Wealth is power, yes, but power isn't just wealth. Making a big post about how power works isn't answering my objection - that your example was a bad example, because just being able to survive is not a sign of richness, and that therefore you don't have to feel privileged (rich, having a lot of power) just because you can live.

You were, in the example I tackled, basically saying that one should feel rich because they had access to the basic necessities of life, that they were able to survive, and because other didn't.

You were saying that one should feel rich because being able to survive meant they were better off than those who couldn't.

That is not what being rich means. "Wealth" "richness" implies having a lot. It implies superfluous. Or are you really saying that all the americans or the europeans who can afford to feed and house themselves are rich, even if they can't afford anything else ?

If richness is relative to what you can own, the amount of wealth you have compared to what you need, then you're not rich if you only have the money you need to survive. You're rich if you have the money to buy a lot of superfluous stuff. That's the definition of the word.

If richness is relative to what others have, you may be richer than others, but it's much harder to pinpoint a time where you're "rich". People are richer than you, you're richer than the homeless and the starving children (what a great achievement in life), and to be rich here usually means you're more rich than your immediate neighbors. Which in this case, no, you're never going to be rich either if you can only afford to survive. Nobody considers that being rich. Nobody. And you're not even necessarily richer than the africans or whatever. People living in poorer countries might win less money, but their goods cost less as well - therefore, to compare meaningfully those two situations, you have to forget the value of the two countries' money and focus on what people can afford.

[Eagle_eye]

If it's a choice between work and starvation, it's not a voluntary choice. It's extortion. Everyone's success is built on the lost potential of others. it's not a matter of whether they deserve that wealth or not, it's a matter of whether other people deserve it more. Even if you're lazy, obnoxious, a drug addict, and hated by everyone, you don't deserve to die. You need help, not punishment. There is no such thing as earning your income fairly, because noone is independent of the circumstances of their birth.

[Aptus]

All I've learned so far is I would not want to live in a country run by Eagle_Eye and I am from the socialist paradise of Sweden... Fuck that. Yes rich people should pay proportionally more taxes but they should still get to keep a lot of what they earn. Lets just say that if I had no prospects of earning an above average income I would not be pursuing an engineering degree, I would still be on the boring job I had before I went back to school.

[Descan]

Rich is no longer a word to me :h

[Strife26]

If it's a choice between work and starvation, it's not a voluntary choice. It's extortion. Everyone's success is built on the lost potential of others. it's not a matter of whether they deserve that wealth or not, it's a matter of whether other people deserve it more. Even if you're lazy, obnoxious, a drug addict, and hated by everyone, you don't deserve to die. You need help, not punishment. There is no such thing as earning your income fairly, because noone is independent of the circumstances of their birth.

Yeah, and there's a moral responsibilty to give our lazy, obnoxious, heroin-shooting, generally-hated sob the tools he needs to straighten out his life. There isn't a requirement that I pay for his comfort. For me, I could see supporting him to the bare minimum of his survival, but certainly not any more.

Now, this might just be upper-midwestern, lower-middle class, US Army grunt that I am, but I very much belive that No matter the circumstances, one can always improve their lot in life to some semblance of comfort and self-respect. Now, there's a responsibility for the government and public at large to keep it that way, but it doesn't stretch very far. Private charities, public education and services, and baaare bones welfare is enough. Yeah, life's got a habit of dealing us bad cards, but it's the individual's job (not Uncle Sam's) to go through the work and effort to get dealt new ones.


I dunno, if you really think that anyone who makes more than average should be paying everything over that to the poor, please feel free to sit around and sing Imagine until you've got enough people singing it with you to have an October Revolution. I'd kinda like having a new Cold War. Mean there'd be new tanks!

[Frumple]

Pretty sure no one thinks, or has every seriously thought, that those making above average should be giving everything to the poor. I'm not sure to call that line of thought strawmanning, but it's pretty close. More back to the society that allows them to succeed more than most, yes, but that still leaves them better off than pretty much anyone less successful.

If you're looking toward actual proposal, well, that bare-bones of survival is what most people seem to be asking for. It's definitely what I'd want to see -- an actual guarantee that even if things fuck up royally and sequentially, my society's going to see me through it. Enough you can feed, shelter, and cloth yourself -- not fancily, but enough you don't starve, can get out of the rain without trespassing, and have at least a sliver of dignity left over.

It's what the US doesn't provide. Things go poorly enough long enough and you can die of starvation or exposure in the streets with fuckall other choices available unless you get really damn lucky and someone decides to help you out after the systems in place drop you or you resort to crime (be it as minor as squatting or theft of food), or be stuck in a dead-end, miserable job shoving half your life up some corp's ass just so you can feed and house yourself. That's the "choice between work and starvation" bit, and I see way, way too many people stuck in it.

Me, I'd be happy to heft over half my income if it meant a universal stipend for basic needs and a solid public services base. If I could afford to get out of this country and go somewhere that did that (and they'd let me in, a considerably less likely occurrence), I'd have been gone yesterday

Yeah, life's got a habit of dealing us bad cards, but it's the individual's job (not Uncle Sam's) to go through the work and effort to get dealt new ones.

As for this, though... I've seen too many people that's put forth every damned ounce of work and effort they can manage and get no new cards dealt. Good, hardworking, capable people in a situation where shit just refuses to get better. When that's the state of things, we've got problems. Part of the fixing of it is not denying the problem exists.

[scriver]

Yeah, and there's a moral responsibilty to give our lazy, obnoxious, heroin-shooting, generally-hated sob the tools he needs to straighten out his life. There isn't a requirement that I pay for his comfort. For me, I could see supporting him to the bare minimum of his survival, but certainly not any more.

And how exactly is he going to be able to improve his life when all he owns goes into just survival? How he is going to get the strength to kick the drug habit? How is he going to afford education? How is he going to afford to relocate to find a job? How is he going to afford healthcare? How is he going to afford any kind of drastic change in his life, if he hasn't got enough money to save for they future? How is his kids going to get a good start in their lives?

Now, this might just be upper-midwestern, lower-middle class, US Army grunt that I am, but I very much belive that No matter the circumstances, one can always improve their lot in life to some semblance of comfort and self-respect. Now, there's a responsibility for the government and public at large to keep it that way, but it doesn't stretch very far. Private charities, public education and services, and baaare bones welfare is enough. Yeah, life's got a habit of dealing us bad cards, but it's the individual's job (not Uncle Sam's) to go through the work and effort to get dealt new ones.

Hey, another question. Who do you think has the bigger chance to "improve their lot"; the one barely hanging on to their life, or the one who's helped to afford a decent living? You can just look at the class movement statistics of different countries to see the answer to that one, really. The ones with better social care tend to have a lot higher chance for people to change their lot in life as well. The more help they get, the easier they can help themselves.

I dunno, if you really think that anyone who makes more than average should be paying everything over that to the poor, please feel free to sit around and sing Imagine until you've got enough people singing it with you to have an October Revolution. I'd kinda like having a new Cold War. Mean there'd be new tanks!

Nice ad hominem, but I'm not sure calling anyone a hippie will ever be seen as anything even close to a real argument anywhere, no matter how wittily you think you put it. What next, you're gonna tell him to cut his hair and get a job too?